Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2025 Jan 14;10(3):2450–2458. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.4c04805

Surface and Electrochemical Performance Variations of 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel in Multistep Surface Processing

Zhicheng Yan †,‡,§, Shengcheng Shu †,‡,§, Yueqing Yang †,‡, Baoshuai Du †,‡,*
PMCID: PMC11780452  PMID: 39895768

Abstract

graphic file with name ao4c04805_0006.jpg

This study aims to elucidate the impact of different surface processing techniques on the corrosion resistance of 2205 duplex stainless steel. The samples were subsequently treated by mechanical grinding (Sgrd), water-sandpaper sanding (Swap), and mechanical polishing (Spol) and characterized by XRD, AFM, XPS, and a series of electrochemical tests. Due to the grinding-induced residual compressive stress and low donor density in the passive film, Sgrd exhibited the lowest corrosion current among the three. Nevertheless, the lattice defects and the high content of Cr(III) hydroxide not only weakened the stability of the passive film but also resulted in the decreased trend of corrosion resistance. Sanding and mechanical polishing with a lower power input removed the residual stress left by grinding and inhibited the occurrence of selective oxidation. The lower surface roughness facilitated the formation of homogeneous passive layers with fewer defects, which can enhance the pitting resistance and provide a gradually enhanced protection from corrosion.

1. Introduction

Duplex stainless steels (DSSs) are increasingly utilized in sectors where mechanical properties and corrosion resistance are paramount, including marine, petrochemical, and pulp and paper industries.1−5 Among the diverse grades of DSS, 2205 is notable for its optimal balance of ferritic and austenitic phases, combining excellent mechanical strength and ductility.6,7 This grade’s structure contributes significantly to its suitability for challenging applications that require both high strength and resistance to various forms of corrosion.

When stainless steel undergoes surface mechanical processing, the outermost surface experiences stress that exceeds the yield strength, leading to changes in its physical and electrochemical properties.8,9 Navaï et al. conducted a study on the chemical composition of the passive film on 316 stainless steel under tensile and compressive stress conditions and found that the presence of a stress field results in a reduction of Mo content in the passive film and a decrease in film thickness.10 Nazarov et al. investigated the electrochemical behavior of 304 stainless steel under tensile stress and discovered that plastic tensile stress lowers the potential of 304 stainless steel by 150–200 mV.11 Additionally, mechanical processing-induced changes in the surface geometry of stainless steel significantly impact its corrosion behavior. Burstein studied the pitting behavior of 304 stainless steel with 1200 grit and 4000 grit finishes and found that rougher surfaces have a higher number of sites that can be activated as metastable pits, leading to a higher incidence of pitting corrosion.12 On one hand, the curvature radius of the electrode surface affects its equilibrium potential, thereby influencing the formation capability of metastable pits on the metal surface.13 On the other hand, changes in surface roughness alter the distribution of the fluid boundary layer and mass transfer processes, which in turn affect the corrosion process.14

Techniques such as polishing play critical roles in enhancing the corrosion resistance of DSS. Moayed’s study identified a definitive correlation between surface smoothness and the critical pitting temperature (CPT) in 904L stainless steel.15 It was found that a polished surface with 3 μm finish achieved a CPT of 56 °C, significantly higher than the 46 °C recorded for a 60-grit ground surface, demonstrating that finer finishes substantially enhanced corrosion resistance. Oh explored the impact of surface roughness on the repassivation and pitting corrosion resistance of super duplex stainless steel UNS S32760, finding that finer surface finishes (below 100 nm) significantly enhance corrosion resistance.16 Shahryari studied the impact of surface roughness on enhancing the effectiveness of the cyclic potentiodynamic passivation (CPP) method for improving the corrosion resistance of 316LVM stainless steel.17 It was revealed that smoother surfaces significantly increased general corrosion resistance and notably boosted pitting corrosion resistance when modified by CPP.

Understanding how each step in the surface treatment chain affects the microstructural integrity and corrosion resistance is critical for optimizing the performance of the complex in industrial applications. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of residual stress in affecting the electrochemical behavior and the passive film stability of stainless steels. However, the evolution of these grinding-induced residual stress layers during subsequent finer surface treatment processes and their impact on corrosion resistance remain underexplored. By correlating surface treatment techniques with electrochemical performance, this study aims to bridge this gap by systematically investigating the changes in corrosion resistance following each surface treatment step applied to 2205 DSS grinding, water-sandpaper sanding, and mechanical polishing.

