du.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparative study of the corrosion protective properties of chromium and chromium free passivation methods
Dalarna University, School of Technology and Business Studies, Material Science.
Dalarna University, School of Technology and Business Studies, Material Science.
2007 (English)In: Surface & Coatings Technology, ISSN 0257-8972, E-ISSN 1879-3347, Vol. 202, no 2, p. 391-397Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Commercially available passivation methods for white-rust protection of hot-dip galvanized steel have been investigated. The passivations were either based on trivalent chromium or chromium free. A chromate based conversion coating was used for reference. The treated panels were tested with regard to white rust protection and paintability. The surface chemistry of the conversion coatings was monitored with scanning Auger electron spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Coating thicknesses were measured using Auger electron sputter depth profiling. The passivations were applied with a thickness recommended by the supplier and thus showed large variation. The thickness of the chromium free passivation (Cr-free) is approximately 75 nm. The coating contains the active ions; H3O+, Ti4+, Mn2+, Zn2+, PO4 3-. The passivation based on trivalent chromium (Cr-III) is approximately 30 nm thick and contains the active ions; H3O+ Cr3+, PO4 3-, F. The chromate based passivation (Cr- VI) is approximately 5 nm thick and contains the active ions Cr6+/Cr3+, F-. The Cr-free and the Cr-III passivations showed similar white rust protection in the corrosion tests. The corrosion resistance was good although it did not fully reach the level of the Cr-VI passivation. The results from the tests of the painted panels showed that the powder paint worked well on all three passivations. The solvent born paint worked best on the passivation based on trivalent chromium. The water born paint showed poor resistance to blistering in the Cleveland humidity test for all three passivations. In this test the passivation with hexavalent chromium showed slightly better results than the chromate free passivations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. Vol. 202, no 2, p. 391-397
Keywords [en]
corrosion, galvanized steel, passivation, SAM, XPS
National Category
Materials Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:du-2977DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2007.06.001ISI: 000251182600026OAI: oai:dalea.du.se:2977DiVA, id: diva2:519884
Available from: 2007-11-09 Created: 2007-11-09 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bexell, UlfGrehk, Mikael
By organisation
Material Science
In the same journal
Surface & Coatings Technology
Materials Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 1531 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • chicago-author-date
  • chicago-note-bibliography
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf