Abstract
AbstractAntimonates of potassium, lithium, barium, calcium, magnesium, strontium, zinc, aluminum, lead, and tin were substituted for sodium antimonate in an acid‐resisting dry‐process enamel for cast iron. The sodium antimonate content of this high‐lead enamel was also varied to permit comparisons of all antimonates with sodium antimonate, as a standard, on an equivalent antimony pentoxide basis. Reflectance, color, and acid‐resistance data on all enamels are presented.A number of the antimonates were compared as replacements for sodium antimonate in non‐acid‐resisting enamels of the lead‐bearing and leadless types. Reflectance and color data are given.In acid‐resisting enamels, antimonates of potassium and barium compared reasonably well with sodium antimonate in opacifying power without introducing objectionable colors. Barium antimonate also produced improved acid resistance.In non‐acid‐resisting enamels, only barium antimonate produced results approaching sodium antimonate in both leadless and lead‐bearing types.The data indicate that the antimonates do not contribute equally to opacity and color, even though all contain antimony in pentavalent form. Barium antimonate most closely approaches sodium antimonate in effectiveness. The behavior of the antimonates suggests an explanation for the variations often encountered with antimony oxide enamels.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.