Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Effectiveness of Novel Repellent Labels Produced from Invasive Plant Species
Previous Article in Journal
Boosting the Anti-Infection Ability of Titanium Implants by Coating Polydopamine–Curcumin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Degradation Behavior of Arc-Sprayed Zinc Aluminum Alloy Coatings for the Vessel Yongle in the South China Sea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Coatings
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/coatings14050641
coatings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Surfactant Types on the Anti-Corrosion Performance of Phosphate Chemical Conversion Coated Mg-8wt.%Li Alloy

by
Liji Cui
1,
Baojie Wang
1,*,
Jiyu Hou
1,
Daokui Xu
2,* and
Jie Sun
1
1
School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Ligong University, Shenyang 110159, China
2
Key Laboratory of Nuclear Materials and Safety Assessment, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2024, 14(5), 641; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14050641
Submission received: 9 April 2024 / Revised: 3 May 2024 / Accepted: 16 May 2024 / Published: 18 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Corrosion of Metals and Its Prevention)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this work, the morphology, anti-corrosion performance and degradation mechanisms of two phosphate chemical conversion coatings containing the AEO (fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether) and AES (fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether sodium sulfate) on an as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy were explored and compared. Although two coating layers had a petal-shaped structure and were composed of leaf-shaped particles, the coating layer of the AES-coated sample was relatively dense due to the smaller size of the formed petal-shaped structure. Based on the electrochemical data and hydrogen evolution measurements, the corrosion protectability of the coating layer on the AES-coated sample was better than that on the AEO-coated sample. The determined corrosion current densities (icorr) of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples in the 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution were, respectively, 7.8 mA·cm−2 and 11.7 mA·cm−2, whereas the icorr value of the coated sample without a surfactant was 36.2 mA·cm−2.

1. Introduction

Magnesium (Mg) is one of the most abundant elements in the world, and its density is only 1.74 g/cm3. Due to the excellent properties, such as good machining performance, electromagnetic shielding ability, biocompatibility and recyclability, Mg alloys are considered to be the best potential material for replacing steels and aluminum (Al) alloys in the fields of automotive, aerospace and electronics [1,2,3,4,5]. It has been reported that the addition of lithium (Li) could improve the mechanical properties of Mg alloys and further decrease their densities [6]. So far, Mg-Li alloys are the most lightweight metallic structure material. The microstructure of Mg-Li alloys is directly relied on the content of added Li [7]. When the added Li is below a content of 5.7 wt.%, the alloy comprises the close-packed hexagonal (hcp)-structured α-Mg phase [7]. When the content of Li is above 10.3 wt.%, the alloys consist of a body-centered cubic (bcc)-structured β-Li phase [7]. When the Li amount ranges from 5.7 to 10.3 wt.%, two-phase structured Mg-Li alloys are formed [7]. For Mg-Li based alloys with a two-phase structure characteristic, the micro-galvanic corrosion is very prone to occur in the corrosion medium due to the different potential values of α-Mg and β-Li [8]. Thus, it is vital to explore effective approaches for resolving the poor corrosion resistance issue of Mg-Li alloys [9,10,11,12].
So far, the main surface protection technologies for Mg alloys embrace organic coating [13], ion implantation technology [14], laser surface treatment [15], anodic oxidation [16], vapor deposition [17], electroplating [18], electrodeposition [19], chemical conversion [20], etc. Among them, the chemical conversion technologies are the most popular because they have the advantages of convenient operation, good protection performance and a low price. The principle for preparation is based on the occurrence of the chemical reaction between the metallic surface and conversion solution to form a layer of a protective passivation film [21]. During the early research on chemical conversion surface films, the excellent corrosion protectability of the chromate conversion technologies was widely used [22,23]. However, the chromate treatment solution contains highly toxic Cr(IV) ions and is carcinogenic and harmful to the environment [8]. Due to this, the preparation of chromium-free conversion coatings has been widely researched. Among them, phosphate conversion coatings possess the potential for replacing the chromate conversion coatings because they have the advantages of good corrosion protectability and simplicity in operation [8]. Generally, for the preparation of chemical conversion surface films, the category of additive in surfactants plays an important role, and their inhibiting effect on corrosion development has been widely studied [8]. Generally, the main functions of additives consist of the following: (1) promoting the formation of a coating film; (2) reducing particle crystallinity; (3) controlling the conversion rate; (4) increasing the hydrophobicity of the metal surface; and (5) enhancing the solubility of the main components of the conversion fluid in water [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].
In earlier work, researchers found that adding a small amount of surfactants into the conversion solution can make the structure of formed coatings more uniform and denser, resulting in improved corrosion protectability [8]. Investigating an anti-corrosive dense-structured coating, Yang et al. reported that a cationic surfactant of tetravyl-trimethyl ammonium bromide (TTAB) made the formed chemical conversion film on the surface of AZ31 Mg alloy have a dense structure and higher corrosion resistance [31]. Li et al. reported that the addition of a non-ionic surfactant could obviously improve the corrosion protectability of the vanadate conversion surface film on the AZ31 Mg alloy [32]. In addition, researchers found that the surfactants could also influence the anti-corrosion property of the chemical conversion surface films on Mg alloys [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Thus, it is important to explore and compare the inherent formation mechanisms of chemical conversion surface films containing different types of surfactants and their induced effect on the corrosion protectability. Although the corrosion behavior of surface films on the Mg-8wt.%Li alloy for calcium phosphate conversion treatment has been investigated [8], we still lack a deep understanding about the effect of the additive types of surfactants on the corrosion behavior of two-phase-structured Mg-Li alloys. Thus, in this work, through investigating the anti-corrosion behavior of calcium phosphate conversion surface films containing the addition of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether (AEO, non-ionic surfactant) and fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether sodium sulfate (AES, anionic surfactant) on an as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy, the objective is to compare and clarify the influence of non-ionic and anionic surfactants on the protective performance of chemical conversion surface films.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Treatment

