| Literature DB >> 31458649 |
Yajun Deng1, Weibin Bai1,2, Xinmei Zhang1, Jipeng Chen1, Shenji Wang1, Jinhuo Lin1,2, Yanlian Xu1,2.
Abstract
Environmentally friendly and renewable hybrid lacquer coatings with excellent aging resistant and anticorrosion properties were studied. The coatings were prepared using raw lacquer coupled with the silane agent 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane or N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane via an eco-friendly sol-gel preparation process. The physical-mechanical properties, thermal stability, aging resistance, and anticorrosion properties of the as-prepared coatings were analyzed. Additionally, the surface of the coatings before and after an accelerated aging treatment was studied by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The results revealed that the hybrid lacquer coating A (with a raw lacquer-to-APTES mass ratio of 1.8:1) resulted in films with a significantly enhanced antiaging effect (e.g., six times higher than that of lacquer at a gloss loss rate of 30%). Besides, this film revealed an exceptional anticorrosion performance (with the lowest corrosion current I corr = 2.476 × 10-10 A·cm-2) and a high protection efficiency (99.99 and 94.10%), as demonstrated by its electrochemical characteristics. Furthermore, all films exhibited a good barrier because of their dense structure, which prevents the corrosive medium from penetrating the coating during the salt spray test analysis after 1000 h. And the coating A relatively layered was distributing any significant cancaves, integrity better than all coatings studied, indicating that the based electrolyte was easier to penetrate it after salt spraying 2000 h.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 31458649 PMCID: PMC6641289 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.8b00050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Physical and Mechanical Properties of Film Samplesa,b
| entry | organic silane | ratio (wt %) | TF | HD (h) | pencil hardness | gloss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L | <24 h | <48 | 4H | 54.4 | |
| 2 | APTES | 4:1 | <5 h | <36 | 4H | 98.6 |
| 3 | 3:1 | <1.5 h | <15 | 5H | 98.3 | |
| 4 | 2:1 | <1 h | <5 | 5H | 84.5 | |
| 5 | 1.8:1 | <35 min | <3 | 5H | 99.3 | |
| 6 | 1.5:1 | <45 min | <2 | 4H | 82.5 | |
| 7 | 1.3:1 | <30 min | <2 | 6H | 97.7 | |
| 8 | AATMS | 4:1 | <1.5 h | <20 | 5H | 99.4 |
| 9 | 3:1 | <3 h | <28 | 5H | 93.6 | |
| 10 | 2:1 | <45 min | <9 | 4H | 88.3 | |
| 12 | 1.8:1 | <25 min | <2.5 | 4H | 99.9 | |
| 11 | 1.5:1 | <40 min | <9 | 4H | 92.5 | |
| 13 | 1.3:1 | <35 min | <6 | 6H | 98.0 |
Ratio between raw lacquer and silane coupling agent.
Drying times were determined by the drying time recorder. TF: touch-free dry, HD: hard dry.
Different Coatings of the Gel Content Value
| exposure time/min | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.59 |
| 60 | 100 | 99.29 | 98.31 | 99.38 | 98.52 |
| 90 | 99.46 | 98.10 | 97.86 | 98.26 | 98.40 |
| 120 | 98.57 | 97.57 | 97.56 | 97.62 | 97.24 |
| 240 | 98.57 | 97.40 | 97.21 | 97.52 | 97.01 |
Figure 1FT-IR spectra of silane (a) and different coatings (b).
Figure 2TG analysis of different lacquer coatings.
Thermal Decomposition Parameters of Different Coatings
| sample | char yield/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 319 | 458 | 464 | 27.30 |
| B | 327 | 468 | 467 | 28.33 |
| C | 305 | 459 | 469 | 26.64 |
| D | 304 | 461 | 465 | 27.80 |
| E | 335 | 441 | 451 | 19.19 |
(A) L/APTES = 1.8:1, (B) L/APTES = 1.3:1, (C) L/AATMS = 1.8:1, (D) L/AATMS = 1.3:1, and (E) L.