2. Experiment Details

The composition of the 2205 duplex stainless steel used in this study is listed in Table 1. The 2205 stainless steel sequentially underwent mechanical grinding, water-sandpaper sanding, and mechanical polishing processes, with samples obtained as Sgrd, Swap, and Spol, respectively. The mechanical grinding process was performed using a 46-grit white corundum grinding wheel with the spindle power set at 4.5 kW. In the water-sandpaper sanding process, the as-grinded sample (Sgrd) was sequentially conducted using 120-, 240-, 400-, and 800-grit water-sandpapers with pure water as the coolant. Mechanical polishing was carried out on an as-sanded sample (Swap) using a 1 μm diamond polishing at 600 rpm.

Table 1. Chemical Composition of 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel.

element Cr Ni Mo Mn N Fe
content (wt %) 22.4 4.8 2.7 1.6 0.15 balance
Open in a new tab

The structural characterization of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol was performed using X-ray diffraction (XRD) at a scan rate of 2°/min. The surface morphologies of the three samples were assessed using atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode. The chemical state of the samples was examined using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The binding energy calibration was performed by using surface carbon contamination with a reference C 1s peak at 284.5 eV.

The electrochemical performances of the three samples were evaluated by using an electrochemical workstation in a three-electrode cell. The samples were served as the working electrodes in a 3.5 wt % NaCl solution, with the exposed area controlled to 0.5 cm2. The Pt electrode was used as the counter electrode, and the saturated calomel electrode (SCE) was served as the reference electrode. The temperature was controlled at 25 °C with the open-circuit potential (OCP) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The OCP of the samples was tested over a 24 h period with the sampling rate set as 10 Hz. The EIS tests were conducted every 4 h, with the frequency ranging from 0.01 to 100,000 Hz and the amplitude of 5 mV. Polarization curves were recorded at 55 °C to explore the pitting resistance of the three samples with a scan rate of 0.1 mV/s. The exchange current density ic can be calculated by the B–V equation (eq 1):

2. 1

where i is current density, ic is the exchange current density, η is the overpotential, α is the charge transfer coefficient, F is the Faraday constant (96,485 C/mol), R is the universal gas constant (8.314 J/mol·K), and T is the temperature. When η ≫ 0, the logi-η relationship is linear. By taking the intersection point of the linear region’s extrapolated lines, we can determine the exchange current density ic.18 The impedance-potential (IMP) tests were carried out to obtain Mott–Schottky curves, where the scanning potential was set from −0.1 to 1.3 V, with a sampling interval of 0.05 V. The OCP noise signal data used for fast Fourier transform (FFT) were extracted by discrete wavelet transform (DWT) using the db4 wavelet function.

3. Results

Figure 1 displays the X-ray diffraction (XRD) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) characterization results for Sgrd, Swap, and Spol. Figure 1a illustrates the calibrated XRD spectra of the three samples with peak positions specified in Table 2. The sample Spol demonstrated the highest diffraction peak intensities, which exhibited an order of magnitude greater than those of the least intense sample Sgrd. This discrepancy can be attributed to the rough surface of Sgrd, which diminished the number of X-ray photons able to penetrate the sample and effectively generate diffraction on specific crystal planes.19 Sgrd exhibited the highest peak position for each diffraction peak among the three samples, suggesting that the grinding process introduced residual compressive stress to Sgrd, thereby reducing its lattice constants.20Figure 1b illustrates the surface morphology of Sgrd following grinding. The surface exhibited fluctuations of approximately ±1 μm with scratch widths ranging from 3 to 5 μm and a surface roughness (Ra) value of 0.33 μm. Figure 1c depicts the surface morphology of Swap. It showed that the surface fluctuations of Swap do not exceed 0.4 μm, scratch widths are between 1.5 and 3 μm, and the Ra value is 0.086 μm. Figure 1d shows the surface morphology of Spol. The polished surface of Spol achieved surface fluctuations of less than 10 nm, scratch widths from 0.2 to 0.5 μm, and an Ra value of 0.0023 μm.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

(a) XRD patterns of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol. Surface morphologies and prolines of (b) Sgrd, (c) Swap, and (d) Spol.

