| |
Proper method to sample a plating solution?
letter 52025
April 29, 2009
I'm sorry if this seems very elemental to most of you, but here in
Maine, there's apparently no such thing as "common sense".
For years, our chrome tanks were sampled by inserting a "ladle" on
about a 3-foot shaft into the tank, as deep as it could reach, then
withdrawn and poured into a sample bottle, which is then sent to the
lab for analysis. The ladle hold about 3 times the volume of the
sample bottle. Our tanks are roughly 2' by 3' by 10 feet deep.
I was taught to sample plating solutions using multiple "jabs" with a
thief tube, long enough to get at least half-way to the bottom of the
tank, making sure that at it took least 3 "jabs" to fill the sample
container, the more "jabs", the more representative the sample. My
"mentors", who, incidentally were real platers, unlike here, would
have called me on the carpet if I sampled that way. Later on, the
"thief tube" method is the only way I would ever allow my chemists to
take a sample.
I'm trying to get some people here to realize that if the tank is not
completely mixed and homogenous, the ladle method is not delivering
anything close to a truly representative sample. Also, as the ladle
emerges from the liquid, I suspect anything that's floating on the
surface of the solution is picked up and poured into the sample
container.
I would appreciate some feedback on this to show to my boss, who
knows virtually nothing about plating, sampling, or analyses....
George Brackett
- Maine

First of two simultaneous responses -- May 1, 2009
I used to use a 4 foot length of pyrex glass tubing, 9 - 10 mm in
diameter. I'd "stick" the plating bath in 12 - 15 places, all along
the length and width of it. And, sometimes, to be extra sure, I'd mix
it up manually beforehand.
Representative sampling is a crucial issue.
|
Dave Wichern
- The Bronx, New York
|
Second of two simultaneous responses -- May 1, 2009
Pardon my spelling, but your thief tube is technically referred to
as a colwissa^Coliwasa tube. I used a 1/4" CPVC tube
for the sampling and took multiple samples into a beaker which I
mixed and poured the sample into a bottle to take to the lab.
I did not consider it to be representative unless I had at least 3
depths and at least 2 areas of the tank.
EPA requires this method for sampling in many cases. Look up my word
on the internet and some site will have a good explanation.
Your method is far superior to the ladle method which will only get a
sample from one strata.
James Watts - Navarre, Florida
May 5, 2009
Hey George,
I was taught to draw a sample the same way you were. Baths that have
solution agitation, or adequate air agitation, heated to operating
temp, sampling methods really don't matter as long as you draw 4-6
inches down from the surface of the solution. Years ago, I witnessed
one of our competitors draw a refining sample from a 55 gal drum
(stored for 30 days) without mixing the contents. The real bad news
was that the lab / plating mgr witnessed this too. Needless to say, I
gained the customer's refining business that same day.
With a cold, un-agitated solution there are certain chemicals that
can crystallize and form on tank walls, anode bags, etc. Tell your
boss he should look up the specific gravity of the make-up chemicals
vs specific gravity of water. I'm sure then he will see your point.
Good Luck to you.
Mark Baker
Fellow Plater - Syracuse, NY, USA
First of two simultaneous responses -- May 7, 2009
Thanks, James. I looked up "colwissa" ^Coliwasa on Google, the only results
were your references to it at finishing.com. Tried Yahoo search, as
well. Did you make this up? I have to laugh at how much time and
effort people take on analyses, but give almost no consideration to
sampling technique.
G. Brackett III
- Maine
Second of two simultaneous responses -- May 7, 2009
Taking a sample from 3' down a 10' deep tank is not remotely
representative.
Someone needs educating
|
|
Geoff Smith
Hampshire, England
|
May 8, 2009
Hi George,
No I did not make it up. It was from some spec that I had a long time
ago.
did not claim to spell well, so try colawisa^Coliwasa. It brings up one site. Try
sampling tools for a lot of sites, with a few applicable. Try
chemical sampling tools for hits on several specs, some (few) are
applicable. I did not try it, but chemical sampling might be worth a
try.
Jim
James Watts - Navarre, Florida
October 5, 2009
Just in case that anyone is looking for it. The spelling is
Coliwasa. According to a couple websites, it is an abbreviation for
COmposite LIquid WAste SAmpler.
Kai Lorcharoensery
- Warsaw, Indiana
-
-
 |
|