Onset of weight loss.
Weight loss to 50%.
Weight loss to the maximum.
Figure 3Gloss loss analysis of different coatings.
Effect of Exposure Time on Different Lacquer Coatings
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 48 | 7.74 | 4.30 | –0.11 | 4.37 | 16.20 |
| 96 | 9.78 | 15.38 | –2.40 | 21.51 | 27.98 |
| 144 | 13.44 | 23.14 | 0.53 | 31.44 | 25.49 |
| 192 | 14.37 | 28.89 | –3.26 | 37.42 | 19.33 |
| 240 | 16.00 | 32.26 | –0.22 | 40.04 | 41.68 |
| 288 | 21.37 | 34.52 | –0.22 | 35.40 | 61.28 |
| 336 | 21.67 | 35.34 | 9.79 | 36.04 | 86.64 |
| 384 | 17.22 | 33.67 | 7.23 | 25.24 | |
| 432 | 16.44 | 39.90 | 9.15 | 30.37 | |
| 480 | 22.03 | 38.01 | 61.57 | 43.78 | |
| 528 | 23.08 | 40.71 | 72.59 | 62.15 | |
| 576 | 27.63 | 39.49 | 81.48 | 89.32 | |
| 624 | 33.56 | 58.81 | |||
| 672 | 41.86 | 80.65 | |||
| 720 | 80.86 | 86.65 |
Figure 4SEM analysis of different films before and after antiaging analysis.
Figure 5XPS analysis of coatings A, C, and E before and after accelerated aging.
Coating A before Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height Counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 298.3 | 284.6 | 279.3 | 38623.2 | 0.66 | 54.20 | |
| C 2s(2) | 298.3 | 286.4 | 279.3 | 13549.5 | 0.23 | 19.15 | |
| C 3s(3) | 298.3 | 288.8 | 279.3 | 3027.7 | 0.02 | 1.51 | 0.262 |
| O 1s | 543.3 | 532.9 | 528.3 | 25251.8 | 0.24 | 19.60 | |
| Si 2p | 113.3 | 102.1 | 98.3 | 3422.0 | 0.06 | 5.12 | |
| N 1s | 413.3 | 400.1 | 395.3 | 4881.6 | 0.01 | 0.42 |
Coating E after Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 297.9 | 284.6 | 278.9 | 17494.4 | 0.33 | 23.34 | |
| C 2s(2) | 297.9 | 286.2 | 278.9 | 7729.9 | 0.16 | 11.10 | |
| C 3s(3) | 297.9 | 288.4 | 278.9 | 5550.1 | 0.09 | 6.42 | 0.974 |
| O 1s | 542.9 | 532.5 | 527.9 | 47778.7 | 0.56 | 39.79 | |
| Si 2p | 112.9 | 102.6 | 97.9 | 8359.9 | 0.24 | 17.37 | |
| N 1s | 412.9 | 400.2 | 394.9 | 4992.9 | 0.02 | 1.33 | |
| N 1s | 412.9 | 402.1 | 394.9 | 4182.3 | 0.01 | 0.65 |
Coating A after Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 298.0 | 284.7 | 279.0 | 28379.5 | 0.53 | 47.78 | |
| C 2s(2) | 298.0 | 286.4 | 279.0 | 8260.3 | 0.15 | 12.98 | |
| C 3s(3) | 298.0 | 288.2 | 279.0 | 5034.5 | 0.08 | 7.23 | 0.342 |
| O 1s | 543.0 | 532.2 | 528.3 | 24711.0 | 0.26 | 23.26 | |
| Si 2p | 113.0 | 101.9 | 98.3 | 3550.6 | 0.07 | 6.32 | |
| N 1s | 413.0 | 400.2 | 395.0 | 6051.0 | 0.03 | 2.43 |
Coating C before Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 298.3 | 284.5 | 279.3 | 46713.4 | 0.83 | 59.08 | |
| C 2s(2) | 298.3 | 286.1 | 279.3 | 11500.3 | 0.19 | 13.38 | |
| C 3s(3) | 298.3 | 287.2 | 279.3 | 3571.1 | 0.05 | 3.57 | 0.233 |
