ZINC RICH COATINGS V'S GALVANISING WHAT ARE THE FACTS

Author: Ern Hemmings.

1. INTRODUCTION: There are currently a number of significant events being played out in the Australian Corrosion Protection Industry all related to zinc rich coating specification and usage. Over the last 15 years the Galvanising Industry has successfully promoted the benefits of galvanising. They have been so successful that engineers and architects consider that galvanising is the treatment of choice for corrosion protection of steel. Whilst not exactly an aesthetic finish, galvanising never the less is certainly more attractive than rusty steel. Over this period the galvanising industry have established standards, presented papers, run seminars, and produced literature promoting their perceived benefit of problem free, long life protection for steel. The paint industry, blast cleaners and protective coating applicators have been slow to respond to this challenge and when they have responded it has been in a disjointed, uncoordinated and poorly informed fashion. This situation has now changed with the formation of the ZRCC Zinc Rich Coatings Council. The Zinc Rich Coatings Council membership consists of senior management representatives from the paint companies, zinc dust manufacturers, some other raw material suppliers and coating application associations. The formation of this group is quite remarkable in the Australian protective coating situation where paint companies have been more competitive with one another than cooperative. 2. HISTORY OF CURRENT SITUATION: The events which led to the formation of the ZRCC were numerous but may be summarised as follows: The first was the feeling among many people in the paint industry that the Galvanising Association was unfairly promoting the advantages of galvanising alongside a biased presentation of the failures of paint coatings. Quite often photos of paint failures would be featured where an unsuitable system had been used for a corrosive or chemical situation. Typically, photos would be shown where an alkyd enamel had been used direct to galvanising with resulting saponification and paint flaking. There would be no one in the paint industry who would specify alkyds direct to galvanising. However, uninformed painters will mistakenly do it. Engineers have been known to use galvanising in acidic areas but the failure does not mean that galvanising always fails. In addition, case histories of the successful use of galvanising in a marine situation were put forward to support it's use in an environment normally considered unsuitable for galvanising. Later inquiries would reveal that the galvanised steel had failed prematurely in this environment, confirming what we already know that galvanising is in fact not satisfactory for such use. Again however that information becomes available after the false information has been presented. This bias was most evident in the committee dealing with the revision of AS/NZS2312 Standard for Protecting Steel in an Atmospheric Environment. The disagreement between the parties revolved around the life expectancy to first maintenance for inorganic zinc coatings and galvanised steel. The galvanising industry representatives pushed the line very hard that unless the standard represented the views of the
1

galvanising industry on life expectancies of paint and galvanising, then it was likely that their members would reject the standard when it went to public review. This hard line resulted in a representative from that industry being on the four-person sub-committee who determined the life expectancies of coatings. The third factor which has been a driving force is the aggressive marketing of galvanising to the mining and petroleum industry in the last ten years. Major projects once thought to be the preserve of the protective coatings industry were specified galvanising on the basis of performance and cost. These included the Train Three Expansion at Woodside LNG, the expansion of the Boyne Island Aluminium Smelter at Gladstone and the structural pipe racking at Darwin LNG Plant, among many. The Galvanising Industry have actively sought to extend their market to the coating of heavy structural steel where inorganic coatings have traditionally been the preferred choice. Another factor has been the shrinkage in the Australian Blast Cleaning and Coating Industry. Employee numbers have been drastically reduced and a number of companies have closed their doors. Associations like the BCCA and AIPC have never been weaker in supporting their industry. The industry cannot allow the loss of further market share to the galvanising industry. There is much to gain by righting the balance. Recent figures show that 60,000 tonne of zinc metal was used annually in Australia for galvanising as opposed to 2,000 tonne of zinc as zinc dust in zinc rich coatings coatings. Conversion of just 1% of the galvanising market to zinc rich coatings would increase the zinc rich paint market by 25%, add 400,000 litres of zinc rich paint into the paint economy and $40 million into the blasting and application industry. And finally there has been a significant change in the source of technical specifications to the Australian paint industry. It is a worldwide phenomenon driven by outsourcing of technical expertise in large chemical and mining companies. Very few now have their resident coatings or corrosion expert. Likewise paint companies have reduced their costs by reducing technical staff. Globalisation has also led to centralisation of research and development personnel in European or American sites with a consequent decrease in the understanding of the chemistry of coatings here in Australia. The common use of consultants to prepare paint specifications by major facilities has taken control out of the hands of the paint industry into those of a range of consultants of the spectrum of capabilities and loyalties. In some cases these consultants are very competent but in other cases they are quite ignorant of coating science and far from independent. In summary the industry has changed considerable over the last 10 years. The result of those changes is the current unsatisfactory situation with regard to the specifying of zinc rich coatings in Australia. However, the coatings industry recognised that there was a need to promote itself more effectively if there was to be any hope of reversing the current trend. This general feeling of a need to do something was capably harnessed by Michael Hambrook of the APMF with the formation of the ZRCC and his nursing of it through its early formative stages. 3. ZINC RICH COATINGS: Zinc rich coatings can be defined as wet paint coatings in which zinc dust is a substantial component. It is difficult to put a defining criteria on the amount of zinc dust that must be present in a coating to render it zinc rich, but paint companies have been remarkably above board in marketing only products that have levels of zinc dust that do provide a level of protection above that which can be obtained by primers that do not contain any zinc dust. A coating that contains say only zinc phosphate anti-corrosive pigment would not be considered a zinc rich coating because the zinc is not in a metallic form. Zinc rich coatings are those whose level of metallic zinc content conforms to the requirements of the respective Australian Standard whether AS/NZS 3750.15 or 3750.9.

There are two groupings of zinc rich coatings, they being inorganic and organic. Inorganic coatings, in the main, are distinguished by having a silicate resin to bind the zinc dust into a film. Organic zinc rich coatings may use a number of different organic based resins but the most common is the use of an epoxy resin cured by an amine based curing agent. Firstly inorganic zinc coatings. These are composed of either an alkali silicate or an ethyl silicate. These coatings are covered by AS/NZS 3750.15 standard detailing composition, level of zinc in the dry film and performance characteristics. The standard solvent borne ethyl silicate is designated Type 4. There are also low molar ratio water borne alkali silicates designated Type 3 and "high ratio" alkali silicates designated Type 6. Type 3 and Type 6 water borne inorganic zinc coatings differ in that the high ratio silicate coating reaches hard dry properties far quicker and can be built to higher film thickness' in one coat. Type 5 are pre-weld or blast holding primers with lower levels of zinc in the dry film. This lower level of zinc metal enables welding through the coating without production of zinc induced porosity in the weld. All these are covered by the generic term inorganic zinc silicate coating.
Zn ? O ? Zn ? O? Si? O? ? OH OH OH

OH OH OH ? ? ? K? O? Si? O? Si? O? Si? OH + water + Zn ? ? ? OH OH OH Potassium Silicate

Si? O? Si? O? Zn + KOH ? ? OH OH Zinc Silicate plus release of free alkali

Figure 1 Chemistry of Zinc Silicate Formation from Alkali Silicate Binder. The addition of zinc dust to the alkali silicate liquid component serves to provide a metal cation to promote the zinc silicate reaction and the evaporation of water to the atmosphere concentrates the silicate molecules causing them to precipitate out of solution to form a hard coating. Ethyl silicate resin systems were invented in the United States and are by far the more commonly used inorganic zinc rich coating. Their chemistry is characterised in Figures 2 and 3 below.

OEt EtO ---Si---OEt OEt

+ H2 O

OH HO ----Si ----OH OH ? Silicic Acid +

EtOH

Tetra ortho ethyl silicate + water + acid catalyst

ethanol

OH OH ---Si---OH OH

OH HO ----Si ----OH OH ?

OH OH HO----Si --O-----Si ----OH + H2O. OH OH polysilicate polymer + water

Silicic Acid + condensation reaction

Figure 2. Reactions that occur with acid catalysation of ethyl silicate solution.
3

Et OH EtOH EtOH . ? ? ? EtOH? O? Si? O? Si? O? Si? OH + WATER + Zn EtOH ? ? ? EtOH EtOH EtOH Ethyl Silicate

Zn EtOH EtOH ? O ? Zn ? O? Si? O? Si? O? Si? O? Zn + ? EtOH ? EtOH ? EtOH

Zinc Silicate with release of ethanol

Figure 3. Reactions that occur as zinc dust is added to an ethyl silicate solution. The reactions taking place in an ethyl silicate system are very complex with, in one case, water required and in the other water given off. The polysilicate molecule is three-dimensional and can also include zinc and iron reacted into the structure. These coatings are very sensitive to moisture levels in the atmosphere to complete their curing process. Hot, dry conditions are not suitable for satisfactory cure of ethyl silicate resin systems. Inorganic zinc coatings have a particular interest for Australian chemists. The concept was developed by an Australian inventor Victor Nightingall in the 1930's in an endeavour to find a means of applying a galvanised zinc coating in the cold. He then formed the Di- met Company to manufacture and market the product. The project, which won the concept worldwide attention, was use of the product as the exterior corrosion protective coating for the 360 km Morgan to Whyalla Pipeline in South Australia. This was built to deliver water to the new steel mill city of Whyalla. In order to win the contract he agreed to a 50year warranty. The warranty included regular maintenance which did cover any shortcomings however there are many areas where the original coating is still in place and performing its protective function. In the late 1940's "Chuck" Munger the Technical Manager at Ameron in California heard of the new technology, came out to Australia to investigate and quickly recognised the potential of the coating. Dimet and Ameron agreed to a technology sharing arrangement and Dimetcote became a generic term in the United States for applying a zinc silicate coating to steel. The technology has progressed significantly since then particularly with the development of solvent borne zinc silicate coatings by the Carboline Corporation in the 1960's. More recently NASA developed a "high ratio water borne" zinc silicate which has had a significant impact on the Australian scene. The second type of zinc rich coatings are those in which the zinc dust is bound by an organic resin. The resin binder, of necessity, must not be saponifiable but can either dry by solvent evaporation or a chemical cross- linking reaction may occur. Systems relying on solvent evaporation include those using chlorinated rubber or polystyrene resins whereas those in which a chemical reaction takes place include two pack epoxy resins or single pack moisture cured polyurethanes. 4. CURRENT SPECIFICATION SITUATION: The current situation with regard to inorganic zinc coatings is as follows. Where heavy duty coatings are required in a marine environment and where aesthetics are not a significant issue then there is a
4