The explored material in the current research is an as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy with a two-phase structure. By smelting in a vacuum induction furnace, an ingot with a dimensional size of 150 mm × 150 mm × 40 mm was cast with argon protection. Then, homogenization treatment at 350 °C for 2 h was performed on the ingot in air furnace. On the basis of the measurement from the inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrum, the Li and Mg content of the cast ingot was determined to be 8.2 wt.% and 91.8 wt.%, respectively. Samples with cross-sectional area and thickness values of 10 mm × 10 mm and 5 mm were cut for the microstructural observation. For the surface coating treatment, the 10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm cubic samples were cut and encapsulated in epoxy resin with one side surface being exposed. Then, the exposed surfaces were sequentially ground with abrasive sandpapers and polished with 1.0 μm diamond grinding powder.

2.2. Preparation of Surface Coatings

The ground sample surfaces were ultrasonically cleaned with 30 mL acetone for 10 min and subsequently immersed in alkaline solution (50 g/L NaOH + 10 g/L NaNO3) for 5 min at 60 °C to remove the grease and dirt on the surfaces, followed by washing with eight drops of acid solution (40 wt.% H3PO4) to remove the remaining alkaline and increase the active sites on sample surfaces during the conversion process. After the pre-treatment, samples were, respectively, immersed into the AES-containing conversion solution (35 g/L Ca(NO3)2·4H2O + 25 g/L (NH4)2HPO4 + 10 g/L AES) and AEO-containing conversion solution (35 g/L Ca(NO3)2·4H2O + 25 g/L (NH4)2HPO4 + 10 g/L AEO) for 30 min at a temperature of 40 °C and a pH value of 3. For comparison, the reference sample coated without the surfactant was also prepared. After treatments, sample surfaces were washed with deionized water.

2.3. Microstructural Analysis and Characterization of Surface Coatings

For observing the polished microstructure of the Mg-8wt.%Li alloy, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with the backscatter electron (BSE) imaging mode (SEM, EM Crafts CUBE II, Hanam-si, Republic of Korea) was employed. The analysis of phase components was performed using an X-ray diffractometer (XRD) equipped with monochromatic radiation of Cu Ka. The employed wavelength, step size and scanning rate were, respectively, 0.154056 nm, 0.02° and 4 °/min (XRD; D/Max 2400) (Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan). To compare the coating layers of differently coated samples, their surfaces were observed by using SEM. Based on the energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) (SEM, EM Crafts CUBE II, Hanam-si, Republic of Korea), the elemental distributions in the sample surface films of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples were determined. Moreover, their cross-sectional morphologies were observed.

2.4. Electrochemical Measurements and Hydrogen Evolution

For the differently coated samples, their electrochemical curves in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution were measured with an electrochemical workstation (CorrTest CS350, Wuhan, China). In a traditional three-electrode system, where (1) the reference electrode is the saturated calomel electrode (SCE), (2) the exposed sample surfaces and the platinum are, respectively, the working and auxiliary electrodes. To measure the electrochemical curves, samples were pre-soaked for 15 min to stabilize the electrode system. For measuring the impedance spectrum, the range of scanning frequency was 100 kHz~10 mHz. To measure the polarization curves, the scanning speed and range were 1 mv/s and −0.25 ~ +0.25 VSCE with respect to OCP. For each condition, the electrochemical curves were measured at least three times from the parallel samples. The measured electrochemical results were fitted with CorrView software (Ametek, San Diego, CA, USA, version 3.30d). For the hydrogen evolution experiment, the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples were soaked for up to 24 h in a 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution, and the volume of evolved hydrogen was recorded every 1 h. The employed hydrogen evolution device can be found in the literature [43].

2.5. Failure Analysis

To clearly reveal the changes in corrosion severity during the soaking process, the surface appearance and the 3D profiles of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples being soaked for different times were observed by employing an optical stereo microscope (OM; Keyence VHX 2000) (Keyence, Osaka, Japan). To ensure a good comparison, the severely corroded areas of 255 mm × 300 mm on the surfaces of differently immersed samples were selected as the scanned areas. The key principle for obtaining 3D profiles mainly consists of two steps: (1) automatically in situ focusing and taking photos from the top to the bottom; (2) automatically combining these photos together into one image. Moreover, the cross-sections of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples being immersed for 24 h were polished and observed by using SEM with the secondary electron (SE) imaging mode (SEM, EM Crafts CUBE II, Hanam-si, Republic of Korea).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microstructural Analysis

Figure 1 shows the microstructure of the investigated as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy. Based on the BSE images of the as-polished surface, it can be seen that the alloy comprises two matrix phases and exhibits a typical two-phase microstructure (Figure 1a). Moreover, the two matrix phases are all irregularly distributed. Our previous work demonstrated that for the as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy, the a-Mg phase was gray, and the β-Li phase was dark in the BSE images [5,7,8]. The XRD phase analysis (Figure 1b) further confirms that the α-Mg and β-Li phases can co-exist in the alloy. By employing the processing software “Image J, version number V1.8.0.112”, the volume percentages of α-Mg and β-Li matrix phases are, respectively, calculated to be 60% and 40%.

3.2. Characterization of the Coating Layers

Figure 2 shows the surface morphologies of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants. The high-magnification observation reveals that the surface conversion products of differently coated samples are mainly exhibited in a petal-shaped structure. Meanwhile, the size of the petal-shaped structure on the AEO-coated sample surface is relatively bigger than those of the other two coated samples. Additionally, for the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples, their surface coating layers also contain some round-shaped particles, and the volume fraction of round-shaped particles on the AEO-coated sample surface is obviously higher than that of the AES-coated sample. Based on the EDS element scanning analysis, the element distributions on the surfaces of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples are determined, as presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. This exhibits that two coatings are composed of C, Ca, O, P and Mg. Moreover, the chemical compositions of petal-shaped and round-shaped conversion products are basically the same. Additionally, the contents of P, O and Ca are obviously higher, whilst the contents of C and Mg are relatively lower. As for the presence of Mg in the two coating layers, there are mainly two reasons, i.e., (1) the Mg2+ can be generated by anodic dissolution of the a-Mg matrix and then combines with anions in the conversion solution to form Mg-containing compounds on sample surfaces [43]; (2) the coating layers are relatively thin and the chemical composition of the below matrix phases can also be detected.
Based on the thermodynamically stable phase diagram for the PO43−- and Ca2+-containing solutions [44], the elements of Ca, P and O in the surface coating are mainly present in the highly stable Ca3(PO4)2 and CaHPO4·2H2O. Their formation ensures that the formed coating films have good corrosion protectability for the substrate [8,43]. It has been reported that the dissolution of a-Mg and b-Li phases of two-phase-structured Mg-Li alloys can increase the concentration of OH− ions at the interface of the substrate and phosphate solution [45,46], which will cause an increase in the pH value at the metal bath solution interface. Thus, the change in the pH value, associated with the dissolution equilibrium, leads to the formation of HPO42− and PO43− according to Reactions (1) and (2) [32]:
H2PO4− + OH− → HPO42− + H2O
HPO42− + OH− → PO43− + H2O
Then, the formed HPO42− will combine with a Ca2+ ion to form insoluble CaHPO4·2H2O according to Reaction (3):
Ca2+ + HPO42− + 2H2O → CaHPO4·2H2O
Moreover, Mg2+ and Ca2+ can, respectively, combine with the PO43− to form Mg3(PO4)2 and Ca3(PO4)2 at the metal solution interface [27]. Thus, for the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples, their surface coatings should be composed of CaHPO4·2H2O, Mg3(PO4)2 and Ca3(PO4)2.
The morphology observations for the cross-sections of two types of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples are shown in Figure 5. This reveals that the thickness values of the coating layers of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples are 13 μm and 17 μm, respectively. Moreover, the coating layer on the AES-coated sample is much more compact than that of the AEO-coated sample.
Since the Cl− ions can easily penetrate the existing gaps [8,21], the corrosion protectiveness of the coating layer on the substrate of the AEO-coated sample will be reduced. In addition, for the AES-coated sample, the added surfactant is anionic and has the advantages of emulsification, wetting and cleaning effects [47], resulting in the formation of a uniform coating layer. However, for the AEO-coated sample, the added surfactant is non-ionic and mainly plays a foaming and cleaning role in the formation of the coating layer. Therefore, the types of surfactant could influence the corrosion resistance of the chemical conversion films on the Mg-8wt.%Li alloy.

