We offer electroplated coatings made from the metals tin, copper, nickel, silver, gold, or palladium, as well as combinations of these coatings. The electroplating process is considered a refining process, meaning the purity of the layers is equal to or higher than the purity of the anodes used. It is unavoidable that foreign metals or other substances are incorporated into the layers in minute quantities. These impurities typically amount to less than 0.5 percent by mass.

Various standards, regulations, and ordinances govern the avoidance of certain substances classified as potentially hazardous. We regularly check, at least once a year and upon the publication of new or revised regulations, in cooperation with our suppliers of operating materials, whether the substances in question are contained in the products supplied to us. As of the dispatch date of this document, this has not been the case.

Therefore, we currently do not analyze our products for the presence of the substances in question. The analytical effort is enormous due to the multitude of substances and does not seem reasonable to us.

Based on the assumptions and checks made above, we confirm that, to the best of our knowledge and according to confirmation from our suppliers, the products supplied by us to you do not contain any substances falling under the following regulations:

• REACH Regulation 1907/2006/EC
• Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 (POP)
• RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC and 2011/65/EU
• Directive 2012/19/EU on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
• PFOS Directive 2006/122/EC
• PFOA Regulation 2017/1000
• PAH Directive 1272/2013/EU
• Dodd-Frank Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act.

Furthermore, we regularly verify through our suppliers whether the metals we use originate from suspicious sources and avoid smelters that demonstrably fail to comply with environmental and occupational safety standards. Verification is carried out using RMI templates. The corresponding templates will be automatically sent to you annually after your initial request.

We further commit to informing you immediately should there be any changes to the compliance of the products supplied by us with the aforementioned regulations.

The CpK value is defined as the quotient of the mean minus the lower specification limit or the upper specification limit minus the mean (whichever is smaller) and three times the standard deviation. The purpose of this value is to provide a statement about the position of a set of measured values within the specification limits. From this, a process capability is derived.

The validity of this derivation is based on the objective of keeping a value optimally between two limits. This is, for example, a sensible approach in classic series production (stamping, milling, drilling, injection molding, drawing, etc.).

However, in the case of electrolytic coating, we operate based on different fundamental assumptions. Firstly, no official standard defines a maximum coating thickness, as this is entirely unnecessary based on the technical function of a layer.

Let us postulate that this position is technically correct: by eliminating an upper limit, we make the determination of a Cp value impossible by definition and deprive the CpK value of an important component, which calls the significance of this value into question.

Nevertheless, for further considerations, let us assume that both an upper and a lower layer thickness have been specified. Now, it is in no way the electroplater’s endeavor to operate in the middle of this range. Especially in the case of precious metals, but naturally also with all other industrial metals, we will always try to bring the coating as close to the required minimum as possible. This is not solely due to commercial reasons, but also to the so-called “dog bone” effect: if the minimum is applied in the center of the strip, the probability increases that work can still be done below the maximum at the edge without complex shielding technology. However, this deliberate deviation from the specification center significantly worsens the CpK value.

Furthermore, this very “dog bone” effect alone argues against this form of consideration, as we find different values in the center of the strip than, for example, at the edges. If an evaluation is now carried out over the entire surface, the CpK value falls far outside the currently required minimum of 1.67 (“zero defects”) or even 2.00 (“Six Sigma”).

Finally, it should be noted that the measured values here literally reflect both sides of a coin. We measure on both sides, but in industrial production, we do not necessarily have 100% identical conditions on both sides of the strip. In general, the deposition conditions between two orders are unfortunately still not as homogeneous and linear as we know them, for example, from the field of stamping technology.

In conclusion, we would like to draw your attention to two further potential points of criticism: the measurement of surface thickness has a systematic error of almost 20% (regardless of whether X-ray or coulometer). Factoring this into the respective tolerance limits significantly improves the process capability of electroplating… but only theoretically. Furthermore, this consideration completely disregards the double layers of Cu-Sn and Ni-Sn.

We sincerely hope that these explanations will be helpful to you. Naturally, we are at your disposal for further questions and discussions.

After careful review and consideration of the relevant factors, we have decided that a cleanliness analysis after strip electroplating is of little practical use. This decision is based on several well-founded arguments, which are presented below:

Firstly, during electroplating, a coating is formed on the material that systematically cannot carry any contamination. The subsequent rinsing and cleaning processes ensure a high degree of cleanliness of the material surface. These processes ensure that the material is free from dirt and loose contaminants such as chips. The material thus achieves a high degree of purity, rendering an additional cleanliness analysis superfluous. Theoretically, the ingress of loose particles can only occur through downstream processes during ring or coil handling. This risk is minimized by appropriate packaging.

Secondly, a sample that would necessarily have to be taken after production could not reflect this very risk. These samples, in the context of strip production, always represent only a very small section of the production anyway, so the result of such an analysis appears at least questionable.

Thirdly, the cost-benefit ratio of a cleanliness analysis in strip electroplating is poor. Performing such an analysis involves considerable costs, which are often disproportionate to the potential insights gained. Typically, the analysis yields no significant improvements in product quality or efficiency and is, for the reasons mentioned above, unsuitable for identifying or even quantifying risks.

Furthermore, strip electroplating is a complex process involving many variables. A cleanliness analysis cannot capture this complexity and therefore often yields inaccurate or misleading results. There are already established methods for quality control and process optimization that are more effective and cost-efficient, such as regular inspections and process monitoring.

Another argument is the waste of resources. Performing a cleanliness analysis requires the deployment of personnel, time, and financial resources that could be better invested in other areas of production or quality control. These resources could, for example, be used for improving process monitoring or

for employee training, which would lead to higher efficiency and product quality in the long term.

Moreover, the results of cleanliness analysis are often of little relevance to actual product quality. The analysis often only detects superficial contaminants that are removed anyway by subsequent processing and cleaning procedures. Finally, a cleanliness analysis can slow down the production process and lead to delays, which can impair the efficiency and productivity of strip electroplating.

We are convinced that our measures ensure the quality and efficiency of our production while simultaneously rendering the need for a cleanliness analysis superfluous.

We would be pleased to offer you, as part of an initial sampling, to have such an analysis carried out on an exemplary basis and at your expense. The result will confirm the arguments mentioned above.

We have the original edition of CQI-11 – Special Process: Plating System Assessment 3
rd
Edition and CQI-12 – Special Process: Coating System Assessment 3
rd
Edition and have studied them in detail.

Based on this study, we can assure you that this auditing system was designed for:

• Batch goods -> which does not apply to us, as we work continuously in a continuous process.
• decorative surfaces or corrosion protection applications for iron parts -> which also does not apply to us, as we deal with technical surfaces on copper or copper alloys. The website describes the scope of application (as of August 29, 2022) as follows: […] such as zinc and zinc alloy electrodeposits, decorative plating applied to metal or plastic substrates, and hard chromium deposits, as well as electroless nickel and electropolishing processes.

For this reason, a large part of the topics covered does not apply to our company as a whole, and especially not to the products refined for you.

The few remaining contents, which largely also arise from the expectations of DIN EN ISO 9001 or IAFT 16949, can be classified by us as satisfactory, i.e., sufficiently covered.

Consequently, we adhere to the fundamental assumption that this system is not applicable to us, especially concerning the parts manufactured for you.

Nevertheless, we will continue to pursue this topic in principle.