1. Introduction
Metal corrosion recently being increasing economic loss, many efforts have been made to prevent corrosion of metals or minimize the metal corrosion rate. Various methods including improving the substrate, covering the protective layer, electrochemical protection, etc. have been developed [
1,
2]. Anti-corrosive coating is a very economical and effective method for metal protection [
3]. Among the coatings materials available, epoxy resin-based coatings are one of the most widely used ones for various applications. Therefore, it is of great interest to improve the corrosive performance of epoxy resin. Graphene, as a typical two-dimensional material, has been proved to be helpful for this purpose due to its excellent barrier property and high conductivity [
4,
5,
6,
7]. For instance, Chen et al. [
8] used 2-Dibutylaniline (P
2BA) to modify graphene in tetrahydrofuran solvent, and mixed the modified graphene (P
2BA-G) into epoxy resin E44, and further, this E44 was coated on the Q235 steel plate for testing. The results show that the anti-corrosion performance of epoxy resin E44 is significantly improved. Ramezanzadeh et al. [
9] used p-phenylenediamine to modify graphene oxide and transferred the modified graphene oxide to epoxy resin by a wet process to prepare modified graphene/epoxy resin composites. In addition, the prepared composite material was coated on low carbon steel for electrochemical test. The results showed that the anti-corrosion performance of composite materials with 0.1% mass ratio of modified graphene was significantly improved. Dou et al. [
10] found that the addition of fluorinated graphene sheet to waterborne epoxy resin (WEP) can not only significantly improve the tensile strength of the WEP coating but also increase its barrier properties. The graphene sheet helps block the penetration of corrosive agent throughout the coating to the interface between coating and substrate. There are two main reasons why graphene can improve the performance of anti-corrosion coating. (1) The ‘stacking’ of sheet structure graphene. The ‘stacking’ of graphene can play a barrier effect in water, gas, corrosive substances, etc. (2) Graphene sheets are hydrophobic materials, and a few layers of graphene (mainly 3–5 layers) are more hydrophobic, which leads to a physical anti-corrosion effect [
11].
When incorporating graphene into coatings, the biggest challenge is the easy agglomeration of graphene, which is mainly induced by the bonding of the dangling bonds on the surface of graphene [
12]. The aggregation of graphene forms holes in the coating, which provides a way for the corrosive medium to reach the substrate and accelerate the corrosion. This leads eventually to the invalidation of anti-corrosion. Therefore, it is of great importance to modify graphene. Graphene modification includes covalent bond modification and non-covalent modification. Li et al. [
11] reported the example of non-covalent bond modification of graphene nanosheets using poly(sodium styrene sulfonate) (PSS), and the addition of modified graphene can significantly improve the anti-corrosion performance of epoxy zinc containing anti-corrosion coating. Covalent bond modification is more stable and effective; covalent modification refers to the substitution reaction of the modified substance with oxygen-containing groups on the surface of graphene or graphene oxide, mostly using graphene oxide, which contains a reduction reaction process and thus more defects in graphene [
13]. Yao et al. [
14] prepared homogeneous dispersion of graphene nanosheets in epoxy via chemical functionalization of graphene oxide with 4-nitrobenzenediazonium salt in the presence of sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (SDBS) and compared it with neat epoxy: the tensile strength and elongation at break of epoxy nanocomposites were increased. However, SDBS was only used as a surfactant when 4-nitrobenzenediazonium salt modified graphene oxide and when the manufacturing process of first modifying graphene oxide and then reducing it is more complex. Moreover, the systematic study on the anti-corrosion performance of the modified epoxy resin is still lacking.
In this work, graphene was directly modified by different content of SDBS and well-dispersed graphene dispersion was obtained by ultrasonication. It is well known that ultrasonication could effectively enhance the graphene dispersion [
15]. Raman spectroscopy, atomic force microscopy (AFM), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) show that graphene has excellent properties such as 2–3 layers feature, large area, and low defects. The electrochemical impedance spectroscopy test of epoxy resin samples with different immersion times shows that the addition of graphene modified by SDBS can effectively improve the corrosion resistance of epoxy resin.
3. Results and Discussion
The molecular structure of SDBS is shown in
Figure 1. The dispersion in deionized (DI) water of the modified graphene sheets was studied. The photos of the modified graphene samples with different proportions (pure G, G-1S, G-5S, G-10S, and G-20S) after 1 h of standing are shown in
Figure 2a–e, respectively. It can be seen from
Figure 2 that the sample G is agglomerated, the graphene is black, and the solution itself is transparent, while the samples G-1S, G-5S, G-10S, and G-20S can be stably dispersed in DI water after 1 h of standing.
To get the insights of the graphene quality of the samples, Raman spectroscopy was carried out.
Figure 3a shows Raman spectra of all graphene samples. For the pure graphene (black curve, G), it can be seen that three characteristic peaks arise at 1356, 1582, and 2724 cm
−1, which correspond to D, G, and 2D bands, respectively. The G peak is due to the in-plane bonding and contraction of carbon atoms in the sp
2 orbital hybridization, indicating the symmetry and ordering of the reaction materials [
16]. The D peak represents the structural defects or edges of graphene [
17]. Generally, the shape and position of 2D peak can be used to judge whether graphene is single-, double-, and multi-layered. The 2D peak of monolayer graphene is sharp, and with the increase in graphene layers, the shoulder of 2D peak is more obvious and the peak position moves to higher wave number [
18].
Figure 3b shows the more detailed Raman spectra of graphene 2D peaks. As seen in
Figure 3b, after incorporation of SDBS, the 2D peaks of all the samples shifted to lower wavenumbers, indicating decrease in the layers of the modified graphene [
19], whereas the G-5S sample showed the largest 2D peak shift, i.e., from 2712.1 cm
−1 of pure graphene to 2718.3 cm
−1.
In order to examine the morphology and the thickness of the graphene samples, AFM measurements were performed.
Figure 4 shows the AFM results of graphene samples. It can be seen from
Figure 4a that in sample G, the unmodified graphene exhibits stripe-shaped wrinkles, which cannot be spread flat on the silicon wafer, and the maximum height extracted from the line profile analysis (
Figure 4f) is 13.87 nm. In sample G-1S (
Figure 4b), it can be clearly observed that the graphene forms flakes with uniform thickness. The extracted thickness is 4.71 nm (
Figure 4f), which corresponds to 4 layers of graphene [
1]. In sample G-5S (
Figure 4c), the graphene is distributed in flakes with uniform thickness, and the extracted thickness of this sample is the lowest among all the samples. The extracted thickness is 3.50 nm (
Figure 4f), which is about the thickness of 3 layers of graphene. The thickness of G-5S is smaller than that of G-10S (
Figure 4d) and G-20S (
Figure 4e), which is 4.12 and 4.15 nm, respectively (
Figure 4f).
It is interesting to further understand the details of SDBS modification effect on graphene layers. Thus, Fourier infrared (FIR) spectra were investigated on all the samples.
Figure 5a–c shows the FIR spectra of the samples G, SDBS, and G-5S, respectively. Due to the symmetry of the graphene structure, the pure G sample shows no clear characteristic FIR peak, as shown in
Figure 5a.
Figure 5b shows the FIR spectrum of the SDBS sample. The peaks at 2965, 2912, and 2853 cm
−1 are related to the vibration of the C−H bond in the SDBS. The peaks at 1132 and 1455 cm
−1 are produced by the vibration of CH
3, CH
2, and other bonds in SDBS; the peaks at 1633 and 3475 cm
−1 are induced by the vibration of −OH in water.
Figure 5c shows the FIR spectrum of the sample G-5S; the peak position of the characteristic peak is almost the same as that of the modified substance SDBS sample. The FIR results show that the modified graphene sample powder contains SDBS, indicating that the modification of graphene is formed by the interaction between graphene and SDBS.
The crystallinity of the samples was subsequently examined to further understand the thickness and the quality of the graphene samples.
Figure 6 shows specular 2θ XRD patterns of the graphene samples prepared with different SDBS proportions. It can be seen from
Figure 6 that the (002) Bragg peak position of pure graphene (black curve) is at 2θ = 24.87°, while the (002) peaks of the modified graphene samples are at lower 2θ angles. The (002) peak of sample G-5S locates at 2θ = 20.85°, which is the lowest value. The Bragg equation, i.e., 2dsinθ =
nλ (
n = 1,2,3…) describes the relationship between the crystal plane spacing (d), the X-ray incident angle (θ), and the X-ray wavelength (
λ). According to the Bragg equation, the interlayer spacing of each sample graphene can be calculated from the X-ray incident angle, and the results are shown in
Table 3. It can be seen from
Table 3 that the graphene layer spacing of the unmodified sample G is the smallest, which is 0.358 nm, and sample G-5S has the largest graphene layer spacing, which is 0.426 nm.
Table 3 shows the corresponding relationship between the (002) peak position and the graphene layer spacing.
To elucidate the anti-corrosion performances of different epoxy samples, Tafel polarization examination was carried out.
Figure 7 shows the Tafel polarization curves of E, EG0.1, ESG0.1, ES, EG0.5, and ESG0.5. The upper part of the curve is the anodic polarization curve, and the lower part is the cathodic polarization curve. By extending the straight part of the curves, one could find an intersected point of the extended lines, and the abscissa of the intersection is the value of the corrosion current. The corrosion rate of the metal can be estimated by evaluating the corrosion current density (the ratio of the self-corrosion current to the test area of the sample)
Icorr, which represents the intensity of the cathodic oxygen reduction and anodic dissolution of metal ions [
20]. When the logarithm of the corrosion current of the sample is less than −10 A, the logarithm of the
Icorr of the sample is out of the detection range and thus the accurate value cannot be obtained. This indicates that the sample without immersion has strong anti-corrosion ability.