| O 1s | 543.3 | 532.7 | 528.3 | 25493.7 | 0.24 | 16.90 | |
| Si 2p | 113.3 | 101.9 | 98.3 | 3622.0 | 0.07 | 5.24 | |
| N 1s(1) | 413.3 | 400.1 | 395.3 | 6275.7 | 0.02 | 1.25 | |
| N 1s(2) | 413.3 | 402.3 | 395.3 | 5560.0 | 0.01 | 0.59 |
Coating C after Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 298 | 284.6 | 279 | 23516.0 | 0.45 | 37.39 | |
| C 2s(2) | 298 | 286.2 | 279 | 6922.5 | 0.11 | 9.19 | |
| C 3s(3) | 298 | 288.2 | 279 | 4403.7 | 0.05 | 4.56 | 0.605 |
| O 1s | 543 | 532.5 | 528 | 33615.2 | 0.37 | 30.96 | |
| Si 2p | 113 | 102.6 | 98 | 6468.0 | 0.18 | 15.35 | |
| N 1s | 413 | 400.4 | 395 | 5393.1 | 0.03 | 2.55 |
Coating E before Accelerated Aging
| element | start BE | peak BE | end BE | height counts | area (N) | at. (%) | O/C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1s(1) | 298.4 | 284.6 | 279.4 | 43038.1 | 0.71 | 52.87 | |
| C 2s(2) | 298.4 | 286.0 | 279.4 | 14107.9 | 0.30 | 22.16 | |
| C 3s(3) | 298.4 | 288.2 | 279.4 | 3503.6 | 0.02 | 1.51 | 0.198 |
| O 1s | 543.4 | 532.5 | 528.4 | 22441.0 | 0.20 | 15.17 | |
| Si 2p | 113.4 | 102.2 | 98.4 | 3092.0 | 0.06 | 4.40 | |
| N 1s | 413.4 | 400.2 | 395.4 | 7862.6 | 0.05 | 3.89 |
Figure 6Potentiodynamic polarization curves for bare metal and coated by different films.
Corrosion Parameters Determined from Tafel Curves for Bare Metal and Filmsa
| electrochemical
corrosion measurements | PE/% | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sample | CR (mm/year) | |||||
| bare metal (F) | –0.3013 | 8.310 × 10–6 | 1.456 × 105 | 8.726 × 10–2 | 0 | _ |
| L (E) | –0.4430 | 4.200 × 10–9 | 7.975 × 107 | 4.411 × 10–5 | 99.94 | 0 |
| A | –0.5852 | 2.476 × 10–10 | 2.328 × 109 | 2.650 × 10–6 | 99.99 | 94.10 |
| B | –0.5769 | 2.796 × 10–10 | 3.106 × 109 | 2.936 × 10–6 | 99.99 | 93.34 |
| C | –0.2828 | 1.257 × 10–9 | 3.454 × 108 | 1.320 × 10–5 | 99.98 | 70.07 |
| D | –0.2919 | 1.438 × 10–9 | 2.500 × 108 | 1.510 × 10–5 | 99.98 | 65.76 |
0—based on this sample; _—excluding this sample.
Figure 7Macroscopic results of anticorrosion coatings before (a) and after (b) the 2000 h salt spray test.
Macroscopic Results of Anticorrosion Coatings before and after a 2000 h Salt Spray Testa
| sample | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| degree | A | B | C | D | E |
| color | + | + | + | + | + |
| pulverization | + | + | + | + | + |
| crack | + | + | + | + | + |
| blistering | + | + | + | + | + |
| rust | + | + | + | + | + |
| obscission | + | + | + | + | + |
“+”—no change in degree.
Figure 8Results of anticorrosion coatings after the 1000 (a) and 2000 h (b) salt spray test.