Silicates, Silicas and Hydrogels, Oh My!

I was recently asked to peruse several different products that claim to be colloidal silica type products for concrete.

Of the dozen or so products, there were only two that qualified BOTH as a colloidal silica and appropriate for the densification and increased water-tightness of concrete.

There WERE other colloidal silicas, some that suggested use with concrete, but lacked any substantive data...so caveat emptor with those products. I am not a fan of suggestion or supposition; I AM a fan of solid, and quantifiable data.

What got me riled up to write this article, many products are being marketed as colloidal silica, with at least one company claiming (in the same data) the product is colloidal silica, colloidal silicate and hydrogel. This type of garbage is spewed I guess to sound "high-tech" and/or chemically sophisticated. To those of us that have been around or have sourced with these various products, that claim is for three entirely different materials, and even then the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) and technical literature PROVES the product is NONE of the three claims. Mostly though, a properly formulated colloidal silica such as E5 (Specification Products) has University Studies, MANY bridge decks and other concrete structures treated that support the veracity of their claims. I am semi-sorry for them since they had to undergo my grilling where I don't ask for, but demand proof.

Demand of proof should be the mantra of anyone even considering using any of these products, otherwise to somewhat paraphrase Forrest Gump "You never know what you're gonna get".

Let me take it a step further...not only demand verification of claims, but also have them sign an agreement that should anything go wrong with the project where the effectiveness as claimed is having negative or deleterious effects, the product WILL be analyzed using Liquid Chromatography and/or Mass Spectrometry to identify if the product used was based on the material(s) as claimed. This type of analysis is somewhat analogous to DNA testing in identification of what the chemical composition is vs what it isn't. NOTE: these analysis processes ONLY identify components, NOT "how" something is formulated nor how the compound is combined, manufactured, or functionality.

If the product is NOT what was represented, then that agreement should include the product in question is responsible for any and all costs of remediation and repair, whatever that process may be.

Colloidal Silica vs Alkaline Silicate vs Hydrogel

NONE of these products share similar functional characteristics and in fact, the pH of a colloidal silica versus the pH of an alkaline silicate is a dead giveaway of what is claimed versus what is reality.

A colloidal silica that has optimized functionality for concrete has a pH in the range of tap water to slightly alkaline (similar to baking soda). ANY claimed "colloidal silica" with a pH higher than 11 is NOT a colloidal silica. NOTE: I took screen shots of the data I researched since I believe some of them may be "modified" in the near future after the companies are confronted with this information.

The product(s) claiming to be a colloidal silica and hydrogel are either extremely ignorant with chemistry or are simply another "snake oil". The one SDS I read stated the pH of their "colloidal silica" is 12 with precautions that the product would etch glass and reacts with aluminum. These are ALL indications the product is likely a sodium or potassium silicate, NOT a colloidal silica.

As for the hydrogel claim; this is nearly as ridiculous as one producer of sodium silicate claiming their product was a polycarbonate that functions by reacting with the alkali in concrete to form CSH. Might as well claim they are turning lead into gold.

A hydrogel is typically a monomer and/or polymer of organic origin and do not and will not react with the alkali in concrete to form CSH.

There are what is termed SAP (Super Absorbent Polymers) that, with a bit of a stretch could be argued these are "hydrogels".

However, in contrast to the claims of reacting with the alkali in concrete, these SAP materials have no direct or indirect capability of reacting with alkali to form CSH. What these WILL DO, is provide a moisture source (very similar to lightweight and/or absorptive aggregate) within the concrete to help initiate a more complete curing.

The downside of SAP's is that there is a noted narrow window of what constitutes, enough, not enough or too much. In other words, the claims of reaction with alkali to form CSH are pseudo-tech babble of descriptives that do not and cannot function as represented.

Specification and Recommendation Liability

Unless and until those who specify such products have done their homework, the onus is on those who made the choice to use a product that has not been fully investigated (insert - due diligence).

If someone like me was brought in after-the-fact, it would not end well if proof of function isn't there, and/or the compound is different from what is/was represented. Those who recommend and/or specify such products can be held liable. NOTE: It is my opinion that those who should be held liable aren't being held liable ONLY because those who have been harmed don't know or understand they have recourse.

Analyzing a compound is NOT the same as "reverse engineering". However;

The legalese: There is no law prohibiting you from reverse engineering, unless you've entered into a contractual relation with the product company specifically preventing you from doing it.

Finally

Although it is understandable why a company would choose to alter their product description (his is called "Product Differentiation"); there are some products that are tainted by a history of prior suspect results or persistent mis-use of similar products, this is the most likely scenario prompting a product differentiation.

If the differentiation enters the realm of intentional misrepresentation, or use of already established terms used and marketed with established characteristics different from the "product differentiate" attempt to claim a product of a different origin or functionality, that ladies and gentlemen is intentional misrepresentation, and no matter HOW many disclaimers, non-disclosures, etc. are signed, such agreements are NOT enforceable and NOT a violation of an otherwise signed legal agreement when a suspected misrepresentation is made by those who know or SHOULD have known the product(s) were being misrepresented.

The legalese: "Misrepresentation and non-disclosure usually refer to information or a fact that is withheld or misrepresented by a party and implies negligence on the part of that party. For example, an act or service which is provided by one of the parties may be considered unfulfilled if that party misrepresented facts or failed to disclose details which would have prevented performance of the contract."