A cost comparison was made for two most promising processes – replacing chromate conversion coating and zinc phosphatizing. These were chosen based on the potential cost savings that industry could achieve. There would appear to be a significant economic incentive to migrate existing practice to this new technology, based on the significant capital and annual operating costs that is projected for the Picklex technology, summarized in Table 7.3. In fact, a new shop adopting the process in place of chromate conversion coat would save capital costs of $254 000, with the reduction of the process from 12 to 1 tank (Figure 7.3). For zinc phosphatizing on steel, the savings is estimated to be $230 000.
Table 7.3 Potential cost savings.
Source: From Ferguson and Wilmoth (2000) and Ferguson et al. (2001).
| Cost type | Savings of Picklex over conventional process | |
| Chromate conversion coat on aluminum ($) | Zinc phosphatizing on steel ($) | |
| Capital cost savings | 254 000 | 230 000 |
| Annual operating cost savings | 46 000 | 32 000 |
Technology Transferability
The Picklex technology is very robust and flexible (Ferguson and Monzyk 2003). It is applicable from the very large to very small operations. It can be used in a new installation, in a retrofit for process modernization, or as a drop in replacement for any existing facility. Picklex can be applied by dipping the part in tanks or by spraying or brushing. Cost savings are very significant and are a function of the size of the facility and the number of processing lines that are required. Transferability is enhanced by the prospective significance of the overall facility cost savings and productivity improvements offered.
Leave a Reply