NCMS"

National
Center for
Manufacturing
Sciences

Alternatives to
Chromium for
Metal Finishing

October 1995
Alternatives to Chromium for Metal Finishing

Final Report
NCMS Report 0273RE95

Prepared under:
NCMS Project No. 02-17-0403

October 1995

National Center for ManufacturingSciences

3025 Boardwalk
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108-3266
 01995 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc.

This document contains information which is proprietary to the NCMS. It is protected under both the U.S. Copyright
Act and applicable state trade secret laws and may not be used or disseminated without the express written
permission of the NCMS. (NCMS members may use and disseminate in accordance with their membership contracts
with the NCMS, and the NCMS Bylaws and Policies and Procedures.)

Neither the NCMS, members of NCMS, nor any person acting on behalf of them:
makes any warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or
usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or
process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately-owned rights, or
assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or from damages resulting from the use of, any information, - ~~~~

apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.

~~

Effort sponsored by the Manufacturing Technology Directorate, Wright Laboratory (WLMTX), Air Force Materiel
Command, USAF, under Cooperative Agreement Number F33615-94-2-4423. The US. Government is authorized to -
reproduce and dishibute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon. ~ ~~~~

The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily repre-
senting the official policies or endorsements,either expressed or implied, of Wright Laboratory or the U.S. Government.
.
Abstract
Many current users of chromate conversion
coatings are seeking chromium-free altema-
tives, and coating suppliers are actively devel-
oping replacements. Participants in a collab-
orative research project sponsored by the
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
obtained samples of 29 chromium-free coat-
ings from 12 suppliers on test panels of 5
Use and disseminationof the informationconmined in *is
document are subjecl to restrimionson the copyright page.
NationalCenter lor Manufacturing Sciences
aluminum alloys. The test panels, together
with control samples of standard chromate
formulations, were evaluated for corrosion
resistance, contact electrical resistance, and
paint adhesion. This report presents the results
of the testing, together with an environmental
impact assessment of the alternatives as com-
pared with chromate coatings now in use.
i
i
!
 National Center lor ManulacluringSciences

Table of Contents
Section Page
...
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 111
..
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. v1i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ix

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... xi

.
1 Introduction and Summary................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 The Need for Alternatives to Chromium ........................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background and Goal ............................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Experimental Protocol ....................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 Alloy and Coating Selection ................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Test Panel Preparation .................................................................................... 1....... 1-6
1.4 Test Protocols and Standards ............................................................................................. 1-6
. .
1.4.1 Testing by NCMS Participants ............................................................................... 1-7
1.4.2 Additional Testing .................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4.3 Applicable Standards .............................................................................................. 1-7
1.4.3.1 Corrosion Resistance Attributes ................................................................ 1-8
1.4.3.2 Contact Electrical Resistance Attributes .................................................... 1-9
1.4.3.3 Paint Adhesion Attributes ........................................................................ 1-10
1.5 Test Results Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-10
1.5.1 Corrosion Resistance Test Results ....................................................................... 1-10
1.5.2 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results ........................................................... 1-11
1.5.3 Paint Adhesion Test Results ................................................................................. 1-11
1.6 General Observations ....................................................................................................... 1-11

.
2 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Tests .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Test Conditions and Procedure .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Observations and Discussion ............................................................................................. 2-5

.
3 Contact Electrical Resistance Tests ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Test Procedure ................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Observations and Discussion ............................................................................................. 3-2

.
4 Paint Adhesion Tests .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Test Procedure ................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Observations and Discussion ............................................................................................. 4-3

Use and dieseminalion d the informationcontained in this V

doeumenlare subject to resttinions on the copydght page.
NationalCenter for Manufacturing Sciences

.
5 Environmental Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Background of the Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-2
5.2 Phase 1: Environmental Performance Criteria................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Number of Process Steps ........................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.2 Ozone Depleting Substances .................................................................................. 5-3 .~

5.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants ........................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.4 Carcinogens ............................................................................................................ 5-3
5.2.5 Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals ..................................................................... 5-3 __
5.2.6 Resource Usage ...................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.6.1 Process Chemical Usage ............................................................................ 5-4
5.2.6.2 Water Usage............................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.6.3 Energy Consumption ................................................................................. 5-4
5.2.7 Solid Waste Generation .......................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.8 Potential for Airbome Contaminants ........................................................................ 5-5
5.2.9 Wastewater Generation ........................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.10 Worker Health and Safety....................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Phase 2. Environmental Data Compilation and Data Sheet Completion ........................... 5-5
5.4 Phase 3. Environmental Performance Assessment ............................................................ 5-6
5.4.1 Primary Selection Matrix ........................................................................................ 5-6
5.4.2 Secondary Selection Matrices ................................................................................. 5-7
5.4.3 Decision Matrix ..................................................................................................... 5-7
5.5 Environmental Impact Assessment Data Sheets ................................................................ 5-8

.
6 References ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

vi Use and disssminalonof tha information contained in this

dmument are subiect to rnsltictionson the mpytighl page.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

List of Figures
Figure Page

1-1 Alloy 356 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary............................... 1-13

1-2 Alloy 2024 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary ............................. 1-14

1-3 Alloy 3003 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary ............................. 1-15

1-4 Alloy 6061 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary ............................. 1-16

1-5 Alloy 7075 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary ............................. 1-17

1-6 Alloy 356 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summary ...................................... 1-18

1-7 Alloy 2024 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summary .................................... 1-19

1-8 Alloy 3003 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summary .................................... 1-20

1-9 Alloy 6061 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summary .................................... 1-21

1-10 Alloy 7075 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summary .................................... 1-22

1-11 Alloy 356 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary ............................................................ 1-23

1-12 Alloy 2024 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary .......................................................... 1-24

1-13 Alloy 3003 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary .......................................................... 1-25

1-14 Alloy 6061 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary .......................................................... 1-26

1-15 Alloy 7075 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary .......................................................... 1-27

2-1 Panel Positions in Lemmon Avenue Salt Spray Test Chamber 1 ....................................... 2-3

2-2 Panel Positions in Lemmon Avenue Salt Spray Test Chamber 2 ....................................... 2-4

Use and disseminationd the inlomatiao contained in this vii

dD”ent are subleu to reslrictimson the copyright page.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

List of Tables
Table Page

1-1 Alloy Composition by Weight Percent ............................................................................. 1-4

1-2 Coating Suppliers and Supplied Coatings ........................................................................ 1-5

1-3 Coating Suppliers Key Contacts....................................................................................... 1-6

1-4 Test Standards .................................................................................................................. 1-7

1-5 Summary of MIL-C-81706 Performance Requirements .................................................. 1-9

1-6 Summary of MIL-C-5541E Process Control Performance Requirements ....................... 1-9

2- 1 Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results ............................................................... 2-6

3-1 Contact Electrical Resistance Pre Salt Spray Test Results ............................................... 3-3

3-2 Contact Electrical Resistance Post Salt Spray Test Results ............................................. 3-7

4- 1 Paint Adhesion Rating System, Based on ASTM D-3359, With Modifications .............4-2

4-2 Paint Adhesion Test Results ............................................................................................. 4-4

5-1 Environmental Performance Criteria and Related Sources of Regulation ....................... 5-3

5-2 Sources of Regulation Used to Reference Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals ............5-4

5-3 Primary Selection Matrix ................................................................................................. 5-8

5-4 Secondary Selection Matrix -Basic ................................................................................ 5-9

5-5 Secondary Selection Matrix - Numerical Valuation ...................................................... 5-10

5-6 Secondary Selection Matrix - Relative Valuation ......................................................... 5-11

5-7 Environmental Impact Decision Matrix ......................................................................... 5-12

5-8 Permatreat 61 1 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ........................................................ 5-15

5-9 Chemcote L497260A Environmental Impact Data Sheet .............................................. 5-17

5-10 E-CLPS 923 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................ 5-21

5-1 1 E-CLPS 923X Environmental Impact Data Sheet.......................................................... 5-23

Use and diesminabn of he informalioncmlained in vlis ix

dowment are subjsn lo resfrielionsan the wpynghl page.
National Center for ManufacturingSciences

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page
..
5-12 Alcoat 1470 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-25

5-13 Alcoat 1500 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-27

5-14 Alcoat 2000 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-29

5-15 Alcoat 3000 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-31

5-16 Alcoat 4000 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-33

5-17 Alcoat 5000 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................. 5-37

5-18 GM 1 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ....................................................................... 5-39

5-19 GM 2 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ....................................................................... 5-41

5-20 Alodine 1200s Environmental Impact Data Sheet ......................................................... 5-45

5-21 Alodine 2000 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ........................................................... 5-49

5-22 Patclin 1910 A, B, C Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................... 5-53

5-23 Patclin 1911B Environmental Impact Data Sheet .......................................................... 5-57

5-24 Sandia 1 and Sandia 2 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................. 5-61

5-25 Alumicoat 6788 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ....................................................... 5-65

5-26 2438-28D Environmental Impact Data Sheet ................................................................ 5-67

5-27 Ce-Mo 2024 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................ 5-69

5-28 Ce-Mo 6061 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................ 5-73

5-29 Ce-Mo 7075 Environmental Impact Data Sheet ............................................................ 5-77

X Use and disseminationof the inlormalion containedin this

document 818 subject lo rertticliona on he copyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Acknowledgments
This project would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and expertise of a number of
individuals, and the support of their respective organizations. The core team included:

Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Paul Brezovec

Eastman Kodak
Mike Giglio
Mitch Rakus

General Motors -Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems

Bob Ahrens

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Mario Clarizia
Nicholas Clesceri
James DeMay
Jacob Komgold
James Specht

Sandia National Laboratories

Rudy Buchheit

Texas Instruments
Norm Carlson

United Technologies Research Corporation

Mark Jaworowski

Many others also contributed their time, effort, and advice at various stages of the project.
I would like to mention specifically Martin Kendig of Rockwell International (and his colleagues
Eric Eichinger and Irene Drakos), and Michael Kane of the U.S. Army Materials Research
Laboratory (with his former colleague Robert Huie), who are already extending the information
base of this project beyond its original scope. Participants from NCMS member organizations
who played key roles at crucial points include: Jerry Golden of United Technologies Research
Corporation; Russell Hill of Texas Instruments; Rene Cooper, formerly with Rensselaer Poly-
technic Institute; Paul Behrendsen of GM-Delphi Chassis; and Ravi Rungta of GM-Harrison.
Thanks are also due Martha Swidersky of NCMS for bringing much needed insight and patience to
the formidable task of eliciting clarity and order from a bewildering congeries of tables and text.
1

Paul D. Chalmer, Ph.D. , -

Program Manager, Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Use and disseminatbnof the inlomiion contained in this xi

drm~ntamsubieQtomstrictionsonthempyri6htpage.
i

1

1. Introduction and Summary
This report documents work performed in con-
junction with National Center for Manufactur-
ing Sciences (NCMS) Project No. 17-0403,
“Alternatives to Chromium for Metal Finish-
ing.” The purpose of the project was to pro-
vide test data for a variety of chromium-free
coating alternatives for conversion coating of
aluminum. Samples of over 30 different coat-
ings, including standard chromate controls, on
five aluminum alloys were evaluated side-hy-
side on the following three widely used perfor-
mance tests:
Salt spray corrosion resistance
Contact electrical resistance
Paint adhesion.
The resulting database, which project partici-
pants believe to be unique in its level of detail
and in the degree of intercomparability made
possible by the test protocols, is presented in
this report.
Section 1 of the report is an overview of the
study’s aims, methods, and results, to provide
a broad perspective on the state of the art. An
expanded description of each of the test pro-
tocols and a detailed compilation of all test
results are in Sections 2, 3, and 4.
In addition to providing performance data, the
project participants recognized the importance
of including an environmental impact assess-
ment of the alternative coating processes. This
assessment can facilitate comparison with the
chromium-containing coatings currently in
use. The well-known difficulties associated
with accounting for the full environmental
impact of a particular choice of process or
material preclude any definitive statement that
one coating is environmentally superior to
another under all circumstances. Nevertheless,
participants felt that some guidance for readers
who may be considering replacing their
Use and disseminationof the informationcontained in this
documsnt are subiea lo rsStridions on the cowrighlpaga
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences
present processes with any of the alternatives
considered here would he useful.
Thus, Section 5 summarizes a framework for
an environmental impact assessment, which
was prepared by one of the project participants,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). This
section presents the available information con-
cerning the alternative coatings, and indicates
how to generate an assessment based on these
facts and on assumptions supplied by the
reader. An example is presented of an assess-
ment based on one possible set of assumptions.
Readers are encouraged to supply an alterna-
tive set of assumptions to generate an assess-
ment tailored to their own unique concerns.
1.I The Need for Alternatives to
Chromium
The search for alternatives to chromium for
metal finishing processes has been stimulated
by several interconnected developments. At
the core of the problem is the demonstration of
human health effects associated with exposure
to hexavalent chromium. Because hexavalent
chromium is considered a human carcinogen,
concern exists not only about workplace expo-
sure at high levels, but also about environmen-
tal exposure at much lower levels. [1]* This
concern has produced a cascade of conse-
quences, including:
Increased liability for claims of workplace
and environmental exposure.
Increased costs for tracking inventories,
monitoring emissions, reporting usage of
chromium compounds, and disposal of solid
wastes containing chromium.
More stringent disposal limits for discharges
of dissolved chromium in wastewater.
* Numbers in brackets are references, listed in Section 6.
1-1
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences
These unavoidable facts multiply the problems
and costs associated with the use of hexava-
lent chromium in metal finishing processes,
and with disposal of chromium compounds of
all types. One may argue that replacement
coatings are not available for some applica-
tions, and that the risks (environmental and
otherwise) of switching from a proven system
to an unknown may, in many cases, outweigh
the benefits. Whatever the technical merits of
such a position may be, the fact remains that
many current users of chromium for metal
finishing applications are actively seeking
ways to reduce or eliminate that use.
1.2 Project Background and Goal
In January 1993, NCMS organized a work-
shop to explore possibilities for collaborative
research projects in the general area of chro-
mium alternatives. Such research, in which a
group of independent, and possibly competi-
tive organizations pool their efforts to develop
precompetitive technology, has been found to
be particularly well suited to the assessment
and development of pollution prevention and
source reduction technology. A project that
assists in developing an understanding of the
state of the art, and in identifying and focusing
user needs, can benefit an entire industry. The
commitment of time and resources necessary
to provide a comprehensive overview for a
particular pollution prevention issue might be
difficult for any single company, acting alone,
to justify, but might appear reasonable in the
context of a collective effort.
With this understanding, a group of workshop
participants decided to undertake a project
with the goal of collecting data on the capabi-
lities of a range of chromium-free alternative
coatings for one specific process type: conver-
sion coating of aluminum. The participants
selected this process and substrate because of
their specific interests, and because they knew
that many development efforts to find
1-2
chromium-free replacement coatings for this
process were already under way.
Participants also recognized that widespread
interest would extend to many other process
types in which chromium plays a key role
(electroplating and anodizing, for example) as
well as to coatings for many other substrates
(such as steel, zinc, and magnesium). How-
ever, the project team felt that conversion
coating of aluminum would be a good place to
start. A focused effort, if successful, could
stimulate follow-on activities, which would
cover other processes and materials.
Project participants included:
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
(CTC)
Delphi Chassis Division, General Motors
(Delphi)
Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems,
General Motors (GM)
Eastman Kodak (Kodak)
National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences (NCMS)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)
Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia)
Texas Instruments (TI)
United Technologies Research
Corporation (UTRC).
In addition to these organizations, Rockwell
International and the U. S. Army Materials
Laboratory participated in the project on an
informal basis.
As is standard practice for NCMS collabora-
tive research projects, each NCMS member
organization that participated on this chrome
project selected an individual to serve as its
representative on the Project Steering Group,
This group was responsible for all decisions
involved in carrying out the project.
Use and dlssemina6onof the informationcmlainsd in this
document are subject lo restnctions on the copyright page.

At the outset of the project, the participants
made several choices regarding the approach
to be used in conducting the investigation into
alternatives to chromium for metal finishing.
These decisions were based on what the parti-
cipants hoped to derive from the effort.
First, they decided to include both commer-
cially available processes and processes still
under development in the laboratory. The idea
was to assess the state of the art, rather than to
identify immediately available replacements.
Second, they decided to exclude processes that
required large capital expenditures or acquisi-
tion of completely new technologies, since
these were felt to be too remote from the ideal
of a drop-in replacement. Thus, technologies
based on anodizing, ion beams, and other
more “exotic” operations, were not included.
Finally, they re-evaluated the NCMS standard
option of collaborative research projects keep-
ing results proprietary up to 18 months after
completion of a project before release to
NCMS membership, and up to 30 months
before release to the general public. Project
participants decided to release all results to the
public immediately upon completion of the
project and of the report. They felt that the
results would provide timely and important
benefits to industry as a whole regarding cost
and environmental issues related to the use of
chrome and its alternatives. Additionally, this
information could stimulate further work on
development of suitable alternatives to
chromium and facilitate their acceptance.
1.3 Experimental Protocol
In selecting the conditions under which sam-
ples of alternatives to chromium would be
obtained and tests conducted, participants
attempted to treat each sample identically with
the others, insofar as possible. Several choices
were made with this criterion in mind:
Use and dlsseminalbn d tha inlmtim coolaiarnedin his
drmment am subject to restrictims on Ihe mpyrighlpage.
National Center for Manulacluring Sciences
Uncoated test panels for each alloy would
be purchased from a single supplier to
minimize variability of the base metal.
The coating suppliers would prepare the
coatings and apply them to the test panels,
even if the materials for producing the coat-
ings were commercially available, to give
each supplier a chance to provide optimal
samples.
The handling and testing of panels and coat-
ings would be conducted under “blind”
conditions wherein: a) the panels would be
engraved with code numbers before their
distribution to the coating suppliers; and
b) test personnel would not know the iden-
tity of the coating samples until after all
tests had been completed and the data
submitted.
As directed by the Project Steering Group,
NCMS purchased the test panels. UTRC took
responsibility for: receiving the blank test
panels, marking them with code numbers, dis-
tributing them to the coating suppliers, distri-
buting the coated panels to the testing laborato-
ries, and collecting and tabulating all test data.
Details of the procedures for obtaining sam-
ples and conducting the tests are given in the
following subsections.
1.3.1 Alloy and Coating Selection
One of the first tasks was to decide which
aluminum alloys would be used for the test
panels. The specific interests of the partici-
pants largely determined the selections. How-
ever, the participants also made sure that their
selections covered a broad enough range of
typical alloys that a general readership would
find information relevant to a wide range of
applications.
The project team ultimately selected five
alloys:
1-3
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences
356 to represent cast alloys
2024-T3 to represent high-copper structural
alloys, which are of primary interest for
aerospace applications. They are considered
to be among the most difficult of alloys for
conversion coatings.
3003, a common stock used in manufactur-
ing beverage cans, to represent the “easy”
end of the spectrum. It has generally good
corrosion resistance. Because a good deal of
information on this alloy has already been
generated, the project team selected this
alloy as a useful baseline.
6061-T6 to represent an alloy of intermedi-
ate coating difficulty. The 6000 series of
aluminum is the most common alloy type
used for extrusions. It is also used for
structural applications.
7075-T6, also widely used in aerospace ap-
plications, to represent an alloy with some-
what of a coating challenge, but less than
that of 2024.
The nominal compositions for these alloys, in
weight percent, are given in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Alloy Compositionby Weight Percent
n Weight Percent by Element
The next task was to identify potential coating
suppliers. Participants generated an initial list
based on their own knowledge of the industry.
Announcements were also made at various
meetings, conferences, and workshops to
1-4
involve as broad a spectrum of potential
coating suppliers as possible. Potential suppli-
ers were told of the goals of the study and its
ground rules, which were relatively simple:
Coatings were to be chromium-free. Coat-
ings based on trivalent chromium were not
eligible. ___
Suppliers could reveal as little or as much as
they cared to about the coating composition
or process. The study would include no
attempt to analyze the composition, other
than to verify the absence of chromium. The
project team wanted the study to be as inclu-
sive as possible, and did not want proprie-
tary issues to interfere with the availability
of candidate coatings.
However, suppliers were told that an envi-
ronmental impact assessment would be
conducted. With more information avail-
able, the evaluators could assign a lower
risk rating to the coating than would be
given due to uncertainty. Also, the suppliers
were reminded that readers would find
process details useful in evaluating coatings
as potential alternatives.
All information provided by the coating
suppliers, and all test results, would be
released to the public.
To provide a sufficient supply of panels for
the range of tests to be conducted, 12 test
panels of each alloy for each coating would
be required. Coating suppliers could submit
as many coatings as they wished, and could
decline to provide samples on selected
alloys. They could also designate certain
coatings to be specifically intended for
certain applications.
Ultimately, 12 coating suppliers provided 33
different coating types for evaluation, as
identified in Table 1-2.
Use and disseminationof the information wnlained in his
documentare subjen Io realMions on the mpynght page.
 National Center for ManulacturingSciences

Table 1-2. Coating Suppliers and Supplied Coatings

Coater Coating Coater Notes

Betz Laboratories, Inc. (Betz) Permatreat 611
Brent America, Inc. (Brent) Chemcote L4972608A
Bulk Chemicals, Inc. E-CLPS 923
(Bulk) E-CLPS 923X
Circle-Prosco Inc.
(Circle-Prosco)

Alcoat 5000
General Motors GM 1 Laboratory coating done on beaker scale. Coatings generally not considered very
(GM) GM 2 satisfactory as judged against previous work. Reprocessedfor salt spray tests.
Lord Corporation Painlabia Handle panels by edges only. Do not solvent wipe or otherwise clean, as this may
(Lord) Nonpaintable remove Sol-Gel coating.
Parker Amchem Alodlne 600 Chromium conversion coatings
(Parker) Aiodine 600 heavy
Alodine 1200s
Alcdine 1200s heavy

Alodine 20000 With 1000 deoxidizer.

Patclin Chemical Co., Inc. 191OA
(Patclln) 19108
191oc
19118
Sanchem FP
(Sanchem) SD
Sandia National Laboratories Sandia 1
(Sandla) Sandia 2
Eli Atochem -Turco Alumicoat6788 An organic, water-borne, non-chromated "wash-primer" system that will pass 168-
Products Division and 336-hr bare salt spray and 3000-hr paint adhesion salt spray. When painting,
(Turco) do not solvent wipe, paint as is.
2438-280
University 01 Southern Ce-Mo 2024
California Ce-Mo 6061
(USCI Ce-Mo 7075

Of these 33 coatings, 29 were chrome free and series of chromate conversion coatings, sup
4 were standard chromate conversion coatings, plied at both the low and high ends of the
which were included to provide a baseline standard range of coating thickness.
control against which the non-chromium
alternatives could be compared. The standard Key contact information for the coating
coatings were from the Alodine 600 and 1200s suppliers is presented in Table 1-3.