3.3. Electrochemical Testing

Figure 6 shows the electrochemical curves of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants. It can be seen that the potentiodynamic polarization curves of the two differently coated samples have basically identical cathode branches (Figure 6a). Generally, for the Mg alloys, the cathodic branch corresponded to the occurrence of hydrogen evolution, whereas the anodic branch was associated with the anodic dissolution of the α-Mg matrix [48]. Since the negative difference effect (NDE) and pitting could occur during the potentiodynamic polarization tests, the anodic branch was not suitable for fitting [48]. Therefore, the electrochemical corrosion parameters of the coated samples were fitted from the cathodic branches using Tafel extrapolation and are listed in Table 1.
After phosphate chemical conversion treatment, the corrosion current densities (icorr) of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples are, respectively, 7.8 mA·cm−2 and 11.7 mA·cm−2. For comparison, regarding the reference sample coated without the surfactant, its icorr value is 36.2 mA·cm−2. Generally, a lower current value indicates that the sample has higher corrosion resistance. Therefore, it demonstrates that the addition of surfactants can effectively enhance the corrosion resistance of phosphate conversion coatings on the as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy. Moreover, the corrosion resistance of the AES-coated sample is much better than that of the AES-coated sample. Moreover, the corrosion potentials (Ecorr) of the AES-coated, AEO-coated and reference samples are −1.56 VSCE, −1.58 VSCE and −1.58 VSCE, respectively.
From the EIS curves of differently coated samples, only one capacitive loop can be observed (Figure 6b). Based on the proposed equivalent circuit, the EIS curves of the AES-coated, AEO-coated and reference samples are fitted, and the determined data are listed in Table 2. Among them, Rs and Qdl are, respectively, the solution resistance and the double electric layer between the solution and films, which is determined by the parameters of Ydl and n. Rct is the charge transfer resistance and related to the corrosion resistance of the sample. It can be seen that the determined Rct values of AES-coated, AEO-coated and reference samples are 5751 Ω·cm2, 4575 Ω·cm2 and 2412 Ω·cm2, which further demonstrates that the sequence ranking of corrosion resistance is as follows: AES-coated sample > AEO-coated sample > reference sample coated without surfactant.
Figure 7 shows the hydrogen evolution curves of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples. Based on their slopes, we can calculate out the hydrogen-evolved speeds of the two coated samples. When Mg alloys undergo electrochemical corrosion, a synergistic process of the evolved hydrogen at the cathode and Mg dissolution at the anode will happen. For the differently coated samples with the same exposed area, the larger volume of evolved hydrogen means a faster rate of anodic dissolution. After 24 h immersion in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution, the evolved hydrogen volumes of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples were, respectively, 1.45 mL/cm2 and 2.14 mL/cm2, indicating that the AES-coated sample had better corrosion resistance. Moreover, the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples exhibit similar hydrogen evolution characteristics, and their hydrogen evolution curves can comprise two periods: (1) when immersed for less than 6 h, the volumes of evolved hydrogen of the two coated samples are quite small, indicating the good corrosion protectability of the coating layers; (2) when immersed 6~24 h, their hydrogen evolution rates are gradually increased, indicating the destruction and degradation of the coating layers. Moreover, it reveals that the evolved hydrogen rate of the AEO-coated sample is obviously quicker than that of the AES-coated sample.

3.4. Corrosion Morphology

To characterize the difference in corrosion resistance, the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples were, respectively, soaked for 2, 6, 16 and 24 h. Then, their surface morphologies and corresponding 3D profiles were observed, as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. These figures reveal that when the soaking time is less than 6 h, the corrosion severity of the two coated sample surfaces is weak, and only a few areas are corroded, indicating that the film layers have better corrosion protectability on the substrate at this stage. Based on the height difference measured by 3D profiles, the depths of these corroded areas on the surfaces of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples are, respectively, 34.56 μm and 34.43 μm. With an increasing soaking time, the corrosion severity of the coated surfaces intensifies gradually, indicating that the corrosion protectability of the two types of film layers is degraded. When the immersion time is 24 h, the AES-coated and AEO-coated sample surfaces are almost completely corroded. Based on the height difference measured by 3D profiles, the thickness values of formed corrosion product layers on the surfaces of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples can reach 80.19 μm and 90.08 μm, respectively. Meanwhile, the remaining uncorroded area on the AES-coated sample surface is more than that of the AEO-coated sample surface, indicating that the corrosion severity of the AES-coated sample is relatively weaker than that of the AEO-coated sample.
For a comparison between the corrosion performance of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples, their cross-sectional morphologies after being immersed for 24 h were examined, as shown in Figure 10. It reveals that the AES-coated sample has a lower thickness for the corroded product layer than the AEO-coated sample. Moreover, it can be seen that for two samples, the preferential corrosion attack mainly takes place in the region of the α-Mg phase. The main reason is that, although the lower potential of the β-Li phase in Mg-8wt.%Li alloys can induce preferential corrosion, the formed Li2CO3 dense film in the β-Li phase could offer effective protection for the substrate β-Li phase [38,39].

