WO1982002064A1

WO1982002064A1 - Phosphate coating process and composition

Info

Publication number: WO1982002064A1
Application number: PCT/US1981/000991
Authority: WO
Inventors: Corp Chemfil; Donald L Miles; Harry R Charles
Original assignee: Corp Chemfil
Priority date: 1980-12-08
Filing date: 1981-07-24
Publication date: 1982-06-24
Also published as: DE3176544D1; AU558981B2; JPS57502007A; ES507759A0; BE889840A; AU8197582A; MX161290A; ES8303543A1; US4330345A; EP0065950B1; EP0065950A4; CA1144305A; EP0065950A1; JPS6339671B2

Abstract

This invention relates to a method of coating a metal surface with zinc and iron phosphate crystals for the purpose of improving corrosion resistance by means of a buffered zinc phosphate solution containing zinc dihydrogen phosphate and a monovalent, alkali metal salt of phosphate in proportions such that a fine, horizontal crystal structure consisting of tertiary zinc phosphate, zinc ferrous phosphate and other crystals of zinc ferrous phosphate is formed on the metal surface. The invention also relates to this composition.

Description

PHOSPHATE COATING PROCESS AND COMPOSITION

Technical Field

Conventional zinc phosphate solutions coat in two or more layers of platelets and needle-like crystals. The layer closest to the metal surface is comprised of various ferrous phosphates in the form of crystallized platelets, which provide a base for the formation of the needle-like components of the upper coating, hopeite. The size, quantity and orientation of these hopeite crystals are extremely important in providing dependable corrosion inhibition and paint bonding qualities. In a conventional zinc phosphate coating the crystals formed range in size from 20 to 50 microns or even larger (as illustrated in photomicrograph Figures 1 and 3). Such crystals tend to form in a random three dimensional configuration, including some vertical growth with results in relatively large interstices between the crystals. Such interstices, in combination with the vertical growth of the large crystals, have been shown to adversely affect the adhesion performance of some cationic electrocoats. Such paints are preferred in some applications because of their superiority in supporting the anti-corrosion capabilities of the zinc phosphate base.

Background Art

U.S. PATENT PATENTEE DATE

1,610,362 COSLETT 12/4/26 1,911,726 TANNER 5/30/33 2,121,574 ROMIG 6/21/38 2,132,883 ROMIG 10/11/38 2,487,137 HOOVER 11/8/49 2,310,239 JERNSTEDT 2/9/43 3,333,988 DOUTY 8/1/67 2,132,000 CURTIN 10/4/38

Description of Invention

The present invention relates to a method of inhibiting corrosion of painted metal surfaces by the formation of phosphate coatings prior to paint application. More specifically, it relates to an aqueous phosphating solution which is capable of producing a. coating of fine zinc and iron phosphate crystals with a predominantly horizontal attitude relative to the metal surface. Such a coating, when used in conjunction with cationically electrodeposited films., provides an excellent degree of corrosion protection and paint adhesion. Furthermore said aqueous phosphating solution produces a coating consisting primarily of tertiary zinc phosphate, or hopeite crystals; tertiary zinc ferrous phosphate, or phosphophyllite; and other ferrous phosphates. The ratio of hopeite to the phosphophyllite and ferrous phosphates in the coating thus produced favors the ferrous compounds over the ratio found in conventional zinc phosphate. Thus the present invention will hereafter be referred to as zinc-iron phosphate coating process and composition. Said coating may be used with other siccative films, such as epoxies, enamels and other paints.

These and other objects will be seen from the following Specification and Claims in conjunction with the appended drawings.

Brief Description of Drawings Figure 1 is a reproduction of a photomicrograph of a metallic strip having a spray application of phosphate coating according to the prior art.

Figure 2 is a similar view of a strip phosphate coated according to the present invention.

Figure 3 is a reproduction of a photomicrograph of a metallic strip having an immersion application of phosphate coating according to the prior art.

Figure 4 is a similar view of a strip phosphate coated according to the present invention.