preference by coating consultants to specify a single coat of high ratio water based inorganic zinc coating. This is usually to a dry film thickness (DFT) of 100 150 microns or a minimum of 150 microns. This system originated with the entry to the coatings industry in the USA of a company called Inorganic Coatings. This company acquired the rights to a 1979 NASA patent for the production of what was called High Ratio" water borne inorganic zinc coatings. The NASA patent essentially took the existing selfcuring alkali silicate technology that had been around since the 1960s and with the use of colloidal silica increased the ratio of silicate to alkali metal composition in the silicate binder. The result of this advance was to produce a water based silicate binder for zinc powder that achieved film hardness and water insolubility faster and enabled the application of thicker films in one coat. Although the owners of Inorganic Coatings were not great chemists they were exceptional marketers and with phrases such as instant cure and lifetime protection managed to convince the industry that they had developed a new coating that would revolutionise the corrosion protection industry. Several factors were in their favour; one being the emergence of the environmental legislation in the USA, restricting the use of solvent based coatings. The 100% water content of High Ratio Inorganic Zincs gave them a receptive audience. In addition they enlisted the services of Chuck Munger of Ameron fame to promote the benefits of this product. (1) This technology was introduced to Australia in the 1990's. Its adoption was primarily due to Alex Szokolik of ESSO Operations Bass Strait who was introduced to the technology and adopted it as the prime maintenance coating for ESSO offshore structures and in a salt laden atmosphere the system works exceptionally well. It is fair to say that this system saved ESSO considerable expense in their coating maintenance budget and has worked well for them, particularly offshore, where the non-flammable aspect of the water based zinc was a significant benefit. It is also accurate to say that the enthusiasm for the system by Alex Szokolik, and his ability to passionately argue the case for this system was successful in increasing adoption of the system and its specification for many major projects throughout Australia. The system has been adopted by a number of industry consultants and specified by them in situations where the solvent borne zinc would have been a more appropriate product. One size doesn't fit all in this case. Unfortunately the "high ratio" inorganic zinc is sensitive to high humidity during cure. Humidity over 70% can result in a very powdery, poorly bound coating. Lack of understanding of this phenomenon by the industry has resulted in a number of costly coating failures which in most cases the paint companies have borne. Sometimes the lessons of the past have to be relearnt. It is interesting to quote from a Vessey industry newsletter of 1969 (4). This was written as part of the promotional benefits for introduction of the new solvent borne inorganic zinc Zinorg Zinc- ite G , and it said of the previous water borne self- curing silicate type that "Applications frequently have to be held up or done over because of high humidity conditions or unexpected showers which cause almost immediate failure - a costly inconvenience. At the 1993 ACA Conference John Biddles gave a paper in which he says in reference to conventional water borne zinc coatings Many tonnes of steel have had to be re-blasted and re-coated due to early exposure to rain or heavy dew (7). There is no doubt that water borne inorganic zincs, whether high ratio or low ratio are susceptible to the influence of high humidity and low temperature and yet the paint industry have been unsuccessful in having these systems replaced. One need only witness the preference given to water based inorganic zinc coatings in the Australian Standard AS/NZS2312 to life expectancies of zinc coatings to understand why it is difficult to argue the case against water borne zinc coatings with facility owners.

TABLE 1.ASNZS2132 2001 Revision. Life Expectancies to First Maintenance :

System Old Code Coating DFT microns Very Low 25+ Low Medium Durability High Very High Industrial 5 - 10 2-5 Very High Marine 2 - 10 Inland Tropical 10 - 15

IZS1

MP1-A

Solvent borne inorganic zinc Water borne inorganic zinc

75

15 25

10-15

IZS2

MP1-A

75

25+

25+

25+

15-25

2-5

15-25

25+

The contrast in life expectancies between the same resin system originating from different starting point materials is not supportable. The reason given that water borne zincs have more zinc powder doesnt stand scrutiny. Water borne would typically have about 40kg per 20 litre mix whereas solvent borne have about 28 kg per 20 litre mix. A ratio of 10 : 7, certainly not 25 : 10 or 9:3 as given by comparing the life expectancies in the above tables. There was some suggestion that 150 microns of water based inorganic zinc is a competitive alternative to hot dip galvanising. In ideal conditions "High Ratio" water borne inorganic zinc coatings can be applied to this thickness, however if conditions are not ideal it has to be applied in two coats and then it is no longer competitive. Hot dip galvanizing is currently quoted in Western Australia at about $400 - $500 per tonne. The cost of applying two coats of water borne inorganic zinc to 150 microns DFT is $600 - $700 per tonne. This compares to the cost of $350 - $450 per tonne for a single coat system at 75 microns of solvent borne inorganic zinc. It can be seen that by allowing water borne inorganic zinc coatings to have a better life expectancy than the cost competitive solvent borne product the industry has consigned itself to an impoverished, long, hard road to journey. The point of this outline is that if an industry allows its future to be determined by outside influences who are in competition with that industry then that industry will have to live with the consequences of flawed driving forces. And this is what has happened to the protective coating industry in Australia. A united front is required by both coating applicators and all paint suppliers to change this situation. The industry must take a more active role in determining its own future. We have sought to save pennies by not sending our technical people to standards meetings with the result that decisions are made by people who are only partly informed, have no resources to properly evaluate their conclusions and who are present to look after their own interests. Consequently we condemn ourselves to fighting rearguard actions to convince architects and engineers of the true facts. 5. A SPECIFICATION BATTLE WON: The second type of zinc rich coating is that variously described as organic and encompasses such products as single pack polystyrene, epoxy ester, and two pack epoxies of various types. These are rarely used un-topcoated. The two pack epoxies are the preferred primer for multi-coat systems. The advent of low temperature cure, rapid re -coat zinc rich epoxies has enabled the application of a three coat system of high build epoxy and polyurethane or acrylic topcoat in two days with no delay due to weather conditions. This system is the recommended option where multicoat systems are required.