Table 2. XRD Peak Positions for Sgrd, Swap, and Spol.

sample γ-(111) γ-(200) γ-(220) α-(110) α-(200) α-(211)
Sgrd 43.36 50.44 81.84 44.40 64.64 74.32
Swap 43.34 50.4 81.78 44.38 64.50 74.18
Spol 43.30 50.38 81.78 44.32 64.50 74.18
Open in a new tab

Figure 2 presents the electrochemical performance of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol in a 3.5 wt % NaCl solution. Figure 2a delineates the open-circuit potential (OCP) curves for each sample. After 4 h of immersion, the OCP of all three samples generally stabilized, with the exception of Sgrd, which exhibited significant potential fluctuations exceeding 50 mV. Figure 2b illustrates the polarization curves of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol with the calibration results shown in Table 3. The corrosion potentials (Ec) of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol were located at −0.63, −0.57, and −0.43 V, respectively, where Spol exhibited excellent thermodynamic stability against corrosion among the three. Moreover, Sgrd exhibited the highest exchange current density (ic) of 12.23 μA/cm2, compared to the ic of Swap and Spol at 2.51 and 4.07 μA/cm2, respectively. At 55 °C, the Sgrd sample did not exhibit a passivation plateau as Swap and Spol, with the current density rapidly increasing around −0.46 V. The Ecritical of Swap locates at 0.81 V, whereas for the Spol sample, the Ecritical locates at 1.05 V. Eghbali’s work found that the critical pitting temperature (CPT) for 2205 DSS is approximately 56 °C.21 Compared to polarization curves detected at 25 and 40 °C (Figure S1), the Ecritical of Swap at 0.8 V is considered to represent the pitting potential and the Ecritical of Spol at 1.05 V is considered to represent the tranpassivation potential. These results suggested that the Spol sample has the best pitting resistance among the three and the Sgrd sample exhibits the poorest pitting resistance.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a) OCP and (b) polarization curves of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol. PSD plots of the direct-current-drifting-removed OCP signal of (c) Sgrd, (d) Swap, and (e) Spol.

Table 3. Corrosion Potential (Ecorr), Exchange Current Density (ic), and Pitting Potential (Ep) Obtained in the Polarization Curves of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol.

sample Ecorr (V) ic (μA·cm–2) Ecritical (V)
Sgrd –0.63 12.23 –0.46
Swap –0.57 2.51 0.81
Spol –0.43 4.07 1.05
Open in a new tab

Figure 2c–e, respectively, present the power spectral density (PSD) noise spectra transformed from the OCP signals (as framed in Figure 2a) of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol. A more negative slope in the linear region of the PSD noise spectra indicated a greater gradient of noise energy from low to high frequency.22,23 Sgrd exhibited the steepest slope out of the three samples, indicating a higher proportion of low-frequency noise energy. Spol showed the lowest noise energy and the gentlest slope in the linear region, suggesting that Spol maintained the most stable OCP among the three.

Figure 3 illustrates the evolution of the electrochemical impedance spectra (EIS) for Sgrd, Swap, and Spol with fitting results. Figure 3a,b displays the Nyquist and Bode plots for Sgrd, respectively. From the Nyquist plot, the real impedance of Sgrd approached 400 kΩ·cm2 at the frequency of 0.01 Hz and remained relatively stable as the immersion duration increased. In the Bode plot (phase degree vs log frequency) for Sgrd, a broad peak spanning from medium (103 Hz) to low frequency (10–2 Hz) was observed, indicating at least two capacitive elements in its equivalent circuit model. Figure 3c,d presents the Nyquist and Bode plots of Swap, respectively. Compared with Sgrd, Swap exhibited a lower real impedance of 80 kΩ·cm2 at 0.01 Hz. As the immersion progressed, the real impedance at 0.01 Hz exhibited a slight decrease, while the imaginary impedance underwent a more significant increase. The Bode plot shows that the capacitive peak of Swap is narrower than that of Sgrd, indicating that fewer capacitive elements were used in its equivalent circuit model. The phase angle exhibited in the low-frequency region exhibited an increasing trend as corrosion progressed. Figure 3e,f presents the Nyquist and Bode plots of Spol. The Nyquist plot indicated that Spol’s real impedance is approximately 120 kΩ·cm2 at 0.01 Hz. Similar to Swap, the imaginary impedance and phase angle of Spol in the low-frequency region increased with the corrosion time. These suggested that the oxide films established on Swap and Spol played a more important role against the corrosion at a low-frequency disturbance.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