4. Conclusions

Through characterizing and researching the corrosion performance of a Mg-8wt.%Li alloy coated with chemical conversion films containing AES and AEO, respectively, three conclusions are obtained:
(1)
The corrosion resistance of the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples is clearly higher than that of the reference sample coated without a surfactant.
(2)
For the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples, the coating layers have a petal-shaped structure and are composed of leaf-like particles, whilst the coating layer of the AES-coated sample is relatively dense due to the smaller size of the petal-shaped structure.
(3)
The measurements of electrochemical data and hydrogen evolution demonstrate that the corrosion resistance of the AES-coated sample is better than that of the AEO-coated sample.
(4)
For the AES-coated and AEO-coated samples, the film layers have better corrosion protectability on the substrate when immersed for less than 6 h. When the soaking time increases, the corrosion protectability of the two types of coating layers will be gradually degraded.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.X. and L.C.; methodology, J.H.; software, L.C. and B.W.; validation, J.H. and B.W.; formal analysis, B.W. and J.H.; investigation, L.C. and J.H.; resources, D.X.; data curation, D.X. and B.W.; writing—original draft preparation, B.W.; writing—review and editing, D.X., J.S. and B.W.; visualization, D.X. and B.W.; supervision, D.X.; project administration, D.X. and B.W.; funding acquisition, D.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Projects under Grant [Nos. U21A2049, 52071220, 51871211, 51701129 and 51971054], Liaoning Province’s project of “Revitalizing Liaoning Talents” (XLYC1907062), the Doctor Startup Fund of Natural Science Foundation Program of Liaoning Province (No. 2019-BS-200), the Strategic New Industry Development Special Foundation of Shenzhen (JCYJ20170306141749970), the funds of International Joint Laboratory for Light Alloys, Liaoning BaiQianWan Talents Program, the Domain Foundation of Equipment Advance Research of 13th Five-year Plan (61409220118), National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant [Nos. 2017YFB0702001 and 2016YFB0301105], the Innovation Fund of Institute of Metal Research (IMR), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) project under Grant No. 2013CB632205, and the Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities under Grant [No. N2009006].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, H.; Liu, J.A.; Xie, S.S. Preparation and Processing Technology of Magnesium Alloy; Metallurgical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang, Y.Z.; Li, J.C.; Xie, W.B. Production Technology and Application of Magnesium Alloy; Metallurgical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, Y.K.; Zha, M.; Rong, J.; Jia, H.L.; Jin, Z.Z.; Zhang, H.M.; Ma, P.K.; Xu, H.; Feng, T.T.; Wang, H.Y. Effect of large thickness-reduction on microstructure evolution and tensile properties of Mg-9Al-1Zn alloy processed by hard-plate rolling. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2021, 88, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, T.C.; Yang, Y.; Peng, X.D.; Song, J.F.; Pan, F.S. Overview of advancement and development trend on magnesium alloy. J. Magnes. Alloys 2019, 7, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cai, X.; Qiao, Y.X.; Xu, D.K.; Li, C.Q.; Yang, L.L.; Zhou, H.L. Research progress on strengthening behavior of magnesia-lithium alloys. Mater. Rep. 2019, 33, 374–379. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wu, R.Z.; Zhang, M.L. Reviews on the influences of alloying elements on the microstructure and mechanical properties of MgLi base alloys. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2010, 24, 14–34. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang, B.J.; Xu, K.; Xu, D.K.; Cai, X.; Qiao, Y.X.; Sheng, L.Y. Anisotropic corrosion behavior of hot-rolled Mg-8Li wt.% alloy. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2020, 53, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hou, J.Y.; Wang, B.J.; Xu, D.K.; Cui, L.J.; Sun, J. Effect of surfactants on the corrosion protectability of calcium phosphate conversion coatings on duplex structured Mg-8Li (in Wt.%) alloy. Coatings 2022, 12, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peng, X.; Liu, W.C.; Wu, G.H. Alloying of magnesia-lithium alloy and its application. Trans. Nonferrous Metal. Soc. China 2021, 31, 3024–3043. [Google Scholar]
