Alternatives

• Author: Clemm, Christan; Löw, Clara; Baron, Yifaat; Moch, Katja; Möller, Martin; Köhler, Andreas R; Gensch, Carl-Otto; Deubzer, Otmar
• Pages: 29-31

RoHS Annex II Dossier, final

Nickel sulphate a nd nickel sulfamate

29

8. ALTERNATIVES

Information on possible alternatives are extracted from the following two reports that already

reviewed substitution possibilities:

•Draft analysis of the most appropriate risk management option for nickel sulphate (France and

Anses 2014);43 and

•Survey of nickel metal, Part of the LOUS review by DEPA (2015).44

Further information from the stakeholder contributions submitted during the 1st stakeholder

consultation is taken into consideration in the relevant sections.

8.1. Availability of substitutes / alternative technologies

France and Anses (2014) discussed the following possibilities for substitution:

•‘Drop-in’ substances that directly replace nickel sulphate in the same production process without

change (except minor changes) with other soluble nickel salts;

•the use of alternative substances; and

•alternative technologies.

According to France and Anses (2014), a substitution of nickel sulphate is possible with other

soluble nickel salts (e.g. nickel chloride) as highly dissociated solution of the divalent nickel

cation and the appropriate anion are reached. A number of other nickel salts have been used as

intermediates in specialised electroless and electrolytic applications such as nickel acetate, nickel

fluoborate, nickel hypophosphite and nickel methanesulphonate. The contribution by Coherent45

submitted in the 1st stakeholder consultation in 2018 stated that “in the future, this may change, as

electroless nickel appears to be replacing sulfamate nickel in electronics applications (apparently

the reliability data finally exists). This may be what prompted the RoHS proposal […]”. In

electroless nickel plating, nickel acetate and hydroxycarbonate are used.

However, France and Anses (2014) conclude that the substitution between nickel salts is

technically not feasible in all situations, e.g. nickel sulphate has no substitutes for the so called

“diamond adhesion phase” which is however understood not to be relevant for EEE production.

Additionally, France and Anses (2014) points out that other soluble nickel salts show the same

hazard profile and that therefore no risk reduction benefit is reached.

As for alternative substances, France and Anses (2014) list that besides nickel, chromium,

copper, zinc and tin are commonly electrodeposited commercially in large quantities. Nine other

metals have been deposited on a commercial scale, however in much smaller quantities:

43 France and Anses (French Mandated National Institute) (2014): Draft analysis of the most appropriate risk

management option for nickel sulphate, April 2014; http://www.consultations-publiques.developpement-

durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/RMOA_NiSO4_PUBLIC.pdf, last viewed 18.06.2018

44 Danish Environmental Protection Agency DEPA (2015): Survey of nickel metal, Part of the LOUS review;

Environmental project No. 1723, 2015; https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/06/978-87-93352-36-0.pdf, last

viewed 18.06.2018

45 Coherent (2018): Contribution submitted on 12.06.2018 during the stakeholder consultation conducted from 20 April

2018 to 15 June 2018 by Oeko-Institut in the course of the study to support the review of the list of re-stricted

substances and to assess a new exemption request under RoHS 2 (Pack 15);

http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_15/1st_Consultation_Contributions/Contribution

_Coherent_Nickel_Sulphate_Stakeholder_Response_20180612.pdf, last viewed 18.06.2018