Use and disseminationof the inlormalion conlained in lhis 1-5

document are subject lo reslndionson lhs mpyrighl page.
National Center for ManufacturingSciences
Table -1-3. Coating Suppliers Key Contacts
Company and Address
Betz Metchem Division
200A Precision Drive
Horsham, PA 19044
F
Brent America, Inc.
921 Sherwood Drive
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
Bulk Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 186
Mohrsville, PA 19541
Circle-Prosco Inc.
2017 Yost Avenue
Bloomington, Indiana 47403
General Motors
Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems Phone: 716-439-3750
200 Upper Mountain Road
Lockport, NY 14094
405 Gregson Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Patclin Chemical Co., Inc.
66 Alexander Street
Yonkers, NY 10701
Parker Amchem
32100 Stephenson Highway
Madison Heights, MI 48071
Sanchem
1600 South Canal Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Sandla National Laboratories
MS 0340, P.O. Box 5800
Elf Atochem
Turco Products Division
7320 Bolsa Avenue
Westminster, CA 92684-3600
University of Southern
California
Dept. of Materials Science
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0241
1-6
1.3.2 Test Panel Preparation
Key Contact NCMS ordered blank, uncoated panels from
two test panel suppliers. One provided the 356
Mitch Kasouf
Phone: 215-773-2822
cast alloy panels, which measured 4 in. x 6 in.
Fax: 215-773-2800 x 0.125 in. These panels were necessarily con-
siderably thicker than the sheet panels, since
casting a much thinner panel would have been
David Enright ___
impractical. Since not all coating suppliers
Phone: 800-222-8819
chose to supply samples on the cast alloy, only
Fax: 708-295-8748
350 panels were needed.
Charles Ike
Phone: 800-338-2655 The other panel supplier provided about 500
Fax: 610-926-6125 panels of each of the four sheet alloys. These
panels were clean, with hanging holes, and
Jack Manard
Phone: 317-579-5353
were 0.025 in. thick. They measured 3 in. x
Fax: 317-579-5354 10 in. for the 2024,6061, and 7075 alloys, and
3 in. x 9 in. for the 3003 alloy.
Bob Ahrens
The panel suppliers shipped the panels to
Fax: 716-439-3168 UTRC for initial logging. UTRC stamped the
panels with code numbers, which provided no
Lynn Yanyo indication of coating identity. Participants felt
Phone: 919-469-3443 that “blind” testing would help minimize pos-
Fax: 919-460-9648 sible bias due to any preconceived notions on
the part of test personnel. UTRC also inspected
Ray Reinecke
Phone: 914-476-7000 the panels and noted potentially significant
Fax: 914-476-0934 features, such as water stains, before shipping
the panels to the coating suppliers.
Jon Nylen
Phone: 810-569-4893 The coating suppliers prepared 12 panels of
Fax: 810-583-2976 each alloy they received for each coating they
Jon Flicher were providing and returned the panels to
Phone: 312-733-6100 UTRC. Upon receipt, UTRC re-inspected the
Fax: 312-733-7432 coated panels, repackaged them, and shipped
them to the test laboratories.
Rudy Buchheit
Phone: 505-844-6904
Fax: 505-844-1543 1.4 Test Protocols and Standards
Frank Muller Military Specification MIL-C-8 1706, “Chemi- .~
Phone: 714-890-3612 cal Conversion Materials for Coating Alumi-
Fax: 714-892-7179 num and Aluminum Alloys,” calls out three
specific types of properties: corrosion resist-
ance, contact electrical resistance, and paint -
Florian Mansfeld
Phone: 213-740-4428 adhesion. The Project Steering Group decided ~
Fax: 213-740-7797 that the scope of the project would include
testing in all of these areas.
Use and dissemination01 the infomalion contained in this
document are subject lo reSltiCtiOnS on the wpydghl page.

1.4.1 Testing by NCMS Participants
All testing was performed by project partici-
pants at their own facilities, using personnel
experienced in carrying out the respective tests
in conjunction with normal operations. TI per-
formed the corrosion resistance testing, Sandia
performed contact electrical resistance testing,
and Kodak performed paint adhesion testing.
Of the 12 panels of each alloy that were
coated
5 were used for salt spray testing
1 was used for contact electrical resist-
ance testing (and for electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy (EIS) testing;
see Subsection 1.4.2)
1 was used for paint adhesion testing
5 were archived, and may be used for
additional study in subsequent projects.
Some exceptions were made to standard
practice when participants felt that it would be
more informative to do so. For example, in
performing corrosion resistance testing, test
samples are generally exposed to a corrosive
medium for a specified number of hours, after
which samples are rated as either pass or fail,
depending on set criteria. For this study, the
preferred procedure was to inspect the samples
frequently, record their condition as it devel-
oped, and continue testing until the samples
had clearly failed. This modification provided
far more detail about the onset and rate of
corrosion than would be available if the
standard padfail criterion had been used.
Details on the specific protocols used for each
of the test series are provided at the beginning
of Sections 2 through 4.
1.4.2 Additional Testing
The electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
tests have been proposed as a method of
U s and dissemination of he Inlormalion contained in this
dmmnlam $ubi%! lo restriaions m Ihe copyright p a p .
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences
indicating corrosion resistance more rapidly
than is possible with the salt spray method.
Rockwell Intemational conducted EIS testing
on a subset of the available samples to gauge
how well the results of this method would
correlate with the results of the salt spray
testing.
The U.S. Army Materials LaboratoIy also
carried out additional testing in conjunction
with this study. Coating suppliers were given
the opportunity to provide samples of their
coatings on each of three armor alloys.
Information on the results of the EIS testing
performed by Rockwell and on corrosion
resistance and other testing performed by the
U.S. Army Materials Laboratory will be avail-
able in separate publications. The staff of the
Manufacturing Information Resource Center
(MIRC) at NCMS (phone: 313-995-0300) can
provide details on how to obtain this addi-
tional information.
1.4.3 Applicable Standards
One major objective of this report is to allow
readers to determine which of the alternative
coatings tested here may be suitable for their
specific applications. To provide the most
immediately usable data to a wide variety of
readers, tests were generally performed accord-
ing to commonly used ASTM, military, or
federal specifications, as indicated in Table 1-4.
T&e 1-4. Test Standards
Test Designation Participant
Corrosion (Salt ASTM 6117 [2] Texas Instruments
Spray)
Contact Electrical MIL-C-5541E [3] Sandia National
Resistance Laboratories
Paint Adhesion Eastman Kodak
ASTM D3359 [4]
Dv
Wet MIL-C-81706 [5];
FederalTest
Method Standard
141, Method
6301 [6]
1-7
National Center lor Manulacturing Sciences
The military specifications provided the basis
for selecting the tests performed for this study:
MIL-C-81706 “Chemical Conversion
Materials for Coating Aluminum and
Aluminum Alloys”
MIL-C-5541E “Chemical Conversion
Coatings on Aluminum and Aluminum
Alloys”.
The ASTM test methods were used to estab-
lish test conditions and procedures, but they
do not specify performance standards and are
not discussed further in this section. Sections
2 through 4 include more detailed discussion
of the methods.
The following discussion summarizes the in-
tent of the two military specifications, which
call out the test procedures and the perfor-
mance standards. Readers may find this infor-
mation helpful in determining how the test
results relate to their own requirements.
The military specifications define performance
levels, processing methods, and materials
(chemicals) acceptable for military applications.
They are also widely used, in whole or in part,
in establishing requirements for many non-
military applications. The main performance
attributes defined in these specifications are:
corrosion resistance, contact electrical
resistance, and paint adhesion.
MIL-C-81706 defines two classes of coatings
that are distinguished by the main coating
performance attributes:
Class 1A coatings are intended for maxi-
mum protection against corrosion in
situations where the conversion coated
surface is either painted or unpainted.
Class 3 coatings are intended for use
where corrosion protection and low
contact electrical resistance are required.
1-8
In the case of chromate conversion coatings,
the primary difference between Class 1A and
Class 3 coatings is thickness: Class 3 coatings
are typically thinner than the more corrosion-
resistant Class 1A coatings. ~~
MIL-C-81706 also defines two performance
levels for these coatings: ~
Higher performance is required for “qua-
lification.” Coatings must meet qualifica-
tion requirements to be placed on the
MIL-C-8 1706 Qualified Products List.
Lower performance is acceptable for
“quality conformance.” Quality conform-
ance requirements are typically used for
lot inspection and quality control.
Performance requirements for each combina-
tion of class and performance level, as speci-
fied for each of the three tests, are summarized
in Table 1-5.
MIL-C-554 1E defines performance criteria for
process (quality) control and for lot accept-
ance. These performance requirements are
summarized in Table 1-6.
1.4.3.1 Corrosion Resistance Attributes
To obtain a pass ranking according to MIL-C-
81706 for corrosion resistance, all panels (for
5 panels, a total of 150 in.’) “shall show no
evidence of corrosion whatever when com-
pared to unexposed panels with the naked eye
except in those areas within 1/4 in. from the
edges ...” when subjected to salt spray
exposure testing.
The MIL-C-5541E performance requirements -
are less stringent than those in MIL-C-81706.
To obtain a pass ranking per MIL-C-5541E, a
single panel can have “no more than 5 isolated ~
spots or pits, none larger than 0.031 in. in dia-
meter...” after salt spray exposure testing.
Use and disssminalion 01 Ihe inlomalon conlainsd in this
documen1am subiscf to reslriclions on Ihs mpyiighl page.
 National Center lor Manulacluring Sciences

3 6061-T6 Contact resistance< 5 main. prior to salt spray, and

For Qualification
(5 panels) < 10 mQ /in? after 168 hours of salt spray exposure

I For Qualification
1 I 1A 2024-T3 and 7075-T6
(2 panels each)
1
3 606t -T6 No intercoatseparation in the as-paintedcondition, and
1A 2024-T3 after water immersion and scribing
For Quality Conformance
Inspection 3 6061-T6

Property Class Alloy Substrates Performance Requirement

1A 2024-T3 Less than 5 spots per panel and less
Corrosion (5 panels) than 15 spots per 5 panels after 168
Resistance 3 6061-T6 or 2024-T3 hours of ASTM B117 Salt Spray
I I (5 panels) I Exposure
I tA I 2024-T3 I NOintercoatseparation after wet tape
Paint (2 panels) adhesion procedures per Federal ’
Adhesion 3 6061-T6 or 2024-T3 Test Method Standard 141, Method
(2 panels) 6301

In addition all test panels can have, “no more surfaces to ensure that conversion-coated
than 15 isolated spots or pits, none larger than surfaces are uniform and free of flaws.
0.031 in. in diameter on the combined surface
area of all five specimen panels, subjected to 1.4.3.2 Contact Electrical Resistance Attributes
the salt spray test.” As a rule, a spot is count-
able if it leaves a visible corrosion product MIL-C-8 1706 directs that contact electrical
stain or “tail” on the panel surface. resistance measurements be made on coated
alloy surfaces with a contact area of 1 in.* and
The lot acceptance criteria for MIL-C-5541E load of 200 lb. The average contact resistance
are essentially visual inspection of as-coated shall be less than 5 &/in.’ for as-coated

