dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Figure 4: Tromm III wax crazed and cracked on drying revealing<br />
the metal substrate<br />
the final range was 100 kHz to 30mHz. The data<br />
was collected at the open circuit potential both<br />
times with 10 points/decade and 10 mV amplitude.<br />
A Pt/Nb counter electrode and a saturated calomel<br />
reference electrode were used.<br />
EIS data collection had not been carried out for all<br />
protection systems at the time of writing. Panels<br />
coated with Poligen ES91009 and LPS3 were<br />
tested first because results from the crosshatch test<br />
suggested that they were among those that adhered<br />
best and worst, respectively and that adhesion could<br />
relate to corrosion protection properties. The EIS<br />
spectra taken after 24 hours in solution for the two<br />
coatings are shown in Bode format in figure 5. The<br />
spectra for two uncoated panels are also included<br />
in the figure. Inspection of the impedance at low<br />
frequency gives an indication of the corrosion<br />
resistance of the coating. The highest impedance<br />
value at 1 Hz was for the panel coated in LPS3 (panel<br />
TTG). The two panels coated with Poligen ES91009<br />
(KKG, KKH) had better corrosion resistance than<br />
uncoated steel. Panel KKG appeared corroded and<br />
the coating had lifted off after 24 hours (figure 6).<br />
It can be seen that the EIS spectrum for this panel is<br />
similar to that of uncoated steel.<br />
The entire shape of the spectrum is relevant to the<br />
coating behaviour. The spectrum of an intact, new<br />
coating should be linear. This can be seen in the data<br />
for panel TTG at frequencies above approximately<br />
182<br />
Table 4: Adhesion of surface treatments to Q-panel<br />
surface treatment protection<br />
mechanism<br />
percentage<br />
adhesion to Qpanel<br />
(%)<br />
Corroheat 4010 corrosion inhibitor 97<br />
Tectyl 506 rust<br />
preventative<br />
corrosion inhibitor 100<br />
Ship-2-shore corrosion inhibitor no film formed-not<br />
Industrial<br />
measured<br />
SP400 corrosion inhibitor 95<br />
Rustilo 2000 corrosion inhibitor 100<br />
Rustilo 3000 corrosion inhibitor 100<br />
VpCI-386<br />
acrylicprimer/<br />
topcoat<br />
corrosion inhibitor 100<br />
Tectyl Glashelder/<br />
Klar spray<br />
barrier to water 100<br />
Renaissance wax barrier to water 98<br />
Cosmoloid H80 barrier to water 85<br />
Tromm III barrier to water 99<br />
Paraloid B72 barrier to water 86<br />
Paraloid B72 with<br />
1% perfluorodecyl<br />
iodide<br />
barrier to water 95<br />
Dinitrol Car/4941 barrier to water 100<br />
LPS3 barrier to water 40<br />
Poligen ES91009 barrier to oxygen 100<br />
Frigilene barrier to oxygen 100<br />
Incralac barrier to oxygen 90<br />
10 Hz. The flatter shape of that curve at lower<br />
frequencies indicates some reduction in corrosion<br />
protection. By contrast the curves for panel KKG<br />
and uncoated panels are linear only at the highest<br />
frequencies and flatten quickly.<br />
Conclusion<br />
It is clear from the number of literature references<br />
found in the planning stage of this project that<br />
protection of iron and steel surfaces is a highly<br />
active area of research both in the conservation and<br />
commercial fields. However, selection of a suitable<br />
product from literature sources alone is a minefield.<br />
The three key factors which prevent inter-research<br />
comparison are variation in dry film thickness, use<br />
of non-standard evaluation techniques and selection<br />
of appropriate reference coatings. The experimental<br />
design of this project aimed to reduce the number of