122
M. Moats and T. Hymer
Each cellhouse will not be exactly as others due to differences in design, impurities and other limits imposed by the refinery. Even so, the polarization trends with
structure, CE and strippability should be similar between cellhouses.
In closing, some words of wisdom are provided from influential people to the
authors. A cellhouse with a “drill sergeant” to maintain operating conditions will
find it easier to obtain the best deposit [13]. The zinc cellhouse is “the heart” of the
plant and you need to take care of it. If you do not take care of it, it can get out of
whack and will take a considerable time to fix [14]. A plant sells zinc and not current
efficiency [15]. The answer to whether to polarize or depolarize is, “It depends”. [16]
References
1. Bard A, Faulkner L (1980) Electrochemical methods. Wiley, New York
2. Kortüm G (1965) Treatise on electrochemistry. Elsevier, New York
3. Kerby RC (1984) Application of polarization measurements to the control of zinc electrolyte
quality for electrowinning. In: Warren IH (ed) Application of polarization measurements in the
control of metal deposition. Elsevier, New York, pp 84–132
4. Adcock PA, Adeloju SB, Newman OMG (2002) Measurement of polarization parameters
impacting on electrodeposit morphology I: Theory and development of technique. J Appl
Electrochem 32(10):1101–1107
5. Fosnacht DR, O’Keefe TJ (1980) Evaluation of zinc sulphate electrolytes containing certain
impurities and additives by cyclic voltammetry. J Appl Electrochem 10(4):495–504
6. Kerby RC, Jackson HE, O’Keefe TJ, Wang YM (1977) Evaluation of organic additives for use
in zinc electrowinning. Met. Trans. B 8(3):661–668
7. Adcock PA et al (2004) Measurement of polarization parameters impacting on electrodeposit
morphology. II: conventional zinc electrowinning solutions. J Appl Electrochem. 34(8):771–
780
8. Chiyangwa, E, Sandenbergh, RF, Schoeman, L. (2014) Development and evaluation of polarization parameters as quality predictors for zinc electroplated from acid sulfate electrolytes.
In: Hydrometallurgy 2014, vol II. CIM, Montreal, pp 141–152
9. Long G, Meadows, N, Pollard D (1984) Deposit morphology and current efficiency in electrolytic zinc deposition. In: The Aus.I.M.M. Melbourne Branch, Symposium on “Extractive
Metallurgy”, AUSIMM, pp 179–184
10. Adcock PA, Ault AR (1993) Cathode zinc morphology and effects of changed conditions in
electrowinning cells. World Zinc’93. AusIMM, Hobart, Australia, pp 301–306
11. Mackinnon DJ, Brannen JM, Fenn PL (1987) Characterization of impurity effects in zinc
electrowinning from industrial acid sulphate electrolyte. J Appl Electrochem 17:1129–1143
12. Winand R (1992) Electrocrystallisation—theory and applications. Hydrometallurgy 29:567–
598
13. Personal communication with Floyd Gessford, Big River Zinc
14. Personal communication with Ki Won Jeon, Korea Zinc
15. Personal communication with Stephen James, Nyrstar
16. Personal communication with Thomas J. O’Keefe, UMR
M. Moats and T. Hymer
Each cellhouse will not be exactly as others due to differences in design, impurities and other limits imposed by the refinery. Even so, the polarization trends with
structure, CE and strippability should be similar between cellhouses.
In closing, some words of wisdom are provided from influential people to the
authors. A cellhouse with a “drill sergeant” to maintain operating conditions will
find it easier to obtain the best deposit [13]. The zinc cellhouse is “the heart” of the
plant and you need to take care of it. If you do not take care of it, it can get out of
whack and will take a considerable time to fix [14]. A plant sells zinc and not current
efficiency [15]. The answer to whether to polarize or depolarize is, “It depends”. [16]
References
1. Bard A, Faulkner L (1980) Electrochemical methods. Wiley, New York
2. Kortüm G (1965) Treatise on electrochemistry. Elsevier, New York
3. Kerby RC (1984) Application of polarization measurements to the control of zinc electrolyte
quality for electrowinning. In: Warren IH (ed) Application of polarization measurements in the
control of metal deposition. Elsevier, New York, pp 84–132
4. Adcock PA, Adeloju SB, Newman OMG (2002) Measurement of polarization parameters
impacting on electrodeposit morphology I: Theory and development of technique. J Appl
Electrochem 32(10):1101–1107
5. Fosnacht DR, O’Keefe TJ (1980) Evaluation of zinc sulphate electrolytes containing certain
impurities and additives by cyclic voltammetry. J Appl Electrochem 10(4):495–504
6. Kerby RC, Jackson HE, O’Keefe TJ, Wang YM (1977) Evaluation of organic additives for use
in zinc electrowinning. Met. Trans. B 8(3):661–668
7. Adcock PA et al (2004) Measurement of polarization parameters impacting on electrodeposit
morphology. II: conventional zinc electrowinning solutions. J Appl Electrochem. 34(8):771–
780
8. Chiyangwa, E, Sandenbergh, RF, Schoeman, L. (2014) Development and evaluation of polarization parameters as quality predictors for zinc electroplated from acid sulfate electrolytes.
In: Hydrometallurgy 2014, vol II. CIM, Montreal, pp 141–152
9. Long G, Meadows, N, Pollard D (1984) Deposit morphology and current efficiency in electrolytic zinc deposition. In: The Aus.I.M.M. Melbourne Branch, Symposium on “Extractive
Metallurgy”, AUSIMM, pp 179–184
10. Adcock PA, Ault AR (1993) Cathode zinc morphology and effects of changed conditions in
electrowinning cells. World Zinc’93. AusIMM, Hobart, Australia, pp 301–306
11. Mackinnon DJ, Brannen JM, Fenn PL (1987) Characterization of impurity effects in zinc
electrowinning from industrial acid sulphate electrolyte. J Appl Electrochem 17:1129–1143
12. Winand R (1992) Electrocrystallisation—theory and applications. Hydrometallurgy 29:567–
598
13. Personal communication with Floyd Gessford, Big River Zinc
14. Personal communication with Ki Won Jeon, Korea Zinc
15. Personal communication with Stephen James, Nyrstar
16. Personal communication with Thomas J. O’Keefe, UMR