| Full text | |
| Author(s): |
de Souza, S.
[1]
;
Yoshikawa, D. S.
;
Izaltino, W. A. S.
;
Assis, S. L.
;
Costa, I.
Total Authors: 5
|
| Affiliation: | [1] CCTM, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 1
|
| Document type: | Journal article |
| Source: | SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY; v. 204, n. 20, p. 3238-3242, 2010. |
| Web of Science Citations: | 9 |
| Abstract | |
Whether it contains hexavalent chromium, chromium (VI), or simply Cr(VI), chromating has been largely used for surface preparation of aluminum aimed at corrosion protection due to its effectiveness and easy application. The most used among these processes are those that contain toxic and carcinogenic substances, which generate environmental backlash concerning the disposal of used baths with toxic elements. The high costs involved in the treatment of the disposal solutions prior to being discarded, besides the increasing restrictions concerning the environment, have encouraged research in the search for alternatives with lower toxicities than chromating processes but with high effectiveness for corrosion protection. Surface treatments with alkane diphosphonate molecules (ADM) have been investigated as potential substitutes for chromating. However, their effectiveness in the corrosion protection of aluminum alloys still needs further investigation. In the present study, the corrosion resistance of 1050 aluminum with various surface treatments was investigated by electrochemical techniques and salt spray testing. The corrosion performance of 1050 aluminum samples with a surface treatment that consisted of immersion in ADM was compared with that of the same alloy chromated by immersion in baths of Cr(III) or Cr(VI). The results showed that surface treatment with ADM was effective on samples that had been exposed to boiling water for oxide growth prior to treatment with ADM. The results also showed the superior corrosion performance for samples with the oxide-hydroxide + ADM surface treatment compared to those with both chromating treatments, either with Cr( III) or with Cr(VI). Cr(III) chromating treatment also provided better corrosion performance than chromating with Cr(VI), suggesting that both surface treatments (oxide-hydroxide + ADM and Cr(III)) are potential candidates for substitution for Cr(VI)-containing processes. However, for effective corrosion protection, the ADM treatment has to be carried out on surfaces previously exposed to treatments that favor oxide growth. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. (AU) | |
| FAPESP's process: | 04/12189-1 - Corrosion protection methods for aluminum alloys |
| Grantee: | Artur de Jesus Motheo |
| Support Opportunities: | Research Projects - Thematic Grants |