4.6 Article

Raman Spectroscopy Characterization of Aqueous Vanadate Species Interaction with Aluminum Alloy 2024-T3 Surfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 158, 期 5, 页码 C125-C131

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1.3562557

关键词

-

资金

  1. SERDP [WH912HQ-08-C-0011]
  2. National Science Foundation [0639163]
  3. Division Of Chemistry
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0639163] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Raman spectroscopy and electrochemical techniques were used to characterize the interactions of aqueous NaVO(3)/NaCl and NH(4)VO(3)/oxalic acid with AA 2024-T3. The interaction of aqueous NaVO(3) with Cu(0) and Cu(2)O was characterized. At potential values similar to the OCP of AA 2024-T3 in dilute NaCl, aqueous NaVO(3) formed a polyvanadate film on Cu(2)O and formed little or no vanadate film on Cu(0). Treatment of AA 2024-T3 with basic, aqueous NaVO(3)/NaCl resulted in a polyvanadate film on copper-rich intermetallic particles and the formation of monovanadates on the matrix. Treatment of AA 2024-T3 with acidic, aqueous NH(4)VO(3)/oxalic resulted in the formation of monovanadates on the matrix and provided no evidence of vanadate species on copper-rich particles. AA 2024-T3 samples pretreated with either aqueous vanadate salt solution displayed modest cathodic inhibition soon after treatment but inhibition degraded with aging. The formation of polymerized vanadates species on copper-rich particles supports the cathodic inhibition mechanism. The presence of vanadate species on copper-rich particles pretreated with aqueous NaVO(3)/NaCl containing predominantly tetrahedral vanadates versus the lack of evidence for similar species on particles treated with aqueous NH(4)VO(3)/oxalic acid containing predominantly octahedral vanadates supports the importance of tetrahedrally coordinated vanadate species for corrosion inhibition. (C) 2011 The Electrochemical Society. [DOI: 10.1149/1.3562557] All rights reserved.

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