Figure 5 is a graph illustrating reduced solubility of coatings of the present invention as compared to the prior art coatings.

It will be understood that the above drawings are merely illustrative of the prior art and the present method and composition, and that other embodiments are contemplated within the scope of the claims hereafter set forth.

Best Mode of Carrying Out the Invention

The present invention relates to a method of producing a phosphate coating on a metal surface possessing topographical characteristics that are desirable for the application of epoxide cationic electrocoats as described herein. By the addition of excess alkali metal ions in the form of a phosphate salt we have increased the iron to zinc ratio in the coating and have succeeded in producing hopeite and phosphophyllite crystals of the desired fineness and orientation for use with cationic eleetrocoat. Work in our laboratory in adding alkali metal salts of phosphate such as monosodlum phosphate, disodium phosphate, monopotassium phosphate, and mono- or diammonium phosphate resulted in a refined morphology. Some of the favorable effects which were directly observable are an approximate 20% decrease in coating weight; an increase in the total acid of the bath by 2 - 3 points or more, with no increase in free acid; and a horizontally oriented crystal structure. This work soon led to the discovery that increased amounts of any of these salts led to an even finer morphology. The present invention uses an addition of from one-half to two mole of monosodium phosphate or other alkali metal phosphate salt to every mole of zinc dihydrogen phosphate present in solution. Popular usage refers to mole as a "gram molecular weight", that is, the number of grams of any substance in one mole is equal to the molecular weight of the substance in grams. A typical analysis of such a zinc-iron phosphate bath would be:

Free Acid 0.6 to 0.9 points

Total Acid 15.0 to 17.0 points

Additive (sodium nitrite) 0.005 to 0.1 g/liter

Zinc 0.1 to 1.0 g/liter Phosphate 5 to 20 g/liter

Nitrate 1 to 10 g/liter

Baths were also run with nickel salts, fluoride salts, sodium meta-nitrobenzene suifonate, various surfactants, and sodium chlorate; all of which gave improvements in some properties of the zinc-iron coating. This is not to say that these are the only possible additives, but only a few examples. The crystals resulting from a zinc-iron phosphate bath range in size from 2 to 5 microns (as illustrated in photomicrographs Figures 2 and 4). An illustrative surfactant is Octyl Sulfate.

Coating weights as determined by gravimetric testing ranged from 75 to 250 milligrams per square foot throughout our testing of the zinc-iron bath. This is a low range when compared to conventional zinc phosphate which yields coating weights ranging from 150-350 milligrams per square foot. The phosphating art has generally been a compromise between high coating weights, which provide better corrosion resistance, and low coating weights, which show better physical properties such as adhesion, chip and impact resistance, etc. The present invention shows the improved physical characteristics associated with low coating weights, while providing dependable corrosion resistance, when used in conjunction with cathodic electrocoat paints, which is characteristic of higher coating weights. The effectiveness of products in the metal finishing and fabricating art is determined by exposing painted metal test panels to environmental testing. Commonly used testing methods include the ASTM B-117 salt fog test; the five day humidity cross hatch, or Makawa test; the Cleveland condensing humidity test; outdoor exposure and indoor lab simulation scab corrosion studies. Tests which compare the present invention with conventional zinc phosphate were conducted on three different metal substrates: Cold Rolled Steel (CRS), galvanized steel (GS) and aluminum (AL). Cationically electrodeposited epoxide paint was applied as the primer for all the paint systems used in the testing discussed herein. Numerical evaluation of all results were obtained as described in ASTM D-1654.

The most significant of the tests performed in evaluating the present invention are the scab corrosion studies. Scab corrosion is the name given to a circular, blister-like lifting of the paint film which results when the integrity of the paint has been broken on metal surfaces exposed to warm and humid weather conditions. This type of corrosion is not normally detected in humidity or salt fog testing. To determine the resistance of phosphate paint systems to scab corrosion a painted panel or a finished product is scribed and subjected to approximately ten weeks of cyclical salt, temperature and humidity exposure, or approximately ten weeks of outdoor exposure with regular salt applications.