  10. Song, D.L.; Jing, X.Y.; Wang, J.; Lu, S.S.; Yang, P.P.; Wang, Y.L.; Zhang, M.L. Microwave- assisted synthesis of lanthanum conversion coating on Mg-Li alloy and its corrosion resistance. Corros. Sci. 2011, 53, 3651–3656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, L.H.; Zhang, M.L.; Li, J.Q.; Yu, X.; Niu, Z.Y. Stannate conversion coatings on Mg–8Li alloy. J. Alloys Compd. 2008, 471, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Esmaily, M.; Svensson, J.E.; Fajardo, S.; Birbilis, N.; Frankel, G.S.; Virtanen, S.; Arrabal, R.; Thomas, S.; Johansson, L.G. Fundamentals and Advances in Magnesium Alloy Corrosion. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2017, 89, 92–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, Y.X.; Fang, Z.; Liu, Y.H.; Hou, Y.C.; Wang, L.G.; Zhou, Y.F.; Zhu, S.j.; Zeng, R.C.; Zheng, Y.F.; Guan, S.K. Biodegradation, hemocompatibility and covalent bonding mechanism of electrografting polyethylacrylate coating on Mg alloy for cardiovascular stent. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2020, 46, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tao, X.W.; Wang, Z.Z.; Ba, Z.X.; Kong, S.X.; Hu, Q.X. Research progress in ion implantation surface modification of magnesium alloys. Mater. Rep. 2014, 28, 112–115. [Google Scholar]
  15. Makoto, H.; Yutaka, M.; Koji, M.; Katsuji, N.; Teruto, K. Development of laser surface treatment with excellent corrosion resistance and conductivity performance on magnesium alloy products. Mater. Sci. Forum. 2010, 962, 1960–1963. [Google Scholar]
  16. Setiawan, A.P.; Rachman, M.D. An Investigation of pulse anodization duty ratio and sealing treatment on the corrosion behavior of the anodic coating layer in magnesium AZ31B. Corros. Sci. Tenchnol. 2021, 20, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hatef, S.; Mohammad, A.M. Physical vapor deposition assisted diffusion bonding of Al alloy to Mg alloy using silver interlayer. Met. Mater. Int. 2020, 27, 4132–4141. [Google Scholar]
  18. Meng, X.; Wang, J.L.; Zhang, J.; Niu, B.L.; Gao, X.H.; Yan, H. Electroplated super-hydrophobic Zn-Fe coating for corrosion protection on magnesium alloy. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2022, 32, 3250–3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khazeni, D.; Saremi, M.; Soltani, R. Development of HA-CNTs composite coating on AZ31 Magnesium alloy by cathodic electrodeposition. Part 2: Electrochemical and in-vitro behavior. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 11186–11194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cai, Y.R.; Wang, X.D.; Wan, L.L.; Yang, J.X.; Gao, Y.F. Preparation of antimony-doped stannate chemical conversion coating on AZ31B Mg alloy. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 2020, 73, 1891–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Luan, J.Y.; Wang, B.J.; Xu, D.K.; Sun, J. Research progress in corrosion protection of magnesium lithium alloy. Mater. Rep. 2020, 34, 441–446. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jin, H.S.; Wang, R.C.; Peng, C.Q.; Ping, Y.; Shi, K.; Chen, B. Research progress of chemical conversion film on magnesium alloy surface. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2011, 21, 2049–2059. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zeng, R.C.; Kong, L.H.; Chen, J.; Cui, H.Z.; Liu, C.L. Research progress on surface modification of magnesium alloys for medical applications. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2011, 21, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  24. Amini, R.; Sarabi, A.A. The corrosion properties of phosphate coating on AZ31 magnesium alloy: The effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) as an eco-friendly accelerating agent. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2011, 257, 7134–7139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Phuong, N.V.; Lee, K.; Chang, D.; Kim, M.; Lee, S.; Moon, S. Zinc phosphate conversion coatings on magnesium alloys: A review. Met. Mater. Int. 2013, 19, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Thomas, R.; Umapathy, M.J. Environment friendly nano silicon dioxide accelerated zinc phosphate coating on mild steel using a series of surfactants as additives. Silicon 2017, 9, 675–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Maurya, R.; Siddiqui, A.R.; Balani, K. An environment-friendly phosphate chemical conversion coating on novel Mg-9Li-7Al-1Sn and Mg-9Li-5Al-3Sn-1Zn alloys with remarkable corrosion protection. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2018, 443, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yan, W.; Chen, Z.; Yu, Q.; Zhu, W.; Wang, H.; Du, B.Q. Effects of fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether AEO on PbO2 structure and electrodeposition behavior. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016, 163, D414–D420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, B.J.; Xu, D.K.; Wang, S.; Xu, X.B.; Han, E.H. Effect of phosphate conversion film on fatigue and corrosion fatigue behavior of an as-rolled Mg-3.08Zn-0.83Al (in wt.