This above recommendation has gained almost universal acceptance because the case was strongly argued and the industry experience recognised the failures from overcoating inorganic zinc silicates (7). Inorganic systems suffer in two ways when used in a multi-coat system which gives rise to delays and failures. Firstly solvent borne Type 4 silicates require atmospheric moisture to achieve cure of the resin. At 25C and 70% relative humidity it takes 48 hours for an inorganic zinc to reach a level of cure suitable for over-coating with a high build epoxy. If cure has not been achieved the inorganic resin is susceptible to solvent attack and a weak layer will be formed within the zinc silicate film. This weak layer will eventually rupture either during handling, or bolt tightening or sometimes not until repairs are being done and it becomes impossible to feather back the blasted edge because the topcoat continues to peel away. Applicators and impatient engineers are often loath to wait 48 hours or in times of low humidity the several days before the inorganic zinc will cure. This cure is easily checked using MEK double rubs as per AS/NZS3894. As recommended above the better solution is to use a low temperature cure, rapid re -coat epoxy zinc which is not subject to atmospheric factors. Water borne inorganic zinc coatings are also unsatisfactory in multi-coat systems because they release soluble alkali hydroxide which if overcoated before it has reacted with atmospheric carbon dioxide can lead to osmotic blisters during periods of rain or high humidity. The advent of low temperature cure, rapid recoat epoxies enabled the industry to offer a zinc rich primer that could be applied in virtually any weather conditions and be cured sufficiently to be topcoated the same day. And in contrast with inorganic silicates regardless of the temperature or the humidity (provided the temperature of the steel was no less than 3 C above the dew point). This system has now been widely adopted by the engineering and architect fraternity. Provided the argument is backed up by sound evidence and the case argued strongly then the industry can advance to every ones benefit.

6. GALVANISING: The galvanising industry have very successfully promoted the superiority and reliability of galvanising as a corrosion protective coating for steel. The positives have received inflated prominence whereas the deficiencies are never mentioned. Consequently to promote inorganic zinc coatings as having the same performance capability as galvanising is a hard argument to win without sound facts to back it up. Unfortunately the paint industry at the time were not able to marshal the case histories required to back their argument that solvent borne inorganic zinc rich coatings perform as well as galvanising. Consequently the AS/NZS 2312 2002 Standard reinforces the view that solvent borne inorganic zinc coatings are inferior to galvanising and water borne inorganic zinc coatings. The industry in order then to compete with galvanising on an equal footing is condemned to using a coating that is very sensitive to ambient conditions in its cure. If the ambient conditions are unsatisfactory then a costly failure could result.: Table 2 4.2 RE: ASNZS2132 2002 Revision. Life Expectancies: Life expectancies of zinc rich coatings and galvanising.
System Old Code Coating DFT microns Very Low Low Medium Durability High Very High Industrial Very High Marine Inland Tropical

IZS1

MP1-A

Solvent borne inorganic zinc Water borne inorganic zinc Hot dip galvanising Hot spray zinc