Use and dissemination of the information contained in this 1-9

document are subjen 10 restrictionson the copyright page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
surfaces, and less than 10 &/in.* for panels
exposed to ASTM B117 salt spray for 168 hr.
Individual readings greater than 20% of the
specified maximum are acceptable provided
the overall average for the set of measurements
is below the specified limit. For MIL-C-8 1706
Class 3 coatings qualification, measurements
are to be made on five individual 6061-T6
panels. No contact electrical resistance
measurements are required for quality con-
formance inspection. The contact electrical
resistance requirements for MIL-C-81706 are
summarized in Table 1-5.
MIL-C-5541E does not specify performance
requirements other than to indicate that the
performance level is to suit the needs of the
application for the procuring activity.
1.4.3.3 Paint Adhesion Attributes
MIL-C-81706 provides instructions for deter-
mining acceptable paint adhesion performance.
To prepare the panels for testing, conversion
coated 2024-T3,7075-T6, and 6061-T6 sur-
faces are to be primed using a MIL-P-23377
epoxy polyamide primer, then painted with
two coats of a MIL-L-81352 acrylic lacquer.
When the lacquer is fully dried, dry paint
adhesion is tested by scribing (using a sharply
pointed tool to make a mark) through the paint
to bare metal. The paint should peel away
without chipping or flaking.
MIL-C-8 1706 and MIL-C-5541E specify test-
ing of wet paint adhesion according to Federal
Test Method Standard 141, Method 6301 [6].
Painted panels are immersed in distilled water
for 24 hours, then removed into ambient air.
Two parallel scribe marks, 1 in. apart, are
made through to bare metal using a sharp
knife. Adhesive tape is laid perpendicular over
the scribes and is removed immediately. If any
paint is removed as the tape is withdrawn, the
panel is given a fail ranking. If no paint is
removed, the panel is given a pass ranking.
1-10
The MIL-C-81706 performance requirements
for both qualification and quality conformance
inspection and the MIL-C-5541E process con-
trol performance requirements are identical.
Paint adhesion performance requirements are - ~~
summarized in Tables 1-5 and 1-6.
.
~~~
1.5 Test Results Summary __
This section provides an overview of the study
results, and serves as a reflection of the state
of the art. The information is presented in a
format that should facilitate general conclu-
sions about the degree to which chromium-
free alternatives are now able to be considered
as potential replacements for a range of appli-
cations and, conversely, about how much
remains to be done for other applications.
Results for corrosion resistance, contact elec-
trical resistance, and paint adhesion tests for
the individual alloys are presented graphically
in Figures 1-1 through 1-15.* In these figures,
coating suppliers and coatings are listed along
the vertical axis. The performance level is
indicated on the horizontal axis. Vertical lines
are drawn corresponding to the performance
levels required by the military specifications.
The figures indicate, at a glance, the distribu-
tion of performance levels represented in the
study, and the performance of the alternatives
and the control samples with respect to the
military specification levels. Comparing the
figures for a given test can also convey an
impression of the relative degree of difficulty
in finding alternatives for each of the various
alloy types.
1.5.1 Corrosion Resistance Test Results
Figures 1-1 through 1-5 summarize the results
of the corrosion resistance tests for each alloy. __
The summary data represented by the . ~~~
* These figures are included at the end of Section 1
Uss and disseminalon01 the inlormation contained in this
d w m ” are subjecf to renticlionson the copytight page.

horizontal bars show the performance of each
of the five panels tested for each coating. The
bar length corresponds to the number of hours
at which the panels would have failed the MIL
C-5541E criterion (greater than five spots per
panel). The coatings are listed in order of
decreasing average time per panel. (In this
summary, no distinction was made between
panels that failed at the maximum inspection
time, 1008 hours, and panels that were still
good at that time. The full results table in
Section 2 provides details.) Readers can use
these charts to judge both the overall perfor-
mance levels and the spread of values
observed for each coating.
1.5.2 Contact Electrical Resistance Test
Results
Figures 1-6 through 1-10 summarize the con-
tact electrical resistance values (in &/in.’)
obtained for each coating, with a separate
chart for each alloy. The values shown here
were for coatings that were tested before any
exposure to salt spray. Values were also mea-
sured after exposure, but the results are not
meaningful for comparison since all panels
were run to failure and thus were subjected to
different exposure times. The post-exposure
values are therefore not summarized here. See
Section 3 for further discussion.
Since the specification requires that measure-
ments fall below a maximum value, the coat-
ings have been listed in order of increasing
contact resistance. As with the corrosion
resistance test results, both an average value
and a spread can be read from the charts.
Ten measurements were made for each coat-
ing, and the high and low value discarded. The
following list is the key to the symbols used
on Figures 1-6 through 1-10.
Use and disseminational the Inlormationcontained in this
documentam subjea lo mstrichs on the mWri@l page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
+ A diamond indicates the average of the
eight remaining measurements.
x An “x” indicates high and low values.
- The horizontal line through the diamonds
and “x’s” indicates the measurement range.
I A tick mark to the right of the mean indi-
cates the standard deviation of the eight
measurements.
Values falling below 0.1 f l i n . * were
rounded up to 0.1 for presentation purposes.
(The full results table in Section 3 provides
details.)
1.5.3 Paint Adhesion Test Results
Figures 1-11 through 1-15 summarize the
paint adhesion measurements. Since both wet
and dry adhesion were measured, two charts
are presented for each alloy. Within each per-
formance rating of 0 to 5 (where 0 is the high-
est level of paint removal when the tape is
withdrawn and 5 is no removal), the coating
order is alphabetical by supplier. Section 4
provides the details on the rating system.
The vertical bar at rating 5 indicates that only
panels performing at level 5 would be consi-
dered acceptable according to the military
specifications.
1.6 General Observations
The results indicate both that much progress
has been made in finding chromium-free
alternative conversion coatings for aluminum
and that many challenges remain. On the one
hand, several of the coatings tested here are
already suitable candidates for evaluation as
replacements to chromium in a wide range of
applications. On the other hand, particularly in
the case of alloy 2024 and related aerospace
1-11
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
alloys, the altematives studied here provide
few options capable of approaching the most
stringent performance levels required by the
military specifications.
As discussed further in the following sections,
the testing carried out in conjunction with this
study was rather rigorous. Although the con-
trol samples (standard chromate conversion
coatings) performed reasonably well, none of
the control coatings on alloy 2024 successfully
passed all the requirements for MIL-C-5541E.
Those chromate conversion coatings that
passed the corrosion resistance criteria failed
the wet adhesion tests and vice versa. One of
the altemative coatings passed both the corro-
sion resistance and wet adhesion criteria for
alloy 2024, but did not meet the contact
electrical resistance standard.
On the positive side, using for example a less
stringent criterion, all test panels of two of the
chromium-free coatings survived at least 96
hours of salt spray exposure for both the 2024
and 7075 alloys, as did six of those coatings
for alloy 3003, and nine for alloy 6061. For
somewhat less demanding applications than
those covered by the military specifications, a
reasonable selection of chromium-free coat-
ings may already be available.
1-12
In many cases, the performance of at least
some of the panels with alternative coatings
was remarkably good. If the best-performing
panel among the five test panels for each coat-
ing is considered, rather than considering what -
amounts to the worst-performing panel (equi-
valent to the coating failing if any one of the
panels has more than five spots), a different __
picture emerges.
Two of the alternative coatings had individual
panels that survived at least 168 hours of salt
spray exposure for both the 2024 and 7075
alloys (one of the latter lasted through the
maximum 1008 hours of the test). For alloy
3003, six of the coatings had individual panels
that survived 168 hours; in fact, the best
panels of five of the coatings survived the
336-hour specification; two of them lasted
until the end of the test. Of nine coatings on
alloy 6061, for which the best panels survived
at least 168 hours, four met the 336-hour
standard; one of them lasted until the end of
the test. These coatings clearly indicate a po-
tential for becoming acceptable replacements
for even the most demanding applications.
What remains to be developed is consistency.
USB and dissemination c4 the inlormalion mnlainad in this
dacumsnl ace subject to raUticU~lson Me mpytight page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Sanchem SD

Parker: Alodine 600

Parker: Alodine 1200s

I
Turm: Alumimat 6788 e
Parker: Aiodine 2000D
I
Parker: Abdine 600 heavy

Circle-Prom: Almat 2000

I
I
Turm: 2438-281) I
I I
Sanchem: FP I I
I I
I I
Brent C h e m k L497260A I I
I I
I I
Parker: Abdine 2000 I I
I I
CircleProm: Almatl470 I I
I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: Alma13000 I I
I I
Sandia: Sanda 2 I I
I I
I I
Sandia: Sandia 1 I I
I I
Patdin: 19118 I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 1910C I I
I I
Patdin: 19108 I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 191OA I I
I I
I I
Lord: PainBble I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: A l m t 1500 I I
I I
I I
Circle-Prom: Almat 5000 I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: Almat4000 I I
I I
I I
Beh: Permbeat611 I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923X I I
I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923 I I
-I- .-

0 100
I
1200 300 I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1 0
I I Hours
168 336

Figure 1-1. N o y 356 Corrosion (Sa/t Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary

Use and dissemination of h e informationcontained in lhis 1-13

document are subiscf to “ M o n s on the mpydghl p a p .
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Parker: Alodine 600 heavy

-
Parker: Abdine 600

Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy P

I
Parker: Alodine 2000 I

Turw: Alumiwat6788 .II

1
Parker: Alodine 1200s I
I
Turw: 2438-28D I
I
I
Cirde-Prom: Alwat 2000 I I
I I
Circle-Prom: Alwat 1470 I I
I I
I I
Lord Nonpainkble I I
I I
Lord Painable I I
I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: Alwat4000 I I
I I
USC Ce-Mo 2024 I I
I I
I I
Sandia: Sandia 2 I I
I I
Sandia: Sandia 1 I I
I I
I I
Sanchem FP I I
I I
Patdin: 19118 I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 191OC I I
I I
Patdin: 1910B I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 191OA I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: Alma11500 I I
I I
I I
Cirde Prom: Alwa13000 I I
I I
I I
Cirde-Prom: Alwat5000 I I
I I
Beh: Permabeat611 I I
I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923X I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923 I I
I I
I I
Brent Chemmle L497260A I I
t t
0 100 ; 200 300 400 500
Hours
600 700 800 900 1000 1100
168 336

Figure 1-2. Alloy 2024 Corrosion(Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary

1-14 U s and disseminationd the informationcontained in this

document 8 9 subject lo wstrichs an the copyright page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Turm: Alumimat6788

Sandw Sandi 2

Parker: Alodine 600 heavy

Parker: Alod ne 1200s neavy

Parker. Alodine 1200s

Turm: 2438-281)

Cirde-Prom: Almat 4000

Circle-Prom: Almat2000

Parker: Alodine 2000

Circle-Prom: Alma13000

Lord: Nonpainhble

Sanchem: SD

Lord Painhble

Cirde-Prom: Almat 1470

Cirde-Prom: Almat 1500

Bulk E-CLPS 923):

I .
I
I
Sanda: Sandia 1 I
I
Cirde-Prom: Alma15000 I
I
I
Bulk E-CLPS 923 I
I
Sanchem FP I
I
I
Patdin: 19118 I
I
Padin: 191OC I
I
I
Patdin: 19108 I
I
Patdin: 191OA I
I
I
GM: GM 1 I
I
B e t Permb’eat611 I
L
I

o io0 i2oo 300 i 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
I I Hours
168 336

Figure 1-3. A//oy 3003 Corrosion (S8H Spmy) Resistance Test Results Summary

Use and dirreminsaon o( the lnbmtion contained in this 1-15

dm-t am subje.3 lo restriaions on the mpyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Turm: Alumimat 6788

Parker: Alodine 600

Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy

Parker: Alodine 1200s

Parker: Alodine 600 heavy

Lord Paineble

Sandia: Sandia 2

Brent C h e m t e L497260A
I
Parker: Alodine 2000

Circle-Prom: Alma14000
I
Turm: 2438-281)

Circle-Prom: Almat 3000

lord: Nonpaintlbls
I
I
Circle-Prom: Alma11470 I
I
I
Cirde-Prom: Almat 2000 I
I
Circle-Prom: Almat 1500 I
I
I
Sanchem FP I
I
Circle-Prom: Akoat 5000 I
I I
I I
USC Ce-Mo 6061 I I
I I
Beh: Permbeat611 I I
I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923X I I
I I
I I
Bulk: E-CLPS923 I I
I I
Sanda: Sandia 1 I I
I I
I I
Pak9in: iDi1B I I
I I
Patdin: 191OC I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 19108 I I
I I
Patdin: 191OA I I
I ~
I
0
0 100 j 200 300 j 400 500 600 700 800 900 1100
Hours
168 336 __

Figure 1-4. Alloy 6061 Corrosion(Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary

1-16 Use and dissemhabn of the i n l m l i m mtained in this

document are wbjm lo resldclim on lhe m~righl pap.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Turw: Alummat6788

Parker Alndine 600 heavy

Parker. Alodtne 600

Parker: Alodtne 1200s heavy

Parker Alodine 1200s

Parker. Alodine 2000

Turw: 2438-281)

Circle-Prosw: Alwat 1470 I

I
Circle-Prom: Alwat 4000 I
I
I
USC Ce-Mo 7075 I
I 1
Circle-Prom: Alwat 2000 I I
I I
I I
Lord Paintable I I
I I
Sandia: Sandia 2 I I
I I
I I
Lord: Nonpaintable I I
I I
Sandia: Sanda 1 1 I
I I
I I
Sanchem: FP I I
I I
Patdin: 19118 I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 191OC I I
I I
I I
Patdin: 19108 I I
I I
Patdin: 191OA I I
I I
I I
GM: GM 2 I I
I I
Circle-Prom: Alwat 1500 I I
I I
I I
Circle-Prom: Alwat 3000 I I
I I
Circle-Prom: Alwat 5000 I I
I I
I I
Beh: Permbeat611 I I
I I
Bulk: E-CLPS 923X I I
I I
I I
Bulk E-CLPS 923 I I
I I
Brent Chetrmte L497260A I I
I
- - ~
I
I I
0 100 I200 300 I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
I I
Hours
168 336

Figure 1-5. Alloy 7075 Corrosion(Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results Summary

Use and dissemination01 the informationmnlainedin this 1-17

drmmentare subject la m~lticbnsonthe wpytight page.
Nabnal Center for ManufacturingSciences

I
Bulk: E-CLPS 923) I
I
I
Bulk: E-CLPS 92: I
I
Lord: Paintablt I
I
I
Brent: Chemcote L4972601 I
I
I
Parker: Alodine 60C I
I
I
Sanchem: SI: I
I
Parker: Alodine 600 heavy

Patclin: 19101

Parker: Alodine 2000

Parker: Alodine 1200s

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 500C X L : x

r
I
Betz: Permatreat 61' X
I
* IX

I
Sandia: Sandia 1 X : tx
I
I
Turco: 2438-28D X I ; x
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 1470 X I
I
- : x

Patclin: 1910E
I
X ! -- I-X
I
Sanchem: FP X
I -- : x
I
Patciin: 191OC x i -
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 3000 X I
I
-
A
; x
I
Circle-Pmsco: Alcoat 2000

Sandia: Sandia 2

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 1500

Turco: Alumicoat6788

Parker: Alodine 2000D

Patciin: 19116 4I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 4000
,x, ,I ,,,, i

1.OE-1 1.OEtO 1.OEti 1.OEQ 1.OEt3

Figure 1-6. Alloy 356 Contact Elecblcal Resistance Test Results Summary
 Nalional Center for Manufacturing Sciences

I
Lord: Nonpaintable X
- C H X
I
Parker: Alodine 6CU -< -4
Bulk: E-CLPS 923

Sandia: Sandia 1 X-
X-
*
>*
I

I
Parker: Alodine 1200s X+
I
Parker: Alodine 600 heavy X*>
I
Bulk E-CLPS 923X I_
I
Brent: Chemcote L497260A
x+
I
Patclin: 19108 _cI
I
I
Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy :I
I
Sanchem: FP X- I
I
I
Betz: Permatreat 611 K-
I
Lord Paintable 4-I
Patclin: 191OC I
I
I
Patclin: 19116 I
I
Patclin: 191OA I
I
I
Circle-Prosco:Alcoat 2wO I
I
I
Circle-Pmsco:Alcoal 1470 X- I -X
I
Parker: Alodine 2wO I <
I
I
Circle-Prosw: Alcoat 5000 I X- t X
I
Circle-Prosco:Alcoat 3000 x+
- ix
I
Circle-Prom: Alwal 1500 I I X
I
I
USC: Ce-Mo 2024 I Y X
I
I

-
Circle-Pmsco:Alcoal4000 X- C I X
I
I
Sandia: Sandia 2 I X- -tt-
I
I
Turco: Alumiwat 6788 I
I
Turw: 2438-280 I -c
_I_ d __. w_y

1.OE-1 1.OEtO 1.OEtl 1.OEt2 1.OEt3 1.OEt4 1.OEt5

Hgum 1-7. Alloy 2024 Contact Electrical Resistance Test Results Summaw
National Center for Manufaduring Sciences

I
Betz: Permatreat 611 I
1 I
Brent: Chemcote L497260A X
- . I
. I
I
Parker: Alodine 1200s X- I
I
I
Patclin: 19108 X- 'X I
I
Parker: Alodine 600 heavy X-
K I
I
Circle-Prom: Alcoat 5000 X- # I
I
Bulk: E-CLPS 923X X- t X I
I
Circle.Prom: Alcoat 1500 X K I

Lord: Nonpaintable

Parker: Alodine 600

X +++ I

I
Lord: Paintable u x I
I
Circle-Pmsco: Alcoat 1470
-F I
Patclin: 191OC X-W I
I
Turco: 2438-28D X.
4 x
I
Patclin: 191OA --twX
I
Circle-Prom: Alcoat 3000 4 I
Parker: Alodine 2000
x?
I
Sanchem: SD X-r
I
Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy X- I
I
I
Bulk: E-CLPS 923 I x.
I
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 2000 I
I
Sanchem: FP I
I
I>
-
Patclin: 19118
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 4MM I ct:
I
I
G M GM 1 I
I
Sandia: Sandia 1 I -CI
I
I
Sandia: Sandia 2 I
I
Turco: Alumicoat 6788

1.OE-1
-
1.OEt0
I
I

1.OEti
-
1.OEt2 1.OEt3
X
I_

1.OEt4 1.OEt5

Figure f-8. Alloy 3003 Contact ElecMcal Resistance Test Results Summary
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

7I
Lord: Nonpainlable x*x I

t
Lord: Paintabie x-x
I
I
I
t I

I
Bulk E-CLPS 923X -X I
I
I
Parker: Aiodine 600 heavy X-WX I
I
I
Brent: Chemcole L497260A XUX I
I
Parker: Alodine 1200s -X I
J I
I
Sandia: Sandia 1 X-+X I
I
I
Betz: Permatreat 611 X
- I
I
Parker: Aiodine 600 X-b- I
I
I
Bulk ECLPS 923 X+ X I
I
Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy X- X I
I
I
Sanchem: FP > * I
I
I
Turco: 2438-28D * : I
I
USC: Ce-Mo 6061 X- +tXI
I
Palclin: 19106 X
- w x I
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 5033 -I I
Parker: Alodine 2000 (+IX I
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 2000
I
4- I
Patciin: 191OC x+
I
Palciin: 1910A __t
I
Palclin: 19116 X-b
I
Sandia: Sandia 2 X k
I
I
Circle-Prosco: Aicoat 1500 o(
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 3000 x Ik X

Circle-Prosco: Alcoal 1470 r +X

I
I
Turco: Aiumicoal6768 I
I
I
Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 4000 I
YY IY

1.OE-1 1.OEtO 1.OEt1 1.OEt2 1.OEt3 1.OEt4 1.OEt5

Figutu f-9, Al/oy 606f Contact Elecblcal Reslstance Test Results Summary
 Namnal Canter for Manufacturing Sciences

Lord Nonpaintable I x-
Parker: Alodine 1200s heavy X- +tX

Lord Paintabie

Sandia: Sandia 1

Brent: Chemcote L497260A

X- qx I I

(3;
:+X

Bulk E-CLPS 923):

I
Parker: Alodine 600
i
Bulk: E-CLPS 923

Parker: Alodine 600 heavy

Patclin: 19108

Sanchem: FP Ix
I
Patclin: 191OC I x-
I

f
USC Ce-Mo 7075

Parker: Alodine 1200s

Patclin: 1910A

Betz: Permatreat 61 1

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 4000 xX

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 5WO

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat Zoo0 FX

I
I
Turco: Alumicoat 6788 X- 'X

G M GM 2 X- -X

!1
Patclin: 19118 t X

Turco: 2438.281) f X

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 1470 tx

Circle-Prosco: Alcoat 1500 X- <
Parker: Alodine 2000 I x ct)
I
I
Circle.Prosco: Alcoat 3000 I X
-
I
Sandia: Sandia 2 I x- -
L-- y_

1.OE-1 1.OEtO 1.OEtl 1.OEt2 1.OEt3 1.OE4 1.OEt5 1.OEt6 1.OEt7

Figure 1-10. AUoy 7075 Contact ElecfricalResistance Test Results Summary

1-22 usa and dbmlnaUon of me lnforma~onm m k d in mia

document are suwd to resmcdons on ths m m h t p a p .
Brent: Chemmte L49726oA
Brent: Chemcde L497260A
Bulk E-CLPS 523
Bulk E-CLPS 923
Parker: Nadine 1200s
Parker: Alodine 1200s
Parker: Nodine WO
Parker: W i n e 2WOD
Parker: Akdine €03 h e w Parker: Nodine €03
Parker: Alodine WO heavy

Beh: Permatreat 611

Bulk E-CLPS 923X

C i r d e - P m : Am
l t Bee: Permatreat 611
C i r d e - P m : Almet Turm: Alumiwai 67
Bulk: E-CLPS 923X
CirdePmsw: Nwat 3

arde-Pmsco: Nwat 5
Parker: Alodine 2000

Cirde-Prom: Alma! 15W CircbPrasm: Alwat 1500

Parker: Nadine 2woO Cirde-Pmm: Almat 4WO

CirdeProm: Alma1 1470 Sandia: Sandia 2

arde-Prom: Alwat 2wO Circle.P": b a t 1470

CirdeProsm: Almat 3wo Cirde-Pmsm: Almat 2wO

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a) Dry Adhesion b) WetAdhesion

figure f-ff. A/by 356 Paint Adhedon Test Resub Summary

I I l i !
 Bek: Penatreat 611 Bek: Penatreat 611

Brent: Chemwte L49726CA Brent: Chemwte L4972WA

Bulk: E-CLPS 923 Bulk E-CLPS 923X

Bulk: E-CLPS 923): Parker: Alcdine i2wS

CirdePmsco: Alwat 3w0 Parker: Acdine 2wO

Circle-Prom: Alwat 5 w 0 Palciin: 191OC

Parker: Acdine 2wO Turm: Alumiwat 6788

Parker: Alcdne 600 heavy Bulk E-CLPS 923

Patdin: 191OA C i r d e P m : Alwat 3wO

Sanchem: FP Cirde-Prosco: M a l 4w0

Turm: Numima16788 Parker. Alodine 1200s heavy

circle-Prom: Alwat 15W Parker: Alodine MXI

Lord: NonpaintaMe Parker: Alcdine 600 heavy

Parker: Alcdne 600 Patdin: 191OA

CirdoProsw: Alwat4Ca Patdin: 19108

Lord: Paintable S a m : FP

Parker: Alcdine 12wS heavy Cirde-Pm: Am

l t 1500

Patclin: 19108 Circle-Pmw: Alwal5ooo

Patdin: 19116 Sandia: Sandia 1

Sandia: Sandia 1 Sandia: Sandia 2

Sandia:Sandia 2 USC: Ce-MOM24

Turw: 2438-28D Patdin: 19116

Parker. Alcdne 12ocS C i r c l e - P m : Almat 1470

Patclin: 191M: Cirde-Pmm: Alwat2ooo

USC CeMo 2M4 Lord: Nanpaintable

Cirde-Prww. Alma 1470 Lord: Paintable

CirdePm: Alwat 2wO Turcu: 249828D

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a) DryAdhesion b) Wet Adhesion

Figum 142. Alloy 202.4 PaintAdheslon Test Results Summary

I I
 Beh:Permatreat 611 Belz: Permatreat 611

Brent: Chemwte L4972WA Bulk: E-CLPS 923):

Bulk: E-CLPS 923 GM: GM 1

Bulk E-CLPS 923X r'arker: Alodine 120% heavy

Cirde-Prmm: Alwat 15M) Patdin: 191%

Cirde-Pmm:Alcoat 5OW Sanchem:FP

GM: GM F67t Turw: Alumimat 6788

Parker. Alcdine Zoo0 Bulk E-CLPS 923

Parker. Alodine €03 CirdePrmm: Alcoat 3wo

Parker: Alcdine €00heavy C i r d e P m : Alcoat 5wo

Parker: Alcdine 12wS
Patdin: 191OA
Sanchem: FP Parker Alcdine 2ooo
Parker: Alcdine 6w
Sanchem:SD
Turw: Alumimat 6788 Parker Alcdine 603 heavy

CirdePrmm: AlwaI3wo Patdin: 191OA

Cirde-Prosw: Alwat 4ooo Patdin: 19106

Lord: Paintable
Sanchem:SD
Brent: Chemwte L4972WA
Parker Alcdine 12M)s
CirdePrOsm: Alwat
Patdin: 191OC
Sandia: Sandia 1
Patdin: 1911B
Lord: Nonpaintable Sandia: Sandia 2
C i r d e - P m : Almat 1470
Parker: Alcdne 120% heavy
Patdin: 19106 C i r d e P m : Aimat 15W
Circle-Prosco: Alwat 2wO
Turm: 2438-28D
Lord: Nonpaintable
Cirde-Prosw: Aknat 1470
Lord: Paintable
CirdeProsm: Almat 2wO
Patdin: 19116
Sandia: Sandia 1
Sandia: Sandia 2 Turw: 2438280
0 1 2 3 4 ' 5
0 1 2 3 4 5

a) Dry Adhesion b) Wet Adhesion

Figure 143. Alby 3003 Paint Adhesion Test Resub Summary
 Brent: Chemwle L497260A Bee: Permatreat 611
Bulk E-CLPS 923X Bulk: E-CLPS 923
CirdeProsw: Alwat 1503 CirdePmsm: Alcoal3OOO

Cirde-Prosw: Alma1 3 w 0 Parker: Alodine 12Ws heavy

Lord: Paintable Parker: Nadine 6w

P a k r Nadine 12Ws heavy Sanchem: FP

Patdin: 191OA Turw: Alumimt 6788
Patclin: 191OC USC CeMo 6061
Tum: Numimal 6788 Brent Chemwie L4972WA
Bulk: E-CLPS 923 Parker: Nodine 12Ws

Circle-Prmco: Almt 5wo Palker: Alodine MK) heavy

Parker: Ncdine 2wO Patdin: 191OA
Parker: Alodne 6W Patdin: 191M:
Parker: Alodine 6W heavy Sandia: Sandia 1
Paidin: 19118 Bulk: E-CLPS 923X
Sanchem: FP CirdeProsm: Alma1 1503

Flew Permatreat 611 Cirde-Pmsm: Alwat 4 w 0

CirdeProsm: Almi 4x4 Cirde-P”: Almat 5wo
Lord: Nonpaintable Parker: Alodine 2wO
Parker: Alodine 12Ws Sandia: Sandia 2
Patclin: 19106 Paldin: 19118
Sandia: Sandia 1 Patciin: 19108
USC CeMo 6061 CirdePmsm: Alma1 1470
Sand$: Sandia 2 CirdePmsm: A l m l
Cirde-Prosw: Alma1 1470 Lord: Nonpainlable
Cirde-Pmsw: Alwat 2wO Lord: Paintable
Turw: 2438.281) Turw: 2&28D
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a) Dry Adhesion b) Wet Adheinn

F/gure 1-14.Alloy 6061 Paint Adhesion Test Results Summary

II i
I !
 BeQ: Permatreat 611 Bee:Permatreal 611
Brent Chemmte L497mA Brent: Chemmte L4972EQA
Bulk: EGLPS 923 Bulk E-CLPS 923X
Bulk: E-CLPS 923X Cirde-Prmm: Alwat 3wo
CirdePram: Almt 3wo GM: GM 2
Cirde-Pm: A d 5wO Paker: Alcdine 1200s
Parker: Alodlne 2wO Parker. Alodine 1200s heavy
Parker: Alodne 6w Parker: Nadine €03heavy
Patdin: 191OA Sanchem: FP
Sanchem:FP T u r m A l u m i d 6788
Turw: Aiumimat 6788 USC Ce-Mo 7075
Circle-Prom: Alwat 1sM) Parker: Alodlne
C i r d e - P m : Aknat 4ooo Patdin: 191OB
Lwd: PaintaMe Patdin: 1 9 1 E

Parker: Alcdine 6w heavy Bulk EGLPS 923

Sandia: Sanda 1 c i r d e - P m : Alwat 4Mx)

Parker: Alcdine 1200s heavy Ci&Pm: Alwat 5wO

Paldin: l9lOB Parker: Alcdine 2wO
Patdin: 191OC Patdin: 191OA

Patdin: 19116 Patdin: 19116

Parker: Alcdine 1200s Sandia: Sandia 1

Sandia: Sandia 2 Sandia: Sandia 2

USC WMo 7075 Circle-Prmm: Alwat 15W

GM: GM 2 Circle-Pram: Alma1 1470

Lord: Ncnpairdable Cirde-Prmm: Alma1 2wO

cirde-Prmw: Alwat 1470 Lord: Nonpaimatre

Circle-Prosw: Aicoat 2ooo Lord: Paintable

Turw: 2438.280 Turw: 2438-26D

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

a) Dry Adhesion b) Wet Adhesion

Figure 1-15. Alby 7075 Paint Adhesion TestRerunt Summary

I 1
I-

The salt spray corrosion test has the virtue of
being a direct test of corrosion resistance
under parameters that approximate a plausible
set of real-world conditions. However, it has
its share of problems. Some are discussed in
the test method itself (ASTM B 117-90, Sec-
tion X2). Although the test conditions provide
a fair simulation of a marine environment, the
same relative performance cannot be guaran-
teed under other conditions. The first para-
graph of ASTM B117 states:
... It should be noted that there is seldom a
direct relation between salt spray (fog) resist-
ance and resistance to corrosion in other media,
because the chemistry of the reactions, includ-
ing the formation of films and their protective
value, frequently varies greatly with the precise
conditions encountered.[2]
, Resultsmay also depend on the quality of the
base alloy, the coating thickness, and a host of
other variables.
Apart from the problems cited in the test
method, practical experience has indicated a
variety of additional disadvantages. The test
takes a long time, making it unsuitable for
rapid screening. Test chambers vary, and even
within a single chamber, uniform conditions
for all positions is notoriously difficult to
achieve. Nevertheless, for all its shortcomings,
salt spray testing remains one of the most
widely used methods for comparing coating
performance.
2.1 Test Conditions and Procedure
In designing the experimental protocol to be
followed in this study, project participants at-
tempted to do everything possible to maximize
the intercomparability of coatings. Neverthe-
less, inevitable compromises had to be made.
Use and disseminationof the informaam contained in this
document are subiect to rsstriclonr on the copyright page
National Center far ManulacturingSciences
Two test chambers, each with a capacity of
400 panels, were available for the study. The
chambers are located at Texas Instruments’
Lemmon Avenue facility in Dallas, Texas. To
minimize interchamber variability, all panels
of a given alloy were to be tested in the same
chamber. Ultimately, the number of coated
test panels submitted exceeded the capacity of
these chambers, and a third chamber was
needed. A chamber located at a different TI
facility, in Sherman, Texas, was used. The
panels tested at the Sheman facility were
those samples that arrived last from the
coating suppliers.
To assist in evaluating the uniformity of the
test chambers, control samples were distri-
buted randomly throughout the chambers. For
control samples, Parker, the coating supplier,
provided panels coated with two typical chro-
mium conversion coatings, Alodine 600 and
Alodine 1200s, for each alloy. When it became
necessary to use the Sherman facility chamber,
additional control samples were prepared by
TI personnel. Using their normal practice for
preparing control samples, they coated test
panels cut from stock samples of each of the
four sheet alloys with the commercially avail-
able Alodine 600 coating. They then labeled
these additional control samples with the alloy
number followed by Roman numerals I
through V (for example, 2024IV) or by letters
A through E (for example, 7075D).
To provide the most information from this
testing, project participants decided to modify
the MIL-C-81706 test procedure. Rather than
exposing samples for a specified number of
hours and recording only whether a given
sample passed or failed, TI personnel ran all
samples to failure (to a maximum of
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
1008 hours, i.e., six weeks), with frequent
inspections to determine the progress of each
sample. Inspectors recorded the number of
corrosion spots appearing on each panel at
each inspection (see details below). In addi-
tion, the position of each panel in its chamber
was recorded (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The
inspectors returned each panel to the same
chamber location after each examination.
The advantage of this modification of the test
procedure is that a wealth of information is
thereby made available. The reader may use
the data not only to obtain an overall impres-
sion of the performance of a given coating on
a given alloy, but also to obtain a sense for the
degree of variability across the five test panels
of each coating and alloy combination, as well
as the rapidity with which corrosion proceeded
on each panel once it had begun.
The disadvantage of this modification is that
the results may not be directly comparable to
those of testing that had been done strictly
according to MIL-C-81706. In particular, since
the chamber was opened periodically and the
samples removed for inspection, the test was
effectively a cyclic exposure to salt spray, inter-
spersed with periods of exposure to dry air.
As specified in ASTM B 117, a neutral solu-
