|
|
![]() (Cycles thru suppliers) |
|
![]() |
Letter 11772
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Passivity meter: We use a galvanic type meter made by HMV Corrlab bv in The Netherlands. This company was recently taken over by CorrOcean from Norway. We have tested the reliability of these meters using three different meters and got the same readings.
We have compared air passivated and chemically passivated test coupons and seen the benefits of chemical passivation. The meter comes with a simple manual. Our company has no link with the supplier of the meter, other than as a customer. We think it's a good and quick check of passivity. Sometimes, our customers question the meter's ability to test for SS passivity. It's easy to scratch passive SS and test the scratched surface. The result will be that the steel is active at that place. Repassivation and retesting shows that passivity has been restored.
What is really needed is an clear, unambiguous and internationally accepted standard for testing passivity of SS. Current yes/no methods such as the palladium chloride test are,in our opinion, inconclusive and do not satisfy clients' needs, especially in the pharmaceutical sector. I'd like to point out that to passivate the SS surface an oxidizing agent is required. Nitric acid can both remove free iron and oxidize (passivate) the SS surface. It will not remove oxides. (as an example, if a non-pickled SS weld seam (i.e. with heavy oxidation in the heat affected zone) is immersed in nitric acid at, say 20%w/v for any length of time, the oxide layer will remain. Nitric/HF mixes remove both free iron and oxides,as well as some of the steel's surface components. After this the steel is active, and can be passivated for example by Nitric acid or Hydrogen Peroxide [link is to product info at Amazon]. Complexed citric processes, unless incorporating an oxidizing passivation step, do not themselves passivate (i.e. oxidize) the steel, but rely on oxygen from the air to do the job. Citric acid is not an oxidizing agent.
Trevor Tipton
- Singapore, Singapore
Trevor & all:
Thank you for this information. I will follow up on this equipment, as I have tested other passivity meters and found them totally unreliable. I am looking for a device that will quantitatively measure the degree of passivity without expensive surface analysis.
The OLD school of thought was that an oxidizing acid was necessary to get good passivation. This has been proven wrong many times, by many companies. Passivation is a process of first removing as much of the iron (and other materials) from the surface of stainless steel as possible. This creates the chromium rich layer that then oxidizes very readily in air to form the passive layer.
Proprietary citric acid formulations have shown the ability to get HIGHER chrome oxide ratios on the surface, and better resistance to corrosion than nitric passivated surfaces. This, in the end, is the true measure of how passive the surface is-- better corrosion resistance. That is why we passivate.
|
|
|
![]() |
The main indication of passivation (transition of metal from active to passive state) is a sharp decrease in speed of metal dissolving, and visible shift of metal potential towards positive. It is a common assumption that passivity is determined by existence of thin oxide (hydroxide) film, which separates metal from the environment. The thicker the film - the higher the passivation, and the corrosion resistance. The thickness of the passive film can be estimated in connection of E - potential from t - time during the current on anode. Electrolyte in such experiments must not dissolve passive film. The sooner we reach potential of oxygen dissolving, the thicker is the film. We have conducted such experiments while developing new environmentally friendly non-electrical method of passivation for food industry. As the results we have obtained passivating film thicker than the film produced by traditional methods.
|
|
Anna Berkovich |
![]() |
Your customer seems to want the very best in passivating and you have received some accurate and valuable advice in the replies you have received. The ultimate in passivation of stainless steels comes from electro-polishing. I have done salt spray testing running into weeks with no degradatioon of the surface on electropolished parts. The quality of the passive surface has been confirmed by auger electron spectroscopy. Electropolishing is also called bright passivating.
John Holroyd
- Elkhorn, WI, USA
Although recently canceled, the most commonly referenced industry
specifications regarding passivation are Federal Specification
QQ-P-35 [link is to spec at TechStreet]C, which is now
superseded by ASTM A967 [link is to spec at TechStreet] and
ASTM A380 [link is to spec at TechStreet]. All are
well-written, well-defined documents that provide guidance on the
entire process, from manufacturing to final testing requirements. If
you are not sure what you need, they can be referenced in full or
selectively. The testing requirements can be used or waived,
depending on the individual situation.
One of the most commonly specified verification tests is the copper
sulfate test. Passivated parts are immersed in a copper sulfate
solution for six min, rinsed and visually examined. Any copper (pink)
color indicates the presence of free iron and the test is considered
unacceptable.
Other validation tests include a two-hr salt spray or 24-hr
high-humidity test. These tests are performed by placing passivated
parts in a highly controlled chamber that creates an accelerated
corrosive environment. After subjecting the test pieces to the
corrosive atmosphere for the prescribed exposure periods, the parts
are removed and evaluated. Although results can be somewhat
subjective, ASTM B-117 [link is to spec at TechStreet] is an
excellent reference in determining acceptability. It is important to
note that each of the test methods mentioned have different
advantages and limitations. Care should be taken to select the
appropriate test methods based on alloy type and end-use environment.
Gary Takata
- Buffalo Grove, Illinois, USA

Save
This Page (why?) - Home - ©1995-2009 finishing.com