%) alloy. J. Iron Steel Res. Int. 2023, 30, 2557–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xu, Y.D.; Qi, S.; Wang, L.; Shi, M.; Ding, N.; Pang, Z.C.; Wang, Q.; Peng, X.D. Effects of hydroxylamine sulfate and sodium nitrite on microstructure and friction behavior of zinc phosphating coating on high carbon steel. Chin. J. Chem. Phy. 2015, 28, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, Q.X.; Tabish, M.; Wang, J.B.; Zhao, J.M. Enhanced corrosion resistance of layered double hydroxide films on Mg alloy: The key role of cationic surfactant. Materials 2022, 15, 2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, J.Z.; Guo, R.G.; Tang, C.B. Study on corrosion resistance modification of vanadate conversion film on magnesium alloy surface by OP10. Mater. Pro. 2017, 50, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jothi, S.; Ruan, D.; Yaqin, L.; Rasu, E.; Jianshe, L. Influence of surfactants on the corrosion properties of chromium-free electroless nickel deposit on magnesium alloy. Surf. Rev. 2012, 19, 1250025. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gou, Y.N.; Li, X.Y. Effect of surfactants on zinc leaching of magnesium alloy. Surf. Technol. 2012, 41, 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yang, X.Y.; Yang, Y.T.; Lu, X.P.; Zhang, T.; Wang, F.H. Research progress of corrosion inhibitors for magnesium alloys. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2022, 42, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
  36. Shetha, D.; Manik, C.M.; Cv, S. Performance evaluation of nano additives and surfactants on the properties of electroless nickel phosphorous coating on aluminium-magnesium Alloy. Mater. Sci. Engr. 2018, 376, 012048. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mohd, I.A.; Dineshsingh, G.T. Influence of surfactant: Using electroless ternary nanocomposite coatings to enhance the surface properties on AZ91 magnesium alloy. Surf. Interfaces 2017, 7, 20–28. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mohammed, S. Characterization of Ni-P coating on AZ91D magnesium alloy with surfactants and nano-additives. J. Magnes. Alloys 2014, 2, 293–298. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sudagar, J.; Lian, J.S.; Jiang, Z.H.; Li, G.Y.; Elansezhian, R. The performance of surfactant on the surface characteristics of electroless nickel coating on magnesium alloy. Prog. Org. Coat. 2012, 74, 788–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Frignani, A.; Grassi, V.; Zanotto, F.; Zucchi, F. Inhibition of AZ31 Mg alloy corrosion by anionic surfactants. Corros. Sci. 2012, 63, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moha, I.A.; Dinesh, S.G.T. Study of mechanical properties of electroless nickel-P phosphorus coatings with influence of surfactant on AZ91 Magnesium Alloy. Adv. Eng. Forum. 2016, 4365, 56–63. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sargolzaei, B.; Arab, A. Synergism of CTAB and NLS surfactants on the corrosion inhibition of mild steel in sodium chloride solution. Mater. Today. Commum. 2021, 29, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, B.J.; Hou, J.Y.; Luan, J.Y.; Xu, D.K.; Sun, H.J.; Sun, J. The corrosion behaviors of an as-rolled Mg-8Li (in wt.%) alloy in two differently concentrated NaCl solutions. Coatings 2022, 12, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhu, Y.H.; Zhi, Y.S.; Fan, J.W. Industrial Water Treatment; Tong Ji University Press: Shanghai, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, G.; Cao, N.; Wang, Y. Characteristics and corrosion studies of zinc–manganese phosphate coatings on magnesium-lithium alloy. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 59772–59778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Song, Y.W.; Shan, D.Y.; Chen, R.S.; Zhang, F.; Han, E.H. Formation mechanism of phosphate conversion film on Mg–8.8 Li alloy. Corros. Sci. 2009, 51, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, Y.H.; Yang, W.; Yang, W.M.; Luo, L.M. Effect of AES anionic surfactant on the microstructure and wettability of coal. Energy 2024, 289, 130118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Atrens, A.D.; Gentle, I.; Atrens, A. Possible dissolution pathways participating in the Mg corrosion reaction. Corros. Sci. 2015, 92, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Coatings 14 00641 g001
Figure 1. Microstructural analysis of the as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy: (a) SEM observation with the BSE imaging mode and (b) XRD pattern.
Figure 1. Microstructural analysis of the as-cast Mg-8wt.%Li alloy: (a) SEM observation with the BSE imaging mode and (b) XRD pattern.
Coatings 14 00641 g001
Coatings 14 00641 g002
Figure 2. SEM observations for the surface films of: (a) AES-coated sample, (b) AEO-coated sample and (c) reference sample coated without the surfactant; (d–f) high-magnification observations of the labelled areas in images (a–c).
Figure 2. SEM observations for the surface films of: (a) AES-coated sample, (b) AEO-coated sample and (c) reference sample coated without the surfactant; (d–f) high-magnification observations of the labelled areas in images (a–c).
Coatings 14 00641 g002
Coatings 14 00641 g003
Figure 3. EDS mappings of the elements in the AES-coated sample surface film: (a) the microstructure and morphology of the film, (b) Mg, (c) C, (d) Ca, (e) P and (f) O element distribution.
