4.6 Article

Microstructural and Corrosion Properties of Hydroxyapatite Containing PEO Coating Produced on AZ31 Mg Alloy

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14061531

关键词

plasma electrolytic oxidation; magnesium alloys; bioabsorbable; corrosion

资金

  1. ICMATE-CNR
  2. DiSC (Padova)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By optimizing the composition of the electrolyte and process parameters, hydroxyapatite was successfully formed on the surface of AZ31 alloy for bioabsorbable implants. Compared to traditional PEO treatment, the coating produced on the PEO-BIO sample was thicker, more porous, and had zones enriched in Ca and P. The corrosion resistance of the PEO-BIO sample was comparable with traditional PEO treatment and higher than the untreated alloy.
In this work, the composition of an electrolyte was selected and optimized to induce the formation of hydroxyapatite during Plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) treatment on an AZ31 alloy for application in bioabsorbable implants. In detail, the PEO process, called PEO-BIO (Plasma Electrolytic Oxidation-Biocompatible), was performed using a silicate-phosphate-based electrolyte with the addition of calcium oxide in direct-current mode using high current densities and short treatment times. For comparison, a known PEO process for producing anticorrosive coatings, called standard, was applied on the same alloy. The coatings were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and XPS analyses. The corrosion performance was evaluated in simulated body fluid (SBF) at 37 degrees C. The coating produced on the PEO-BIO sample was porous and thicker than the standard PEO one, with zones enriched in Ca and P. The XRD analysis showed the formation of hydroxyapatite and calcium oxides in addition to magnesium-silicon oxide and magnesium oxide in the PEO-BIO sample. The corrosion resistance of PEO-BIO sample was comparable with that of a traditional PEO treated sample, and higher than that of the untreated alloy.

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