EIS and fitting results of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol at 25 °C: (a) Nyquist and (b) Bode diagrams of Sgrd; (c) Nyquist and (d) Bode diagrams of Swap; (e) Nyquist and (f) Bode diagrams of Spol; and the fitted (g) Rtotal and (h) n of CPE1 of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol.

The fitting for EIS evolutions of Sgrd utilized the equivalent circuit model Rs(CPE1(R1(CPE2(Rct)))), while for Swap and Spol, the simpler model Rs(CPE1(Rct)) was used. The fitting results are detailed in Table 4. The Sgrd sample used a different equivalent circuit compared to Swap and Spol, as the widths of the capacitive peaks of Sgrd in Bode plots were significantly broader than those of Swap and Spol. The broad capacitive peak is generally due to the overlap of two or more capacitive peaks. Therefore, a constant phase element (CPE) and a resistor were added in the equivalent circuit for Sgrd, which were not necessary for Swap and Spol. Figure 3g depicts the evolution of the total resistance Rtotal with the immersion time. Sgrd exhibited the highest Rtotal of the three samples through the immersion duration, which initially increased, reached a maximum value at 4 h, and then decreased. The Rtotal of Swap and Spol both demonstrated an increasing trend with immersion progress, where the former was higher than the latter at every point of immersion. Figure 3h presents the evolution of the coefficient n of the CPE1 component for the three samples. The coefficient n of CPE characterizes the deviation from an ideal capacitive element (C) due to surface dispersion effects.24 A higher n indicates weaker dispersion effects, rendering the CPE component closer to an ideal capacitor, where n = 1 suggests that CPE can be substituted with C. The n of the CPE1 components for Swap and Spol are above 0.91 and show an increasing trend with immersion time, while the n value for Sgrd’s CPE1 component is the lowest of the three (lower than 0.88) and exhibited a decreasing trend with immersion time, indicating that surface dispersion effects on Sgrd were progressively intensified during corrosion.

Table 4. Fitted Parameters and Chi-Squares of EIS Results of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol.

      CPEI
   CPE2
    
sample duration, h Rs, Ω·cm2 Y1, 10–6 S·sn·cm–2 n1 R1, kΩ·cm2 Y2, 10–6 S·sn·cm–2 n2 Rct, kΩ·cm2 Rtotal
Sgrd 4 36.97 10.1 0.875 74.3 3.6 0.582 1370.1 1444.4
8 37.12 9.93 0.874 94.6 3.4 0.592 1842.3 1936.9
12 37.06 10.0 0.872 87.9 3.2 0.578 1791.2 1879.1
16 36.85 10.3 0.870 88.4 3.2 0.580 1790.4 1878.8
20 36.01 10.8 0.867 91.8 3.4 0.596 1601.2 1693.0
24 35.62 11.1 0.864 82.1 3.5 0.597 1581.2 1663.3
Swap 4 39.14 63.1 0.920       382.5 382.5
8 39.11 60.9 0.925       527.5 527.5
12 39.47 59.1 0.926       679.3 679.3
16 40.10 58.0 0.927       802.0 802.0
20 40.49 57.2 0.928       881.1 881.1
24 40.04 57.6 0.928       849.2 849.2
Spol 4 38.59 49.8 0.914       311.3 311.3
8 38.87 48.1 0.916       440.8 440.8
12 39.41 47.0 0.917       531.7 531.7
16 39.62 46.6 0.918       594.4 594.4
20 39.25 46.7 0.918       609.8 609.8
24 38.42 47.0 0.918       605.2 605.2
Open in a new tab

