4.7 Article

Polyaniline, polypyrrole and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) as additives of organic coatings to prevent corrosion

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 203, 期 24, 页码 3763-3769

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2009.06.019

关键词

Polyaniline; Polypyrrole; Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene); Epoxy paint; Corrosion protection

资金

  1. MEC
  2. FEDER [MAT-2006-04029, PHB2007-0038-PC]
  3. Brazilian and Spanish Education Ministries
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work is to compare the protection against corrosion imparted by different conducting polymers when these materials are used as anticorrosive additives in the formulation of conventional epoxy paints. Specifically, the polymers employed as anticorrosive additives are polyaniline emeraldine salt, polyaniline emeraldine base, polyaniline emeraldine salt composite with carbon black, polypyrrole composite with carbon black and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) doped with poly(styrene sulphonate). Initially, the structural, thermal and mechanical properties of the unmodified epoxy paint as well as the modified coatings, obtained by the addition of 0.3 wt.% of conducting polymers, have been characterized. After this, controlled accelerated corrosion assays in an aggressive solution medium were developed using coated steel panels. Results indicate that the protection against corrosion imparted by the formulations modified by the addition of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) doped with poly(styrene sulphonate), polyaniline emeraldine salt and, especially, polyaniline emeraldine base is significantly higher than that of the unmodified paint. In contrast, the use of conducting polymer composite with carbon black reduces the efficacy of the coating. Results indicate that some conducting polymer compositions should be considered as a suitable alternative to replace inorganic anticorrosive pigments currently used in paint formulations. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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