tion of 5% salt was used for the spray mixture.
Two inspectors working together carried out
the panel examinations. Prior to examining the
test samples, they “pre-calibrated” their judg-
ments by examining separate Alodine control
panels (previously prepared by TI and pro-
cessed in the TI chambers). This initial “cali-
bration” consisted of both inspectors agreeing
on the amount of corrosion that constituted the
various pasdfail criteria.
Each panel was run to failure or to 1008 hours
(42 days), whichever occurred first, and in-
spected at intervals of 2448.96, 168,240,336,
2-2
504,672,840, and 1008 hours (1,2,4,7, 10,
14,21,28,35, and 42 days). At each interval,
the inspectors recorded the degree of corrosion
observed on each panel. Inspection and quality
criteria followed MLC-5541E specifications -
for spot size and quantity. The inspectors had
to agree on all determinations of “failure,”
defined as the presence of more than five spots __
per individual panel (a modified MIL-C-
5541E criterion). The ranking and degree of
corrosion for the padfail criteria were:
Pass:
PO = no spots
P1 = 1 spot
P2 = 2 spots
P3 = 3 spots
P4 = 4 spots
P5 = 5 spots
Fail:
F1 = 6 to 50 spots
F2 > 50 spots to 33% corroded
F3 = 33 to 74% corroded
F4 = 75 to 99% corroded
F5 = 100% corroded
The inspectors documented borderline failures
and retumed the panels to the chamber until
failure was certain. Because the condition of
each panel was recorded at each inspection
interval, the reader may compare corrosion
performance against either the MIL-C-8 1706
qualification and quality conformance require-
ments or against the MIL-C-5541E process
control requirements.
Each day, the inspectors logged all chamber
conditions and other data required by ASTM ~~
B 117. All inspection data were recorded by
panel serial number, since the inspectors were
not told the identity of the coatings until the -
testing had been completed. In addition, the ~~
length of time for which salt spray was inter-
rupted was recorded for each inspection.
Use and dissemina#on01 Ihe inlormalioncontainedin this
dmmant am subject to restrictionsan the copyright page.
 NationalCenter for Manulacluring Sciences

Back

30 in

Front ....

29 in.
Figute 2-1. Panel Positions in Lemmon Avenue Salt Spray Test Chamber 1 (viewed down from top of chamber)
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

....
Back

30 in.

Front

Figure 2-2. Panel Positions in Lemmon Avenue Salt Spray Test Chamber 2 (viewed down from top of chamber)

2-4 Use and dissaminakm ol lhe intonaUar m h i n e d in lhis

documen1are subjen lo mSltiCfiarsMme mpytighl pap.

2.2 Observations and Discussion
A detailed compilation of the corrosion (salt
spray) resistance test results of this study is
given in Table 2- 1.
The results show a wide range of performance
among the alternative coatings as well as some
variation in the performance of standard chro-
mium coatings. A number of the test panels,
including most but not all of the control panels,
exceeded the minimum 168-hour salt spray
requirements of MIL-C-5541E (no more than
five spots per panel). However, none of the
coatings, including the controls, passed the cor-
rosion resistance qualification test for materi-
als conforming to MIL-C-81706 (that is, no
spots at all during 336 hours of salt spray tests).
As noted previously, chamber conditions vary,
both within and among chambers. Therefore,
results of salt spray testing are not generally
expected to be exactly repeatable. Some cham-
bers appear to be “harder” than others. Such
effects might be due to slight differences in
the size of droplets from the spray nozzles
between one chamber and the next, or to other
minor differences, the effects of which mani-
fest themselves during long exposures. In
reviewing the data from these tests, including
the control panel performance, some partici-
Use and disseminationd the intormatim contained in lhis
document am subjed lo nstticlons M the copytight P a p .
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
pants concluded that the TI chambers subject
the panels to relatively harsh conditions. The
cyclic nature of the exposure resulting from
the frequent inspections may also have in-
creased the level of harshness. This relative
harshness is probably just as well for present
purposes, since it has the result of providing a
more rigorous, and perhaps more meaningful,
test regime. However, it also implies that
readers should pay more attention to relative
than absolute performance in this test series,
and should not rule out coatings for specific
applications because they may not meet
preconceived expectations.
In a few cases, the number of spots recorded
for a particular panel decreased from one in-
spection to the next. This was the actual obser-
vation of two experienced inspectors working
together and being in agreement. Whether the
spots somehow actually became less visible or
whether this simply indicates an unavoidable
uncertainty in judgment as to what constitutes
a spot cannot be determined. It should be
noted that the corrosion spots associated with
some of the alternative coatings did not have
the distinctive tail characteristic of chromate
conversion coatings. This somewhat unfami-
liar appearance may account for some of the
uncertainty. The situation was rare enough that
the overall conclusions would not be affected.
2-5
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion (Salt Spray) Resistance Test Results

Peiformance Key:
Pass Fail
PO = no spots F1 = 6 to 50 spots
P1 = 1 spot F2 > 50 spots to 33% corroded
P2 = 2 spots F3 = 33 to 74% corroded
P3 = 3 spots F4 = 75 to 99% corroded
P4 = 4 spots F5 = 100% corroded
P5 = 5 spots

2-6 Use and disseminationof the informationcontained in this

document am subject lo reslriclimson the wpynght page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

~ ~ ~~~~

Uw and disseminationol the i n l m t i o n contained in this 2-7

document 818subienla restricsw1s on the mpylight page.
NationalCenter for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

~

Coater

slclin

-
inchem

India

'rco

Use and disreminabon d Iha intombon conmined in this

dmument are subject to re" on Ihe mpynghl Pags.
National Center tor Manuladuring Sciences
 National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table2-1. Corrosion Results (wntinued)

arker

2-10 USBand diswminationd the infonation conlainedin mis

document are subien Io resl&ions on the mpyright page.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrusion Results (continued)

2-1 1
National Center for Manuladuring Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (wntinued)

new set from our thicker stock.

2-i2
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

Coating highly spotty due lop

cessing at Circle-Prosco.Paneis
will probably perlorm as weii as
panels 34273432,but some
properties (e.g., corrosion pro-

Use and disseminationd the inlomalion cmlained in this 2-13

dmmenl am aubjen lo restrictionson the copyright page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

2-14 Us0 and disseminationd the informationcontained in his

document are subjscl lo restriclionson be copyright page.
 National Cenler lor Manufacturing Sciences

U s and dwmination d Ihe inlmna6on mntained in vlis 2-15

drmmenl am sublea 10 msldclkm on Iha mpyriml page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

at Circle-Prosco. Should be ok,

al Circle-Prosco. Should be ok,

2-16 U s and disseminalon d lhs inlmUmmnmined in lhis

dccunmnl am SULW n mlricUmson the mwigMpage.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

Use and dissemination01 lhe informationcontained in this 2-17

document are subject to reariclians on the copyright page.
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

Use and disseminationof the informationcontained in this

document are subiea Io mttidions on u1e wpytight page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

2-19
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

2-20 Use and disseminabn d the informalon mnlainsd in this

documentare subjea io restrictions on ths mwrighi page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Use and disseminatimof he inlamation containedin his 2-21

doeumenl81.9subject lo resttinionsan the capyli@7lpage.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 2-1. Corrosion Results (continued)

2-22 Use and disseminabn of he informationconlainedin this

d w m e n t are SUM& lo restrictionson the copyrightpage.

3. Contact Electrical Resistance Tests
Contact electrical resistance becomes an issue
when items such as electronic components are
mounted on a coated part. If the part is a hous-
ing or a chassis, a connector or a connector
seat, or a similar unit for which reliable elec-
trical connection or adequate grounding is
essential, the coating cannot interfere with that
requirement. Contact electrical resistance test-
ing ensures that a coating will not present a
problem of this type.
Military specifications MIL-C-5541E, “Che-
mical Conversion Coatings on Aluminum and
Aluminum Alloys,” [3] and MIL-C-81706,
“Chemical Conversion Materials For Coating
Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” [ 5 ] require
contact electrical resistance testing both on
coatings as applied and on coatings after expo-
sure to salt spray for 168 hours.
For this study, the contact electrical resistance
of the as-applied (pre salt spray) coatings was
measured in a manner consistent with the
military specifications. However, the post-salt
spray measurements were performed under a
modification of the specifications. Because the
test panels were exposed to salt spray until
failure, rather than for a specified time (see
Section 2.1). the post-salt spray measurements
were performed on panels with a wide range
of exposure times. Therefore, although the
results provide information about the contact
resistance behavior of a particular coating
when exposed to salt spray, they should not be
used to compare one panel with another, or to
infer results expected under the standard test
procedure where exposure times are the same.
3.1 Test Procedure
Sandia National Laboratories conducted the
contact electrical resistance tests for this study.
Sandia received one panel of each alloy for
USEand dirseminallionof the i n l o m l i w mntained in this
drmnmnl am subied lo mu11cbonsM Ita w+yd@~lpage
L L 3 3 1 a - P4f
National Center for ManufacturingSciences
each coating for the pre salt spray measure-
ments. These panels were not used subse-
quently for the corrosion resistance or paint
adhesion tests. However, unused portions of
these panels were provided to Rockwell for
electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
testing (see Subsection 1.4.2).
Sandia developed the apparatus and detailed
test procedures used for this study to provide
measurements consistent with MIL-(2-554 1E
and MIL-C-8 1706 requirements. Test person-
nel used a Chatillon USTM load frame with a
500-lb load cell and a Keithley Model 580
Micro-ohmmeter (accurate to 0.00011R) with
model 5806 test leads. Two copper electrode
platens, each 1 in?, were also fabricated. The
surface of the electrodes was mill finished and
then polished to a mirror finish. The electrodes
gave a resistance reading of less than 1 @2
when polished and cleaned with methyl
alcohol.
The test personnel made contact electrical
resistance measurements on each panel in 10
locations by impinging the electrodes onto the
coated panel surface under a 200-lb load [7].
The highest and lowest of the 10 measure-
ments were eliminated, and the remaining 8
were used to determine an average contact
electrical resistance value for the panel.
The general test procedure was as follows [E]:
1. The load frame was configured for a direct
reading of load on the “Hi Load” scale. The
ohmmeter was zeroed when no load was
applied.
2. A calibration check was performed periodi-
cally to verify the zero calibration under
load and to confirm that the electrode
surfaces remained smooth and clean. To
3-1
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
conduct this check, the ohmmeter was set
to the 200-pQ range, the test leads were
connected to the upper and lower elec-
trodes without a test panel between them.
A 200-lb force was then applied, and a
reading taken to confirm zero resistance.
3 . A small corner of each panel was cleaned
with an abrasive on both the front and back
to remove the coating and provide the clip
lead a good connection to the alloy.
4. The test panel was mounted in the frame
between the electrodes so that the top
electrode was located over the first area of
the 10 areas to be tested.
5. A 200-lb (25 lb) force was applied. One
test lead was connected to the upper elec-
trode, and another lead connected to the
cleaned area of the test panel.
6. The reading was recorded on the test panel
data sheet.
Steps 4 to 6 were repeated for each of the
remaining locations on the test panel.
3.2 Observations and Discussion
Tables 3-1 and 3-2, for pre and post salt spray
respectively, list the mean, the minimum and
maximum readings, and the standard deviation
of the 8 contact electrical resistance measure-
ments retained for each panel (after omitting
the highest and lowest of the 10 readings
taken).
3-2
In some instances, unexpectedly high resist-
ance values were observed. In the post salt
spray data, these high values can be ascribed
to the salt exposure procedure, wherein all
panels were run to failure before being mea-
sured. The data from the pre salt spray mea-
surements on alloy 7075 also appeared to be
anomalously high, with no immediate expla- __
nation. To ensure that a systematic error in the
measurement protocol was not contributing to
the high readings, procedures were reviewed
and a second set of measurements collected.
These latter values were substantially identi-
cal, to within experimental error, with those
obtained in the first set. Thus, these high read-
ings are believed to be accurate. (Table 3-1
presents the second set of results.)
In retrospect, a possible explanation for the
high readings on alloy 7075 may be related to
its relatively high content of magnesium and
zinc. (See Table 1-1 for the nominal composi-
tions of each of the alloys used in this study).
If the coating process used on the test panels
produced an accumulation of zinc and magne-
sium oxides on the panel surfaces, high
contact resistance readings would be plausible.
Such high readings might not ordinarily be
observed, since the contact electrical
resistance test is normally conducted on the
2024 and 6061 alloys and not on alloy 7075.
This effect might only become evident in
systematic studies using a range of alloys such
as the study conducted under this project.
Use and disseminalh ol the inlormalim conlainEd in I S
document are subjwl Io reslrldl~son Iha mwdsht Paw.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 3-1. Contact Electrical Resistance Pre Salt Spray Test Results

Use and m i n a l i o n 01 the inlomtim contained in his 3-3

document ant subjm to maricliono on the copyright page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 3-7.Pre Salt Spray Results (continued)

3-4 Use and diwmination of he inlormalioncontained in this

documentare rubieet to resldclons on the wpyright page.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 3-1. Pre Salt Spray Results (continued)

* UTRC note: Water stained.

3-5
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 3-1. Pre Salt Spray Results (continued)

I Alumicoat6788 15150 I 737 I 22.5 I 2,710 I 999

USC I Ce-Mo 7075 15066 I 66.0 8.50 226 73.2

3-6 Use and dismlnaHon d lhe inlomtim containedin lhis

docvmentuesubiecltore~riclionsonthecopyri(lhtpage.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 3-2.Contact Electrical Resistance Post Salt Spray Test Results

‘An asterisk following a panel number indicates that a note relevant to that panel is listed in Table 2-1, last column.

Use and dissemination of the inlamlion conlainadin this 3-7

document are suuea to reslriclions on the mpytight page
National Center for Manufactunng Sciences

Table 3-2.Post Salt Spray Results (continued)

Brent Chemwte L497260 1037 75.5 8.62 184 I 69.6

Bulk E-CLPS 923 1457 8.47 1.73 29.1 9.10
E-CLPS 923X 1073 6.78 1.91 12.8 I 3.60

‘An asterisk following a panel number indicates that a note relevant to that panel is listed in Table 2-1, last d u m n .

3-8 Use and dissemination01 the inlormalionmtained in this

dwumsnt are rubjsct to restrictionson the copyright page.
 National Center lor Manulacluring Sciences

Table 3-2.Post Salt Spray Results (continued)

'An asterisk following a panel number indicates that a note relevant to that panel is listed in Table 2' .1, last column

3-9
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 3-2.Post Sal Spray Results (continued)

3-10 Use and disssminalon01 the informalonwnlained in this

document are subjea to resttictionscn the mwtightpage.

4. Paint Adhesion Tests
Not all applications require that a coated part
be painted. For those applications that do,
paint adhesion to the coated surface becomes
an important consideration. But why coat a
part that is to be painted? The paint will pro-
vide corrosion protection by itself. Is this
merely redundancy? In fact, painting over con-
version coatings can provide a useful synergy.
A paint layer functions primarily as a barrier,
preventing corrosive media from contacting
the metal surface. However, paint is suscept-
ible to scratching, and once the barrier is
breached, the metal becomes vulnerable. The
standard chromium conversion coating affords
some measure of chemical protection even in
the vicinity of scratches. Furthermore, as
pointed out in MIL-C-5541E, Class 3 chemi-
cal conversion coatings (relatively thin, elec-
trically conductive coatings) will improve
paint adhesion in areas surrounding electrical
contacts.
Several approaches are currently used to gauge
the quality of paint adhesion under various
conditions.
MIL-C-8 1706 specifies that paint adhesion
testing is to be conducted per Federal Test
Method Standard 141, which describes two
test methods:
0 Method 6304, the “knife” method is used on
dry panels. A ribbon of paint is cut from the
surface to ascertain whether the adhesive
force holding the paint to the surface ex-
ceeds the cohesive force holding the paint to
itself. To pass, the paint must not flake or
separate beyond the cut.
e Method 6301, the “tape” method is used for
wet adhesion tests (see Subsection 1.4.3.3).
In this procedure, test panels are immersed
in distilled water, removed, and dried. With-
Use and disseminationof he inlomtion Motained in this
drmmtnt 818 subisn to restrictions on the copyright pug0
National Center for ManufacturingSciences
in 1 minute of removal, two parallel scribe
marks are made and an adhesive tape ap-
plied across them. To pass, no paint separa-
tion may occur between coats or from the
panel surface when the tape is removed.
MIL-C-5541E also refers to Federal Test
Method Standard 141, Method 6301 for wet
adhesion tests. However, it does not contain
any dry test procedures.
ASTM D-3359, “Standard Test Methods for
Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test,” specifies
two methods, A and B. Unlike the simple
pasdfail criteria in the military specification,
these methods use a rating scale of 5 to 0, as
shown in Table 4-1, that represent the amount
of paint removed.
In Method A, used for wet adhesion tests, an
x-shaped scribe mark is made, and tape is
applied over the scribe and removed. The
repeatability* of this method is 1 rating
level; reproducibility** is 1.5 rating levels.
e In Method B, used for dry adhesion tests,
the panel is scribed with multiple cross-
hatched lines, and tape is applied over the
crosshatch and removed. Paint adhesion is
also rated on the 5 to 0 scale. The repeatabi-
lity of this method is 1 rating level; reprodu-
cibility is 2 rating levels.
Project participants reviewed these approaches,
and selected the combination of methods that
would provide the greatest amount of useful
information.
* The expected difference in rating level when the test
is repeated in the same laboratory by the same tech-
nician.
**The expected difference in rating level when the test
is reproduced in a different laboratory.
4-1
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 4-1. Paint Adhesion Rating

- System,
. Based on ASTM D-3359, With Modifications
Rating I Description of Coating After Tape Removal
MRthQd A -Wet Adhesion

4 I Trace peeling or removal along scribes.

3 I Jagged removal along scribes up to 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) on either side.
2 I Jaggea remova along most 01 the scribes up to 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) on either side.
1 I Remova. from most 01 the area between tne scribes Lnder tne tape
0 1 Removal beyond the area of the scrims.
Method B -Ow Adhmion
5 I Edges of CAS are completely smooth none of the squares of tne crossnatcn Ian ce IS detacned.
4 I Sma I flaKes of the coating are detached at intersections; less than 50. of the area s aflectea.
3 I Small IlaKes of the coatina are detached along- edges
I - and at intersections 01 cuts. Tne area affected is 5 to
15% of the lattice.
2 Coating has flaked along the edges and on pafts of the squares. The area affected is 15 to 35% of the lattice.
1 Coating has flaked along the edges of the cuts in large ribbons and whole squares have detached. The area
affected is 35 to 65% of the lattice.
0 Flaking and delamination are worse than rating 1.

The combinations of test procedure and rating 4.1 Test Procedure

method selected for this study were as follows:
Dry adhesion testing
- Procedure: ASTM D-3359 Method B
- Ratings: ASTM D-3359 Method B
Wet adhesion testing
- Procedure: Federal Test Method
Standard 141C, Method 6301.2
- Ratings: ASTM D-3359 Method A.
The ASTM rating scales were used for both
the dry and wet tests because they provide a
comparative rating system, thereby conveying
more information than the simple passlfail
criteria of MIL-C-81706 and MIL-C-5541E. In
the military specifications, any evidence of
paint removal by the tape is considered a fail-
ure. Since some applications may not require
such a stringent criterion, the researchers per-
forming this test felt that a rating scale that
indicated the relative degree of paint removal
would be more useful.
Eastman Kodak conducted the paint adhesion
tests at its Elmgrove facility in Rochester,
New York. The paint mixture used on the
panels consisted of the following components:
Sherwin Williams White Polane T+F63W77
-4parts by volume
Sherwin Williams Isocyanate catalyst
V66V44-1 part by volume
Sherwin Williams Reducer R7K84-1 part
by volume.
To prepare the conversion-coated panels for
testing, Kodak test technicians sprayed them
directly with the mixture (without a primer),
using a Binks Mack 1 HVLP spray gun. The
panels were air set for 30 min, baked for 30
min at 140°F. and cured for at least 14 days
before testing. The technicians measured paint .~
thickness using an eddy current thickness
meter calibrated to alloy 3003. Based on an
average of 51 readings, paint film thickness
was 0.00243 in. +0.00044 in.

4-2 Use and disseminalion01 the informationcmtained in this

document are subjeel lo reslrinions on lhe mpyrighl pap.

To conduct dry adhesion testing, test person-
nel used a Paul N. Gardner adhesion tester
with 1.5-mm spacing blades to make the cross-
hatched scribes. To ensure a sharp cutting
edge, several blades were used during the test.
An ASTM-qualified, 1-in. wide, semi-
transparent, pressure-sensitive adhesive tape
was used. Its average adhesion, or “tack,” was
38 +5 oz per inch of tape width.
For the wet adhesion tests, Kodak immersed
the scribed panels in distilled water for 24
hours, then removed and dried them. An
ASTM-qualified adhesive tape was used for
this test, and its tack was tested and confirmed
against the specification (average adhesion of
60 oz per inch of width). The tape was then
laid across the scribe marks and pulled away
using a continuous, even motion. A Kodak
technician visually determined the amount of
paint removed with the tape.
Each panel was rated for paint adhesion using
the ASTM D-3359 rating scale of 5 to 0.
U s and d i m i n a I h ol the inlormakn conbind in this
dwumenl am avbjea m ~ W Q m the
M mpyright page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
4.2 Observations and Discussion
The results of both the wet and dry adhesion
tests are compiled in Table 4-2.
Inspectors noted that many of the panels
showed adhesion loss within 1/4 in. of the
panel’s bottom edge, where a drip shadow was
observed.
In many cases, the degree of adhesion ob-
served for the wet and the dry tests appeared
to be correlated. However, for a number of
cases, good dry adhesion corresponded to poor
wet adhesion, and vice versa.
Although MIL-C-8 1706 requires no coating
loss for the wet adhesion test (equivalent to a
rating of 5 for the procedure used here), a
rating of 3 is considered to be acceptable for
many commercial applications, according to
an engineer familiar with the use of the tests
by industry. A rating of 3 allows for the
expected error in repeatability and
reproducibility of the test.
4-3
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 4-2. Paint Adhesion Test Results

Descriptions of the ratings for dry and wet paint adhesion tests are given in Table 4-1

cmter
-.-. I Caallna
... I Panel I Dw Test I Wet Test I Notes from Coater, Tester, or UTRC
I No. I Rating I Rating 1 (Tester notes are re aiea IO we! aahesion tests)
411oy 3%
3etz Permatreat 61 1 I 0031 1 4 I 4
bent ChemcuteL497260A I 0019 5 I 5
3ulk E-CLPS 923 I 0056 I 5 I 5
I E-CLPS 923): I 0043 I 4 I 3 1
:ircle-Prosm I Alcoat 1470 I 0283 I 0 I 0 I Coater. Coating spotty, noncontinuous. Possible olVmntamlnant on

I Alumicoai 6788
Allay 2024
3elz I Permatreal 611 I 4127 I 5 1 5 I Jesfer Peeing 112 n . lrom scribe 1 8 in liom edge (ai p ine)
3rent Chemcute L497260A 4139 5 5
3ulk E-CLPS 923 4116 5 4
E-CLPS 923X 4103 5 5
Circle-Prosco Alcoat 1470 4211 0 0
Alcoat 1500 4235 4 3

4-4 Us4 and dissminalion of the i n b r m a h contained in this

doEument are subien lo resuidims on W mpyrighlpage.
 National Center for ManulacturingSciences

Table 4-2. Paint Adhesion Test Results (continued)

Use and dissemination 01 the informationcmtained in this 4-5

document are subjecl to resfriction~on the copyright page.
 National Center lor Manuladuring Sciences

Table 4-2. Paint Adhesion Tesf Results (continued)

I Alumma! 6788 I 3175 I 5 I

AuwGoI11

Aicoat 4000 5031 4 3

Aicoat 5000 5007 5 3 Tester: Peeling 112 in. from scribe, 114 in. from edqe -
GM GM 2 5427 1 5 ~ ~~

Lord Paintable 5343 4 0 Tester: Paint lifted before scribing

Nonpaintable 5235 1 0

4-6 U s and disssmina#on01the informalon Mvllained in this

dccumsnt are subject lo resttinions on the copytight page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 4-2. Paint Adhesion Test Results (continued)

Usn and diwminawn d the inlwmationcontained in this 4-7

doeument nn aubjea to wtncfions on me mpyri@tpage.

5. Environmental ImDact Assessment
The intent of this section is to provide readers
with information that will assist them in select-
ing environmentally sound alternatives to chro-
mium conversion coatings for aluminum alloys.
A wealth of process information provided by
the coating suppliers is compiled in the envi-
ronmental impact data sheets (see Section 5.5).
Of course, these sheets do not include every
aspect that might be of interest to readers who
are considering replacement of their current
processes with one of these alternatives. The
emphasis is on information that is significant
to assessing the environmental impact of each
process. This information is meant to include
the immediate, indoor “environment” of the
process-those issues often labeled “health
and safety”-as well as the environment in the
larger sense.
In confronting this mass of information, and
particularly in comparing one alternative pro-
cess with another, or with the standard chro-
mate processes, one is apt to be overwhelmed
by the sheer number of tradeoffs. Some means
must be found for consolidating these data if
any progress at all is to be made toward a con-
clusion. A framework for doing so is offered
here, although several caveats are in order at
the outset, as follows.
First, the inevitable “apples and oranges”
problem arises-that of trying to compare
related yet unlike issues. For example, how
can a pound of sludge from process A be com-
pared to a unit of risk from process B? A user
might be able to reduce the amount of sludge
by applying some clever process engineering,
but the risk might be beyond technological
control. Conversely, risk is as much a measure
of perception and assumption as of fact; it
relies on extrapolations of uncertain validity
and is susceptible to revision by legislation or
decree. Any system that projects two incom-
mensurable quantities to a common numerical
Use and disseminalionof the inlormatiancontained in this
documsnt are subject to restrictions~1ths capyrisht page.
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences
hasis automatically contains implicit value
judgments. The best that can be done is to
make those judgments explicit, thereby
allowing readers to substitute their own.
Second, the information base is necessarily
incomplete, since coating suppliers were
invited to disclose as little or as much as they
wanted about their processes. This option
raises a particularly troublesome issue, which
also occurs in many regulatory situations. The
more a supplier discloses, the greater the
potential for finding some environmentally
objectionable item. How does one avoid
penalizing openness?
The approach used in this assessment was to
regard unknowns as especially risky. Thus, the
presence of an unknown constituent in a pro-
cess should entail a sufficiently adverse impact
on the assessment that, by revealing the identity
of the unknown constituent, the coating sup-
pliers could only improve their scores. On the
other hand, a proprietary formulation is not
necessarily an environmentally unfriendly one,
and some readers may be willing to accept a
supplier’s assurance of that fact. Therefore, the
environmental impact information is presented
in such a way that the reader may readily deter-
mine how much of each assessment is based
on both known and unknown risk factors.
Third, many of the process variable assump-
tions (part size, bath size, rinse overflow rate,
energy consumption, and so forth) may depend
as much on the user as on the coating supplier.
Finally, the project team made every attempt
to obtain, record, and process the data accu-
rately. Nevertheless, possibilities for misunder-
standings and miscommunications can be
numerous in a study of this type. Many of the
