4.6 Article

Experimental and Quantum Chemical Studies of Some Bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl) Imide Imidazolium-Based Ionic Liquids as Corrosion Inhibitors for Mild Steel in Hydrochloric Acid Solution

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 40, 页码 13282-13299

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ie300977d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sasol-Inzalo Foundation
  2. North West University
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The corrosion inhibition of mild steel in 1.0 M HCl solution by some selected imidazolium-based ionic liquids, namely 1-propyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl) imide ([PMIM] [NTf2), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl) imide ([BMIM][NTf2), 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl) imide [HMIM][NTf2]), and 1-propyl-2,3-methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl) imide ([PDMIM][NTf2]) was investigated using weight loss, electrochemical measurements, and quantum chemical calculations. All ionic liquids showed appreciable inhibition efficiency. Among the ionic liquids studied, [PDMIM][NTf2] exhibited the best inhibition efficiency. The results from the weight loss, electrochemical measurements and quantum chemical calculations show that the order of inhibition efficiency by the ionic liquids follow the order [PDMIM][NTf2] > [HMIM][NTf2] > [BMIM][NTf2] > [PMIM][NTf2]. At 303 K, polarization measurements indicated that all the studied compounds are mixed-type inhibitors. The adsorption of the studied ionic liquids obeyed the Langmuir adsorption isotherm. There is good correlation between a composite index of quantum chemical parameters and experimentally determined inhibition efficiency of the inhibitors. The quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) approach has provided a good indication that an optimum of at least two quantum chemical parameters is required for a good correlation with the experimentally determined inhibition efficiency of the ionic liquids.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据