Next Article in Journal
Study of the Mechanical and Physical Behavior of Gypsum Boards with Plastic Cable Waste Aggregates and Their Application to Construction Panels
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Heat Treatment Conditions on Corrosion Resistance of 0.28C–1.4Mn–0.3Si–0.26Cr Steel with Nb, Ti, and V Microadditions
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanochemical Activation and Spark Plasma Sintering of the Lead-Free Ba(Fe1/2Nb1/2)O3 Ceramics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Corrosion Protective Film Formation on Mg Alloy AZ31 by Exposure to Dilute Selenite Solutions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/ma14092253
materials-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

The Effect of Zn and Zn–WO3 Composites Nano-Coatings Deposition on Hardness and Corrosion Resistance in Steel Substrate

by
Channagiri Mohankumar Praveen Kumar
1,
Manjunath Patel Gowdru Chandrashekarappa
2,*,
Raviraj Mahabaleshwar Kulkarni
3,
Danil Yurievich Pimenov
4 and
Khaled Giasin
5
1
Department of Chemistry, PES Institute of Technology and Management, Shimoga-577204, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi 590018, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PES Institute of Technology and Management, Shivamogga, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi 590018, India
3
Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Department of Chemistry, KLS Gogte Institute of Technology, Belagavi 590006, India
4
Department of Automated Mechanical Engineering, South Ural State University, Lenin Prosp. 76, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia
5
School of Mechanical and Design Engineering, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3DJ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2021, 14(9), 2253; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092253
Submission received: 16 March 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 23 April 2021 / Published: 27 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corrosion Resistance of Alloy and Coating Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pure Zn (Zinc) and its Zn–WO3 (Zinc–Tungsten trioxide) composite coatings were deposited on mild steel specimens by applying the electrodeposition technique. Zn–WO3 composites were prepared for the concentration of 0.5 and 1.0 g/L of particles. The influence of WO3 particles on Zn deposition, the surface morphology of composite, and texture co-efficient were analyzed using a variety of techniques, such as X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with Energy Dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX). Higher corrosion resistance and microhardness were observed on the Zn–WO3 composite (concentration of 1.0 g/L). The higher corrosion resistance and microhardness of 1.0 g/L Zn–WO3 nanocomposite coatings effectively protect the steel used for the manufacture of products, parts, or systems from chemical or electrochemical deterioration in industrial and marine ambient environments.

1. Introduction

Steels are extensively used in industries (chemical, manufacturing and marine) for versatile engineering applications, owing to their low cost and potential material properties [1,2,3]. Excellent mechanical strength and hardness, machinability, weldability and formability have made steel alloys an ideal candidate for structural applications [1]. Steels used in functional parts of many industrial applications (power plants, automotive, construction) eventually undergo corrosion due to their low thermodynamic stability [1,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The materials undergo corrosion, which inhibits the proper functioning of parts, which fails parts during their service life [10,11,12]. In the United States, it was estimated that the cost of corrosion destruction is 6.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and accounts for more than 3% of the world GDP [13,14]. Therefore, studies on the development of corrosion-resistant materials and processing methods are urgently needed with industrial and economical relevance.
Although a few metallic materials, such as gold, silver, and platinum, possess excellent corrosion resistance characteristics, their use is restricted for engineering-based structural applications owing to their high cost and poor mechanical strength [15]. In recent years, two popular processing routes—the addition of alloying elements and coatings—are widely practiced industry methods to develop corrosion-resistant materials [16,17]. Numerous research efforts were made to protect metal surfaces (creating protective passive films) against corrosion with the well-known addition of the alloying elements (traces of chromium, nickel, molybdenum and so on) method [16,18,19,20,21]. In the alloying process, the presence or formation of precipitates might result in localized corrosion, which affects the overall corrosion resistance [22,23,24]. In addition, the alloy processing route as the corrosion inhabitant method is not ideally suitable for highly sensitive engineering service environments when there is a lack of high-temperature stability in base or conventional material [13,25]. In recent years, surface coating methods (electro-spark deposition, laser cladding, magnetron sputtering, thermal spray process and chemical-vapor deposition) have become practiced widely in industries [26,27]. Thermal spraying and electroplating techniques are widely applied coating techniques to protect or repair the metallic surfaces of mechanical parts [28,29]. The combination of Mo–Ni–Cr coatings is applied on the substrate surfaces of super duplex stainless steel by applying plasma spray coating techniques [30]. Thermal spray coatings are not ideally suited for complex-shaped geometries due to poor adhesion of the coating on the substrate, brittleness, undesirable mechanical strength, stresses and heat-affected zones [31,32,33]. The laser cladding process has greater potential to limit the shortcomings of thermal spray coating techniques, wherein the concentrated heat source released from the lasers to apply coating on the substrate ensures better metallurgical bonding [31,34]. A laser cladding technique was applied to coat nickel-based composite on H13 steel, which offers enhanced wear resistance and thermal fatigue properties [35]. Although laser clad deposits produced superior properties, the small spot or concentration size of lasers hinders large widths to be deposited in a single pass [36]. Magnetron sputtered molybdenum di-sulfide titanium nitride coatings on high-speed steels produced superior surface hardness [37]. The main disadvantages of magnetron sputtering are a low deposition rate and a strong decrease in the ion substrate current with an increased combination of the substrate to target distance [38,39]. Electrodeposition or electroplating techniques have recently been employed to enhance the surface properties, which inhibit corrosion and wear with the improved mechanical strength of coatings [40]. Compared to sputtering, evaporation and chemical vapor deposition methods, and electroplating or electrodeposition methods are more reliable and economical [41,42]. Composite electroplating is widely practiced in industries to limit the coating failures of the electrodeposition method in adverse environmental conditions subjected to the high potential of hydrogen (pH) and low temperature [43]. Composite electroplating techniques are best suited for the inclusion of metallic or non-metallic particles in the plated layer that enhance tribological, thermal and mechanical properties [44,45]. Therefore, experimental studies on composite-based electrodeposition or electroplating techniques could enhance the surface properties of coating materials that are of industrial relevance.
The selection of appropriate coating materials from a wide range of potential materials libraries (metals, ceramics and polymers) as a protective layer on metal surfaces to enhance the wear and corrosion properties is a tedious task for manufacturers [46]. All materials, such as Al, Ti, Ni, Cr, Mo, ZrO2, Al2O3, PTFE and so on, are ideal candidate materials for wear and corrosion resistance, but each material possesses different mechanical, thermal, and chemical behavior, and associated melting points [47]. The applications of zinc coatings improve wettability, which results in enhanced interfacial bonding between the materials [48]. Zinc-based coatings replace the high toxicity of cadmium coatings at low cost with better corrosion resistance, weldability and ductility [49]. The use of hard materials, namely carbides (SiC and WC) and oxides (ZrO2, Al2O3, TiO2 and SiO2), as second phase materials in composite coatings offers superior hardness, high-temperature oxidation resistance, and self-lubricating properties for industrial parts [42,50]. Therefore, the study of multi-layer zinc-based composite coatings (hard materials as second phase material) with electrodeposition processing routes ensures that low cost enabled better coating properties are of industrial relevance.