75

25+

15 40

10-15

5 - 10

2-5

2 - 10

10 - 15

IZS2

MP1-A

75

25+

40+

25- 40

10-25

2-5

5-10

25 - 40

HDG600 TSZ100

GZ ZN100

85 100

25+ 25+

25+ 25+

25+ 25+

15-25 15-25

2-5 NR

5-15 5-15

25+ 25+

Contrast these figures with the statement by Gordon Brevoort in his paper "Inorganic Zinc-Rich Coatings and Galvanising : A Comparison": "For untopcoated systems, the inorganic zinc and thermal spray zinc system performances were about equal and slightly better than galvanising" (5). Gordon Brevoort is recognised in the industry for compiling coating life expectancies on real life structures and publishing these in the Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings. 6. THE REAL DEFICIENCIES OF GALVANISING: The ZRCC has become a depository for failures of galvanising that had previously been kept quiet by the galvanising industry. The information below has been publicised by the ZRCC in Fact Sheet 1 (8) available from the ZRCC or can be downloaded from the web site www.zrcc.asn.au. For instance we now know that "cheap" imported steel, often used to enable galvanising to compete with inorganic zinc coatings on price, often contains a high level of silicon and phosphorous. This causes excessive zinc deposition, re sulting in poor zinc adhesion and many other handling problems. The deposition of zinc cannot be controlled and is inevitable if high silicone or phosphorous steel are used. With the galvanising of large steel members or double dipping long steel beams, the heat in the molten zinc bath can cause many distortion problems. The Bunbury Bridge built in 2000 in Western Australia suffered considerably from this defect. The pickling process can also cause hydrogen embrittlement to some steels precluding its use for some applications. Hot dipped zinc baths contain lead resulting in galvanising having 5 to 10 times the amount of lead compared to inorganic coatings. The Galvanising Industry still use sodium dichromate, a known human carcinogen, to quench the galvanising and give it a chromate surface treatment to minimise white rust development during storage. Amazingly the Australian standard for hot dip galvanising AS/NZS 4680.1999 allows 4 times the area of defect galvanising as the ISO standard does. The Australian standard for inorganic zinc does not allow any defect area. It is notable that when galvanising is welded or requires repair of defects the galvanising industry recommend and use a single pack organic zinc primer which they consider as equal performance to galvanised zinc coating. Finally, we're making sure that when comparing the cost of galvanising and paint that the comparison is with a single coat of inorganic zinc and not multiple coats of paint as has been the case in the past.
8

7. FUTURE DIRECTIONS. The most significant discovery of the ZRCC group arose out of a meeting arranged by Michael Hambrook with a large engineering project group. Firstly, only two people turned up to the meeting from the engineering firm, reflecting the importance engineers place on knowing about coatings. However, one of those engineers, when asked why he would specify galvanising rather than inorganic zinc rich coating said because, when specifying galvanising, all he had to state was that the steel was to be galvanised as per AS4981. He then would not have to worry about it again until the galvanised steel was delivered to site. Even then he would do no QC testing because he had confidence that the steel would be properly galvanised to the standard. The stark contrast with a coating system is that he would have to decide from a complicated list of varying systems of varying number of coats of varying thickness and possible surface preparation which one he wanted. He would then have to draw up a specification, decide what QA specifications he needed for application conditions and for application and cured coating. He would probably appoint an inspector. It would be unusual if that inspector didnt raise some concern over the application or the applicator or the paint and then he would have to arbitrate about something he was unsure about. So in comes the highly paid consultant to sort it out. After much stress he would have coated steel delivered with a coating system that he "hoped" was applied correctly. The picture is very clear and Donald Duck could see the problem paint companies face. Standards such as AS2312 and the various product and testing standards only serve to complicate the procedure even more for the inexperienced engineer. When was the last time you read AS2312? We have not helped ourselves by producing standards that no one but an experienced coating expert can understand and use. The ZRCC solution is to draft new standards for each coating system covering all aspects of the application in suc h a way that the engineer doesnt have to worry about deciding anything. This will need considerable cooperation from the blasting and application industry to ensure procedures are followed and the application is correct. There are techniques and procedure s that must be followed in order to provide steel with a sound coating system. When applied correctly to the specification the engineer can have confidence that the coating will give the expected long life performance. One might say it can't be done, there are too many opportunities for error. Well it has to be done and we must make sure it will be done. The Galvanising Industry had the same problem and enforced good practice. In 1950 "Made in Japan" meant shoddy quality, today if I can get electronic equipment marked "Made in Japan" then it means "high quality" and is my first choice. They did it too, so can we. As an industry we are also focussing on the fact that galvanising is in fact an anti-corrosive primer for steel. We're beginning to recognise that the paint companies cannot control the application nor the final surface treatment of the galvanised coating. In addition there are many galvanised coatings from hot-dip to electrolytic applied to air knife removed hot galvanising. Some of these have very limited corrosion protection and require a more extensive coating system to provide long term protection. The surface treatment can have considerable effect on the performance of the coating system and is out of the control of the paint specifier. Consequently paint companies need to make it clear that warranties cannot be supplied where someone else's galvanised primer is used as the first coat on the steel. We wouldnt supply a warranty if another paint company's primer was used, why should we supply a warranty for a galvanising primer. We know that whether inorganic
9

zinc or an organic zinc that a far sounder paint system will result when applied over these primers than when applied over galvanised surface. 9. SO WHEN DO WE USE COATINGS OR GALVANISING: There is no dispute over the specification of galvanising for small or thin items. These are much more economical to handle and coat in a galvanising bath. The generally accepted cut off point is steel that has less than 25 m surface area per tonne is more economical to coat with inorganic zinc than to galvanise. This is unless other factors are involved such as where distortion of the steel cannot be tolerated and hot dip galvanising is thus unsuitable. Where an aesthetic or coloured finish is require d then we would always recommend a paint coating finish. The surface of galvanising is too reactive to serve as a sound substrate for long term coating performance. Our recommendation would usually be to use a zinc rich epoxy primer followed by a suitable topcoat system. In a marine or high humidity environment then the preference would always be inorganic zinc rather than galvanising as a single coat system or zinc rich epoxy with topcoats if a coloured finish is required. Inorganic zinc coatings provide galvanic protection but as the zinc corrodes to protect the steel the zinc salts fill up the pores of the silicate and react with carbon dioxide to provide an impervious zinc carbonate layer giving additional long term lock-out protection. Galvanising is unable to contain other than a very thin layer of zinc carbonates and the zinc corrosion salts tend to be washed off the surface before this layer can be formed. Inorganic zinc will always give longer life in a marine situation. As indicated previously where imported steel, with a high silicon or phosphorous content, is being used then inorganic zinc is the only option. 10. CONCLUSION: The formation of the Zinc Rich Coatings Council was a timely development of immense benefit for the whole protective coatings industry. It has served as a cooperative forum where the members have been able to pool their information and resources and establish a clear way forward to promote the use of paint coatings as opposed to zinc metal coatings. We have to thank the APMF (Australian Paint Manufacturers Association) and particularly Michael Hambrook for initiating this group but also the participants deserve congratulations on working co-operatively for the common good. We have a clear goal of being better able to promote the industry and with the development of a true standard for the sound application of zinc rich coatings will provide a means of winning back business lost to competing industries. The senior management of the paint industry must recognise the need to commit people resources to the preparation of standards and to industry associations. All of us are short on time but unless the paint and coatings industry take an active role in these meetings our interests will not be protected and bad standards will be produced.

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (1) Inorganic Zinc Coatings: A Review Charles G. Munger Materials Technology June 1989.
10

(2) Sixty Years of Inorganic Zinc Coatings Edited by R.A. Francis 1999 ACA Inc.
(3) Inorganic Zinc Silicates as Single-Coat Protective Systems for Steel, A. Szokolik Sixty Years of Inorganic Zinc Coatings. 1999 ACA Inc. (4) Vessey News Review No. 26 1969 Edited by Dr. Ernest Haeman (5) "Inorganic Zinc-Rich Coatings and Galvanising: A Comparison." Gordon H. Brevoort. Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings September 1996. (6) AS/NZS 2312 2002 " Protection of Steel in an Atmospheric Environment. Australian Standards. (7) "Inorganic Zinc Silicate Coatings" G.J. Biddle presented at the ACA Conference Newcastle 1993. "Zinc Primers - The Way Forward" E.J. Hemmings and M.J. Mitchell printed in "Sixty Years of Inorganic Zinc Coatings". 1999 ACA Inc. and presented in several seminars organised by the Protective Coatings Interest Group of the ACA. (8) "Features and Benefits of Zinc Rich Coating Systems" Fact Sheet 1 August 2002. ZRCC. The End

11