DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Metals (Al, Fe, Zn) in Alternative Fuels by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy in Two Electrode Cell

  • Received : 2009.08.03
  • Accepted : 2010.04.08
  • Published : 2010.04.01

Abstract

Many kinds of alternative fuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, and natural gas have been developed in order to overcome the limited deposits in fossil fuels. In some cases, the alternative fuels have been reported to cause degrade materials. The corrosion rates of metals were measured by immersion test, a kind of time consuming test because low conductivity of these fuels was not allowed to employ electrochemical tests. With twin two-electrode cell newly designed for the study, however, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) test was successfully applied to evaluation of the corrosion resistance ($R_p$) of zinc, iron, aluminum, and its alloys in an oxidized biodiesel and gasoline/ethanol solutions and the corrosion resistance from EIS was compared with the corrosion rate from immersion test. In biodiesel, $R_p$ increased in the order of zinc, iron, and aluminum, which agreed with the corrosion resistance measured from immersion test. In addition, on aluminum showing the best corrosion resistance ($R_p$), the effect of magnesium as an alloying element was evaluated in gasoline/ethanol solutions as well as the oxidized biodiesel. $R_p$ increased with addition of magnesium in gasoline/ethanol solutions containing chloride and the oxidized biodiesel. In the mean while, in gasoline/ethanol solutions containing formic acid, Al-Mg alloy added 1% magnesium had the highest $R_p$ and the further addition of magnesium decreased $R_p$. It can be explained with the fact that the addition of more than 1% magnesium increases the passive current density of Al-Mg alloys.

Keywords

References

  1. Frank Black, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES, 912413, SAE INTERNATIONAL, Toronto, Canada (1991).
  2. Michael S. Graboski and Robert L. McCormick, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 24, 125 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1285(97)00034-8
  3. Alan C. Hansen, Qin Zhang, and Peter W.L. Lyne, Bioresource Technology, 96, 277 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.04.007
  4. Lena SJogren, Magnus Nordling, and Jinshan Pan, CORROSION & METALS RESEARCH INSTIUTE, KIMAB-2007- 103, 1 (2007).
  5. Peter Hronsky, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 37, 161 (1981).
  6. Heitz. E, Hukovic. M, and Maier, K.H., Werkst. Korros, 21, 457 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1002/maco.19700210605
  7. R.D. Kane, J.G. Maldonado. and L.J. Klein, NACE Int., 04543, 1 (2004).
  8. F. Bellucci, L. Nicodemo, and B. Licciardi, Corros. Sci., 27, 1313 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(87)90128-4
  9. A.M. Abdel.Gaber, H.H. Abdel-Rahman, A.M. Ahmed, and M.H. Fathala, Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials, 53, 218 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1108/00035590610678910
  10. Sh. A. EI.Shazly, AA Zaghloul, M.T. Mohamed, and R.M. Abdullah, Anti.Corrosion Methods and Materials, 42, 9 (1995).
  11. J. P. DE Souza, O. R. Matlos, L. Sathler, and H. Takenouti, Corros. Sci., 27, 1351 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-938X(87)90130-2
  12. Howard L. Fang, Robert L. McCormick, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES, 2006-01.3300, SAE international , Toronto, Canada (2006).