In recent years, a few attempts have been made to develop the zinc and zinc-based coatings that serve as protective films on the metal substrate from corrosion. The corrosion behavior of carbon steels coated with different phosphate layers (zinc, zinc–iron and manganese-based phosphate solutions) was studied for carabiners manufacturing applications [51]. Zinc-based coated samples offered better corrosion resistance properties than manganese phosphate solutions. Zinc and zinc–SiC composite coatings were applied with the pulse electrodeposition technique to examine their corrosion resistance properties [52]. The SiC particles dispersed uniformly in the zinc matrix by filling gaps and crack-type defects, resulting in a smooth surface that finally resulted in better corrosion resistance properties. Multi-layer zinc-based composite coatings (Zn–Ni, Zn–Ni–Fe2O3, Zn–TiO2, Cu–Sn–Zn–TiO2, Zn–TiO2/TiB2) deposited on steel substrates via the electrodeposition technique resulted in better corrosion resistance [42,48,50,53,54,55]. The application of copper and zinc antifouling coatings is more beneficial for resisting corrosion by creating artificial surfaces on shipping and marine industrial parts [56]. The experimental studies reported that zinc-based antifouling coatings offer comparatively better performance with low toxicity to aquatic organisms. Therefore, zinc-based coatings are environmentally friendly and are found to be a better alternative to copper. Electrodeposited Zn–TiO2 nanocomposite coatings were deposited on steel substrate experimentally with a zinc sulfate bath [53]. The galvanizing coating method is widely applied in industry practice to protect the steel substrate surface [57]. However, the use of advanced coating techniques ensures the deposition of a wide range of metallic and non-metallic materials useful for different applications [58]. The zinc electroplating technique is treated as a cost-effective technique that offers better mechanical properties with a safer working environment and safer equipment [59]. Composite coating methods (electrodeposition and galvanostatic) are compared to evaluate the morphology of Zn–SiC nanocomposite coating deposits [60]. Electrodeposited coatings resulted in smaller grain sizes in composites. Tungsten trioxide (WO3) is a potential candidate material for zinc composite coatings because of its abundant availability and applications in preparing gas sensors [61], thin films used as pigments in paints and ceramics [62], fire resistance fabrics [63], electrochromic windows [64], and tungstates for x-ray phosphorus screens [65]. It was confirmed from the above literature review that WO3 and Zn-based composites are ideal materials for preparing novel nanocomposite coatings, which are ideally best suited for a wide range of engineering applications.
To date, nickel and chromium composite coatings are applied to protect steel parts, but they are not generally recommended due to their hazardous nature. Therefore, significant attention is required to find an alternate, environmentally friendly coating material for protecting steel parts used in practical applications. Several researchers have studied WO3 as a reinforcement material for composites; however, no attention has been paid yet to use nano-sized Zn–WO3, which might improve hardness and corrosion resistance in steel substrates. The present research aims to develop nano Zn–WO3 coatings suitable for engineering applications (barrels, tanks, boilers, etc.) that offer a long service life, measured in terms of corrosion resistance as the prime requirement. The concentration of tungsten trioxide (WO3) nanoparticles on steel substrate depositions were examined for their surface morphology and corrosion resistance property on composite films. Electrodeposition coating techniques were selected due to their simplicity, low cost, and deposition of thin, high-quality films, ensuring precise control over thickness, reducing material waste on industrial parts possessing different shapes compared to other coating methods [62]. The WO3 nanoparticles added to Zn composite coatings viz. an environmentally friendly bath solution (10% diluted H2SO4 + 90% diluted NaHCO3), which is less harmful and potentially stable enough to store and use, which is not yet reported in the literature. A systematic study of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coating (i.e., WO3 concentration of 0.5 and 1.0 g/L) was examined with electrochemical test results (polarization curves, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy) and validated with non-electrochemical tests (XRD, SEM). The impact of WO3 nanoparticles on hardness and corrosion resistance behavior was discussed for their practical usefulness.

2. Materials and Methods

Table 1 describes the details of the composition of the electroplating bath for zinc, zinc composites, particle concentrations, and operating parameters. Figure 1 shows the experimental setup of the electrodeposition technique. Hall cell studies were applied to optimize the concentration of surfactants (0.05 g/L) and WO3 (0.5 and 1 g/L) in the electroplating solution. The addition of dilute H2SO4 (10%) and dilute NaHCO3 solution maintained the desired pH of the bath solution. The WO3 nanoparticle was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Bengaluru, India). Prior to the plating experiments, the electrolytes were subjected to magnetic stirring for 24 h and the ultrasonication process ensured minimization of the agglomeration of nanoparticles. Mild steel was used as a cathode substrate material (40 mm × 4 mm × 1 mm). For deposition, zinc (99.99% purity) served as an anode material. Using DC currents, coating depositions were made viz. potentiostat/galvanostat (Model PS-618, Chemilink systems, Mumbai, India). The electrolyte was stirred continuously at 300 rpm during the deposition of the composites. After ensuring the required coating depositions, loosely adhered particles on the coated samples were washed for 5 min with distilled water. Prior to the plating experiments, the substrate material (mild steel plates or cathode) was degreased with trichloroethylene, followed by polishing with emery paper possessing different grit sizes (300–5000 mesh) and finally washed with water and air-dried. Zinc or anode surfaces activate only after dipping in 10% HCl solutions for a few seconds, followed by a water wash.
The coating surface morphology analysis was examined, subjected to JEOL-JEM-1200-EX II SEM (Tokyo, Japan). SEM coupled EDX (Tokyo, Japan) helped to determine the presence of particle content in the coated deposit. The electrodeposits (Zn, Zn–WO3 composites) were subjected to XRD analysis to estimate the average crystal size of coating via Philips PW 3710 XRD (Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherland) with copper Kα radiation (set at 30 mA and 40 kV). The CHI660C electrochemical workstation (measurements: potentio-dynamic polarization at aerated conditions and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy EIS) helps to examine corrosion behavior in 3.5% sodium chloride solution. To conduct deposition studies of the coatings (Zn and Zn composite) different measurements are carried out on traditional three-electrode cell, i.e., test samples (electrode as mild steel) entrenched in a Teflon holder were exposed to the corrosive medium surface area of 1 cm2, and platinum wire and an SCE electrode act as a counter and reference electrode. Test samples are dipped completely in a corrosive medium (3.5% NaCl and pH neutral) to establish the steady-state potential before measurements. In an open circuit, potentials are varied by ±200 mV at a scan rate of 0.01 V s−1 in 3.5% NaCl could help to draw Tafel polarization plots. EIS data were collected within the wide frequency ranges of 10 mHz to 100 kHz. Nyquist plots were curve fitted viz. ZSimpWin 3.21 software (Echem Software, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) based on the collected impedance data.

3. Results and Discussion

This section discusses the SEM morphology and XRD patterns of WO3 particles analysis of WO3 nanoparticles’ impact on electrodeposited Zn, cathodic polarization, and cyclic voltammetric studies, characterization of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite deposits, and corrosion behavior of composites.

3.1. Particle Characterization

The SEM morphology and XRD patterns of WO3 particles (purchased from the SD Fine-CHEM Limited, Chennai, India) are shown in Figure 2. In Figure 2, WO3 particles are seen to be agglomerated and sintered to form large crystallites. The WO3 particles of average crystallite size were computed from Equation (1) and were found to be 87 nm. The appearance of the crystallite surfaces can be described as smooth and uniformly distributed on the surface. The SEM images show the presence of agglomerated WO3 particles. The presence of agglomerated WO3 particles ensures better electron conductivity, and crystallographic interconnectivity [66].

3.2. Electrodeposition

To examine the influence of WO3 nanoparticles on electrodeposited Zn, cathodic polarization and cyclic voltammetric studies were carried out. Experiments were performed with increasing WO3 nanoparticles gradually, as 0.5 g/L, 1 g/L, 2 g/L, 3 g/L, and 5 g/L. However, after 1 g/L of the WO3 nanoparticle, the corrosion resistance tends to decrease. This occurs due to the increased nanoparticle concentration in the bath solution, which initiates agglomeration and hinders dispersing uniformly into the matrix or desorbing from the matrix. Cathodic polarization was carried out for bath solutions I, II, III containing 0, 0.5 and 1.0 g/L of WO3 nanoparticles. Measurements were taken subjected to a potential range of 0 to −1.6V, which are expressed as polarization curves shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3, curve (a) signifies the cathodic polarization of the Zn bath solution, whereas curves (b) and (c) represent the polarization curves of the Zn composite containing the solution bath of 0.5 and 1.0 g/L of WO3 nanoparticles, respectively. The presence of the WO3 nanoparticles clearly shows the curves shifted toward a higher negative potential (refer to Figure 3). The curves shifted to a negative potential is desirable for the cathode protection system [67]. In the present case, WO3 is an inorganic material adsorbed on the cathode surface, and this raises the reduction potential of Zn+2 ions. The shift of potential noticed in the case of the bath solution composed of 1.0 g/L of WO3 was appreciable compared to the presence of 0.5 g/L WO3 and the bare Zn deposition. This further suggests and supports that the adsorption of WO3 on the cathodic surface increases with the WO3 particle concentration in the bath solution during Zn deposition. This occurs due to increased nanosized WO3 particles, which improve the nucleation rate, which hinders the crystal growth that results in the reduced grain size of the composite. The research findings are in good agreement with the published literature [68].
The cyclic voltammograms that were collected correspond to Zn and its composite bath solutions. Figure 4 shows the cyclic voltammogram curves associated with Zn and Zn–WO3 composite plating baths. The data that correspond to voltammograms are collected subjected to the potential range between −0.3 to −1.9 V. In Figure 4, curve (a) represents the voltammogram of the Zn bath solution, while curves (b) and (c) represent the voltammograms of Zn composite solutions II and III in 0.5 and 1.0 g/L of nanosized WO3 particles, respectively. The anodic portion of the cyclic voltammograms exhibited well-shaped curves for all three solutions. The anodic peak current was in the order (a) > (b) > (c). This once again indicated that, the influence of WO3 on the dissolution of Zn coating. This confirms that Zn composite coatings possess higher corrosion resistance properties than pure Zn coating. The results are in line with the earlier literature [69]. In the cathodic region, the curve (c) transformed toward more negative potential than the curve (a) and (b), which finally suggests a more reduced grain size of the Zn composite III coating containing 1 g/L particles. This indicates that WO3 particles are successfully reinforced in Zn deposition.

