Corrosion Behavior of Cupronickel Alloy in Simulated Seawater in the Presence of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria

doi:10.1007/s40195-017-0662-8

Abstract

Abstract:

The corrosion behavior of cupronickel alloy immersed in the simulated seawater in or without the presence of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) was studied. The results of scanning electronic microscopy and electrochemical impedance spectra reveal that corrosion of the sample immersed in the simulated seawater with SRB was more serious than that immersed in the simulated seawater without SRB. The atomic force microscopy images show that after immersion for 15 days, the surface roughness of the sample in the simulated seawater with SRB was higher than that of the sample in the simulated seawater without SRB. The analysis of confocal laser scanning microscopy indicates that the average depth of the pits on the surface of the sample in the simulated seawater with SRB was almost twice deeper than that of the sample in the simulated seawater without SRB.

Key words: Microbiologically influenced corrosion, Sulfate-reducing bacteria, Cupronickel alloy, Confocal laser scanning microscopy, EIS

Yanyan Song, Hongwei Shi, Jun Wang, Fuchun Liu, En-Hou Han, Wei Ke, Ganxin Jie, Jun Wang, Haijun Huang. Corrosion Behavior of Cupronickel Alloy in Simulated Seawater in the Presence of Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2017, 30(12): 1201-1209.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig. 1 Photographs of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB for 15 days

Fig. 2 3D AFM images of the cupronickel alloy after 15 days of exposure in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB

Fig. 3 SEM images and element distribution of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB for 15 days

Fig. 4 SEM image of SRB strains on the surface of cupronickel alloy after immersion in the simulated seawater with SRB

Fig. 5 Optical images of CLSM of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB for 15 days

Fig. 6 3D CLSM images of the cupronickel alloy after 15 days of exposure in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB

Table 1 Depth of pits of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater with and without SRB for 15 days

	Time (days)	Maximum (μm)	Minimum (μm)	Average (μm)
Without SRB	15	11.1	9.4	9.3
With SRB	15	27.9	13.5	16.6

Fig. 7 Evolution of E OCP with exposure time for the cupronickel alloy immersed in the simulated seawater with and without SRB

Fig. 8 Bode plots of the EIS spectra of the sample after exposure in the simulated seawater without SRB for different time

Fig. 9 Bode plots of the EIS spectra of the sample after exposure in the simulated seawater with SRB for different time

Fig. 10 Electrical equivalent circuits used for fitting the EIS spectra of the sample in the simulated seawater without (a), with (b) SRB

Table 2 Fitted parameters of EIS of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater without SRB for different time

Time (days)	R _s (Ω cm²)	R _cp (Ω cm²)	Q _cp (S cm^-2 sⁿ)	n _f	R _ct(1) (Ω cm²)	C _dl (S cm^-2 sⁿ)	n _dl
1	5.863	2.123 × 10³	1.429 × 10^-4	0.86	3.220 × 10³	9.120 × 10^-5	0.77
3	4.483	3.191 × 10⁴	5.198 × 10^-5	0.93	2.133 × 10⁵	1.148 × 10^-5	0.52
7	5.451	4.014 × 10⁴	7.584 × 10^-5	0.93	2.228 × 10⁶	1.300 × 10^-5	0.66
15	5.729	2.082 × 10³	1.217 × 10^-4	0.90	2.016 × 10⁵	8.148 × 10^-5	0.54

Table 3 Fitted parameters of EIS of the cupronickel alloy after exposure in the simulated seawater with SRB for different time

Time (days)	R _s (Ω cm²)	R _bf (Ω cm²)	Q _bf (S cm^-2 sⁿ)	n _f	R _cp (Ω cm²)	Q _cp (S cm^-2 sⁿ)	n _f	R _ct(2) (Ω cm²)	C _dl (S cm^-2 sⁿ)	n _dl
1	4.897	69.04	2.418 × 10^-4	0.87	1.282 × 10⁴	8.554 × 10^-4	0.97	4.132 × 10³	6.567 × 10^-6	0.69
3	4.758	2.409	6.283 × 10^-4	0.88	5.447 × 10³	2.091 × 10^-4	0.96	2.709 × 10⁴	1.425 × 10^-3	0.97
7	4.589	2.812	5.788 × 10^-5	1.00	3.641 × 10⁴	1.313 × 10^-3	0.83	8.461 × 10²	4.004 × 10^-4	0.71
15	4.572	2.402	4.955 × 10^-5	1.00	3.760 × 10⁴	1.967 × 10^-3	0.78	3.530 × 10²	4.096 × 10^-4	0.68

References

[1]	G.J. Abraham, V. Kain, G.K. Dey, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16, 934(2009)
[2]	W.A. Badawy, K.M. Ismail, A.M. Fathi, J. Alloys Compd. 484,365(2009)
[3]	V. Subramanian, P. Chandramohan, M.P. Srinivasan, S. Velmurugan,S.V. Narasimhan, Corros. Sci. 49, 620(2007)
[4]	H. Saifi, M.C. Bernard, S. Joiret, K. Rahmouni, H. Takenouti, B.Talhi, Mater. Chem. Phys. 120, 661(2010)
[5]	Saleh A. Al-Fozan, Anees U. Desalination 228, 61 (2008)
[6]	C. Xu, Y. Zhang, G. Cheng, Mater. Charact. 59, 245(2008)
[7]	D.K. Xu, Y.C. Li, F.M. Song, T.Y. Gu, Corros. Sci. 77, 385(2013)
[8]	M. Moradi, J. Duan, H. Ashassi-Sorkhabi, X. Luan, Corros. Sci.53, 4282(2011)
[9]	T.Q. Wu, J. Xu, M.C. Yan, C. Sun, C.K. Yu, W. Ke, Corros. Sci.83, 38(2014)
[10]	T.Q. Wu, M.C. Yan, D.C. Zeng, J. Xu, C.K. Yu, C. Sun, W. Ke,Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 28, 93(2015)
[11]	J. Li, J.Y. Li, W.S. Yuan, Y.L. Du, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.64, 363(2010)
[12]	Kristen M. Kruszewski, Emilee R. Renk, Ellen S. Thin Solid Films 520, 4326 (2012)
[13]	J. Cai, K.S. Wang, C.P. Miao, W.B. Li, W. Wang, J. Yang,Mater. Des. 65, 272(2015)
[14]	Q.H. Zhao, W. Liu, Y.C. Zhu, B.L. Zhang, S.Z. Li, M.X. Lu,Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 30, 164(2017)
[15]	C. Thee, L. Hao, J.H. Dong, X. Mu, W. Ke, Acta Metall. Sin.(Engl. Lett.) 28, 261(2015)
[16]	L.Y. Zheng, F.H. Cao, W.J. Liu, B.L. Jia, J.Q. Zhang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 23, 416(2010)
[17]	C. Hao, R.H. Yin, Z.Y. Wan, Q.J. Xu, G.D. Zhou, Corros. Sci.50, 3527(2008)
[18]	J. Zhang, Q. Wang, Y.M. Wang, L.S. Wen, C. Dong, J. Alloys Compd. 505, 179(2010)
[19]	J.S. Patil, A.C. Anil, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105, 203(2015)
[20]	L.L. Campbell, J.R. Postgate, Bact. Rev. 29, 359(1965)
[21]	Robert E. Corros. Sci. 81, 110(2014)
[22]	F. Li, M. An, G. Liu, D. Duan, Mater. Chem. Phys. 113, 971(2009)
[23]	G. Regurea, K.P. Nevin, J.S. Nicoll, Appl. Environ. Microbiol.72, 7348(2006)