Figure 3. EDS mappings of the elements in the AES-coated sample surface film: (a) the microstructure and morphology of the film, (b) Mg, (c) C, (d) Ca, (e) P and (f) O element distribution.
Coatings 14 00641 g003
Coatings 14 00641 g004
Figure 4. EDS mappings of the elements in the AEO-coated sample surface film: (a) the microstructure and morphology of the film, (b) Mg, (c) C, (d) Ca, (e) P and (f) O element distribution.
Figure 4. EDS mappings of the elements in the AEO-coated sample surface film: (a) the microstructure and morphology of the film, (b) Mg, (c) C, (d) Ca, (e) P and (f) O element distribution.
Coatings 14 00641 g004
Coatings 14 00641 g005
Figure 5. The morphologies of cross-sections observed by using SEM with the secondary electron imaging mode: (a) AES-coated and (b) AEO-coated samples.
Figure 5. The morphologies of cross-sections observed by using SEM with the secondary electron imaging mode: (a) AES-coated and (b) AEO-coated samples.
Coatings 14 00641 g005
Coatings 14 00641 g006
Figure 6. Electrochemical results of AES-coated, AEO-coated and reference samples: (a) potentiodynamic polarization curves and (b) electrochemical impedance spectra. The proposed equivalent circuit for fitting EIS curves is placed in image (b).
Figure 6. Electrochemical results of AES-coated, AEO-coated and reference samples: (a) potentiodynamic polarization curves and (b) electrochemical impedance spectra. The proposed equivalent circuit for fitting EIS curves is placed in image (b).
Coatings 14 00641 g006
Coatings 14 00641 g007
Figure 7. Evolved hydrogen volume versus soaking time curves of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples.
Figure 7. Evolved hydrogen volume versus soaking time curves of AES-coated and AEO-coated samples.
Coatings 14 00641 g007
Coatings 14 00641 g008
Figure 8. Surface morphologies and 3D profiles of AES-coated samples after being soaked in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution for: (a) 2, (b) 6, (c) 16 and (d) 24 h. The locations of 3D profiles are squared by red frames in images (a–d).
Figure 8. Surface morphologies and 3D profiles of AES-coated samples after being soaked in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution for: (a) 2, (b) 6, (c) 16 and (d) 24 h. The locations of 3D profiles are squared by red frames in images (a–d).
Coatings 14 00641 g008
Coatings 14 00641 g009
Figure 9. Surface morphologies and 3D profiles of AEO-coated samples after being soaked in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution for: (a) 2, (b) 6, (c) 16 and (d) 24 h. The locations of 3D profiles are squared by red frames in images (a–d).
Figure 9. Surface morphologies and 3D profiles of AEO-coated samples after being soaked in 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution for: (a) 2, (b) 6, (c) 16 and (d) 24 h. The locations of 3D profiles are squared by red frames in images (a–d).
Coatings 14 00641 g009
Coatings 14 00641 g010
Figure 10. Morphological observations for the cross-sections: (a) AES-coated and (b) AEO-coated samples after being soaked for 24 h.
Figure 10. Morphological observations for the cross-sections: (a) AES-coated and (b) AEO-coated samples after being soaked for 24 h.
Coatings 14 00641 g010
Table 1. Fitted parameters from the polarization curves of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants.
Table 1. Fitted parameters from the polarization curves of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants.
Sample Conditionsicorr (mA·cm−2)Ecorr (VSCE)
AES-coated 7.8 ± 1.3−1.56 ± 0.01
AEO-coated 11.7 ± 1.5−1.58 ± 0.01
Coated without surfactant36.2 ± 1.8−1.58 ± 0.01
Table 2. The fitted EIS parameters of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants.
Table 2. The fitted EIS parameters of the coated samples with and without the addition of surfactants.
Sample ConditionsRs (Ω cm2)Ydl (μF)ndlRct (Ω cm2)
AES-coated17.1 ± 0.729.9 ± 1.60.68 ± 0.125751 ± 250
AEO-coated18.1 ± 0.833.4 ± 1.80.69 ± 0.134575 ± 235
Coated without surfactant15.3 ± 0.635.0 ± 1.40.70 ± 0.152412 ± 185
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cui, L.; Wang, B.; Hou, J.; Xu, D.; Sun, J. Influence of Surfactant Types on the Anti-Corrosion Performance of Phosphate Chemical Conversion Coated Mg-8wt.%Li Alloy. Coatings 2024, 14, 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14050641

AMA Style

Cui L, Wang B, Hou J, Xu D, Sun J. Influence of Surfactant Types on the Anti-Corrosion Performance of Phosphate Chemical Conversion Coated Mg-8wt.%Li Alloy. Coatings. 2024; 14(5):641. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14050641

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cui, Liji, Baojie Wang, Jiyu Hou, Daokui Xu, and Jie Sun. 2024. "Influence of Surfactant Types on the Anti-Corrosion Performance of Phosphate Chemical Conversion Coated Mg-8wt.%Li Alloy" Coatings 14, no. 5: 641. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14050641

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop