A comparative study of the corrosion protective properties of chromium and chromium free passivation methods

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. ssivations 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+, PO43−. The passivation based on trivalent chromium (Cr-III) is approximately 30 nm thick and contains the active ions; H3O+ Cr3+, PO43−, F. The chromate based passivation (Cr-VI) is approximately 5 nm thick and contains the active ions Cr6+/Cr3+, F−. -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.