The main interest of this study is to compare the corrosion resistance of aluminum anodic oxide film anodized in sulfuric acid bathh with that of preanodized and electrolytically coloured film .
Examinations have been carried out referring to (1) potentiostatted polarization curves shown on the specimens in 0.5 M sodium chloride solution, (2) impedance diagrams of the specimens and barrier thickness by Hunter's method and (3) optical metallogmphical observations of the aspects of pitting corrosion which took place on these specimens, and dipping test in corrosive solution .
The results obtained are summarized as follows : (1) Typical difference was observed in regard to the potentiostatted polarization curves (i-t curves) between the two types of specimens in 0 .5 M sodium chloride solution . The corrosion current caused by pitting corrosion of the electrolytically coloured specimens was smaller than that of anodized ones on the measurement by i-tcurves. (2) The survey through the interfacial impedance diagrams of the specimens made clear that the impedance of the electrolytically coloured film was larger than that of uncoloured anodic oxide film, especially this greater increasing part of impedance was achieved in 15 s. This tendency was similar for the measurement of barrier thickness by Hunter's method . (3) The optical metallographical observations have demonstrated that there were far more advanced pitting corrosion on the anodic oxide film than on the electrolytically coloured film . In the dipping test, uncoloured anodized aluminum showed high extent of pitting corrosion, while electrolytically coloured aluminum performed well during colouring . So the total result of above examinations reveals that electrolytically coloured films are definitely more resistive to corrosion than anodic oxide films and this is due to the thick barrier layer of the former films .