| Literature DB >> 35744959 |
Lijuan Feng1, Shanshan Zhang1, Long Hao2, Hongchen Du1, Rongkai Pan1, Guofu Huang1, Haijian Liu1.
Abstract
An extract of cucumber leaves (ECSL) was prepared as a green corrosion inhibitor for carbon steel. Its carbon steel corrosion inhibition performance against 0.5 mol L-1 H2SO4 was investigated using electrochemical methods and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Its composition was analyzed by gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). Quantum chemical calculations and molecular dynamics simulations (MDS) were conducted to elucidate the adsorption mechanism of the inhibitor molecules on the carbon steel surface. The results indicated that the inhibition efficiency increases with its increasing concentration. The extract acted as a mixed type corrosion inhibitor, and its inhibition properties were ascribed to the geometric coverage effect induced by its adsorption on the metal surface in accordance with Langmuir's law. The active components in the extract were identified as mainly organic compounds with functional groups such as aromatic moieties and heteroatoms. The inhibition activities of ECSL are delivered through the ability of the active components to adsorb on the metal surface through their functional groups to form a protective layer which hinders the contact of aggressive substances with carbon steel and thus suppresses its corrosion. This research provides an important reference for the design of green corrosion inhibitors based on plant waste materials.Entities:
Keywords: carbon steel; extract; green corrosion inhibitor; quantum chemical calculation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744959 PMCID: PMC9227098 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27123826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Potentiodynamic polarization curves of the carbon steel samples in 0.5 mol L−2 H2SO4 solution with and without different concentrations of ECSL.
Curve fitting results for the potentiodynamic polarization curves for carbon steel in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution with and without different concentrations of ECSL.
| 0 | 58 | 125 | 0.73 | −430 | / |
| 0.05 | 59 | 127 | 0.35 | −420 | 51.7 |
| 0.10 | 59 | 126 | 0.19 | −419 | 73.8 |
| 0.15 | 60 | 127 | 0.13 | −422 | 82.1 |
| 0.20 | 61 | 127 | 0.066 | −431 | 90.9 |
| 0.30 | 62 | 130 | 0.047 | −434 | 93.5 |
Figure 2Electrochemical impedance spectrum of carbon steel samples in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution with and without different concentrations of ECSL.
Figure 3Equivalent circuit to fit the impedance data for carbon steel in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution with and without different concentrations of ECSL.
Curve fitting results of the electrochemical impedance data for carbon steel in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution with and without different concentrations of ECSL.
| CPE− | CPE−n | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.94 | 104 | 0.95 | 29.3 | / |
| 0.05 | 2.22 | 86.6 | 0.94 | 62.9 | 53.4 |
| 0.10 | 2.19 | 62.2 | 0.94 | 118 | 75.2 |
| 0.15 | 1.97 | 51.8 | 0.94 | 147 | 80.1 |
| 0.20 | 2.11 | 43.6 | 0.94 | 281 | 89.6 |
| 0.30 | 2.01 | 33.9 | 0.94 | 406 | 92.8 |
Figure 4SEM images. (A) carbon steel sample before immersion; (B) carbon steel sample immersed in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution; (C) carbon steel sample immersed in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution with 0.20 g L−1 ECSL.
Figure 5Langmuir adsorption isotherm for ECSL adsorbed on the carbon steel sample surface in 0.5 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution.
Compounds identified from the GC−MS chromatogram, and molecular information assigned to the respective signals.
| Name of the Compound | Abbreviation | Retention Time (min) | Molecular Formula | Molecular Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-gala-l-ido-octose | GIO | 1.737 | C8H16O8 | 240 |
| Topotecan | TO | 2.215 | C23H23N3O5 | 421 |
| Styrene | ST | 8.616 | C8H8 | 104 |
| 2-ethyl-1-hexanol | EH | 13.14 | C8H18O | 130 |
| 2-amino-5-[(2-carboxy)vinyl]-imidazole | IACV | 15.24 | C6H7N3O2 | 153 |
| Adrenalone | AD | 19.62 | C9H11NO3 | 181 |
| Benzocycloheptatriene | BT | 22.02 | C11H10 | 142 |
| Actinobolin | AC | 24.73 | C13H20N2O6 | 300 |
| Pterin-6-carboxylic acid | PCA | 27.37 | C7H5N5O3 | 207 |
| 2,5-difluoro-β, 3, 4-trihydroxy-N-methyl-benzeneethanamine | BDTM | 30.74 | C8H11F2N | 219 |
| 4′-methyl-2-hydroxystilbene | MH | 33.26 | C15H14O | 210 |
Figure 6Optimized molecular structures and frontier molecular orbital density distributions of the eleven compounds identified in ECSL.
HOMO and LUMO distributions of compounds identified in ECSL.
| Compound | HOMO Distribution | LUMO Distribution |
|---|---|---|
| GIO | O | O |
| TO | Rings | Rings |
| ST | C in the branch | Rings |
| EH | Branch with O atom | Branch with O atom |
| IACV | Pentatomic ring, O, N | Pentatomic ring, O, N |
| AD | Benzene ring, N, O | Benzene ring, N, O |
| BT | Rings | Rings |
| AC | Rings, N | Rings, N |
| PCA | Rings, O | Rings, O |
| BDTM | O, N, Benzene ring | O, Benzene ring |
| MH | Benzene rings | Benzene rings |
Quantum chemical parameters of active components identified in ECSL.
| Compound | ΔE | Δ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIO | −11.03 | 2.66 | 13.69 | 6.85 | 4.18 | 0.07 |
| TO | −8.17 | 1.09 | 9.25 | 4.63 | 3.54 | 0.17 |
| ST | −8.39 | 2.65 | 11.04 | 5.52 | 2.87 | 0.20 |
| EH | −11.33 | 3.74 | 15.07 | 7.53 | 3.79 | 0.08 |
| IACV | −7.80 | 2.35 | 10.14 | 5.07 | 2.72 | 0.23 |
| AD | −8.64 | 2.42 | 11.05 | 5.53 | 3.11 | 0.18 |
| BT | −8.09 | 2.60 | 10.69 | 5.35 | 2.75 | 0.22 |
| AC | −9.09 | 2.75 | 11.83 | 5.92 | 3.17 | 0.16 |
| PCA | −9.14 | 1.55 | 10.69 | 5.34 | 3.80 | 0.12 |
| BDTM | −8.64 | 3.58 | 12.21 | 6.10 | 2.53 | 0.21 |
| MH | −7.82 | 2.21 | 10.03 | 5.01 | 2.81 | 0.23 |
Figure 7Optimized adsorption configurations of the molecular structures on Fe(110) surface.
Interaction energies for each component identified in ECSL with Fe(110) surface.
| Compound | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TO | −30,302.11 | −31,204.32 | −902.21 |
| PCA | −30,444.21 | −31,331.86 | −887.65 |
| BDTM | −30,397.84 | −31,277.37 | −879.53 |
| AC | −30,430.67 | −31,246.72 | −816.05 |
| AD | −30,390.48 | −31,200.68 | −810.19 |
| ST | −30,001.78 | −30,759.53 | −757.75 |
| IACV | −30,570.80 | −31,195.94 | −625.14 |
| MH | −30,411.15 | −31,000.90 | −589.75 |
| BT | −30,353.40 | −30,924.26 | −570.86 |
| GIO | −30,351.34 | −30,850.19 | −498.85 |
| EH | −30,431.33 | −30,870.30 | −438.97 |
Composition of carbon steel in wt. (%).
| Composition | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Fe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount (%) | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 99.16 |