| Literature DB >> 31978976 |
Martina Cazzola1,2, Sara Ferraris1,2, Giuliana Banche3, Giovanna Gautier Di Confiengo4, Francesco Geobaldo1, Chiara Novara1, Silvia Spriano1,2.
Abstract
A coating that was made of peppermint essential oil was obtained on different metal substrates: Ti6Al4V alloy (mechanically polished and chemically etched) and 316L stainless steel (mechanically polished and mechanically ground). The final aim is to get a multifunctional (chemical and mechanical) protection of metal surfaces in contact with water media. The coatings were characterized by means of fluorescence microscopy, contact angle measurements, and Fourier Transformed Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectroscopy. The chemical stability of the coatings was tested by means of soaking in water for different times (up to seven days) and washing with different alkaline or acidic solutions. The mechanical adhesion of the coating was tested by tape adhesion test (before and after soaking) and scratch tests to verify whether it has protection ability with respect to the metal substrate. All of the performed characterizations show that the coatings are chemically stable on all of the substrates and are nor dissolved or removed by water during soaking or by alkaline solutions during washing. The adhesion is high and classified as 4B or 5B (on the chemically etched or mechanically ground substrates) according to ASTM D3359-97, depending on the substrate roughness, both before and after soaking. In the case of scratch test (up to 10 N), the coating is not removed and it has a protection action that is able to avoid the surface damage, even if the substrate has a plastic deformation.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR; adhesion; essential oils; natural coatings; natural lubricants; protection; scratch; stability
Year: 2020 PMID: 31978976 PMCID: PMC7040654 DOI: 10.3390/ma13030516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Summary of samples preparation routes, main features, and characterization techniques.
| Sample Name | Material | Surface Finishing | Coating | Ageing | Characterizations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ti64-MP | Ti6Al4V | Mechanical Polishing | — | — | Fluorescence |
| Ti64-CT | Ti6Al4V | Chemical Treatment (nanotexture) | — | — | Fluorescence, SEM, contact angle |
| Ti64-MP-C | Ti6Al4V | Mechanical Polishing | Mentha EO | — | Fluorescence, FTIR, Tape |
| Ti64-CT-C | Ti6Al4V | Chemical Treatment (nanotexture) | Mentha EO | — | Fluorescence, SEM, FTIR, contact angle, Tape |
| Ti64-MP-C-3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d | Ti6Al4V | Mechanical Polishing | Mentha EO | 3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d water soaking | Fluorescence (7 d), FTIR, Tape |
| Ti64-CT-C-3 h/7 h /3 d/7 d | Ti6Al4V | Chemical Treatment (nanotexture) | Mentha EO | 3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d water soaking | Fluorescence (7 d), FTIR, contact angle, tape |
| AISI316L-MP | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Polishing | — | — | Fluorescence |
| AISI316L-MG | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Grinding (SiC paper #400) | — | — | Fluorescence, SEM, scratch |
| AISI316L-MP-C | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Polishing | Mentha EO | — | Fluorescence, FTIR, Tape |
| AISI316L-MG-C | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Grinding (SiC paper #400) | Mentha EO | — | Fluorescence, SEM, Tape, scratch |
| AISI316L-MP-C-3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Polishing | Mentha EO | 3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d water soaking | Fluorescence (7 d), FTIR |
| AISI316L-MG-C-3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Grinding (SiC paper #400) | Mentha EO | 3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d water soaking | Fluorescence (7 d), Tape |
| AISI316L-MP-C-H2SO4/NaOH/deg | AISI316LVM | Mechanical Polishing | Mentha EO | H2SO4/NaOH/degreaser washing | FTIR, Tape |
Figure 1Fluorescent microscopy observations of the coatings obtained: the un-coated substrates are reported on the left (Ti64-MP; Ti64-CT; AISI316L-MG) and the coated surfaces are reported on the right (Ti64-MP-C; Ti64-CT-C; AISI316L-MG-C).
Figure 2Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) observation of Ti64-CT and 316L-MG uncoated and coated samples.
Figure 3(a) Chemical structure of the compounds of the coating; (b) Fourier Transformed Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis of the Ti6Al4V polished and coated samples (Ti64-MP-C); (c) FTIR analysis of the Ti6Al4V chemical treated and coated samples (Ti64-CT-C); (d) FTIR analysis of the 316L stainless steel polished and coated samples (316L-MP-C). All of the the samples were tested before and after soaking in water for different times (3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d) or, in the case of 316L-MP-C, also after washing by different solutions (e). The bands around 2350 cm−1 are due to atmospheric CO2.
Figure 4Fluorescent microscopy observations of Ti64-MP-C-7 d and Ti64-CT-C-7 d.
Figure 5The contact angle values of Ti6Al4V treated substrate before (Ti64-CT) and after coating (Ti64-CT-C), as well as after soaking in water for different times (3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d).
Figure 6(a) Scheme of the tape test, (b) Images of the as-prepared coatings (Ti64-MP-C; Ti64-CT-C; AISI316L-MP-C; AISI316L-MG-C) before and after the tape test and classification of coating adhesion according to ASTM D3359-97 standard (5B 0%, 4B < 5%, 3B 5–15%, 2B 15–35%, 1B 35–65%, and 0B > 65% area removed).
Figure 7Coatings after soaking for different times (Ti64-CT-C soaked for 3 h/7 h/3 d/7 d) before and after the tape test.
Figure 8Images of the coating (AISI316L-MP-C) washed with different solutions (NaOH, H2SO4 diluted solutions or commercial degreaser) before and after the tape test.
Figure 9Scratch lines obtained on AISI316L-MP and AISI316L-MP-C.