Testing of both conventional zinc phosphate and zinc-iron phosphate reveal that the horizontal growth and minute size of the crystals of the latter produce significant improvements in overall performance. The results of ASTM-B-117 salt fog tests of the zinc-iron phosphate indicate performance equal to or superior to those obtained from conventional zinc phosphate in the same test. Results from scab corrosion studies and five day humidity cross hatch tests show the zinc-iron phosphate as significantly superior to conventional zinc phosphate. The following examples of testing results will serve to illustrate the effectiveness of the present invention.

EXAMPLE #1: The panels used in this test example were processed through a six-station procedure of the type used in most common zinc phosphating applications. The six stages used were as follows:

STAGE #1 - Manual pre-wipe with a solvent. STAGE #2 - Spray application of hot alkali cleaner.

STAGE #3 - Spray application of Jernstedt salts.

STAGE #4 - Application by specified method (spray or immersion) of phosphating solution being tested.

STAGE #5 - Spray application of ambient water rinse. STAGE #6 - Spray application of a specified final seal.

STAGE #7 - (DI Rinse)

Each of the panels were then air dried before application of electrodeposited cationic epoxide primer and subsequent typical automotive topcoat films.

In this example the three substrate steels were processed through the six stages described, using zinc-iron phosphate or conventional zinc phosphate, as indicated, for stage #4 and three final seals. The operating parameters of the zinc-iron bath used were as indicated herein, while the parameters for the conventional zinc bath were optimum.

The final seals used are as follows: An ambient solution of chromate salts, hereafter referred to as Seal A; an ambient solution of trivalent chromium salts, which will hereafter be referred to as Seal B; and an ambient solution of non-chromate ammonium heptamolybdate as stated in patent #3,819,423, which will hereafter be referred to as Seal C. All panels in this example were exposed to ASTM Salt FOG Testing for 336 hours and then rated. The quality of each panel is determined as the amount of the paint film which is easily removed from the scribe vicinity. This is measured in one thirty-second division of an inch from the scribe to the edge of the paint failure. Adhesion performance was determined by scribing a 1.5 mm cross hatch grid followed by removal of the non-adhering film by tape. The numerical rating for this aspect of the test is based on a system which ranges from a rating of 0 for no adhesion to one of 10 for perfect adhesion. The table below shows the ASTM B-117 Salt Spray results obtained on panels processed as indicated. All panels represented were oven dried.

PHOS¬

PANEL SUBPHATE FINAL RATINGS

NUMBER STRATE USED SEAL SCRIBE CREEP AGE ADHESION

1 CRS Zinc-Iron SEAL A less than 1.0 mm 9

2 CRS " SEAL B " 9

3 CRS " SEAL C " 9

4 CRS Zinc SEAL A " 9

5 CRS " SEAL B " 9

6 CRS " SEAL C " 9

7 GS Zinc-Iron SEAL A 1.0 mm 9

8 GS " SEAL B less than 2.0 mm 7

9 GS " SEAL C 8.0 mm 0

10 GS Zinc SEAL A 1.0 mm 8

11 GS " SEAL B less than 2.0 mm 6

12 GS " SEAL C 8.0 mm 0

13 Al Zinc-Iron SEAL A less than 1.0 mm 9

14 Al " SEAL B 9 "

15 Al " SEAL C " 9

16 Al Zinc SEAL A " 9

17 Al " SEAL B " 9

18 Al " SEAL C " 9

EXAMPLE #2: For this example panels were processed as described in Example #1 and exposed to five days of constant humidity. The panels were then tested for adhesion by the method described in Example #1. The Table below shows the results of this testing.

APPLIPHOS¬

PANEL SUBCATION PHATE FINAL

NUMBER STRATE METHOD USED SEAL ADHESION

1 CRS Spray Zinc-Iron Seal A 10

2 " " " Seal B 9

3 " " " Seal C 9

4 " " Zinc Seal A 8

5 " " " Seal B 6

6 " " " Seal C 5

7 GS " Zinc-Iron Seal A 8

8 " " " Seal B 7

9 " " " Seal C 0

10 " " Zinc Seal A 6

11 " " " Seal B 4

12 " " " Seal C 0

13 Al " Zinc-Iron Seal A 10

14 " " " Seal B 10

15 " " " Seal C 9

16 " " Zinc Seal A 10

17 " " " Seal B 9

18 " " " Seal C 9

EXAMPLE #3: Test panels processed as described in Example #1 were exposed to warm, humid outdoor conditions for a period of 10 weeks. Each panel was sprayed with a 5% salt solution two times each week for the entire ten week period. The panels were then submitted to the same rating procedures described in example 1.

APPLIPHOS¬

PANEL SUBCATION PHATE FINAL SCRIBE

NUMBER STRATE METHOD USED SEAL CREEPAGE ADHESION

1 CRS Spray Zinc-Iron Seal A less than 9 1.0 mm

2 " " " Seal B less than 9 1.0 mm

3 " " " Seal C less than 9 2.0 mm

4 " " Zinc Seal A less than 8 2.0 mm

5 " " " Seal B less than 6 3.0 mm

6 " " " Seal C 4.0 mm 4

7 GS " Zinc-Iron Seal A less than 9 3.0 mm

8 " " " Seal B less than 9 3.0 mm

9 " " " Seal C 3.0 mm 0

10 " " Zinc Seal A less than 6 3.0 mm

11 " " " Seal B less than 5 3.0 mm

12 " " " Seal C less than 0 5.0 mm

13 A1 " Zinc-Iron Seal A less than 9 2.0 mm

14 " " " Seal B less than 9 2.0 mm

15 " " " Seal C less than 9 3.0 mm

16 " " Zinc Seal A less than 9 2.0 mm

17 " " " Seal B less than 9 3.0 mm

18 " " " Seal C less than 9 3.0 mm

EXAMPLE #4: Some panels processed through the procedure described in example 1 where exposed in a laboratory climate simulation test. This test involved a set cycle of salt, humidity and temperature variations designed to promote the formation of scab corrosion on the panels being tested. The panels were rated after the ten week test by the methods described in example #1. PHOSAPPLI¬

PANEL SUBPHATE CATION FINAL SCRIBE

NUMBER STRATE USED USED SEAL CREEPAGE ADHESION

1 CRS Zinc-Iron Spray Seal A 4mm 9

2 " " " Seal B 6mm 9

3 " " " Seal .C 7.5mm 9

4 " Zinc " Seal A 6mm 7

5 " " " Seal B 7mm 6

6 " " " Seal C 5mm 7

7 GS Zinc-Iron Seal A 2mm 9

8 " " " Seal B 2mm 9

9 " " " Seal C 4mm 9

10 " Zinc " Seal A 3mm 9

11 " " " Seal B 4mm 9

12 " " " Seal C 4mm 9

13 A1 Zinc-Iron " Seal A 7mm 9

14 " " " Seal B 7mm 9

15 " " " Seal C 7mm 9

16 " Zinc " Seal A 7mm 9

17 " " " Seal B 7mm 8

18 " " " Seal C 7mm 9

The chemistry of a zinc phosphate bath operates on two different levels; the microscopic, that in the greater volume of the bath; and the microscopic, that near the metal surface being coated. The microscopic level is mostly concerned with reactions which provide an excess of fresh reactants for the microscopic reactions and which dispose of the waste products of the lower reaction level. On the microscopic level there are many different reactions taking place, some of which are not wholly understood as yet. It is this microscopic level of zinc phosphate chemistry which determines the structure of the zinc phosphate coating.

The actual coating reactions involved in a zinc phosphate bath are generally accepted as occuring in two separate steps. The first of these is the pickling process in which iron from the metal surface is dissolved in solution. The iron then reacts with the nitrite and phosphoric acid to form phosphate salts of ferric and ferrous iron and free hydrogen. Ferric phosphate is insoluble and immediately drops out of the solution. Ferrous phosphates either form crystalline structures on the metal surface or drift out beyond the newly formed 'hydrogen blanket' to be oxidized by nitrate into ferric iron which immediately forms ferric phosphate. As the iron reactions progress, the structure of the zinc phosphate in solution is attracted to the metal surface where it undergoes changes in its structure, forming hopeite, and other zinc and iron phosphate crystals. In a conventional zinc phosphate coating the hopeite crystal dominates resulting in a coating with very little of the ferrous phosphate crystals. As illustrative, but not limiting, the baths may operate effectively at temperatures of 45°C to 55°C approximately.

Through the addition of an alkali buffer in the form of a phosphate salt the formation of the coating is shifted, favoring the inclusion of the ferrous ions in the crystallization. Analysis of the coating indicates that adding an alkali metal salt of phosphate in the quantities specified increases the ferrous iron to zinc ratio from 1:7.5 in conventional zinc phosphate to 1:4.2 in the zinc-iron phosphate. This indicates that hopeite crystals exist in majority quantities in conventional zinc phosphates and that zinc-iron phosphate crystals, or phosphophyllite, favour the coating formed by the present invention.

Hopeite is defined as Zn₂ P₂ O₈. 4 H₂O and phosphophyllite as Zn₂ Fe P₂ O₈. 4 H₂O.

Table #1 shows the results of analysis of both conventional zinc phosphate coatings and zinc-iron phosphate coatings.

TABLE #1

Amounts of Ferrous Iron and Zinc in Conventional Phosphate vs. Zinc-Iron Phosphate

Zinc Content Ferrous Iron of Coating Content of Coating Figures 1 and 3: Conventional

Coating 39.6% 5.3%

Figures 2 and 4: Zinc-Iron Coating. 34.4% 8.1%

Solubility studies of conventional zinc phosphate versus zinc-iron phosphate in a 1/10 normal alkali solution, indicate that the zinc-iron phosphate coating is less soluble than the conventional zinc phosphate coating. Figure #5 shown the plot of time vs. weight difference of the two different coatings.

The conditions of this study provide an accelerated lab simulation of the actual corrosion mechanism. Therefore, the results indicate that the zinc-iron phosphate coating tends to corrode at a slower rate than a conventional zinc phosphate coating.

The present composition and method may also apply to anionically electro deposited films, epoxies, enamel and other paints.

The following four examples of concentrates are illustrative of compositions that have been successfully used in the present method. Many other compositions could be used within the scope of the claimed method and compositions herein: (by weight) 168 169 170 171

ZINC OXIDE 5% 5.2% 5. 2% 5.2%

PHOSPHORIC ACID 28% 28.1% 28.1% 28.0%

SODIUM HYDROXIDE 4.6% 4.6% 4. 6% 4.5%

FLUORIDE, AMMONIUM 0% 1.0% 0% 0%

NICKEL OXIDE 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0%

HYDROFLUOSILICIC ACID 0% 0% 1.0% 0%

SURFACTANT 0% 0% 0.5% 0. 5%

NITRIC ACID 5.25% 5.2% 5.2% 5. 2%

WATER 57.15% 55.4% 54.9% 56.6%

Claims

What we claim is:

1. A phosphate coating solution for coating metal surfaces including alkali metal phosphate salts and zinc phosphate, where the ratio of alkali metal phosphate salts to zinc-phosphate is from one-half to two moles of the salt to one mole of the phosphate, adapted to produce a phosphate coating where the ratio of ferrous iron phosphates to zinc phosphates in the coating is increased over that found in conventional zinc phosphate coatings, and which exhibits topographical characteristics capable of improving resistance to physical abuse and corrosion.

2. In the coating solution of claim 1, said solution being especially adapted for use in conjunction with cationically electrodeposited epoxide films.

3. In the phosphate coating solution of claim 1, which produces a zinciron phosphate coating in which the crystal morphology formed is of a predominantly horizontal orientation relative to the treated surface.

4. In the phosphate coating solution of claims 1 or 3, which includes from 5 to 25 grams per liter of an alkali metal salt of phosphate such that the ratio of zinc phosphate to alkali metal salt of phosphate is from 1 mole to onehalf to two moles respectively.

5. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said phosphate salt being monosodium phosphate.

6. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said phosphate salt being monopotassium phosphate.

7. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said salt being monoammonium phosphate.

8. In the coating solution of claim 1 or 3, said salt being disodium phosphate.

9. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said salt being dipotassium phosphate.

10. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said phosphate salt being diammonϊum phosphate.

11. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, said coating solution have a free acid of from 0.5 to 0.9 points and a total acid of from 10.0 to 27.0 points, such that the total acid to free acid ratio is from 17:1 to 2S:1 rather than a ratio of from 10:1 to 15:1 as in a conventional zinc phosphate solution.

12. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, with an increase in alkali metal ions sufficient to produce a coating in which the molar ratio of zinc to iron in the coating is from 1:0.1 to 1:1.5.

13. In the phosphate coating solution of claim 1, said solution adapted for use in conjunction with anionic electrodeposited films and other siccative films, such as epoxies, enamels and paints.

14. In the coating solution of claim 1, said zinc-phosphate being zinc dihydrogen phosphate.

15. In the coating of claim 1, said coating including hopeite including zinc-phosphate crystals Zn₃ P₂ O₈. 4 H₂O and phosphophyllite, iron-phosphate crystals Zn₂ Fe P₂ O₈. 4 H₂O (water of hydration).

16. In the coating of claim 1, said metal surfaces being selected from the group consisting of cold roll steel, galvanized steel and aluminum.

17. In the solution of claim 1, and additive salt selected from the group consisting of nickel salts, fluoride salts, sodium-nitrobenzene suifonate and sodium chlorate.

18. In the method of phosphate coating of a metal substrate which includes emersion of a metallic part in a coating solution of zinc-phosphate, including the addition to said solution of an alkali metal phosphate salt wherein the ratio of alkali metal phosphate salts to zinc-phosphate is from one-half to two moles of the salt to one mole of the phosphate, adapted to produce a phosphate coating where the ratio of ferrous iron phosphates to zinc phosphates in the coating is increased over that found in conventional zinc-phosphate coatings, and which exhibits topographical characteristics capable of improving resistance to physical abuse and corrosion.

19. In the method of claim 18, said salt being selected from the group consisting of monosodium phosphate, monopotassium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate, disodium phosphate, dipotassium and diammonium phosphate.

20. In the method of claim 18, the solution being maintained at temperatures of about 45° to 55°C, approximately.

21. In the method of claim 18, said solution including the following ingredients in proportions by weight, approximately:

Zinc Oxide 5% to 5.2% Phosphoric Acid 28% to 28.1% Sodium Hydroxide 4.5% to 4.6% Nitric Acid 5.20% to 5.25% Water 54.9% to 57.15%

22. In the method of claim 21, and the additives:

Fluoride, Ammonium 1.0% Nickel Oxide .5% Hydrofluosilicic Acid 1% Surfactant .5%

23. In the coating solution of claim 1, said solution including:

Zinc Oxide 5% to 5.2% Phosphoric Acid 28% to 28.1% Sodium Hydroxide 4.5% to 4.6% Nitric Acid 5.20% to 5.25%

Water 54.9% to 57.15%

24. In the coating solution of claim 23, and the additives:

Fluoride, Ammonium 1.0% Nickel Oxide .5% Hydrofluosilicic Acid 1%

Surfactant .5%

25. In the coating solution of claims 1 or 3, with an increase in alkali metal ions sufficient to produce a coatirfg in which the ratio of zinc to iron in the coating weight is adjusted from 7.5:1 in a conventional coating to 4.2:1, approximately.