processes are in a highly developmental stage,
and may have changed significantly between
the times when the coatings were fabricated,
5-1
National Center for ManufacturingSciences
when the information was provided, and when
this report was published.
As a consequence, the reader is cautioned that
none of the results of computations in this
section should be taken as recommendations.
The results are meant to exemplify the meth-
odology developed for this assessment under
one reasonable set of assumptions. Altemative
assumptions might well generate completely
different rankings having equal validity for
other situations.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) re-
searchers developed the methodology for this
environmental impact assessment, gathered
the information from the coating suppliers,
and supplied the weighting factors on which
the computations are based. Many of these
factors are, frankly, judgment calls, and
attempting to rationalize them on any other
basis would be disingenuous. Nevertheless, by
providing at least a point of departure, this
analysis may stimulate further efforts in devel-
oping environmental assessment protocols.
5.1 Background of the Methodology
RPI researchers demonstrated the methodol-
ogy they developed for this assessment on the
Parker Alodine 1200s chrome system [91.
Project participants were given the opportunity
to review and comment on the approach. The
assessment system was then applied to the
alternative coatings. RPI personnel developed
the system in three phases [lo] by:
1. Establishing the environmental perfor-
mance criteria against which the candidate
coatings could be compared
2. Compiling information and completing the
data sheets that summarized the environ-
mental information on each of the candi-
date coatings.
3. Completing the environmental impact as-
sessment by developing a means for com-
paring the environmental characteristics of
the candidate coatings on a unified basis.
5-2
The work accomplished under each phase is
described in the next three sections.
5.2 Phase 1: Environmental
Performance Criteria
The environmental performance criteria were
selected to provide a concise overview of the
impact of the alternatives in the following
areas: health, air, water, and land. These four
categories were chosen to represent the envi-
ronmental consequences of most interest.
Health addresses the long- and short-term
consequences on human health of exposure
to the coating chemicals.
Air encompasses possible impacts of the
process on the atmosphere, and is exempli-
fied by the generation of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPS) and ozone depleting
substances (ODSs).
Water considers any adverse effects on
water systems.
Land represents the impact of the processes
on the land, since landfills are required to
dispose of any solid waste that may be gene-
rated, assuming burning is not allowed.
Sources upon which the environmental criteria
are based [9] are summarized in Table 5- 1.
The motivation for, and the source of regula-
tion of, each criterion are discussed below.
5.2.1 Number of Process Steps
For this criterion, the assumption was made
that each step in a process increases the over-
all amount of raw material usage. This in-
crease in turn poses a greater impact on the
environment in general. Every required step
adds to the total cost and environmental im-
pact of the process. This represents an increase
in the overall capital investment for equip-
ment, process materials, and personnel. The -
possibility for increased amounts of hazardous
wastes also exists, which translates to greater
cleanup costs and environmental risks.
U s and dissamioalionai the iniormalion contained in lhis
dacumanl are rubjea lo rerlticliOnSon the copynghl p a p .

Table 5.1. EnvironmentalPerformance Criteda and RelatedSources of Regulation
Envlronmental
Performance Criteria
Number of Process Steps
Letters indicate items on the Environmental Impact Data Sheets in Section 5.5.
Each process was evaluated on the basis of
how many steps the user requires to prepare
and coat a heavily soiled (molybdenum grease
and metal cutting fluids) and oxidized alumi-
num panel. This panel is referred to as the
assessment standard panel.
5.2.2 Ozone Depleting Substances
Because of the deleterious effect of ODSs on
the atmosphere, their presence in each altema-
tive coating process was noted. Information
identifying ODSs was obtained from an EPA
publication [ 111 and the Clean Air Act,
Section 602 [12], which includes a listing of
Class I and Class II ODSs. Each process step
was examined for any chemical constituents
that are regulated as ODSs.
5.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants
Air pollutants are substances that may ad-
versely affect the health of humans, animals,
plants, and microbial life [13]. As a result of
growing regulations and standards controlling
chemical emissions, HAPs were included in
this assessment. Information on HAPs was
gathered from the Clean Air Act, Section 112b
[I41 and from New York State 6 NYCRR Part
201 [15]. Each process step was examined for
the presence of any chemical constituents
known to be HAPs, which might be inhaled by
Use and disseminabbnot the inlormaNm CMltainedin his
drmment 8 8 $ubi& to msukUms m the copyrighl page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
Sources of Regulation Section Data Sheet’
Reference Reference
Process bulletins from coating supplier 5.2.1 a)
persons in the vicinity of the process. Any
HAPs detected were noted, and the total
number recorded.
5.2.4 Carcinogens
Carcinogens (substances capable of causing
cancer) were identified through information
from EPA/600/8-89/053 [16] and the Material
Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each chemical.
(MSDSs are required to list carcinogens by
Section 313, Title 111, of SARA Part 372.)
5.2.5 Regulated and Hazardous
Chemicals
For this criterion, the assumption was made
that each regulated or hazardous chemical
used in the process increases the potential risk.
Thus, an alternative that can accomplish an
adequate coating with fewer such ingredients
is considered more environmentally sound.
“Regulated” chemicals, in the context of this
study, were those hazardous chemicals identi-
fied from the MSDSs and referenced to the
California Environmental Protection Agency
(Cal-EPA) Chemical Cross Index (List of
Lists) [17] to identify the source(s) of regula-
tion. Cal-EPA was selected because California
has some of the most restrictive environmental
5-3
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences
laws in the nation. The Chemical Cross Index
identifies the chemicals that are subject to the
14 regulation programs listed in Table 5-2,
codes a through m. (The code is used on the
data sheets in Section 5.5) “Hazardous” che-
micals, those listed on the MSDS but not on
the Chemical Cross Index, were also consi-
dered to be “regulated” for the purposes of this
assessment.
5.2.6 Resource Usage
This assessment assumes that the use of pro-
cess chemicals, water, and energy creates a
degree of environmental impact that is propor-
tional to the quantity used. Although coating
suppliers may specify temperatures and con-
centrations, such variables as bath sizes, rinse
volumes, and thermal insulation are more a
Table 5-2. Sources of Regulation Used to Reference
Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals
Code I Source of Regulation
a. I California OSHA Carcinogen User Register
5-4
function of the user than the coating. In each
case, certain baseline assumptions about the
coating operation have been established to
provide a basis for comparison.
5.2.6.1 Process Chemical Usage
The calculations for the required quantity of
process chemicals were based on what would -
be needed to treat the assessment standard
panel (defined in Section 5.2.1). The quantity
of each chemical used for each process step was
considered to be that amount needed to reach
the specified concentration in 100 gallons of
bath water. These amounts were summed
(pounds and gallons were treated as equivalent
units in these calculations).
5.2.6.2 Water Usage
Each rinse bath requiring water was assumed
to contain 100 gallons of water. Continuous
overflow rinse stages were considered to con-
sume 200 gallons.
5.2.6.3 Energy Consumption
The energy consumption ascribed to each
process step was limited to the energy required
for bath heating. Although other possible areas
of energy usage exist, such as pumps, stirrers,
and parts dryers, the total energy consumption
due to such devices was assumed to be negli-
gible compared to that for bath heating. The
energy required to maintain bath temperatures
was also not counted. Thus, the energy con-
sumed for each process step was simply consi-
dered to be that amount required to raise the
bath from room temperature (20°C) to the
appropriate temperature.
5.2.7 Solid Waste Generation
The potential for generating solid waste de-
pends on the process chemistry, as well as on
the type of metal to be coated. For this assess- -
ment, the solid waste considered to be gene-
rated was based on coating an aluminum panel.
Solid wastes may arise from metals present in
Use and disseminationof the inlormatianmlained in this
document 818 subject to restricM6 on fhe mwright page.

the process chemicals, such as cadmium, zinc,
nickel, copper, tin, or chromium. To determine
whether specific metals would be present in
the waste sludge, the process chemistry would
have to be known. The information on solid
waste was collected from appropriate MSDSs,
and by consultation with academic and
industry experts, and the coating suppliers.
Each step that involves solvents was assumed
to possess the capability to produce a contami-
nated solvent sludge, especially when used for
degreasing. However, any solid soil contami-
nation carried in with the grease on the panel
was neglected.
5.2.8 Potential for Airborne Contaminants
Air emissions include vapors from degreasing,
solvent cleaning, and mists from chromium or
other plating operations. Any process step that
contains solvents or recommends positive
ventilation was considered to produce airborne
contaminants. Information was obtained from
MSDSs and technical process bulletins. Each
process chemical was evaluated to determine
its potential for airborne contamination.
5.2.9 Wastewater Generation
Typically, the largest amount of wastewater is
generated by rinse steps. Rinse water generally
contains low concentrations of process chemi-
cals, which are carried with the part into the
rinse (called dragout). All baths were assumed
to result in some dragout, although no attempt
was made to quantify the amount (the concen-
tration of chemicals in the process and rinse
bath must be known for such a quantification).
When judging wastewater generation, this
assessment took into account the number of
rinse steps in a process, the need for neutrali-
zation, and the need to remove hazardous
compounds from the rinse water. It was as-
sumed that any hazardous material found in
the wastewater would be present in sufficient
concentration to require waste treatment. If no
Use and disseminationof the information contained in *is
document a n subien to resttidons on the cowright page.
National Center for ManufacturingSciences
rinse step is required after a given process
step, it was assumed that that step does not
generate wastewater.
5.2.10 Worker Health and Safety
The worker health and safety evaluation was
determined by the relative risk each process
chemical would pose to the worker. This cri-
terion took into account the acute and chronic
toxicological effects of the hazardous constitu-
ents. These effects were taken primarily from
available MSDS information. The National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) or Haz-
ardous Material Identification System (HMIS)
health ranking is supplied in the MSDSs as a
general indicator of the toxicity of each pro-
cess chemical. A summary of potential effects
associated with each process chemical is
included in Section 5.5.
5.3 Phase 2. Environmental Data
Compilation and Data Sheet
Completion
The coating suppliers were asked to provide
process information on how to prepare a
heavily oxidized panel for each coating tested.
A heavily oxidized panel was chosen as the
standard to provide information on the most
extensive treatment that might be anticipated.
Several suppliers provided environmental pro-
cess data in the form of MSDSs and technical
process bulletins. Others chose to provide only
limited information or none at all, particularly
in cases where processes are in an early stage
of development, or where patent or other pro-
prietary issues are still being resolved. For
these reasons, some processes were more dif-
ficult to characterize, and the associated data
sheets are, necessarily, correspondingly less
informative. In particular, for most of the
alternative coatings, adequate information was
not available on solid waste generation. In
many cases, suppliers dealt with numerous re-
quests for information on multiple occasions;
their patience is appreciated.
5-5
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences
It should also be noted that the quality of this
environmental assessment is dependent on
whether the reported process was the actual
one used on the panel prior to testing. This is
difficult to ascertain, despite the best inten-
tions of the suppliers, particularly when coat-
ings are undergoing active development and
process changes are rapid and frequent.
The information was incorporated into data
sheets that were developed using the criteria
chosen in Phase 1. These sheets allowed the
criteria to be assigned quantitative values,
which were ultimately used to rank the process.
5.4 Phase 3. Environmental
Performance Assessment
This section contains the heart of the quantita-
tive comparison framework. To compare the
environmental performance of the coatings,
the information from the data sheets was put
into matrix form. These selection matrices
were designed to present the data sheet infor-
mation in a clear and concise format.
The data sheet criteria were separated into
primary and secondary matrices to distinguish
the major environmental and health hazards
(such as ozone depleting substances and carci-
nogens) from other assessment criteria (such
as process steps and resource usage). The
matrices were designed such that the alterna-
tives may be easily compared to the baseline
reference, the Alodine@1200s system.
Where some information was not obtainable
from the suppliers, an "unknown" designation
was used, together with a number indicating
how many process steps contain an unknown
material. (Coatings from suppliers who chose
to provide no process information were
omitted from the evaluation.)
A default algorithm was developed to quantify
the unknowns. This algorithm was standard-
ized for all the criteria used in the data sheets.
5-6
The default algorithm is summarized below
and is included on the appropriate matrices.
5.4.1 Primary Selection Matrix
The Primary Selection Matrix gives an initial
filtering of categories considered to be high
hazard parameters. The three parameters con-
sidered most hazardous for the purposes of
this assessment are:
Ozone depleting compounds
Hazardous air pollutants
Carcinogens.
The numbers in each of the first three columns
of the Primary Selection Matrix (Table 5-3)*
reflect the number of compounds falling with-
in each respective criterion. For example, the
number "3" in the No. of HAPs column means
that the coating process has three separate
HAPs. If compounds are unknown for any
given process step, the number of unknowns is
also recorded. If the same compound is used in
more than one process step, it is counted once
for each step in which it appears.
The fourth column lists the sum of the known
compounds appearing in the first three col-
umns. This total represents the contribution of
known compounds to the score.
The fifth column contains a weighted sum of
the unknown compounds, using the weighting
factors specified at the bottom of the table.
Thus, the score appearing in the fifth column
equals the number of unknown ODSs multi-
plied by 1, plus the number of unknown HAPs
times 3, plus the number of unknown carcino-
gens times 2. (As noted previously, these
weighting factors represent the relative hazard
judgments assigned by the RPI researchers. A
different set of weights will, of course, result
in a different score.)
The total score assigned to each coating, equal
to the sum of the scores from the known and
* Matrix tables begin at the end of the section.
Use and disseminationollhe inlormalionconlained in Y s
documsnlare subject Io resldclionson the mpydghl pags.

unknown compounds, appears in the rightmost
column in the matrix. Here, and in general
throughout this assessment, a lower total score
represents a more environmentally friendly
process.
5.4.2 Secondary Selection Matrices
The secondary selection matrices summarize
the evaluations for those categories considered
to be important for environmental performance,
but less immediately critical than the high
hazard criteria in the Primary Matrix. The
Secondary Matrix is presented in three forms.
The first, the Basic Matrix (Table 5-4), indi-
cates the values for the known quantities and
the number of unknown quantities associated
with each criterion. The purpose of this matrix
is to indicate, at a glance, to the reader both
the comparisons among the baseline and the
alternative coatings for known quantities, and
the present degree of ignorance regarding vari-
ous aspects of the alternative processes for the
unknowns.
The second, the Numerical Valuation Matrix
(Table 5-5), indicates the scores as calculated,
via the default algorithm given at the bottom
of the table, from the known and unknown
values. Its purpose is to supply the numerical
input to the Decision Matrix (see below).
The third, the Relative Valuation Matrix
(Table 5-6), allows the reader to see readily
how a particular altemative coating scores,
according to this assessment, relative to the
baseline reference. This matrix is meant to
give a qualitative indication of possible advan-
tages and disadvantages involved in replacing
a typical, presumably familiar, standard pro-
cess with an alternative process. In keeping
with the “lower means better” convention, a
positive score indicates worse overall perfor-
mance than the baseline, and a negative score
indicates better performance, as evaluated by
the RPI researchers.
Use and disseminationof Ihs intormatimwntained in this
dmmenl ala subjea lo restriclians on ths mpyliphtpage.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
5.4.3 Decision Matrix
The Decision Matrix (Table 5-7) provides the
reader with a comprehensive listing of all the
scores assigned to an alternative coating for
each of the environmental assessment criteria,
combining data from both the Primary and the
Secondary Selection Matrices.
The default algorithm was again applied to all
metrics with unknowns. As with all other ma-
trices in this assessment, the Decision Matrix
has been generated such that an alternative
with the lowest score will demonstrate the
least amount of overall environmental impact.
In combining the data from various criteria, a
weighting scheme was selected to reflect the
judgment of the RPI researchers on the appro-
priate way to combine various levels of risk.
The environmental criteria were separated into
four groups based on:
1. Economic considerations
2. Severe health risk
3. General health risk
4. Toxicity.
To generate the Decision Matrix, the weights
for Groups 1,2, and 3 were set at a value of 2.
The weight for Group 4 was set at 1, lower
than the other groups because the information
obtained is considered to be subjective. One
indication of this subjectivity is the inconsis-
tency among MSDSs from diffefent coating
suppliers. The information upon which
Groups 1,2, and 3 were based is considered to
be more significant by the RPI researchers,
and was weighted accordingly. Alternative
weighting schemes, depending upon the
intended application for a given coating, might
be selected at the reader’s discretion.
It is important to note that although the total
score is intended to provide an indication of
environmental performance, the best method
of determining this performance involves
careful examination of the scores for each
criterion, considered independently. These
5-7
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

individual scores, used in conjunction with the
data sheet information, will help provide the
reader with a detailed appreciation of the conse-
quences involved in replacing a standard chro-
mium conversion process with an alternative.
5.5 Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Data Sheets
assessment is based. (The data sheet tables
begin on page 5-15, and each table begins on a
right-hand page.) This material will also pro-
vide the reader with useful background infor-
mation, with the understanding that the data
are based on input from the coating suppliers,
and are not intended to represent complete
descriptions of the processes.

Tables 5-8 through 5-29 summarize the raw The data sheets are presented in alphabetical
data on which the environmental impact order, by coating supplier and by coating.

Table 5-3. Primary Selection Matrix

1 1
= all values are known = values include unknowns’

I
No. of Points

1
No. of Total No. of Known
from Unknown
Alternative Coating2 Carcinogens Substances
Substances3
a
t;s
l

Alcoat 15M)
AlcOat 2000
Alcoat 30M)
Alcoat 4000

19118 I 0 I 3
Sandia Sandia 1 0 0

1 The combination01 a number lollowed by a “u” represents the number 01 unknown chemicals or process steps in the metric.
2 No information from Lord and Sanchem.
3 The points assigned to an unknown substance are as follows:
Category: No. 01 points for each unknown:
ODS 1
HAP 3
Carcinogen 2

5-8 U s and dismination of the inlormaeoncontained in this

dOcumenl .we subjed IO resfridinns on lhs wpyrighl Page.
 National Center for ManulacluringSciences

Table 5-4. Secondary Selection Matrix -Basic

0= all values are known = values include unknowns7

Resource Usage I
Coater and
Chrome Alternative
Coating2

Baseline Reference
Parker Alodine 1200s
33.8 900 I 45,815 I 4

Betz Permatreat 61
Brent Chemcote L497260,
Bulk E-CLPS 92 14.75
ECLPS 923:
Circle-Prosco Alcoat 147 30
____
Alcoat 150 -
30
Alcoat 2" _I
30
Alcoat 3001 -
200
Alcoal4001 ~
40
Alcoat 5001
GM GM
GM ~

Parker Alodine 2001

Patclin 1910A,B,(
19111
Sandia Sandia
Sandia :
Turco Alumicoat 6781
2438-28[
USC Ce-Mo 202,
Ce-Mo 606'
Ce-Mo 707! 136,770
1 The combination 01 a number followed by a "u"represents the number of unknown chemicals or process steps in the metric.
(Weighted values for "u"are given in Table 5-5.)
2 No inlormationfrom Lord and Sanchem.

Use and dissemination of [he information contained in this 5-9

document are subject la reStiiClionSon lhe mpyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-5. Secondary Selection Matrix -Numerical Valuation

0all values are known
= = values include unknowns1

Waste Water Worker

Resource Usage
Generation Health

Coater and 8
Chrome Alternative %8
P'S
Coating2 8
e
P

; ;1 Chemcotg9;;OAA
I I I I I I

Baseline Reference 33.8 900 45,815 4 4 3 4 11

Parker Alodlne 1200s
Permatreat 611

R
ECLPS 923X
Circle-Prosco Alcoatl470
Alcoatl500

Alcoat5wO

Parker Aiodine 2000

Patclln 1910A, B, C -
8
19118 8
Sandia Sandia 1 -
6
Sandia 2 6

I 243848DK
Ce-Mo 2024

L2Y92 Ce-Mo7075 15
IThe values that include unknown quantities (shown in Table 5-4) were calculated lrom x t yUwhere
x = the quantity in Table 5-4 associatedwith known chemicals or process steps in the metric
y = the number of unknown chemicals or process steps in the metric
U E a weighted value for each unknown, as given below:
Categoly: Value for each unknown:
No. 01 Process Steps 1
No. of Regulated 8 Hazardous Chemicals 3 per step
Resource Usage -Process Chemicals 10 per production chemical'
-Water 100 gal per step
-Energy 10,000 Btu per step
Solid Waste Generation -No. 01 Solid Compounds 1 per production chemical
No. 01 Airborne Contaminants t per production chemical
Waste Water Generation - No. of Compounds to Neutralize 1 per production chemical
Worker Health - NFPA or HMlS Hazard Ranking 4 per production chemical
* production chemical E manufacturer'strade chemical (e.g., Deoxidizer 6)
2 No information from Lord and Sanchem.

5-10 Use and dissmination of the informalonconlained in this

dwumeot are subject lo resIticIimsOn the copytighl page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-6. Secondary Selection Matrix -Relative Valuation

0= all values are known = values include unknowns

Symbols reflect comparison between baseline and alternative coatings in Table 5-5,with
0 =same as baseline
-
= better than baseline
t =worse than baseline

Resource Usage
Waste Water I Worker i
Ger

Coater and
Chrome Alternative
Coatlngt

Baseline Reference
Parker Alodine 1200s O I O I o I o
etz Permatreat 611
mnt Chemcote L497260)
ulk E-CLPS 92:
E-CLPS 923)
ircle-Prosco Aicoat 147(
Aicoat 150(
Alcoat ZOO( ~ -5
Alcoat 300C
Alcoat 400(
Aicoat 500(
M GM 1
GM 2
srker Aiodine 2OOC
mtclin 1910A, B, C
19118
-101131
andia Sandia 1
Sandia 2
JrCO Alumicoat 6788
2438-280
sc Ce-Mo 2024
Ce-Mo 6061
Ce-Mo 7075

1 No information from Lord and Sanchem.

?Negativenumber = lower environmental score (better) than baseline
Positive number = higher environmental score (worse) than baseline

Use and disseminationOlthe Informationcmtainad in this 5-1 1

dacumenl am subiea lo reslridons DO the copyrightpage.
able 5-7. Environmental Impact Decision Matrix zs
y to prccess numbers 0 to 26 by Coater Coating: ru
0
0. Baseline: Parker Alcdine 1200s 6. Circle-Prosco Aimat 1500 12. GM GM 2 18. Sanchem FP 24. USC Ce-Mo 2024
1. Beb Permatreat 611 7. Circle-Prosea Alcnat ZOO00 13. Lord Paintable 19. Sanchem SD 25. USC Ce-Mo E961
9
m
2. Brent Chemmte L497260A 8. C i r c l e - P r m Almat 3000 14. Lord Nonpaintable 20. Sandia Sandia 1 26. USC Ce-Mo 7075 z
3. Bulk E-CLPS 923 9. CircleProsco Almat 4030 15. Parker Alcdine 2wO 21. Sandia Sandia 2 I
4. Bulk E-CLPS 923): 10. Circle-Prosco Almat 5w0 16. Patclin1910A,B,C 22. Turco Aiumicnat 6788 U = No information submitted 5
5, Circle-Prwco Almat 1470 11. GMGM1 17. Patclin 19118 23. Turco 2438-28D 3
s
I

Selection Criteria I O I 1 1 2 I31 4 1 5 I 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 131 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 171 181 1 9 1 2 0 1 21 I ZI 231 2 4 1 2 5 1 26 I3

n
Table 57. Environmental Impact Decision Matrix (continued)
B X B 8 - m
=The values that include unknown quantities (shown in Table 54) were calculated from

= number of points scored

where x = the quantity in Table 5-4 associatedwith known chemicals or process steps in the metric
y = the number of unknown chemicals or process steps in the metric
U = a weighted value for each unknown (see below)
z= a base unit (see below)
"y: Value for each unknown: :tun-i
Group One No. of Process Steps 1 1
Resource Usage -Process Chemicals 10 per production chemical' 1 (Not applicable)
-Water 100 gal per step 100gal
-Energy 10,ooO Btu per step 10,ooO Btu
Solid Waste Generation -No. of Solid Compounds 1 per production chemical' 1
No. of Rinse Steps Not Applicable 1
Group Two Ozone Depleting Substances I per step 1
Hazardous Air Pollutants 3 per step 1
Carcinogens 2 per step 1
Worker Health - NFPA or HMlS Hazard Ranking 4 per production chemical' 1 (Not applicable)
Group Three No. of Regulated 8 Hazardous Chemicals 3 per step 1
Waste Water Generation -No. of Compounds to Neutralize 1 per production chemical' 1
No.of Airborne Contaminants 1 per production chemical' 1
Group Four Acute Effects 15 per chemical" 1
Chronic Etfects 5 per chemical" 1

* prcduction chemical =manufacturer'strade chemical (e.g., Deoxidizer 6) **chemical = general chemical (e.g., nitric acid)

I i i
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-8. Permatreat 611EnvironmentalImpactData Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Betz Laboratories, Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

1 I None detecteo 1 1 detecteo I None preseni

2 I None deteneo I None deteaeo I hone preseni
3 unknown unknown 1 None present
4 None detected None detected I None present
Total: 1 unknown 1 + 1 unknown I 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

3 fluotitanic acid I Permatreat 611 I 17439-11-1 I 2.5 mg/d as F I 2.5 mg/m'as F Iq

trade secret ingredient I Permatreat 611 I unknown I unknown I unknown 9

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

Process Chemicals' Water Energ$
Step Chemical Amount Continuous Gallons Tdn Q,," T," Q,"
Name Usage? ("F) (Stu) ("F) @tu)
1 Betz Kleen 156 unknown no 100 unknown unknown unknown unknown
Bet2 Sol 104 unknown
2 yes 200 ambient NIA ambient N/A
3 Permatreat 61 1 4 gal no 1W ambient N/A ambient N/A
Dry Total unknown Total 400 Total unknown Total unknown
Wet Total unknown
1 IIthe manufacturer specified a range for the chemical wncentration, the largest value was used.
* Reference temperature = 68'F Specilic heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btullb mol "F Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

UES and dissemination of ihe informalonconlained in his 5-15

documen1 are subjen io re~itidonson tho copyright page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralizatlon Compounds Requlrlng
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Betz Kieen 156 unknown yes yes none
Betz Sol 104 unknown no no none
3 . Permatreat611 . unknown yes yes unknown

f) Worker Health
Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects Protective Gear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acule Chronic Required ?
Betz Kleen 156 3 3 2 yes no
Bet2 Sol 104 2 3 1 yes no
Be12 Sol 104 3 3 2 yes no

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

I Beiz Kleen 156 HMlS hazard rankina = 3 I
Acute Elfects: May cause irritation to upper respiratory tract and burns to the skin and eyes.
Chronic Eflects: May cause tissue necrosis andlor dermatitis.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Rubb%rgloves and appropriate protedive clothing (aprons) required.
Approved filter mask or respirator required recommended. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in
close proximity. Ventilate as necessary to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value.

.,
Beb Sol 104 HMIS hazard ranking = 2
Acute Eflects: Skin, upper respiratory tract, and eye irritation.
Chronic Elfects: Primary irritant dermatitis,
Personal Protection: Splash-proof face shield or goggles
. .. required. Rubber gloves required. Respirator use recommended. Eye wash
I lacility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Must have adequate ventilation.

Permatreat 611
...~
HMlS hazard ranking = 3
~~~~ ~~