3.3. Characterization of the Deposits

Figure 5 shows the XRD patterns of the Zn and Zn-composite deposits, whereas Figure 5a–c represents the XRD pattern of the bare Zn deposit, II (Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L) and III (Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L). The XRD graph confirms that the intensity of the diffraction lines of Figure 5c is decreased with a larger width when compared to other Zn composites (0.5 g/L) and pure Zn coating. Williamson-Hall and Sherrer’s method can be applied to determine the crystallite size [4,70]. The present work used the Sherrer’s method to determine the average crystal size of deposits as plated Zn and Zn–WO3 composites (Equation (1)). The average crystal size of Zn is 70 nm, and the Zn–WO3 composites obtained from bath solutions II and III are 59 and 55 nm, respectively. This infers that the inclusion of WO3 brings down the crystal size of the coating. The WO3 particles help as a protrusion in the metal electrolyte interface in the first stage of the electrodeposition process. This results in increased current density, which improves the nucleation rate and reduces the grain size by hindering the crystal growth of Zn in the deposits. Results of a similar nature were reported in the published literature [68].
L h k l = k λ β c o s θ
Lhkl represents the average crystal size, K is the Scherrer constant kept fixed to 0.9, λ be the x-ray tube wavelength, β depicts the width of the peak in the middle of its height, and θ represents the Bragg angle.
Figure 6 depicts the texture co-efficient of the Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coating. The significance of the texture coefficient is to ensure the preferred orientation of the crystalline plane in terms of angle 2θ where the Zn crystals are deposited. Texture coefficient calculations of electrodeposits are made from Equation (2). XRD data patterns representing the intensity of the diffraction lines were used while calculating the texture coefficients.
T C ( h k l ) = I ( h k l ) ∑ I ( h k l ) Χ ∑ I o ( h k l ) I o ( h k l )
TC (hkl), is the texture coefficient of reflection peak. I(hkl) represents the peak intensity correspond to Zn electrodeposits and ΣI(hkl) depicts the sum of all intensities of the diffraction peaks. Index 0 implies the intensities of standard peaks of Zn powder (extracted from Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards (JCPDS) file card number 87-0713). Maximum Tc values imply the preferred orientation of coating deposits.
Figure 6 reveals that pure zinc coating exhibited maximum orientation in <102> plane possessing minimum surface energy. However, embedded WO3 nanoparticles changed the preferred orientation of the zinc matrix to <110> plane for both the Zn composites. This clearly explains that forming <110> structure of the Zn layer acts as an energy barrier and, therefore, <110> preferred the orientation of both Zn composite grown on <110> plane, which is comparatively simpler compared to the rest crystal planes [71]. Note that all orientations possess a maximum texture coefficient (TC) value which describes the maximum number of crystallographic orientations of the Zn deposit. The WO3 particles in the bath solution and the matrix could impact largely on the deposit morphology and orientation. Similar findings are seen in Co–TiO2 composite coatings [72].
The morphology of bare Zn and Zn–WO3 composite samples prepared from bath solutions II and III containing 0.5 and 1.0 g/L are shown in Figure 7a–c. It was observed that the pure zinc-coated sample resulted in an undesirable and improper deposition all over the substrate (refer to Figure 7b). However, morphologies of composite coated samples resulted in being uniform, compact, and smooth with appropriate crystal arrangements (refer to Figure 7c). WO3 nanoparticles in Zn composite coatings ensure more nucleation sites that restrict crystal growth. It was confirmed that the composite coated samples ensure a smaller grain size with uniform coating surfaces deposited on the substrate. The reduction in crystal size is attributed as per Nae-Lih Wu’s model [73]. It was confirmed from the explanation of Nae-Lih Wu’s model that the growth of crystallites is constrained owing to the interfacial boundaries between WO3 and Zn [74,75], which result in the reduced crystal size of WO3 particles. Therefore, an increased specific area is attributed to the reduced particle size. A reduced grain size is always desirable for obtaining higher microhardness and corrosion resistance in composite coatings [76,77].
The EDAX pattern of the bare Zn and Zn composite (WO3 nanoparticle concentrations of 0.5 g/L and 1 g/L) deposits is shown in Figure 8a–c. The composite electrodeposits show the presence of elements, i.e., W and O (refer to Figure 8b–c). This shows that the presence of WO3 nanoparticles can be effectively dispersed into the Zn matrix. Figure 8b,c shows the presence of WO3 nanoparticles’ inclusion in the matrix of electrodeposited coatings. Figure 8c shows increased WO3 particle concentration in the bath solution, which increases the number of particle incorporation at a greater level. The presence of a uniform dispersion of the WO3 nanoparticles is confirmed during the scanning of electrodeposited composite coatings.
Electrodeposited coating possessing a thickness of 15 µm were subjected to microhardness examination using Vickers’s microhardness tester (Clemex digital microhardness tester, Tokyo, Japan). The microhardness tests were carried out by applying a load of 50 g for 10 s of dwell time. Figure 9 shows the average values of fifteen microhardness (five measurements on each coating sample and three replicates for each sample) measurements carried out at different locations on the deposited flat surface of each coating sample (Zn, Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L and Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L). Note that deviation from the average microhardness values of coatings were found to be ±0.6 HV. The Vickers microhardness of Zn and Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L and Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L composite electrodeposits are found equal to 47.6, 65.6 and 73.2 HV, respectively. An increase in WO3 particle concentration (from 0.5 g/L and 1.0 g/L) tends to increase the microhardness by 11.58% on electrodeposits (refer to Figure 9). It is important to note that WO3 particles of 1 g/L composite electrodeposits resulted in a 53.78% increase in microhardness compared to bare Zn coating deposits. The higher microhardness in composite coatings is attributed to finely dispersed WO3 nanoparticles in the matrix, which results in a fine-grained structure that restricts the easy movement of dislocation (refer to Figure 7c). Fine WO3 nanoparticles in electrodeposits firmly hold the Zn granules and ensure progressive nucleation growth that limits the growth of the grain size, which increases the hardness of the coatings. Similar research findings are observed in the published literature [76].

3.4. Corrosion Behavior of Coatings

The electrochemical measurements were conducted to analyze the Zn–WO3 composite coatings’ quality. The Tafel extrapolation of pure Zn and its composite coatings were recorded after 5 min exposure in neutral 3.5% NaCl corrosive media and are given in Figure 10. The results that correspond to the corrosion kinetic parameters are presented in Table 2.
The composite coatings of corrosion potential values showed lesser negative values than the pure Zn coating (refer to Table 2). This justifies the potential or noble character of the composite (Zn–WO3) coating. The addition of WO3 particles in coatings influenced largely on the corrosion behavior; similar observations were reported in past literature [76]. The corrosion current that corresponds to the electrodeposited Zn coating is 6.316×10−5 cm−2 (curve a), whereas for curves (b) and (c), it is 3.118 × 10−6 cm−2 and 7.110 × 10−7 cm−2 for WO3 of 0.5 g/L and 1 g/L concentrations, respectively. Note that the corrosion currents (icorr) that correspond to Zn-composite coatings are comparatively lesser than that of the Zn coating. This could be expected for composite coatings, such that the WO3 nanoparticles are co-deposited on Zn. The corrosion rates of Zn, Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L and Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L composite electrodeposits are found equal to 32.69, 8.229, 2.803 Å min−1, respectively. Better corrosion resistance in composite coatings is attributed to the incorporation of WO3 particles which act as a physical barrier to the corrosion phenomenon by filling the gaps and micro-holes (if present) on the composite coating surfaces [68]. Note that higher corrosion resistance was obtained for the coating prepared from plating bath III. This occurs due to the increased concentration of WO3 nanoparticles (from 0.5 g/L and 1.0 g/L) suspended in the Zn coatings, which decrease (by 65.94%) the active surface area that undergoes the corrosion phenomenon.
The anodic polarization responses of Zn and Zn composite deposits fabricated from bath solutions I, II and III in 3.5% NaCl solution with varied potential ranges are presented in Figure 11. The curves are almost identical in shape, which might be due to the negligible (except at lower negative potential than the potential of Zn dissolution process) influence of WO3 nanoparticles in electrodepositing during the dissolution process. The reinforced WO3 particles held Zn deposition firmly on the steel substrate and, often, it was found to be difficult to dissolve the zinc deposition during the anodic polarization. Therefore, WO3 particles’ inclusion in Zn deposits offers better corrosion resistance. It was observed that the potential values are seen to be slightly less or more positive toward composite coatings (curves b and c) compared to the pure Zn coating (curve a) at all current density values. Zn oxidation occurs at a less negative potential, whereas a higher concentration of WO3 nanoparticles in the bath gave the composite. The Zn composite coating showed better corrosion resistance characteristics than the pure Zn coating when observed through an anodic polarization curve. The electrochemical behavior of Zn–WO3 composites offers enhanced corrosion resistance compared to pure zinc coatings. This can be observed in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12.
Detailed insight of the characteristics of the electrochemical process that occur at the electrode/solution interface in a corrosive media are driven through EIS measurements. Furthermore, it also explores the in situ and non-destructive probing relaxation mechanism with a large frequency range (FR). The EIS measurements on all coatings (Zn, and Zn–WO3 composite) at the open circuit potential (FR of 100 kHz to 0.1mHz) were carried out. The collected experimental data were represented in Nyquist plots, as shown in Figure 12. In Figure 12, curve (a) represents the Nyquist plot of the bare Zn deposit and curves (b) and (c) represent the Nyquist plots of Zn composites II and III, containing 0.5 and 1 g/L of WO3 particles. The Nyquist plots were recorded in 3.5% NaCl solution. Figure 13 shows the equivalent circuit corresponds to the fitted data of the Nyquist plots.
Table 3 presents the various parameter values of the fitted curves, where R1, R2, R3 and R4 are the solution resistance, coating resistance, pore resistance and charge transfer resistance of the coatings, respectively. Terms C1 and C2 stand for the capacitance of the coating and capacitance of the double layer, respectively; Q is the constant phase element of the coating. From Figure 12, it can be observed that the semi-circle of the Zn composite containing 1.0 g/L has a larger diameter compared to the Zn composite obtained from 0.5 g/L and the bare Zn deposit. This shows that higher corrosion resistance for curve (c), i.e., composite deposit obtained from the 1 g/L of WO3 particles, compared to the other composite deposit and bare Zn deposit.

4. Conclusions

Currently, nickel and chromium composite coatings are applied to protect steel parts, but they are not generally recommended due to their hazardous nature. Furthermore, alternate to galvanizing practices attempt being made to apply environment-friendly coating material for protecting steel substrate useful for practical applications. The current study investigates the effect of adding WO3 particles into the Zn matrix by electrodeposition techniques. The following research findings are presented below:
  • The pure Zn and Zn–WO3 composites are electrodeposited successfully on mild steel specimens.
  • The Zn bath solution with 1 g/L of WO3 particles greatly influences the deposition process.
  • The WO3 particles were present and incorporated in the Zn matrix, which was observed from SEM analysis.
  • The incorporated WO3 particles changed the surface morphology of Zn deposits from a coarse grain to smaller grain size.
  • The microhardness of Zn and Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L and Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L composite electrodeposits are found equal to 47.6, 65.6 and 73.2 HV, respectively. An increase in WO3 particle concentration (from 0.5 g/L and 1.0 g/L) tends to increase the micro-hardness by 11.58% on electrodeposits. Electrodepositing WO3 particles of 1 g/L composites resulted in a 53.78% increase in microhardness compared to bare Zn coating deposits.
  • The corrosion rate of Zn and Zn–WO3 of 0.5 g/L and Zn–WO3 of 1 g/L composite electrodeposits is found equal to 32.69, 8.229, 2.803 Å min−1, respectively. The better corrosion resistance with composite coatings is attributed to the WO3 particles, which act as a physical barrier to the corrosion phenomenon.
  • Zn–WO3 composite coatings can be economically coated onto steel parts (tanks, containers, boilers, etc.) and for those applications that require higher corrosion resistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.P.K., R.M.K. and M.P.G.C.; methodology, C.M.P.K. and M.P.G.C.; software, C.M.P.K. and M.P.G.C.; validation, R.M.K., K.G. and D.Y.P.; formal analysis, C.M.P.K., R.M.K., K.G. and D.Y.P.; investigation, C.M.P.K.; resources, M.P.G.C., K.G. and D.Y.P.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.P.K. and M.P.G.C.; writing—review and editing, M.P.G.C., K.G., R.M.K. and D.Y.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Roy, S.; Kumar, M.P. Corrosion Resistance Methods for Stainless Steel: A Review. In New Challenges and Industrial Applications for Corrosion Prevention and Control; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 208–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Patel, R.D.; Bhavsar, S.N. Experimental investigation during end milling of AISI D2 tool steel using AlCrN coated tool. Mater. Today-Proc. 2020, 22, 2647–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shreyas, P.; Panda, B.; Vishwanatha, A.D. Embrittlement of hot-dip galvanized steel: A review. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2021; Volume 2317, p. 020038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, Y.; Qu, S.; Lai, F.; Qin, H.; Huang, L.; Li, X. Effect of quenching temperature on microstructure and rolling contact fatigue behavior of 17Cr2Ni2MoVNb steel. Metals 2018, 8, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Abbas, M.; Shafiee, M. An overview of maintenance management strategies for corroded steel structures in extreme marine environments. Mar. Struct. 2020, 71, 102718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kumar, K.; Goyal, D.; Banwait, S.S. Effect of key parameters on fretting behaviour of wire rope: A review. Arch. Comput. Method E 2020, 27, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tan, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Wang, X.; Gao, J.; Wu, X.; Han, E.; Yang, S.; Huang, P. Corrosion fatigue model of austenitic stainless steels used in pressurized water reactor nuclear power plants. J. Nucl. Mater. 2020, 541, 152407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, P.; Kang, L.; Wang, J.; Guo, J.; Hu, S.; Ling, Y. Mechanical properties and explosive spalling behavior of steel-fiber-reinforced concrete exposed to high temperature—a review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wang, C.; Yu, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yuan, Q. Microstructure evolution and corrosion behavior of dissimilar 304/430 stainless steel welded joints. J. Manuf. Process. 2020, 50, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Z.; Xu, S.; Li, R. Comparative investigation of the effect of corrosion on the mechanical properties of different parts of thin-walled steel. Thin Wall. Struct. 2020, 146, 106450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, C.Q.; Yang, W.; Shi, W. Corrosion effect of ferrous metals on degradation and remaining service life of infrastructure using pipe fracture as example. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16, 583–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kim, T.; Lee, Y.J.; Sanyal, S.; Woo, J.W.; Choi, I.H.; Yi, J. Mechanism of corrosion in porcelain insulators and its effect on the lifetime. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Shi, Y.; Yang, B.; Liaw, P.K. Corrosion-resistant high-entropy alloys: A review. Metals 2017, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Koch, G.H.; Brongers, M.P.; Thompson, N.G.; Virmani, Y.P.; Payer, J.H. Corrosion Cost and Preventive Strategies in the United States; U.S. Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  15. Cramer, S.D.; Covino, B.S., Jr. ASM Handbook, Volume 13A—Corrosion: Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection; ASM International: Novelty, OH, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wei, X.; Fu, D.; Chen, M.; Wu, W.; Wu, D.; Liu, C. Data mining to effect of key alloying elements on corrosion resistance of low alloy steels in sanya seawater environment alloying elements. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2021, 64, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, W.; Feng, W.; Liao, Z.; Yang, Y.; Miao, G.; Yu, B.; Pei, X. Protection of mild steel with molecular engineered epoxy nanocomposite coatings containing corrosion inhibitor functionalized nanoparticles. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2021, 406, 126639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Díaz, I.; Cano, H.; Lopesino, P.; De la Fuente, D.; Chico, B.; Jiménez, J.A.; Medina, S.F.; Morcillo, M. Five-year atmospheric corrosion of Cu, Cr and Ni weathering steels in a wide range of environments. Corros. Sci. 2018, 141, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Volovitch, P.; Vu, T.N.; Allély, C.; Aal, A.A.; Ogle, K. Understanding corrosion via corrosion product characterization: II. Role of alloying elements in improving the corrosion resistance of Zn–Al–Mg coatings on steel. Corros. Sci. 2011, 53, 2437–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sk, M.H.; Abdullah, A.M.; Ko, M.; Laycock, N.; Ingham, B.; Ryan, M.P.; Williams, D.E. Effect of Cr/Mo on the protectiveness of corrosion scales on carbon steel in sweet medium under high flow regime. ECS Trans. 2017, 80, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, M.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y. Role of passive film in dominating the electrochemical corrosion behavior of FeCrMoCBY amorphous coating. J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 811, 151962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, Z.; Jing, H.; Xu, L.; Han, Y.; Zhao, L.; Zhou, C. Effects of nitrogen in shielding gas on microstructure evolution and localized corrosion behavior of duplex stainless steel welding joint. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2017, 404, 110–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhu, Y.; Poplawsky, J.D.; Li, S.; Unocic, R.R.; Bland, L.G.; Taylor, C.D.; Locke, J.S.; Marquis, E.A.; Frankel, G.S. Localized corrosion at nm-scale hardening precipitates in Al-Cu-Li alloys. Acta Mater. 2020, 189, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, X.; Ba, Z.; Wang, Q.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Q. Uniform corrosion behavior of GZ51K alloy with long period stacking ordered structure for biomedical application. Corros. Sci. 2014, 88, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, Y.Q.; Han, J.; Wu, H.C.; Yang, B.; Wang, X.T. Effect of sigma phase precipitation on the mechanical and wear properties of Z3CN20. 09M cast duplex stainless steel. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2013, 259, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ram Mohan Rao, K. Corrosion Resistance of High Entropy Alloys. In Coatings. Materials Forming, Machining and Tribology; Kumar, K., Babu, B.S., Davim, J.P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Park, S.H.; Kim, K.E.; Hong, S.J. Surface Analysis of Chamber Coating Materials Exposed to CF4/O2 Plasma. Coatings 2021, 11, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yung, T.Y.; Chen, T.C.; Tsai, K.C.; Lu, W.F.; Huang, J.Y.; Liu, T.Y. Thermal spray coatings of Al, ZnAl and inconel 625 alloys on SS304L for anti-saline corrosion. Coatings 2019, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ji, R.; Liu, Y.; Xu, C.; Li, X.; Cai, B.; Zhang, Y. Novel method for the hybrid composite electroplating of the upstream pumping mechanical seal. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 89, 1875–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Patel, G.C.M.; Pradeep, N.B.; Harsha, H.M.; Shettigar, A.K. Experimental analysis and optimization of plasma spray parameters on microhardness and wear loss of Mo-Ni-Cr coated super duplex stainless steel. Aust. J. Mech. Eng. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, C.; Zhou, J.; Chen, J.; Zhao, J.; Yu, Y.; Zhou, H. High temperature wear resistance of laser cladding NiCrBSi and NiCrBSi/WC-Ni composite coatings. Wear 2011, 270, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Luo, X.; Smith, G.M.; Sampath, S. On the interplay between adhesion strength and tensile properties of thermal spray coated laminates—Part I: High velocity thermal spray coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2018, 27, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ang, A.S.M.; Berndt, C.C. A review of testing methods for thermal spray coatings. Int. Mater. Rev. 2014, 59, 179–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nie, P.; Ojo, O.A.; Li, Z. Modeling analysis of laser cladding of a nickel-based superalloy. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2014, 258, 1048–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yao, F.; Fang, L. Thermal stress cycle simulation in laser cladding process of Ni-based coating on H13 steel. Coatings 2021, 11, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rottwinkel, B.; Pereira, A.; Alfred, I.; Noelke, C.; Wesling, V.; Kaierle, S. Turbine blade tip single crystalline clad deposition with applied remelting passes for well oriented volume extension. J. Laser Appl. 2017, 29, 022310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Libório, M.S.; Praxedes, G.B.; Lima, L.L.F.; Nascimento, I.G.; Sousa, R.R.M.; Naeem, M.; Costa, T.H.; Alves, S.M.; Iqbal, J. Surface modification of M2 steel by combination of cathodic cage plasma deposition and magnetron sputtered MoS2-TiN multilayer coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2020, 384, 125327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Musil, J.; Kadlec, S. Reactive sputtering of TiN films at large substrate to target distances. Vacuum 1990, 40, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Raman, P.; Shchelkanov, I.A.; McLain, J.; Ruzic, D.N. High power pulsed magnetron sputtering: A method to increase deposition rate. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2015, 33, 031304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Tozar, A. Investigating the hexadecylamine as a new nonionic surfactant candidate for electrodeposition of wear-resistant metal-matrix composites. Surf. Eng. 2020, 36, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schlesinger, M. Modern Electroplating; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lotfi, N.; Aliofkhazraei, M.; Rahmani, H.; Darband, G.B. Zinc–nickel alloy electrodeposition: Characterization, properties, multilayers and composites. Prot. Met. Phys. Chem. Surf. 2018, 54, 1102–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mohankumar, P.C.; Venkatesha, V.T. Surfactants effect on Zn–Si3N4 coating, electrochemical properties, and their corrosion behaviors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 12827–12837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Luo, J.; Cheng, P.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Ding, G. Microstructure of Cu-diamond composites with near-perfect interfaces prepared via electroplating and its thermal properties. Mater. Charact. 2019, 150, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xia, F.; Jia, W.; Ma, C.; Wang, J. Synthesis of Ni–TiN composites through ultrasonic pulse electrodeposition with excellent corrosion and wear resistance. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 766–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. DeMasi-Marcin, J.T.; Gupta, D.K. Protective coatings in the gas turbine engine. Surf. Coat. Technol. 1994, 68, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fotovvati, B.; Namdari, N.; Dehghanghadikolaei, A. On coating techniques for surface protection: A review. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Jiang, W.; Fan, Z.; Li, G.; Li, C. Effects of zinc coating on interfacial microstructures and mechanical properties of aluminum/steel bimetallic composites. J. Alloys Compd. 2016, 678, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sriraman, K.R.; Brahimi, S.; Szpunar, J.A.; Osborne, J.H.; Yue, S. Tribocorrosion behavior of Zn, Zn–Ni, Cd and Cd–Ti electrodeposited on low carbon steel substrates. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2013, 224, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Praveen Kumar, C.M.; Venkatesha, T.V.; Vathsala, K.; Nayana, K.O. Electrodeposition and corrosion behavior of Zn–Ni and Zn–Ni–Fe2O3 coatings. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2012, 9, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Burduhos-Nergis, D.P.; Vizureanu, P.; Sandu, A.V.; Bejinariu, C. Evaluation of the corrosion resistance of phosphate coatings deposited on the surface of the carbon steel used for carabiners manufacturing. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sajjadnejad, M.; Mozafari, A.; Omidvar, H.; Javanbakht, M. Preparation and corrosion resistance of pulse electrodeposited Zn and Zn–SiC nanocomposite coatings. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 300, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sajjadnejad, M.; Ghorbani, M.; Afshar, A. Microstructure-corrosion resistance relationship of direct and pulse current electrodeposited Zn-TiO2 nanocomposite coatings. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, W.; Cao, D.; Jin, Y.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, G.; Wang, Y. Microstructure and properties of Cu-Sn-Zn-TiO2 nano-composite coatings on mild steel. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2018, 350, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Fayomi, O.S.I.; Popoola, A.P.I.; Kanyane, L.R.; Monyai, T. Development of reinforced in-situ anti-corrosion and wear Zn-TiO2/ZnTiB2 coatings on mild steel. Results Phys. 2017, 7, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Miller, R.J.; Adeleye, A.S.; Page, H.M.; Kui, L.; Lenihan, H.S.; Keller, A.A. Nano and traditional copper and zinc antifouling coatings: Metal release and impact on marine sessile invertebrate communities. J. Nanopart. Res. 2020, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hegyi, A.; Dico, C.; Constantinescu, H.; Baeră, C. Influence of hot-dip galvanizing of reinforcement on the kinetics and thermodynamics of corrosion process in concrete. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baruwa, A.D.; Akinlabi, E.T.; Oladijo, O.P. Surface coating processes: From conventional to the advanced methods: A short review. In Advances in Manufacturing Engineering, Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Emamian, S.S., Awang, M., Yusof, F., Eds.; Spring: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zotov, S.V. Analysis of galvanized coatings applied on general purpose wire. Solid State Phenom. 2020, 299, 827–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Roventi, G.; Bellezze, T.; Fratesi, R. Electrodeposition of Zn–SiC nanocomposite coatings. J. Appl. Electrochem. 2013, 43, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nguyen, D.D.; Do, D.T.; Vu, X.H.; Dang, D.V.; Nguyen, D.C. ZnO nanoplates surfaced-decorated by WO3 nanorods for NH3 gas sensing application. Adv. Nat. Sci.-Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 015004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Demir, K.Ç. Corrosion behavior of electrodeposited WO3 thin films. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 4358–4364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Patnaik, P. Handbook of Inorganic Chemicals; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2003; Volume 529, ISBN 9781439814611. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhao, Q.; Fang, Y.; Qiao, K.; Wei, W.; Yao, Y.; Gao, Y. Printing of WO3/ITO nanocomposite electrochromic smart windows. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 194, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lin, Z.; Xie, P.; Zhan, R.; Chen, D.; She, J.; Deng, S.; Xu, N.; Chen, J. Defect-enhanced field emission from WO3 nanowires for flat-panel X-ray sources. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2019, 2, 5206–5213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ho, G.W.; Chua, K.J.; Siow, D.R. Metal loaded WO3 particles for comparative studies of photocatalysis and electrolysis solar hydrogen production. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 181, 661–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Goyal, A.; Pouya, H.S.; Ganjian, E.; Olubanwo, A.O.; Khorami, M. Predicting the corrosion rate of steel in cathodically protected concrete using potential shift. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 194, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Daniyan, A.A.; Umoru, L.E.; Popoola, A.P.I.; Fayomi, O.S.I. Comparative studies of microstructural, tribological and corrosion properties of Zn-TiO2 and Zn-TiO2-WO3 nano-composite coatings. Results Phys. 2017, 7, 3222–3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Deepa, K.; Arthoba Nayaka, Y. Synthesis of CuO micro and nanoparticles as composite additives for corrosion resistant Zn-composite coatings on mild steel. Inorg. Nano-Met. Chem. 2020, 50, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pouraliakbar, H.; Jandaghi, M.R.; Baygi, S.J.M.; Khalaj, G. Microanalysis of crystallographic characteristics and structural transformations in SPDed Al–Mn–Si alloy by dual-straining. J. Alloys Compd. 2017, 696, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bach, L.G.; Nguyen, N.G.; Ho, V.T.T. Enhanced light scattering by preferred orientation control of Ga doped ZnO films prepared through MOCVD. Int. J. Photoenergy 2016, 2016, 1217576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shirani, A.; Momenzadeh, M.; Sanjabi, S. Surfactant effect on electrochemical behavior of Co–TiO2 nanocomposite coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2012, 206, 2870–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wu, N.L.; Wang, S.Y.; Rusakova, I.A. Inhibition of crystallite growth in the sol-gel synthesis of nanocrystalline metal oxides. Science 1999, 285, 1375–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Daniyan, A.A.; Umoru, L.E.; Fayomi, O.S.I.; Popoola, A.P.I. Structural evolution, optoelectrical and corrosion properties of electrodeposited WO3 integration on Zn-TiO2 electrolyte for defence super application. Def. Technol. 2018, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liang, Y.C.; Chang, C.W. Improvement of ethanol gas-sensing responses of ZnO–WO3 composite nanorods through annealing induced local phase transformation. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Praveen, B.M.; Venkatesha, T.V. Electrodeposition and properties of Zn-nanosized TiO2 composite coatings. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2008, 254, 2418–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jabbar, A.; Yasin, G.; Khan, W.Q.; Anwar, M.Y.; Korai, R.M.; Nizam, M.N.; Muhyodin, G. Electrochemical deposition of nickel graphene composite coatings: Effect of deposition temperature on its surface morphology and corrosion resistance. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 31100–31109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Materials 14 02253 g001 550
Figure 1. Experimental setup for composite electrodeposition.
Figure 1. Experimental setup for composite electrodeposition.
Materials 14 02253 g001
Materials 14 02253 g002 550
Figure 2. WO3 particles of (a) XRD pattern and (b) SEM.
Figure 2. WO3 particles of (a) XRD pattern and (b) SEM.
Materials 14 02253 g002
Materials 14 02253 g003 550
Figure 3. Cathodic polarization curves: (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) deposition.
Figure 3. Cathodic polarization curves: (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) deposition.
Materials 14 02253 g003
Materials 14 02253 g004 550
Figure 4. Cyclic voltammograms for (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) plating baths.
Figure 4. Cyclic voltammograms for (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) plating baths.
Materials 14 02253 g004
Materials 14 02253 g005 550
Figure 5. XRD pattern of (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) composite coating.
Figure 5. XRD pattern of (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) composite coating.
Materials 14 02253 g005
Materials 14 02253 g006 550
Figure 6. Texture coefficient of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coating.
Figure 6. Texture coefficient of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coating.
Materials 14 02253 g006
Materials 14 02253 g007 550
Figure 7. Surface micrographs of (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) coated samples.
Figure 7. Surface micrographs of (a) Zn (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) coated samples.
Materials 14 02253 g007
Materials 14 02253 g008a 550Materials 14 02253 g008b 550
Figure 8. EDS spectra of (a) Zn, (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) composite coating.
Figure 8. EDS spectra of (a) Zn, (b) Zn–WO3 (0.5 g/L) and (c) Zn–WO3 (1.0 g/L) composite coating.
Materials 14 02253 g008aMaterials 14 02253 g008b
Materials 14 02253 g009 550
Figure 9. Microhardness measurements of Zn and Zn–WO3 deposits.
Figure 9. Microhardness measurements of Zn and Zn–WO3 deposits.
Materials 14 02253 g009
Materials 14 02253 g010 550
Figure 10. Tafel curves of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Figure 10. Tafel curves of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Materials 14 02253 g010
Materials 14 02253 g011 550
Figure 11. Anodic polarization curves of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings samples in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Figure 11. Anodic polarization curves of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings samples in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Materials 14 02253 g011
Materials 14 02253 g012 550
Figure 12. Impedance spectra of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Figure 12. Impedance spectra of Zn and Zn–WO3 composite coatings in 3.5% NaCl solution.
Materials 14 02253 g012
Materials 14 02253 g013 550
Figure 13. Equivalent circuit for the Zn and Zn–WO3 composite electrodeposit.
Figure 13. Equivalent circuit for the Zn and Zn–WO3 composite electrodeposit.
Materials 14 02253 g013
Table
Table 1. Optimized constituents of Zn bath solution and its operating parameters.
Table 1. Optimized constituents of Zn bath solution and its operating parameters.
DepositBath SolutionZnSO4
(g/L)		Na2SO4
(g/L)		H3BO3
(g/L)		CTAB
(g/L)		WO3
(g/L)		Operating Parameters
IZn2004080.05-Current density: 4A dm-2
IIZn composite2004080.050.5pH-3.0
IIIZn composite2004080.051.0Anode—Zn metal
Cathode—mild Steel
Stirring rate—300 rpm
Cathode—40 mm × 40 mm × 1 mm
Dimension
Plating time—20 min
Table
Table 2. Electrochemical coating parameters extrapolated from Tafel plots.
Table 2. Electrochemical coating parameters extrapolated from Tafel plots.
Samples βa (V−1)βc (V−1)Ecorr (V)icorr (A)Corrosion Rate (Å min−1)
Zn10.9124.417−1.0681.148 × 10−432.69 ± 0.27
Zn–WO3 (0.5 g L−1)17.5835.771−1.0612.890 × 10−58.229 ± 0.22
Zn–WO3 (1.0 g L−1)26.9954.611−1.0339.844 × 10−62.803 ± 0.19
Table
Table 3. Electrochemical parameters of the coatings derived from impedance spectra.
Table 3. Electrochemical parameters of the coatings derived from impedance spectra.
SamplesR1
(Ωcm2)		R2 (Ωcm2)C1 (F)R3 (Ωcm2)QR4 (Ωcm2)C2 (F)Rp (Ωcm2)
Zn coating9.014 × 10−476.505.626 × 10−7537.63.586 × 10−6139.54.323 × 10−4753.6
Zn–WO3 (0.5 g L−1)3.093 × 10−1185.703.195 × 10−7173314.86 × 10−6920.73.123 × 10−62739.4
Zn–WO3 (1.0 g L−1)4.769 × 10−4624.20.714 × 10−6329210.65 × 10−652.006.828 × 10−73968.2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumar, C.M.P.; Chandrashekarappa, M.P.G.; Kulkarni, R.M.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Giasin, K. The Effect of Zn and Zn–WO3 Composites Nano-Coatings Deposition on Hardness and Corrosion Resistance in Steel Substrate. Materials 2021, 14, 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092253

AMA Style

Kumar CMP, Chandrashekarappa MPG, Kulkarni RM, Pimenov DY, Giasin K. The Effect of Zn and Zn–WO3 Composites Nano-Coatings Deposition on Hardness and Corrosion Resistance in Steel Substrate. Materials. 2021; 14(9):2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092253

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumar, Channagiri Mohankumar Praveen, Manjunath Patel Gowdru Chandrashekarappa, Raviraj Mahabaleshwar Kulkarni, Danil Yurievich Pimenov, and Khaled Giasin. 2021. "The Effect of Zn and Zn–WO3 Composites Nano-Coatings Deposition on Hardness and Corrosion Resistance in Steel Substrate" Materials 14, no. 9: 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092253

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