Table 4 summarizes the corrosion current density of each sample in
Figure 7. It can be concluded from
Table 4 that the corrosion current densities of EG0.1, ESG0.1, and ESG0.5 are rather small, because the Tafel curves show only noise peaks, suggesting better anti-corrosion performance. On the contrary, the
Icorr values of E and ES samples are larger and thus their anti-corrosion performances are worse.
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements were performed to study the impedance property of all the samples.
Figure 8a–f shows the impedance spectroscopy of all samples after immersing in 3.5% NaCl solution for 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h, respectively. The impedance spectroscopy represents the relationship between the impedance modulus value and frequency. By analyzing the impedance modulus value of the sample at low frequencies, the anti-corrosion ability of the sample coating can be estimated [
21,
22].
For the sample E (
Figure 8a), when it was not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 1.25 × 10
7 Ω. With the increase in immersion time, the impedance modulus value of sample E at 0.1 Hz decreased rapidly. When the immersion time was 12 h, the impedance modulus value decreased to 2.34 × 10
4 Ω, and then as the immersion time increased, the impedance modulus value of 0.1 Hz was no longer significantly reduced. For the sample ES (
Figure 8b), when it was not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 5.88 × 10
7 Ω, which is higher than the impedance modulus value of the sample E at 0.1 Hz when the sample E is not immersed. With the increase in the immersion time, the impedance modulus of the sample ES at 0.1 Hz decreased rapidly, but both were higher than the impedance modulus of the sample E under the same immersion time at 0.1 Hz. When the immersion time is 24 h, the impedance modulus of the sample ES at 0.1 Hz drops to 6.30 × 10
4 Ω. For the sample EG0.1 (
Figure 8c), when it was not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 7.37 × 10
8 Ω, which is higher than the impedance modulus value of the sample E, which indicates that the incorporation of graphene enhances the anti-corrosion ability of coating. As the immersion time increases, the impedance modulus value of the sample EG0.1 at 0.1 Hz decreases slowly. When the immersion time is 24 h, the impedance modulus value of the sample EG0.1 at 0.1 Hz is still close to 10
7 Ω, which shows that the EG0.1 sample still has good corrosion resistance. For the sample EG0.5 (
Figure 8d), when it was not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 5.94 × 10
7 Ω, which is higher than the impedance modulus value of the sample E at 0.1 Hz when not immersed, but lower than the sample EG0.1 at 0.1 Hz when not immersed. This shows that increasing the amount of graphene does not increase the corrosion resistance of the coating. This may be because the extra unmodified graphene cannot be stably dispersed in the epoxy coating, and the existence of graphene particles destroys the compactness of the epoxy coating. When the immersion time is 24 h, the impedance modulus value of the sample EG0.5 at 0.1 Hz is 2.47 × 10
5 Ω, which is lower than the impedance modulus value of the sample EG0.1 at 0.1 Hz. The anti-corrosion ability of EG0.5 coating is weaker than that of EG0.1 coating. For the sample ESG0.1 (
Figure 8e), when it is not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 4.31 × 10
9 Ω, which is the highest impedance modulus value of all samples at 0.1 Hz, indicating that the sample ESG0.1 has the strongest anti-corrosion ability of the coating. With the increase in immersion time, the impedance modulus of the sample ESG0.1 at 0.1 Hz decreases slowly. When the immersion time is 24 h, the impedance modulus of the sample ESG0.1 at 0.1 Hz is 1.92 × 10
7 Ω, which is higher than that of the sample E. After the sample ESG0.1 is immersed for 24 h, the anti-corrosion ability of the coating is still higher than that of the sample E when it is not immersed. For the sample ESG0.5 (
Figure 8f), when it was not immersed, the impedance modulus value at 0.1 Hz is 2.42 × 10
9 Ω, which is second only to the ESG0.1 sample. With the increase in immersion time, the decreasing trend of the impedance modulus of the sample ESG0.5 at 0.1 Hz is basically the same as that of the sample ESG0.1 at 0.1 Hz. At the same immersion time, the impedance modulus of the sample ESG0.5 is lower than that of the sample ESG0.1 at 0.1 Hz. After being immersed for 24 h, the impedance modulus value of the sample ESG0.5 at 0.1 Hz is 1.15 × 10
7 Ω, which is higher than of the sample E at 0.1 Hz without immersion, which means that the corrosion resistance of the coating after immersion for 24 h is still higher than that of the sample E without immersion.
Table 5 summarizes the impedance mode values of each sample at 0.1 Hz at different immersion times, and the corresponding image is shown in
Figure 9. It can be seen from this figure that the impedance mode values of the sample ESG0.1 at low frequency are the highest at different immersion times among all samples, which means that the sample has the best corrosion resistance.