Acute Ellects: Sn n ana "pper respiralow tract rr lalion: eye D u m

Cnronic Ellects
Personal Protection:
Pr mary rr [ant dermal tis ana iung damage.
Splash-proof
. . ..es required. Respirator requ red Neoprene goves. acia-res slant sun.Eye wasn
. lace shield or gogg
facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilation below the threshold limit value required. I
 National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-9. Chemcote L497260A Environmentallmpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Brent America, Inc

a) Number of Process Steps

Step I Description
1 I Surface cleaning: Chem-Clean 1220 recommended
2 I Water rinsing: continuous overllow required
3 1 Etcning Chem-Etcn 7002 recommenoeo
4 I Water rNns,ng: cont1nuo.s overilow require0

6- 1 Water ns ng con1n-ous overl ow reqdeo __

I

7 1 Non-cnmme convers on coal ng Cnemcote L497260A

8 1 Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
9 I Drying (assumed)

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens
step I ODSS I HAPS I Carcinogens
1 I None detected I None detected I None present
2 None detected None detected None present
3 None detected 1 detected None present
4 None detected None detected None present
5 None detected 2 detected Suspected carcinogen present. (International Agency
lor Research on Cancer) Gives olf sulfuric acid fumes
6 None detected None detected None present
7 I Unknown I Unknown I Unknown
8 I None detected I None detected I None present
9 I None detected I None detected I None present
Total: 1 1 unknown 3 + I unknown 1 1 + 1 unknown

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Us8 and disseminationof the inlormation contained in this 5-17

documenl are subject Io rssttictions on the copyright page
National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-9. Chemcote L497260A (continued)

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' If the manulacturerspecified a range for the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
' Referencetemperature = 68°F Specilic heat capacity 01 water = 8.983Btuilb mol "F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

step Name Waste Generated Alrborne Neutralizatlon Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Chem-Clean 1220 unknown yes yes none
3 Chem-Etch 7M)Z unknown yes yes aluminum
-
-- 5 Chem-Cid 2213 unknown yes yes metals
7 ChemcoteL497260A unknown unknown unknown unknown

9 Worker Health

a) Raw Material Toxicitv and Personal Protection Data

Acute Effects: May cause burns or irreversibledamage to eyes. Corrosive to skin. May cause severe gastrointestinaldamage il
swallowed. Nasal or respiratory damage if inhaled.
Chronic Effects: None.
Personal Protection: OSHA-approved respirator and splash goggles. Chemical-resistant gloves and appropriate protective clothing
(aprons) required. Boots and lace shield required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Ventilate as necessaryto keep concentrations below the threshold limit value.

5-18 Use and disseminaiion d the information wntained in this

dacument am subjed lo mstndions an the wpydght page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-9. Chemcote L497260A (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Chem-Etch 7002 HMlS hazard ranking = 3

Acute Elfecls:
Chronic Ellects:
Personal Protection:
May cause burns or irreversible damage to eyes. Corrosive to skin. May cause severe gastrointestinaldamage if
swallowed. Nasal or respiratow damage il inhaled.
None
OSHA approved respirator and splash goggles. Chemical-resistant gloves and appropriate protectiveclothing
(aprons) required. Boots and lace shield required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Ventilate as necessary to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value.

Acute Ellecls:
Chronic Effects:
Personal Proteclion:
Irritation to skin, nose, throat, and mucous membrane, and chest discomfort. irritation or damage to eyes. May
cause stomach pain andlor nausea, and may induce vomiting.
Respiratory illness, kidney damage, asthma, symptoms resembling rheumatism. Suspected cancer hazard.
NIOSHA-approved canister-type respirator. Chemical goggles and face shield required. No contact lenses.
Impermeable gloves and protective clothing required. Eye wash lacility and emergency shower should be in close
oroximitv. Ventilate to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value.

Chemcote L497360A HMlS hazard ranking Unknown

Acute Etlects: Unknown
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

Use and disseminationol lhe inlormatiancanmined in this 5-19

&"en1 am subject Io resfrictionsMI ths copyright page.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-10. E-CLPS 923EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Bulk Chemicals, Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

Step Descrlption
1 Surface cleaning: Bulk Kleen 692 recommended, Bulk Kleen 695 optional
2 Water rinsing: continuous overflow required
3 Deoxidizelacid conditioning, Bulk Kleen 678 recommended

Step ODSs HAPS Carcinogens

1 None detected 1 detected None present

4 I hone oetectea I None detectea 1 None presenr

5 1 None aetected 1 None aetenea 1 None present

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

Process Chemicals'

' If the manufacturer specilied a range for the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
' Reference temperature = 68'F Specific heat capacity of water = 6.983 Btullb mol O F Moles of water per 1M) gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Us0 and dissmination d the inlormation contained in this 5-21

dowment are subject Io restrictions on the copyright page.
National Center for ManulacturingSciences

Table 5-10. E-CLPS 923 (continued)

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation
Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater
SteD Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization I Compounds Reauirina
Contaminant? Required? . Treatment -
i Bulk Kieen 692 none yes yes none
1 Bulk Kleen 678 none yes yes liuoride

Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects Protectlve Gear Carcinogens?

Name Hazard Ranking Acute Chronic Required ?
Bulk Kleen 692 3 4 1 yes no
Bulk Kleen 678 3 4 3 yes no
E-CLPS 923 3 3 2 yes no

' Bulk Kleen 692 HMlS hazard ranking = 3

Acute Eflects: May cause irritation or burns to the skin and eyes.
Chronic Effects: Respiratory irritation.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
(aprons) required.Approved Mer mask or respirator required il vapor mist is present. Eye wash station and
emergency shower should be in close proximity.Ventilate as necessary to keep concentrations below the
threshold limit value.

Acute Effects: Eye, skin, throat. and nose burns.

Chronic Eflects: Lung inllammation. Pulmonary edema. Calcium depletion which leads to bone damage.
Personal Protection: Chemical face shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and full acid suit with rubber boots
required. Bureau 01 Mines scheduled 218 acid mist cartridge respirator required lor misting operations. Do not
wear contact lenses. Eye wash facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate as necessary
to keep exposure below the threshold limit value.

Acute Effects: Possible eye and skin irritation and tissue damage.
Chronic Eflects: Decalcification01 bones. Bums to sensitive tlssues.
Personal Protection: Salety. goggles
. ~. required. Rubber gloves and protectiveclothing required. Eye wash facility and emergency shower
I should be in close proximity. Ventilate as necessary to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value. I

5-22 Usa and disseminationol he informalon contained in this

documen1are subject to resltiCti0nson the copyfight page.
 National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-11. E-CLPS 923X Environmentallmpacf Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Bulk Chemicals, Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

step 1 Description
1 I Surlace cleaning; Bulk Kleen 692 recommended, Bulk Kleen 695 optional .
2 j Water rins ng: cont naus overilow requ reo
3 I Deoxoizelac d conoilionng BJ k Kleen 676 recommenoeo
4 Water rinsing
5 Non-chrome conversion coating; E-CLPS 923 plus additive
6 Drying; heat cure

I;1
b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Carcinogens

Nonedetected
None detected
None detected
1 1 detected
None detected
1 detected
~ i
None resent
None resent
None resent
None detected None detected None resent
5 Unknown Unknown Unknown
6 None detected None detected None present
Total: 1 unknown 2 t 1 unknown 1 unknown

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

’ I1the manufacturer specified a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
Referencetemperature = 68°F Specilic heat capacity of water = 8.963 Btu/lb mol O F Moles of water per 1M) gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and dismminationaf the inlormanoncontained in IhiS 5-23

document are subjea lo reslridons on me mpyrimt page.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-12 Moat 1470 Environmental lmpact Dafa Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

step I Description
1 I Surface cleaning; Alcoat147OC

Alwat 1470s

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Carcinogens

2 I None aetectea I None aetened 1 None present

3 I None detectea I 2 oetenea I hone present
4 None detected None detected None present .
5 None detected None detected None present
6 None detected None detected None present
Total: 0 4 0

Process Chemicals' Water Energy'

Step Chemical Amount Continuous Gallons T"" Qmn T""" Q,,
I Name Usage? (EtU) ("Fl (Btu)
1 Alcoat 1470C I logal no I 100 70 I 833 140 I 29,988

Use and dlSSmination of the information contained in this 5-25

dowment are subject to astnCtiOnSon the mpyright p a p
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-12. Alcoat 1470 (continued)

e) Sdid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation
Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater
Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Alcoat 1470C unknown yes yes unknown
3 Alcoat 14708 unknown yes yes unknown
5 Alcoat 1470s unknown yes yes unknown

Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects Prolectlve Gear Carcinogens?

Name Hazard Ranking Acute Chronlc Required ?
Aicoat 147OC unknown unknown unknown yes none
Alcoat 14708 unknown unknown unknown yes none
Aicoat 14705 unknown unknown unknown yes none

Acute Elfecls: Unknown

Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Proteclion: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required. Chemical boots and other protective clothing (aprons)
required. Approved lilter mask or respirator required. Ventilation is necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit values.

5-26 U s and dismination 01the inlomationmtained in this

document are subject to rsstrinions On the cowright page.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table $is. Alcoat 1500 Environmental Impact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

step I Descrlpllon
1 I Alcoat 15OOC
2 I Water rinsing
3 IAl~oat1500E
Water rinsin

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS),and Carcinogens

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Contained In CAS Threshold Limit Permissible Expe Source Code

Step Chemical
Number Valw (AGGIH) sure Limit (OSHA) (see Table 5-2)
Alcoat 15M) E, C 7697-37-2 2 ppm 2 ppm d, e, g, 1, m, o
1,3 hydrolluoric acid Alcoat 1500B, C 7664-39-3 3 ppm 3 ppm d, e,g,J', lIo ,

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals,Water, and Energy

U WetTolal I
30 gal 1
I If the manulacturer specified a range for the chemical Concentration,the largest value was used.
' Reference temperature = 68°F Specific heal capacity of water = 6.983 Btu/lb mol O F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and dissemination of the informationcontained in u1is 5-27

daxlment are subjeclto mstticUonson the mpytight page.
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-13. Alcoat 1500 (continued)

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Ai.LJrne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation

Waste Generated

0 Worker Health
Chemical HMlS Health Total N u m k d E f f W Protective Gear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute Chronic Required 7 no
Alwat 15WC unknown unknown unknown yes no
~ Alcoat 15WB unknown unknown unknown yes no

-
Alcoat15M)C, 15006, and 15005 HMlS h a r d ranldng = Unknown
Acute Efiects: Unknown
Chronic Eifects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required. Chemical bwts and other protective clothing (aprons)
required. Approved iilter mask or respirator required. Ventilationis necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit vaiues.
 National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-74. Alcoat 2000 Environmentallmpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

Total: I 0 4 I 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' If the manulacturer specilied a range (of the chemical concentralion,the largest value was used.
Referencetemperature = 68'F Specific heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btuilb mol OF Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and disseminationof the inlorrmtionconlained in Mi6 5-29

dmument are subjen to restticlions on the mpytight page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-15. Alcoat 3000 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

Step Description
1 Alcoat3000C
2 Water rinsing
3 Alcoat3W08
4 Water rinsing
5 Oven dry at 250'F for 10 min

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Carcinogens

I 1 I None detected I None detected I None present I

2 I None detectea I None delened I None present
3 I None detected I 1 detecteo I None present
4 1 None detected None detected None present
5 I None detected None detected None present
Total: I 0 1 0

Process Chemicals' Water Energy2

Step Chemical Amount Continuous Gallons Td" 4," Tmc Q
,
Name Usage? ("F) (Btu) I"F) (Btu)
1 Alcoat30M)C I loogal no I 100 ambient 1 NIA 11 ambient I N/A

USEand disseminationof the informationmtained in this 5-31

dDcumsnl are subjed lo resttictionSon he copyright page
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Chemical Solld Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutrallzatlon Compounds Requlrlng
Contamlnant? Requlred? Treatment
1 Aicoat30WC unknown yes yes unknown
3 Aicoat 30006 unknown YES yes unknown

fJ Worker Health
Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects ProtectiveGear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acuts I Chronic Required?
Alwat 3WOC unknown 3 I
unknown yes no
plcoat 30006 unknown unknown unknown yes no -

Acute Effects: Can cause irritation to the skin, eyes, and respiratory system.
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required. Chemical boots and other protective clothing (aprons)
required. Approved filter mask or respirator required. Ventilation is necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit values.

Alcoat 30008 HMlS hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Effects: I Unknown
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles and industrial rubber apron and gloves are required. Chemical boots required. Approved filler
mask or respirator required. Full face shield should be used. Ventilation is necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit values.

5-32 Use and diswminstion 01 tha inlormatiion cmlaloedin his

documant are subjectto mtric6on6 on the mwright pace.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-16. Alcoat 4000 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

5 Alcoat 4WOB1
6 Water rinsing
7 Alcoat4OOOS
8 Oven dry at 250'F lor 10 min

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (OD%), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS),and Carcinogens

5 None detected 2 detected 1 None present

6 None detected None detected I None present
7 None detected None detected I None present
Tolal: I 0 4 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Use and dissemination of the inlormaQoncontainedin this 5-33

dOcument are subien 10 reminions an ma copyright page.
National Center lor ManufacturingSdences

Process Chemicals' Water Energy'

Step Chemical Amount Continuous Gallons T", am T,". Q,,,
Name Usage? (BtU) ('F) @tu) -
I I I I
~~

1 Almat4000C I
10gal no 100 ambient MA ambient N/A

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step NOM Waste Generated Airborne NeutralMlon Compounds Requlrlng
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Alcoat4WOC unknown yes yes unknown
3 Alcoat40CQB unknown yes yes unknown
5 Alcoat400081 unknown yes yes unknown
7 Alcoat4CQOS unknown yes yes unknown

0 Worker Health

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Alcoat 4OQQC HMiS hazard ranking = Unknown
Acute Effects: I Can cause irritationto the skin and eyes.
Chronic Eflects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Splash-proofgoggles and rubber gloves required. Rubber boots and apron are also required. Ventilate as
necessary to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value. Approved lilter mask or respirator required if
I I mnnr mist is oresent. I

5-34 U s and direaminationol the inlonatim mnlalned in this

dwumed are subiea to resttidims on Ihs mpyi$l pap.
 National Cenler for Manulacluring Sciences

Table 5-16. Alwat 4wO (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Alcoal4MH)Band 4WOB1 HMlS hazard ranking =Unknown

Acute Efleds: I Unknown
Chronic Eflects: Unknown
Personal Proteclion: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required. Chemical boots and other prolective clothing (aprons)
required. Approved lliter mask or respirator required. Venlilation is necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit value.

1
Alcoat 4woS
Acute Efleds: Can cause severe burns to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes.
Chronic Elfects: unknown
Personal Protedion: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required.Chemical boots and other proteclive clolhlng (aprons)
required. Approved filter mask or respirator required. Venlilation is necessary to keep concenlratlons below
threshold limit values.

Use and disseminationo( be inlormah Contained in this 5-35

documsnt am subien 10 resirictions0” the copyright page.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-17. Alcoat 5000 Environmentallmpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Circle-Prosco Inc

a) Number of Process Steps

Step I Description
1 I Alcoat50WC
2 Water rinsing
3 Alcoat5000B
4 Water rinsing
5 Aicoat5OWS
6 Oven dry at 250°F for 10 min

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens
Step I ODSs HAPS I Carcinogens

2 1 None aetened 1 None aelected I None present

3 I None deteclea I 1 detectea I hone present
4 I None detected I None detected I None present
5 I None detected I None detected None present

Total: I 0 1 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

I I Process Chemicals' II Water II Energy'

I If the manufacturer specilied a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
' Reference temperature = 68'F Specilic heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btuhb mol OF Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and diswmination oi the informah- contained in this 5-37

d w m s n t are subjectto msttictions on the copyright page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring
Contamlnant? . Required? Treatment
1 Alcoat5000C unknown yes yes unknown
3 Alcoat 50008 unknown yes yes unknown
5 Alcoat50005 unknown yes yes ,unknown ~

9 Worker Health

Acute Effects: Can cause eye, skin, and respiratory irritation.

Chronic Eflects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Splash-proolgoggles and rubber gloves required. Rubber boots and apron are also requried. Ventilate as
necessary to keep concentrations below the threshold limit value. Approved Mer mask or respirator required il
vapor mist is present.

Acute Elfects: Unknown

Chronic Ellects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles and industrial rubber apron and gloves are required. Chemical boots required. Approved filter
mask or respirator required. Full face shield should be used. Ventilation is necessary10 keep concentrations below
threshold limit values.

Acute Effects: Unknown

Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles and neoprene rubber gloves are required. Chemical boots and other protective clothing (aprons)
required. Approved lilter mask or respirator required. Ventilation is necessary to keep concentrations below
threshold limit value.

5-38 Use and disseminationof lhe informationcontained in lhis

dmumenlare subject Io reslrinimsonthe wwtighl page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-18. GM 1Environmentallmpact Data Sheel

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: General Motors, Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems

a) Number of Process Steps

4 1 Waier nns ng, wntinL0-s overflow assume0

5 hon-cnrome wnversion coaing. cer0.s cn ome
6 I Water rinsing; continuous overflow assumed
7 I Drying; 10 min at 25OOF

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs), and Carcinogens

step 1 ODSs HAPs Carcinogens
1 I Unknown Unknown Unknown
2 I None detected None detected None present
3 I None detected I None detected I None present
4 I None detected I None detected I None present
5 I None delecled I None deteclea I None present
6 I
None aeiefled I None aerected I None present
7 I None detected I None detected I None present
Total: I
1unknown I ~ u n t m o w n I 1 unknown

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

1 Ifthe manufacturer specified a range lor the chemical concentration,the largest value was used.
Reference temperature = 68°F Specific heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btulib mol "F Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and disseminalionof the i n l o m t i m containedin mi6 5-39

drmmenl are subisn 10 restrWns M the copyright page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-16. GM 1(confinued)

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation
Chemicai Solid Possible Wastewater
Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralhtlon Compounds Requiring
Contamlnant? Required? Treatment
1 PC522 unknown unknown unknown unknown
3 triethanolamine unknown yes no no
5 cerous chloride unknown unknown unknown unknown

r) Worker Health
Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects Proledive Gear Carclnogans?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute Chronic Required ?
PC522 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
triethanolamine t 5 4 yes no
cerous chloride unknown unknown unknown unknown no

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

1 PC522 HMlS hazard ranklna = Unknown 1
t Acute Effects: I Unknown I

Personal Protection: Unknown

Acute Eflects: Skin and eye irritation, poisonous to system, causes respiratory irritalion. II ingested, will bum gastrointestinal tract.
Chronic Effects: May cause dermatitis and eczema. Also causes conjunctivitis and central nervous system depression
Personal Protection: Local exhaust, respirator with organic vapor cartridge. Splashproof goggles, appropriate clothing.

Cerous Chloride HMlS hazard ranking i:Unknown

Acute Eflects: Unknown
Chronic Effects: I Unknown
I Personal Protedinn: I Unknown I
 National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-19. GM 2 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: General Motors, Delphi Harrison Thermal Systems

a) Number of Process Steps

8 1 Water rinsing; continuous ovelfiow assumed

9 I Drying; 10 min at 250'F

step ODSs HAPs Carcinogens

1 Unknown Unknown Unknown
2 None detected None detected None present
3 I Unknown I Jnmnown I Unmown
4 I
hone detecteo 1
None detected I None present
I 5 I None detected I None detected I None present I
I I
~

6 None oetected l N o n e aetenea None present

7 1
None aetectea 1
None deiectea 1 None present
8 None detected None detected None present
9 None detected None detected None present
Total: 2 unknown 2 unknown 2 unknown

step Chemical Con,alned in CAS Threshold Limit Permissible Expo- Source Code
Number Value (ACGIH) sure Limit (OSHA (see Table 5-2)

1 unknown PC522 unknown unknown unknown 9

3 unknown ACE unknown unknown unknown 9
5 triethanolamine triethanolamine 102-71-6 5mg/d none 9
7 cerous chloride cerous chloride unknown unknown unknown 9

Use and disseminaliond l h e inlormaticnmntained in his 5-41

documentare SubjSa lo rsstriclions on the mpytighl p a p .
National Center for ManufacturingSdences

Table 5-19. OM 2 (continued)

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

~~~

27,905

27,905
ambient

' I1the manulacturerspecilied a range for the chemical wncentratlon, the largest value was used.
Relerence temperature = 68'F Specific heat capacity of water = 8.983Btullb mol OF Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation

f) Worker Health
Chemical HMlS Health Total Number of Effects Protective Gear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute I Chronlc Required?
PC522 unknown I unknown Iunknown I unknown I unknown
-,
ACE unknown unknown Iunknown unknown I unknown
Triethanolamine 1 5 4 yes no
Cerous Chloride unknown unknown Iunknown unknown I no

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal ProtectionData

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~

PC522 HMlS hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Eflects: Unknown
Chronic Elfects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

Acute Effects: Unknown

Chronic Eflects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

5-42 U s and dissminsbn of he informationcontained in Ihis

dmumenl are sutjacl lo restrichs on he mpyrighl pap.
 National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Acute Ellecls: Skin and eye irritation, poisonousto system, causes respiratory irritation. Ifingested, wiii burn gastrointestinal tract,
Chronic Eflects: May cause dermatitis and eczema. Also causes conjunctivitis and central ne" system depression.
Personal Protection: Local exhaust, respirator with organic vapor cartridge. Spiashprool goggles, appropriate clothing.

Acute Eflects: Unknown

Chronic Eflects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

U s and disseminationof h e inlormationcontained in this 5-43

drmmenl a n subject to reeklions on the arpyigM page.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-20. Alodine 1200s EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Chrome Conversion Coating-Baseline Reference Company: Parker Amchem

a) Number of steps (Vendor has several treatment options available depending on the condition of the panel to be treated.)
step I Description 1
2 Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
3 Deoxidizing; Deoxidizer 6 with Deoxidizer 16 as replenisher recommended (Deoxodizer 6 and Replenisher
16 may be replaced by Deoxidizer 7 and Replenisher 17 depending on amount of oxidation present,)
4 Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
5 I Chrome wnversion coating; Alodine 1200s
6 I Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
7 I Drying; air dry or heat cure: clean uncontaminated heat sources

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens
step I ODSs I HAPS carcinogens

2 I None aetected I None aetected I None present

3 I hone detecteo I 2 delectea I Cnromlc ac d (Intemat.ona4 Agency lor Research on Cancer)
4 None detected None detected None present
5 None detected 2 detected Chromium trioxide
6 None detected None detected None present
7 None detected None detected None present
Total: 0 4 2

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals (Only Deoxidizer 6 with Replenisher 16 was evaluated in this assessment.)

Use and disseminationof the informationcontainedin this 5-45

document are subject to BSlticllOns on the wpytight paw
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-20. Alodine 1200s (continued)

d) Resource Usage
- - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy
N process Chemicals'
Chemical
Water
Continuous
Energy'
Amount Ile."&

I A II I - II "LIS I mn II an

copper ferricyanide fluoride compounds;

potassium ferricyanide

9 Worker Health

al Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Ridollne 53 NFPA hazard ranking 2
Acute Effects: May cause burns or damage to eyes. Can cause irritation or dermatitis to skin. Inhalation of dust can be an irritant
to the respiratorytract Ingestion can result in gastrointestinaldamage.
Chronic Effects: There are no known medical conditions aggravated by prolonged exposure.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
required. MSHPJNIOSH dust filter mask or respirator required if dusting occurs. Eye wash Station and emergency -
shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. .
~~

5-46 Use and disseminationof lhs inlormalim conbind in his

documnl are subjacl Io reslriclims on h e mpyrighlpap.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-20. Alodine 12009 (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

NFPA hazard ranking = 3
Contact with eyes, skin, or mucous membranes can cause severe burns, which may not be immediately painful or
visible. Material causes acid bums. Large bums may also cause hypocalcemia and other systemic effects which
may be FATAL. Inhalation of vapors can cause extreme irritation of the respiratory tract, pulmonary edema,
congeslion, and liuorosis. Ingestioncould result in tissue destruction 01 the digestive tract, and even small amount
can cause potentially FATAL hypocalcemia and systemic toxicity. This praduct contains chromic acid which may
be absoiaea through tne skin Cnrom c acia is considered very lox c.
Chronic Effects: Contains ILorioes. Exposure to fluoriaesover years may cause IJoros s Conrains cnrom c acio Pro onaeo ” or
repealed skin contact may cause “chrome sores.” Long-term exposure can cause liver damage, kidney damage,
and dermatitis. Prolonged or repeated inhalation of mist may cause ulceration and perloration of nasal septum.
POSSIBLE CANCER HAZARD. May aggravate respiratory diseases.

L
Personal Protection: Chemical face shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
required. MSHPJNIOSH approved respirator required for misting operations. Eye wash lacility and emergency
shower should be in close proximity.

Replenisher 16 NFPA hazard ranklng E 3

Acute Effects: Same as Deoxidizer 6.
Chronic Effects. Same as Deoxidizer 6.
Personal Protection. Same as Deoxidizer 6 _I

Alodlne 1200s NFPA hazard ranking 3

Acute Effects: Contact with eyes may result in loss of vision or severe bums. Product is corrosive to skin tissues. Inhalationof
dust can irritate the respiratory tract. Ingestion could resuit in tissue deStNCtiOn of the digestive tract and severe
irritation of the respiratory tract.
Chronic Eflects: Prolongedor repeated exposure to skin may cause “chrome sores.” Long-term exposure may cause liver damage,
kidney damage, and dermatitis. Prolonged or repeated inhalation may cause ulcerationand perloration 01 the nasal
septum. Contains Iluorides. Exposure to lluorides over years may cause fluorosis. POSSIBLE CANCER HAZARD. -
Personal Protection: Local exhaust required. Chemical face shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate
protective clothing required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity.

Use and dirseminationof me inlomtim w n b i n d in his 5-47

drmmenl are sukjen to r e s t k ~ o n scn the copyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-21. Alodine 2000 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

a) Number of Process Steps

j S
;t I(
Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating

Des;iption
Surface cleanin ; Ridoline 53 recommended
Water rinsin ; continuous overflow re uired
Company: Parker Amchem

Deoxidizing; Deoxidizer 6 with Replenisher 16 as replenisher recommended

j
Deoxaiumm 2200, non-chrome deoxidizerlde-smutter.
4 Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
5 Non-chrome conversion coating; Alodine TD 2000H
6 Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
7 Post treatment; TD 3095Y (proprietary tungstenhanadiumseal)
8 I Water rinsing; continuous overflow required
9 I Drying; air dly or heat cure

Step I ODSs HAPs I Carcinogens

1 I None detected I None detected I None present
2 I None detected I None detected I None present
3 I None detectea I 2 aetened I Chromic acio
4 I None aetected 1 None aetecled I None preseni
5 I None detected 1 detected I None present
6 I None detected None detected I None present
7 /Unknown Unknown I Unknown
8 I
None aelected INone Detected I None present
9 I
None detectea INone deteaea I None present
I Total: I 1 unknown I 3 t 1 unknown I 1 t 1 unknown 1

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Use and disseminationoi the infannation containedin lhis 5-49

dowment are subject 10 mstdclions on the copyrighl pa*.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-21. Alodine 2000 (continued)

d) Res0urce Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

~s

' If the manufacturerspecified a range for the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
Re11orence temperature = 68°F Specific heat capacity 01 water = 6.983 Btuilb mol "F Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation

f) Worker Health

5-50 Uw anddisseminasondlhe infomalion conbined in lhis

document are subjed lo restridionson the cowlighl page.
 National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-21. Alodine 2wO (continued)

9) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Acute Effects: May cause burns or damage to eyes. Can cause irritation or dermatitis to skin. lnhalation of dust can be an irritant
to the respiratory tract. ingestion can result in gastrointestinal damage.
Chmnic Effects: There are no known medical conditions aggravated by prolonged exposure.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective dothing
required. MSHNNiOSH dust filter mask or respirator required if dusting occurs. Eye wash station and emergency
shower should be in close proximitv. Local exhaust rewired.

Acute Effects: Contact with eyes, skin, or mucous membranes can cause severe burns, which may not be immediately painful or
visible. Material causes acid burns. Large bums may also cause hypocalcemiaand other systemic effects which
may be FATAL. lnhalation of vapors can cause extreme irritation of the respiratory tract, pulmonary edema,
congestion, and fluorosis. ingestion could result in tissue destruction of the digestive tract, and even small amounts
can cause potentially FATAL hypocalcemia and systemic toxicity. This product contains chromic acid which may
be absorbed through the skin. Chromic acid is considered very toxic.
Chronic Effects: Contains fluorides. Exposure to liuorides over years may cause fluorosis. Contains chromic acid. Prolonged or
repeated skin contact may cause ‘chrome sores.” Long-term exposure can cause liver damage, kidney damage,
and dermatitis. Prolonged or repeated inhalation 01 mist may cause ulceration and perforation of nasal septum.
POSSlBLE CANCER HAZARD. May aggravate respiratory diseases.
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
required. MSHNNIOSH approved respirator required lor misting operations. Eye wash facility and emergency
I shower should be in close proximity.
~~

Acute Effects: Same as Deoxidizer 6.

Chmnic Effects: Same as Deoxidizer 6.
Personal Protection: Same as Deoxidizer 6.

TD 2000H NFPA hazard ranking = 1

Acute Effects: I Contact with eves causes irritation. Contact with skin can cause alleraic skin reactions to occur. lnhalation of dust
can cause respiratory illness and lung disease. ingestion could result in blood, heart and pancreas damage.
Chronic Effects: None
Personal Protection: Local exhaust required. NlOSH approved respirator recommended. Chemical goggles required. Chemical-resistant
gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity.
National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-21. Alodine 2000 (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Acute Elfects: Can cause eye and skin irritation. Inhalation causes nose, throat, and respiratory tract irritation. Ingestionis
moderately toxic.
Chronic Eflects: Could result in kidney damage.
Personal Protection: Local exhaust required. NiOSH approved respirator not normally required. Chemical goggles required. Chemical-
resistant gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be
in close oroximitv.

Acute Elfects: Contact with eyes could resuit in bums and damage. Contact with skin can cause burns. Inhalation of mist can
cause nose, throat, and respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion could result in gastrointestinal damage and digestive
tract burns.
Chronic Eflects: None.
Personal Protection: Local exhaust required. NlOSHapproved respirator recommended. Chemical resistant gloves and appropriate
protectiveclothing required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to
keep below threshold limit values.

I TD 3W5V NFPA hazard rankina Unknown I

Acute Effects: Unknown
Chronic Elfects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

5-52 Use and dissemindond me inlom6an wnleined in M I

documentare subjecl I o m s ~ i m on
s themwdghlpags.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-22, Patch lgl0 A, B, C Environmentalhpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Patclin Chemical Co., Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

9 Dlying: Coating Time (mh) Tempsrature ?F)

191OA 60 380
1910B 40 430
191oc 150 330

1 I hone d e t s d I None detectea I None present

2 I None deleaed I hone detected I hone presenr
3 1 None aetectea I 1 deiecteo I None presenl
4 None detected 1 None detectea 1 None present
5 None detected 1 detected None present
6 None detected None detected None present
- 7 None detected 1 detected (manganese) None present .1

8 None detected None detected None present

9 None detected None detected None present
Total: 0 3 0

c) Regulatedand Hazardous Chemicals

Use and dissemination01 lhe inlormalionmlained in this 5-53

document are subjea lo mstricbanron lhe copyright page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-22. Patclin 1910 A, 6, C (continued)

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' ifthe manufacturerspecilied a range for the chemical concentration, the largestvalue was used.
' Reference temperature = 68°F Specilic heat capacity of water = 8.963 Btuilb mol OF Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Patclin 342 unknown yes no unknown
3 Patclin 366G unknown yes yes unknown -
5 De-smutter
~.~~~~~~~
~~~~
unknown yes yes unknown
7 Patclin 1910 unknown yes yes unknown

Acute Elleds: Upper respiratory irritation, coughing, shortness 01 breath. Skin and eye irritation. Corneal burns. Abdominal pain,
vomiting, nausea. Oral burns. Burns to alimentary canal.
Chronic Eflects: May cause dermatitis and conjunctivitis. Ulcerations of mouth and gastrointestinal disturbances.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate proledive clothing (aprons) required.
Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Normal ventilation.

Acute Effects: irritation to both eyes and skin. Sore throat, coughing, shortness 01 breath. Abdominal pain.
Chronic Elfects: Caused growth retardation, elevated kidneybody weight ratios, and tubular nephropathy in rats.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate proledive clothing (aprons) required.
Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Normal ventilation.

5-54 Use and diSI8minatiQn01 Ihe i n l o m t i m Cmtained in ulis

document we subject to reslrictians an he mpyright p g s .
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-22. Patch 1910 A, B, C (wntinued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

1 Patclin 3666- sodium Hvdroxide NFPA hazard rankina = 3
Acute Effects: Nasal irritation. Pneumonitis at high concentrations. Skin irritation and damage. May cause disintegrationor
damage to eyes. internal bums if ingested.
Chronic Effects: Nasal passage ulceration. Skin dermatitis. May cause conjunctivitis.
Personal Protection: Ventilate to keep below exposure limits. NIOSHA approved respirator required. Safety goggles and face shield
required. Chemical-resistant gloves and protective clothing required. Eye wash facility and emergency shower
should be in close proximitv.

1 Patclin 3666-sodium Gluconate NFPA hazard rankina = Unknown fassumina 3 or less\ I

Acute Effects: Unknown
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Unknown

-
De-amutter Nitric Acld NFPA hazard ranking = 3
Acute Enens: I
NaJSea, vom ting, i ghtheadedness. Resp ralory inlalon irritation or burns to s6:n or eyes lnlefnal QlrinS I
ingested.
Chronic Eflecls: Adverse effecton kidneys, possibly fatal.
Personal Protection: Safety goggles and face shield required. Acid-resistant gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to
keep below exposure limits. Acid cartridge (recommended) respirator required.

-
De-smuner Ammonlum BNluorlde NFPA hazard ranking = 3
AcJe Effecis I
lrntation to resp ralory system. coughing, snonness of breath. lrnlatlon of burns to SK n ana eyes. internal
ingested.
Chronic Effects: May cause or aggravate asthma. Dermatitis, conjunctivitis, fluorosis.
Personal Protection: Splash-proofgoggles and face shield required. Protective gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. Add carlridge (recommended) respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in
close proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

Patclin 1910. Potassium Permanganate NFPA hazard ranking = 1

Acute Effects: Severe irritation to respiratory tract. lrritation and burns to skin and eyes. Internal burns if ingested.
Chronic Effects: Causes tooth erosion and mouth damage. Dermatitis.May cause manganism.
Personal Protection: Splash-proof goggles and face shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. DusVmist respirator recommended. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.
__

Acute Effects: May cause mucous membrane irritation, coughing. irritation to skin and eyes.
Chronic Effects: May cause dermatitis and increase bone density.
Personal Protectii: Spiash-prwl goggles and lace shield required. Rubber g h e s and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. DusVmist respirator recommended. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

5-55
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-23. Patch 19118 Environmentallmpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Patclin Chemical Co., Inc.

a) Number of Process Steps

1 9 I Dtying; 45 minutes at 380°F I

step I ODSs HAPS I Carcinogens

1 1 None detected None detected None present
2 I
None detected None detected None present
3 I
None detected 1 detected None present
4 I
None detected I None detected / None present
5 I
None detected I 1 detected I None present
6 1
None detected I None detected I None present
7 I
None detected I 1 detected (manganese) I None present
8 None detected None detected None present
9 None detected None detected None present
Total: 0 3 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Use and disseminationat the information containedin this 5-57

document are subject to restrictions on Ihe copydght page.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-23. Patch 191IB (continued)

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' Reference temperature = 68°F Specific heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btdb mol "F Moles of water per 100 gal = 48.365 Ib mol

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation

Waste Generated

f) Worker Health

* For those chemicals with more than one component, the number given is for the component with the highest hazard ranking.

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Acute Effects: Upper respiratory irritation, coughing, shortness of breath. Skin and eye irritation. Corneal bums. Abdominal pain,
vomilino.
..~ .~ I. nausea. Oral burns. Burns
~ ~~~~~ ~ .
~ . to alimentaw
~~ ~ ~
~,~~canal.
I
~ ~

Chron c Enects: May c a s e dermalllis and conlunct V;I s. Ulcerations of mouth and gastroinlest nal oisurbances.

I -
Personal Protection: I Cnemical ooooles or face sh.e [I rewired. RLoDer o oves and aDDroonale Drotecttve clotnina laDronSl reouired.
"I

Respirator required. Eye wash stiibn and emergeby shower shouid be in close proximity.-Noimai ventiiation.

I Patch 342 - Sodlum Trlnolvohosohate NFPA hazard ranklna 1 I

Acute Effects: Irritation to both eyes and skin. Sore throat, coughing, shortness of breath. Abdominal pain.
Chronic Effects: Caused g m i h retardation, elevated kidneymy weight ratios, and tubular nephropathy in rats.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or face shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons) required.
Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity Normal ventilation.

5-58 Use and diswmination Ot the Informationmntainedin this

dllcument am subject to msttiehs on the copytight page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-23. Pafclin 19118(continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Patclln 3666 -Sodium Hydroxide
Ac.le Ellects: I
NFPA hazard ranking = 3
_I .___
Nasal irntalion. Pneumontis ai hlgh concentrations. Sdn rr la1on ana oamaqe May caLse d sNnteqraiion or
damage to eyes. Internal bums il ingested.
.
i
Chronic Effects: Nasal passage ulceration. Skin dermatitis. May cause conjunctivitis.
Personal Protection: Ventilate to keep below exposure limits. NIOSHA approved respirator required. Salety goggles and face shield
required. Chemical-resistant gloves and protective clothing required. Eye wash facility and emergency shower
should be in close proximity.

-
Patclln 366G Sodlum Gluconate NFPA hazard ranking E Unknown (assuming 3 or less)
Acute Effects: II Unknown
Chronic Effects: I
Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

Acute Ellects: Nausea, vomiting, iightheadedness.Respiratory irritation. Irritation or burns to skin or eyes. Internal burns if

Chronic Effects
I innested
I Aoverse elfeci on kioneys, poss b y fatal. _____
Personal Protenion. I Salety gogg es and lace shed req-lrea Acld.res slant gloves and appropr ate proieci ve coth ng(aprons)
I required. Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to
keep below exposure limits. Acid cariridoe (recommended) resoirator reauired.

Acute Effects: irritationto respiratory system, coughing, shortness 01 breath. Irritation or burns to skin and eyes. internal burns if
, inoested.
...
t Chronic Effects: I Mav cause or aooravate asthma. Dermatitis. mniunctivitis.
".I ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ,. ....... ., fliiornsis
~~ ~ ~ ~ .. ... .
Personal Protection: Splash-proof goggles and face shield required. Protective gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. Acid cartridge (recommended) respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in
close proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

1 Patclin 1911 -Potassium Permanganate . -

NFPA hazard rankina = 1
_____ d
AcIe Eltects: I Severe rr laton to respiratory iraci lrr tat on ann aurns io sk:n ana eyes nlernal b.ms
- -I ngesieo __
Chron c Effects: I CaLses twtn erosion and moJn oamaoe Dermarit s Ma" m . s o milnoanism
.. ..I__.._.
I _.
Personal Protection: Spiash.proot goggles ana face snle 0 req. rea. R-bber g oves ana appropr ate proieci ve c oih ng (aprons)
requ reo DLsVmist resp ralor recommendea Eye wash Slat On and emergency snower snoJ d be n c ose
prox m ty. Vent1 ate io keep below expos-re im Is

1 Patclin 1911 -Sodium Fluoride -

NFPA hazard rankina = 2 1
ACle Eflecis: I May ca-se mJcoJs membrane rr tation. coLgning lrr,ial on io sk n ana eyes
titis and increase bone densily.
thing (aprons)
required. DusVmist respirator recommended. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

Ufa and dissemination d he inlormatimcantainedin this 5-59

docymsni are subiect io restrictions on he copyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-24. Sandia 7 and Sandia 2 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Sandia National Laboratories

a) Number of Process Steps

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Carcinogens
step 1 ODSs HAPs I Carcinogens
I 1 I None detected I None detected I None present 1
2 I None detected I hone oetened I None present
3 I None deteneo I None oetecteo I None present
4 1 None detected I None detected I None present
5 I None detected I None detected INone present
6 I None oetefleo I None oetected I None present
7 1 None detecteo I None detecteo I None present
1 8 I None detected I None detected I None present I
Total: I 0 0 0

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Contained In CAS Threshold Limit Permissible Expe Source Code

Number Value (ACGIH) sure Limit (OSHA) (see Taole 5 3

u
7
u m oromale
so2 Jm a d " t e so0 .m
1000 j7789.38.0
a d m naE - 1302-42-7
1 none
hot delermlned.
1 none
Not delerm ned
1 I_-
-4

Use and dissemination of the inlomalion mtained in this 5-61

document am subject to restdclions on the copyright page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-24. Sandia 1 and Sandia 2 (continued)

d) Resource Usage -Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

yes I 200 11 ambient I NIA ambient I NIA

Total I 1,200 1 1
Total 82,466 1 Total I 82,466
U Wet Total I unknown 1
' Ifthe manulacturerspecified a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
* Relerence temperature = 68°F Specilic heat capacity of water = 8.983 Btullb mol "F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 ib mol

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Alconox unknown yes no Alconox
3 sodium metasilicate unknown yes no unknown
sodium carbonate unknown yes no unknown
5 SanchemlWO unknown no no unknown
7 sodium aluminate unknown no no unknown
lithium carbonale unknown yes no unknown

9 Worker Health

5-62 Use and disseminalion d lha i n l o m l i m contained in this

dOcumenl are subjen Io resl~clims on the copytight page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Acute Effects: Irritation to the skin and eyes.

Chronic Elfects: Unknown.
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield or goggles required. Proper gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash
facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. iIairborne concentrations are
hiah, use a respiralor.

Acute Effects: Upper respiratory irritation, coughing, shortness of breath. Skin and eye irritation. Corneal burns. Abdominal pain,
vomiting, nausea. Oral bums. Burns to alimentary canal.
Chronic Effects: May cause dermatitis and conjunctivitis. Ulcerations of mouth and gastrointestinal disturbances.
Personal Protection: Chemical goggles or lace shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons) required.
Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Normal ventilation.

AcIe Eflects: May cause co-gning snonness of Dreathe gaslro ntest na cnanges, ana muc& memorane r i [ai on.

Personal Protection: Splash-proofgoggles required. Proper gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash lacility and
emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. Use an approved respirator or self-
contained breathing apparatus, depending on airborne concentration.

Acute Ellects: None.

Chronic Effects: None.
Personal Protection: Rubber doves and local exhaust rewired.

Acute Ellects: May cause bums to the skin and eyes, blindness, and irritation and burns to the respiratory tract.
Chronic Effects: Unknown.
Personal Protection: Proper goggles and lace shield required. Rubber gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash
lacility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. Respirator or self-contained
breathina amaratus are not normallv reauired.

Lithium Carbonate NFPA hazard ranking I1 1

Acute Effects: May ca-se coughing. sore throat and imitation. Anects SI( n. eyes gastrointesuna tract.
Cnronic Effects: Alfecs skin, eyes, gastrointest nal iracr. ana centra neNoJs system. I

Persons Protection Splasn-prmf

. __
qoqsles
. or face shtela requirea. Ruboer g oves and appropriate
. . plolecl ve . .
Use an approved respirator or self-containedbreathing apparatus, depending on airborne concentration. Eye wash
station and emeraencv shower should be in close oroximilv. Local ventilation.

5-63
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-25. Alumicoat 6788 Environmentallmpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Elf Atochem -Turco Products Division

a) Number of Process Steps

Deoxidizelde-smutter
4 I Water rinsing; continu0.s ovedlow assmeo
5 I Non-chrome conversion coating
6 I Drying; drip dry
7 I Post-dry cure; 30 min at 18O'F

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), and Carcinogens'
[ step I ODSs I HAPs I Carcinogens
I UnKnown I UnKnown
I
1 I Jnnnown
2 I None detectea I hone detected I None present
3 Unknown Unknown I Unknown
4 None detected None detected I None present
5 Unknown Unknown I Unknown
6 1 hone detected 1 None aetened 1 None present
7 I None oetened INone oetectea I None present

Step Chemical Contained In CAS Threshold Limlt Permissible Expo. Source Code
Number Value (ACGIH) sure Limit (OSHA) (see Table 5-2)

Use and dissemination 01 he information contained in lhis 5-65

documant am subjan to resfrictionson the Copyright page.
National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-25. Alumicoat 6788 (continued)

d) Resource Usage - ProcessChemicals, Water, and Energy

' iIthe manufacturer specilied a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
Reference temperature = 68'F Specific heat capacity 01 water = 8.983 Btu/lb mol "F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

I Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? . Treatment
1 Cieanerldegreaser unknown unknown unknown unknown
3 Deoxidizer unknown unknown unknown unknown
, 5 I Alumicoat6788 unknown unknown unknown unknown

f) Worker Health

Acute Elfects: Unknown lor all three chemicals

Chronic Eflects: Unknown for all three chemicals
Personal Pmtection: Unknown lor ail three chemicals'

5-66 U s and disssminabond the inlomtim Cmtaind in lhis

document arn subjea lo restridions on the mwright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-26.2438-28DEnvironmental Impact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: Elf Atochem - Turco Products Division

a) Number of Process Steps

step I Description
1 I Surface cieaningdegreasing
2 I Water rinsing; continuos overflow assumed ,
3 Deoxidizdde-smutter
4 Water rinsing; continuous overilow assumed
5 Non-chrome conversion coating
6 Drying; drip dry

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens*

* Turco has stated that there are no carcinogens in this process. No

MSDS was provided. In such cases, RPI prefers to apply the "unknown"
designation lor the purposes 01 this assessment, in order to treat
informationfrom ail suppliers on a consistent basis.

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

Step Chemical Contained In CAS Threshold Limit Permissible Expc- Source Code
Number Value (ACGIH) sure Limil (OSHA) (see Tab e 5-2)

d) Resource Usage - Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' If the manufacturer specified a range for the chemical wncentration, the largest value was used.
Referencetemperalure = 68°F Specitic heat capacw of water = 8.983Btuilb mol "F Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

Use and dlsmminabn01 the i n l m H o n mnlainsd In lhis 5-67

drmmnl are subleu Io reslrinion 00 the mpydghlpage.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Chemical Solid Pooolble Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutrallzatlon Compounds Requiring
Contaminant? Required? Treatment
1 Cleanerldegreaser unknown unknown unknown unknown
3 Deoxidizer unknown unknown unknown unknown
5 ,2438-28D unknown unknown ,, unknown , unknown

9 Worker Health
Chemical Health Total Number of EHects Protectlve Gear Carclnogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute Chronlc Required ?
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
Deoxidizer unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
2438-28D unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown

Acute Effects: Unknown for ail three chemicals

Chronic Eflects: Unknown lor all three chemicals
Personal Protection: Unknown lor all three chemicals'

5-68
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-27. Ce-Mo 2024 Environmental/mpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: University of Southern California

a) Number of Process Steps

step
1
2
I Description
I Surface cleaningldegreasing; Alconox plus hexane
I Water rins'ng;coni nJous ovedlow ,nknown (assmeal
I
3 I Deox a z x D veney 560

13 1 Surface modification 3
14 I Water rinsing; continuous overflow unknown (assumed)
15 I Drying; (assumed)

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens

5 None detected 2 detected Potassium dichromate

6 None detected None detected None present
7 None detected 1 detected None present
0 None detected None detected None present
9 None detected None detected None present
10 I None aeteaed I
I hone aetectea hone present
11 I
None aetectea I None detectea I
None present
1
12 hone detectea I None detected I None present
13 I
hone deleaeo I None oelecled I
None preseni
14 I None detected None detected None present
I I
15 None detected None detected None present
Total: I
1 unknown 4 t 1 unknown 1 t 1 unknown

Use anddisseminationofthe inlOrmaliM contained inthis 5-69

document are rubiecl to re~tricfionson Ihe mpyrighl page.
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-27. Ce-Mo 2024 (continued)

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

-~ .

. ~~ ~~

__

d) Resource Usage -Process Chemicals,Water, and Energy

’ if the manulaclurerspecilied a range for the chemical omcentration, the largest value was used.
Referencetemperature = 68°F Specific heat capacity of water E 8.983 Btu/lb mol O F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

5-70 Us8 and dissaminationol the inlormaM mtainsd in this

dmumenl am subjen to mstriclimson Iha wpyrighl page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-27. Ce-Mo 2024 (continued)

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potentialfor Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater
Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization ICompounds Requiring

9Worker Health
Chemical NFPA Health Total Number ot Effects Protective Gear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute 1
Chronic Required?

Diversey 560 unknown unknown - unknown unknown unknown

Deoxidizer 7 3 5 7 yes yes
phosphoric acid 2 3 0 ~~
YeS no
nitric acid 3 9 1 yes no
Ce (CH,C0J3 unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
sodium molybdate unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown
cerium nitrate unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Acute Effects: Can cause irritation to skin or eyes. Headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness may occur. irritation
to the respiratoly tract, loss of consciousness, and narcosis may also resuit. Ingestioncan resuit in gastrointestinal
irritation.
Chronic Effects: Central nervous system depression.
Personal Protection: Salety goggles required. Neoprene gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Respirator required it expo.
sure limits are above the threshold limit value: il concentration is below 1000 ppm, use organic vapor cartridge; and
if concentration is above too0 ppm, USB self-containedbreathing apparatus. Eye wash station and emergency
shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits. Local exhaust required.

Alconox Baker system hazard ranking = 1

Acute Effects: I irritation to the skin and eves.
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield or goggles required. Proper gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash
facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. I1airborne concentrations are
high, use a respirator.

U s and disSeminationol he inlomason containedin this 5-71

daument 818 subleuto resltiuiom on the mpytighl page
National Center lor Manulacturing Sciences

Table 5-27, Ce-Mo 2024 (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Diversey 560 hazard ranking Unknown
Acute Ellects: I
Unknown
Chronic Elfects: I
Unknown
Personal Protedion: I Unknown

Acute Effects: Eye burns and skin irritation may occur. May cause burns to the respiratorytract and digestive tract. May cause
damage to the gastrointestinal tract.
Chronic Effects: Chrome sores. Liver and kidney damage. Denatitis and fluorosis may occur. Ulceration and perforation01 the
nasal septum.
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective dothing
required. Approved respirator recommended. Eye wash ladiity and emergency shower should be in close
Droximitv. Local exhaust rewired. Ventilate to keeo below exoosure limits.

Acute Effects: Eye burns and skin irritation may occur. May cause irritation to the respiratorytract.
Chronic Effects: None
Personal Protection: Chemical face shield or goggies required. Polyvinylalcoholgloves and appropriate protectivedothing required,
Respirator required ifexposure limits are above the threshold limit value: if concentration is below 12 ppm, use a
high-particulatecartridge; and if the concentration is above 12 ppm, use self-contained breathing apparatus, Eye
wash laciiity and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. Ventilate to keep below
exDasure limits.

Acute Effects: Nausea, vomiting, lightheadedness. Respiratory irritation. irritation or burns to skin or eyes. intemai burns if
ingested.
Chronic Effects: Adverse effect an kidneys, possibly fatal.
Personal Protection: Safety goggles and face shield required. Acid-resistant gloves and appropriate pmtective clothing (aprons)
required. Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to
keep below exposure limits. Acid cartridge (recommended) respirator required.

Ce (CH,CO$ hazard ranking I Unknown

Acute Effects: I Unknown
Chronic EHects: I Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

Sodium Molybdate hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Elfects: I Unknown
Chronic EHects: I Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

Cerium Nitrate hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Eflecls: 1 Unknown -
Chronic Effects: ] Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

5-72 Use anddisreminaabndha inlomtim cenlsinedinlhis

document am suk+m to reMctions on hs copyright page
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-28. Ce-Mo 6061 Envimnmenfal Impact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: University of Southern California

Step Description
1 Surface cleaningldegreasing; Alconox plus hexane

7 I De-smutting; nitric acid

8 I Water rinsing; continuous overflowunknown (assumed)
9 I Oxidizing; baking at 10PC lor 2 days
10 I S.dace modfcation 1
I1 1 Water r nsing; continJous overflow unknown (assmed)
13 Water rinsing; continuous overflow unknown (assumed)
14 Surlace modification 3; 5W mV applied for 2 hours
15 Water rinsing; continuous overflow unknown (assumed)

b) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS), and Carcinogens

1 9 I None detected I None detected I None present

15 None detected None detected None present

16 None detected None detected None present
Total: 1 unknown 4 t 1 unknown 1 t 1 unknown

Use and disseminationolthe informationconlained in this 5-73

dacumeni818 subjento n161tiClionson be copytightpage.
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences

Table 5-28. Ce-Mo 6061 (continued)

c) Regulated and Hazardous Chemicals

. ~~

__

d) Resource Usage -Process Chemicals, Water, and Energy

' Ifthe manufacturer specified a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
Referencetemperature = 68'F Specific heat capacity of water = 8.983 BtuAb mol O F Moles of water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

5-74 UBB and dissemination01 he informationcontained in this

document are suWect to resldctionr on be copyright page.
 National Center for ManufacturingSciences

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

step Name Waste Generated Airborne Neutralization Compounds Requiring

1I 1

3
5
hexane
Aicono;
Diverse 560
Deoxidizer 7
1 ;;I; 1 1; 1 ;:
none
Contaminant?
yes

unknown
Required?
no

unknown
I
hexane
Alconox
~

unknown
Treatment

chromium compounds;
1

9 Worker Health

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Hexane NFPA hazard ranklng E 1
Acute Effects: I Can cause irritation to skin or eyes. Headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness may occur.

Chronic Effects:
I to the respiratorytract, loss of consciousness, and narcosis may also resuit. Ingestion can result in gastrointestinal
irritation.
Central nervous system depression.
Personal Protection: Safety goggles required. Neoprene gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Respirator required if
exposure limits are above threshold limit vaiue: if concentration is below 1Mx) ppm, use organic vapor cartridge;
and if concentrationis above 1000 ppm use, sell-containedbreathing apparatus. Eye wash station and emergency
shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits. Lcai exhaust required.

A Iconox Baker system hazard ranking = 1

Acute Effects: I Irritation lo the skin and eves.
Chronic Effects: Unknown
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield or goggles required. Proper gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash
facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. If airborne concentrations are
hioh. use a resoirator.

Use and disseminaiionOf the inlormation cmtained in this

drmmentare subjen to mBtiClion6on the mpyrighl pge.
National Center lor ManulacturingSciences

Table 5-28. Ce-Mo 6061 (continued)

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data (continued)

Dlversey 560 hazard ranking = Unknown
Acute Eflects: I Unknown
Chronic Effects: I Unknown -~
Personal Protection: I Unknown
. ~~ ~~

Deoxidizer 7 NFPA hazard ranking = 3 -

Acute Elfects: Eye burns and skin irritation may occur. May cause burns to the respiratory tract and digestive tract. May cause
damage to the gastrointestinaltract.
Chronic Elfects: Chrome sores. Liver and kidney damage. Dermatitis and fiuorosis may occur. Ulceration and perforation of the
nasal septum.
Personal Protection: Chemical face shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
required. Approved respirator recommended. Eye wash fadiity and emergency shower should be in close
proximity, Local exhaust required. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

Hydrochloric Acid NFPA hazard ranking 3

Acute Eflects: I Burns to skin and eyes. internal burns il ingested. May cause nausea and vomiting. irritation of the respiratory
p
p
tract.
Chronic Elfects: May cause pulmonary edema.
~

Personal Protection: ~

Respirator required if exposure limits are above threshold limit vaiue: il concentration is below 100 ppm, use an
acid cartridge; and if concentration is above 100 ppm, use self-wntained breathing apparatus. Eye wash facility
and emergency shower should be in close proximity Local exhaust required. Ventilate to keep below threshold

Acute Eflects: Nausea, vomiting, iightheadedness. Respiratory irritation. lrritalion or burns to skin or eyes. Internal burns if
inoested.
IAoverse effect on Ktoneys, poss oly lata.
on: I Saletv ooao es an0 face shield reou reo. Acid-res.stant aioves an0 aDDroDr ate oiotect ve domina laoronsl
required, Eye'wash station and emergency shower shouid'be in close proxiiiy: Veniiiate to
limits. Acid cartridae (recommended) resuirator reauired.

CeCI, hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Eflects I Unknown
Chronic Effects: I Unknown
Personal Protection. 1 Unknown

Cerium Nitrate hazard ranking = Unknown

/ Unknown
~

Acute Elfects:
Chronic Elfects: I Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

Sodium Molybdate hazard ranking = Unknown -

Acute Elfects: I Unknown
Chronic Effects: I Unknown
Personal Protection: I Unknown

5-76 Use and disseminationd the inlormation contained in this

document are subjeclto restdctionsOn the mpyright Page.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-29. Ce-Mo 7075 EnvironmentalImpact Data Sheet

Process Type: Alternative Chrome Conversion Coating Company: University of Southern California

a) Number of Process Steps

Surlace mwilicai on 3

1 I None delened I 1 delectea I None present

2 I None aetected I None delectea I None present
I 3 IUnknown [ Unknown I Unknown 1
Potassium dichromate

8 None aetenea None delectea None present

9 None detectea None Detected None present
10 hone detected None aelecled None present
11 None aetected None detectea None present
12 None aetected None detectea hone present
13 None aeiectea None detectea None present
14 None aeledea hone detectea None presenl .
15 None detectea hone aerected None present
Total: 1 unknown 4 t 1 unknown 1 t 1 unknown

Use and dissemination01the informationconlained in his 5.77

document are subis0 to w61tictions an the mpyright paw.
National Center for Manulacturing Sciences

3 unknown Diversey 560 unknown unknown unknown 9

9 Ce(NO$ cerium nitrate unknown unknown unknown 9
11 sodium molybdate sodium molybdate unknown unknown unknown 9
13 CeCI, CeCI, unknown unknown unknown 9

d) Resource Usage -Process Chemicals,Water, and Energy

' I1the manulacturerspecified a range lor the chemical concentration, the largest value was used.
Relerence temperature = 68'F Specilic heat capacity 01 water = 8.983 Btuilb mol "F Moles 01 water per 100 gal = 46.365 Ib mol

5-70 Use and dimmination d lhe informationconlainad in his

documen1 are subject IO WStdCUWlS On Ill0 COWdShl Pap.
 National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Table 5-29. Ce-Mo 7075 (continued)

e) Solid Waste Generation, Potential for Airborne Contaminants, and Wastewater Generation
I__-____ I

Chemical Solid Possible Wastewater

Step Name Waste Generated Airborne 1
Neutralization Compounds Requirlng
Contaminant?
1 hexane none yes
Aiconox none yes
3 Diversey 560 none unknown
5 Deoxidizer 7 none yes

hydrochloric add none yes

7 nitric acid none yes
9 cerium nitrate none unknown
11 sodium molybdate none unknown
13 CeCi, none unknown

r) Worker Health
Chemical NFPA Health Total Number of Effect0 Protective Gear Carcinogens?
Name Hazard Ranking Acute 1 Chronic Required?

g) Raw Material Toxicity and Personal Protection Data

Acute Effects: Can cause irritation to skin or eyes. Headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and drowsiness may occur.
to the respiratoly tract, loss of consciousness, and narcosis may also result. ingestion can result in gastrointestinal
irritaion.
Cnronic Effects: Central nerVoLs system oepression.
Personal Protect on. Salety goggles reqb reo. heoprene g oves and appropnate protective cotning req, red. Resp rator reqLireo I
exposure limits are above threshold limit value: il concentration is below 1000 ppm, use organic vapor cartridge;
and if the concentrationis above 1MX) ppm use, self-containedbreathing apparatus. Eye wash station and
emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits. Lcal exhaust required.

I Alwnox Baker svstem hazard rankina = 1

Acute Effects: I Irritationto the skin and eyes.
Chronic Elfects: IUnknown
Personal Protection: I Chemical face shield or goggles required. Proper gloves and appropriate protective clothing required. Eye wash
I facility and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. iIairborne concentrations are
hiah. use a resDirator.

Usa and dsseminath of the information containedin this 5-79

drmmenl am subjen lo mslnclions on he mpyright paga
National Center lor ManufacturingSciences

Diveney 560 hazard ranklng = Unknown

Acute Effects: I Unknown
Chronic Eflects: I Unknown

Acute Effects: Eye burns and skin irritation may occur. May cause bums to the respiratory tract and digestive tract. May cause
damage to the gastrointestinal tract.

nasal septum.
Personal Protection: Chemical face shield or goggles required. Neoprene or polyvinyl gloves and appropriate protective clothing
required. Approved respirator recommended. Eye wash laciiity and emergency shower should be in close
proximity. Local exhaust required. Ventilate to keep below exposure limits.

Acute Effects: Burns to skin and eyes. Internal burns if ingested. May cause nausea and vomiting. Irritation of the respiratory
tract^
Chronic Effects: May cause pulmonary edema.
Personal Protection: Chemical lace shield and goggles required. Acid-resistant gloves and appropriate protective clothing required.
Respirator required if exposure limits are above threshold limit value: if concentration is below 100 ppm, use an
acid cartridge; and ifconcentration is above 100 ppm, use selfcontained breathing apparatus. Eye wash facility
and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Local exhaust required. Ventilate to keep below threshold
limit value.

Acute Elfects: Nausea, vomiting, iightheadedness. Respiratory irritation. irritation or burns to skin or eyes. intemai burns if
ingested.
Chronic Effects: Adverse effect on kidneys, possibly fatal.
Personal Protection: Safety goggles and lace shield required. Acid-resistant gloves and appropriate protective clothing (aprons)
required. Respirator required. Eye wash station and emergency shower should be in close proximity. Ventilate to
keep below exposure limits. Acid cartridge (recommended) respirator required.

Cerium Nitrate hazard ranking = Unknown

Acute Eflects: I Unknown
Chronic Effects: \ Unknown
,\,

vbdate hazard ranking = Unknown

3: runknown
m: I Unknown

hazard ranking = Unknown

CeCI,
-
Acute Effects: I Unknown
Chronic Effects I Unknown
Personal Protection. I Unknown

5-80 use and disseminslon d h e inlomlm cmtained in his

document am subjen to mstridimson the copyright Pa@.

6. References
1. Chalmer, P. and Buchheit, R. “Compa-
rative Testing of Precommercial and
Commercial Chromate-Free Conversion
Coatings for Aluminum Alloys.’’ Paper 373,
1995 NACE International Annual Confer-
ence and Corrosion Show, Houston, TX.
2. ASTM B117 - 90. “Standard Method of
Salt Spray (Fog) Testing.” ASTM, Phila-
delphia, PA. May 1990.
3. MIL-C-5541E. “Chemical Conversion
Coatings on Aluminum and Aluminum
Alloys.” 30 November 1990.
4. American Society for Testing and Materi-
als. ASTM D-3359. “Standard Test Meth-
ods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape
Test.” ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. 1987.
5. MIL-C-81706. “Chemical Conversion
Materials for Coating Aluminum and Alu-
minum Alloys.” 30 June 1970. Including
Interim Amendment 5. 13 November 1979.
6. Federal Test Method Standard No. 141C.
“Paint, Varnish, Lacquer and Related Ma-
terials, Methods of Inspection, Sampling
and Testing.” Method 6301.2 “Adhesion
(Wet) Tape Test.” January 24, 1986.
7. Bailin, L. J., P. Fitzpatrick, and M. J. Joyce.
“Evaluation of Unpainted Alodine Chro-
mate Conversion Coatings for Corrosion
Resistance and Electrical Conductivity.”
LMSC-FO35575 Rev. A, Appendix E.
Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. June 1985.
8. Finch, J. “Procedure for Contact Electrical
Resistance Measurements as Developed
Use and dissemination of the information containad in this
document are subied to rnshictionson he copyright psge
National Center lor Manufacturing Sciences
for Use at Sandia National Laboratories.”
June 1994.
9. Clarizia, M., N. Clesceri, and J. Korngold.
“Environmental Impact Assessment for
Alternatives to Chrome Project.” February
1995.
10. Felton, L. et al. “An Environmental
Appraisal of Alternatives to Chromium
Conversion Coatings.” Design and
Manufacturing Institute. May 1994.
11. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division.
“Imported and Exported Ozone-Depleting
Substances.” June 1994.
12. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. “Clean Air Act, Section 602.”
1990.
13. Henry, J. and G. Heinke. Environmental
Science and Engineering. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1989.
14. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. “Clean Air Act, Section 112b.”
1990.
15. New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Division of Air
Resources. “Proposed 6 NYCRR Part
201.” May 1995.
16. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. “EPA/600/8-89/053 Hazard Rank-
ing of Potential Carcinogens.” June 1988.
17. California Environmental Protection
Agency. “Chemical Cross Index (List of
Lists).” November 1992.
6-1