Figure 4 displays the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results for the surface analysis of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol, with detailed peak deconvolution provided in Tables S1 and S2. Figure 4a presents the Fe 2p3/2 spectra for the three samples, categorized into metallic iron (Fe), divalent iron (Fe(II)), and trivalent iron (Fe(III)). The Fe peaks exhibited an asymmetric shape, typical with a secondary component shifted by 0.9 eV from the main peak (at 706.2 eV).25 The Fe(II) and Fe(III) states were high-spin oxide compounds, which manifested in complex multiplet-split spectra due to their electronic configurations.26Figure 4b delineates the Cr 2p3/2 spectra of the three samples, identifying states of chromium as Cr, Cr(III) oxide (Cr(III)–Ox), and Cr(III) hydroxide (Cr(III)–(OH)x), according to ref (27). The Cr(III) oxide, being in high-spin states, demonstrated significant multiplet splitting, indicative of complex electronic interactions. Figure 4c quantifies the peak area proportions (Pa) of the Fe, Fe(II), and Fe(III) states within the Fe 2p3/2 spectra. The area proportions of the Fe state decreased from Sgrd and Swap to Spol, while the area proportions of Fe(III) were inversed, being the highest in Spol and the lowest in Sgrd. Figure 4d presents the Pa of Cr, Cr(III) oxide, and Cr(III) hydroxide within the Cr 2p3/2 spectra. Sgrd exhibited the highest area proportion of the Cr(III) hydroxide state among the three samples. According to Nazarov’s work,11 the increased density of hydroxide groups originated from the plastic deformation on the surface, suggesting a more unstable passive film.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

XPS characterizations on the surface of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol: (a) Fe 2p3/2 and (b) Cr 2p3/2 with the corresponding peak deconvolution results and peak area proportions Pa of the (c) Fe, Fe(II), and Fe(III) states within the Fe 2p3/2 spectra and (d) Cr, Cr(III) oxide, and Cr(III) hydroxide within the Cr 2p3/2 spectra.

Figure 5a–c present the Mott–Schottky plots of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol, respectively. The potential at which the value of 1/C2 experienced a sharp decrease was identified as Es. It was noted that Es closely corresponded to the pitting potential Ep derived from the polarization curves (Figure 2a), suggesting that the rapid decline of 1/C2 was indicative of oxide film degradation. The space-charge capacitance of an n-type semiconductor oxide is given as eq 2:

3. 2

where ε is the relative dielectric constant of the oxide layer (15.6 for stainless steel),28,29 ε0 is permittivity vacuum 8.854 × 10–14 F/cm, e is the absolute value of the electron charge 1.6 × 10–19 C, k is the Boltzmann constant 1.389 × 10–23 J/K, and T is the temperature 298 K. In the C2– vs E plot, the flat band potential Ef can be obtained as the horizontal axis intercept and the donor density ND can be calculated from the slope of the linear region.30,31 The linear analysis results showed that Sgrd displayed a single space-charge layer labeled as L1, and the Swap and Spol exhibited two space-charge layers labeled as L1 and L2. The ND and Ef extracted are shown in Figure 5d,e, relatively. The ND of Sgrd’s L1 layer was lower than those of Swap and Spol, indicating a better corrosion resistance. Moreover, Sgrd’s L1 layer also exhibited a higher Ef than those of Swap and Spol. The L2 layer in Swap and Spol demonstrated a lower ND and higher Ef compared to L1. It was noted that the Ef of L2 aligned with the end point of the linear region of L1, suggesting structural continuity between the oxide layers represented by L1 and L2. Thus, the region of the negative slope within the potential range of 0.45 to 0.7 V was not associated with the presence of a p-type semiconductor.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Mott–Schottky plots of (a) Sgrd, (b) Swap, and (c) Spol. (d) Donor density ND and (e) flat band potential Ef calculated from the linear regions L1 (and L2) in panels (a–c).

4. Discussion

4.1. OCP Fluctuation of Sgrd

Figure 2a shows that the OCP of Sgrd displayed significant fluctuations in 24 h of immersion. The fluctuations, characterized by rapid decreases followed by gradual increases, were typically indicative of localized pitting corrosion on the surface.32 However, the EIS results (Figure 3) indicated that Sgrd exhibited a superior corrosion resistance among the three samples, necessitating an investigation of the charge and discharge behaviors of the oxide layer. The Mott–Schottky plots (Figure 5a,e) revealed that Sgrd’s surface featured a single space-charge layer with an Ef of −0.16 V, higher than its OCP. This scenario led to an accumulation state of the space-charge layer on the oxide-solution side under open-circuit conditions. Considering the high density of free electrons within the metal, the space-charge layer on the oxide-metal side was consequently in a depletion state. As the electrons accumulated to a certain level on the oxide-solution side, they were spontaneously diffused toward the oxide-metal side by the minimum energy principle, triggering the sudden discharge of the space-charge layer and the sudden decrease of the OCP. In contrast, the Ef values of the L1 layer in both Swap and Spol were below their OCPs, suggesting depletion states on both the oxide-solution and oxide-metal sides under open-circuit conditions. This configuration restricted the electron transfer from the solution to oxide layer to the metal substrate, thereby stabilizing the open-circuit potential.

4.2. Passive Film Formed on the Surface

The EIS results indicated that Sgrd had formed the most corrosion-resistant oxide layer among the three samples. During the grinding process, the severe plastic deformation that occurred on the surface resulted in a nearly 2 orders of magnitude reduction on the donor density of the passive film, which greatly enhanced the corrosion resistance of Sgrd.31 Moreover, under the combined effect of a high thermal input and severe deformation, the surface of Sgrd underwent selective oxidation, exhibiting the lowest degree of Fe(II) and Fe(III) oxides and the highest content of Cr(III) hydroxide among the three. The high ratio of Cr(III) hydroxide usually indicates a weakened passive film,11 resulting in a decreasing trend of Rtotal in NaCl solution. The equivalent circuit R(CPE1(R(CPE2R))) reflects that Sgrd’s rough surface contains more defect spots than those of Swap and Spol, which continuously weakens the passive film in NaCl solution.

Through sanding and polishing processes by water-sandpaper and alumina powder, the residual stress layer (and the selective oxide layer) that enhanced corrosion resistance was removed, leading to the formation of new oxide films on Swap and Spol. The oxide films had higher donor densities and exhibited a lower corrosion resistance. Moreover, the XPS and Tafel results indicated that the oxide films established on Swap and Spol exhibited a better component uniformity and enhanced resistance against pitting corrosion. During immersion in the NaCl solution, the uniformity of the oxide layers (increased n of CPE1) can be further improved and provides gradually enhanced protection from corrosion (increased Rtotal).

5. Conclusions

In this work, the corrosion resistances of 2205 duplex stainless steel subjected to mechanical grinding (Sgrd), water-sandpaper sanding (Swap), and mechanical polishing (Spol) were investigated in a 3.5 wt % NaCl solution. The Sgrd sample exhibited the highest corrosion resistance due to the grinding-induced residual compressive stress and low donor density in the passive film. However, lattice defects and the high Cr(III) hydroxide content brought by the roughness surface and heat input decreased the stability of the passive film and the pitting resistance against NaCl. Subsequent sanding and polishing reduced the residual stress and Cr(III) hydroxide content. The smoother surfaces facilitated homogeneous passive layer formation with fewer defects, improving pitting resistance and overall corrosion protection. This study provides valuable insights for optimizing processing techniques to enhance material durability in corrosive environments.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the Science and Technology Foundation of the State Grid Corporation of China (52062623003L).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.4c04805.

  • The noise signal drawn from the open-circuit potential (OCP) signal of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol by discrete wavelet transform (DWT) using the db4 function; the polarization curves of Sgrd, Swap, and Spol detected at 25 and 40 °C; the contact angles of water droplets on Sgrd, Swap, and Spol; and the peak deconvolution details of Fe 2p3/2 and Cr 2p3/2 spectra. (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

ao4c04805_si_001.pdf (653.3KB, pdf)

References

  1. Zhang D.; Liu A. B.; Yin B. Z.; Wen P. Additive manufacturing of duplex stainless steels—A critical review. J. Manuf. Processes 2022, 73, 496–517. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.11.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhao Y.; Wang Y.; Tang S.; Zhang W.; Liu Z. Edge cracking prevention in 2507 super duplex stainless steel by twin-roll strip casting and its microstructure and properties. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2019, 266, 246–254. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.11.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cui Y. Y.; Jia Y. F.; Xuan F. Z. Micro-deformation evolutions of the constituent phases in duplex stainless steel during cyclic nanoindentation. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8 (1), 6199 10.1038/s41598-018-24589-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hosseini V. A.; Karlsson L.; Wessman S.; Fuertes N. Effect of Sigma Phase Morphology on the Degradation of Properties in a Super Duplex Stainless Steel. Materials 2018, 11, 933. 10.3390/ma11060933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Li J.; Shen W.; Lin P.; Wang F.; Yang Z. Effect of Solution Treatment Temperature on Microstructural Evolution, Precipitation Behavior, and Comprehensive Properties in UNS S32750 Super Duplex Stainless Steel. Metals 2020, 10, 1481. 10.3390/met10111481. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Haghdadi N.; Cizek P.; Hodgson P. D.; Beladi H. Microstructure dependence of impact toughness in duplex stainless steels. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 745, 369–378. 10.1016/j.msea.2018.12.117. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Li S.; Wang Y.; Wang X. Effects of ferrite content on the mechanical properties of thermal aged duplex stainless steels. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2015, 625, 186–193. 10.1016/j.msea.2014.11.065. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. El May M.; Palin-Luc T.; Saintier N.; Devos O. Effect of corrosion on the high cycle fatigue strength of martensitic stainless steel X12CrNiMoV12–3. Int. J. Fatigue 2013, 47, 330–339. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.09.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gong P.; Zhang Y.; Wang C.; Cui X.; Li R.; Sharma S.; Liu M.; Gao T.; Zhou Z.; Wang X.; Dambatta Y. S.; Li C. Residual stress generation in grinding: Mechanism and modeling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2024, 324, 118262 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2023.118262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Navaï F.; Debbouz O. AES study of passive films formed on a type 316 austenitic stainless-steels in a stress field. J. Mater. Sci. 1999, 34 (5), 1073–1079. 10.1023/A:1004556314364. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nazarov A.; Vivier V.; Vucko F.; Thierry D. Effect of Tensile Stress on the Passivity Breakdown and Repassivation of AISI 304 Stainless Steel: A Scanning Kelvin Probe and Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy Study. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2019, 166 (11), C3207. 10.1149/2.0251911jes. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burstein G. T.; Pistorius P. C. Surface Roughness and the Metastable Pitting of Stainless Steel in Chloride Solutions. Corrosion 1995, 51 (05), 380. 10.5006/1.3293603. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sieradzki K.; Dimitrov N.; Movrin D.; McCall C.; Vasiljevic N.; Erlebacher J. The Dealloying Critical Potential. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2002, 149 (8), B370. 10.1149/1.1492288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sasaki K.; Burstein G. T. The generation of surface roughness during slurry erosion-corrosion and its effect on the pitting potential. Corros. Sci. 1996, 38 (12), 2111–2120. 10.1016/S0010-938X(96)00066-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Moayed M. H.; Laycock N. J.; Newman R. C. Dependence of the Critical Pitting Temperature on surface roughness. Corros. Sci. 2003, 45, 1203–1216. 10.1016/S0010-938X(02)00215-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Oh S.; Kim D.; Kim K.; Kim D.-I.; Chung W.; Shin B.-H. The effect of surface roughness on re-passivation and pitting corrosion of super duplex stainless steel UNS S 32760. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2023, 18, 100351 10.1016/j.ijoes.2023.100351. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shahryari A.; Kamal W.; Omanovic S. The effect of surface roughness on the efficiency of the cyclic potentiodynamic passivation (CPP) method in the improvement of general and pitting corrosion resistance of 316LVM stainless steel. Mater. Lett. 2008, 62, 3906–3909. 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.05.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Noren D. A.; Hoffman M. A. Clarifying the Butler–Volmer equation and related approximations for calculating activation losses in solid oxide fuel cell models. J. Power Sources 2005, 152, 175–181. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.03.174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sinha S. K.; Sanyal M. K.; Satija S. K.; Majkrzak C. F.; Neumann D. A.; Homma H.; Szpala S.; Gibaud A.; Morkoc H. X-ray scattering studies of surface roughness of GaAs/A1As multilayers. Physica B 1994, 198, 72–77. 10.1016/0921-4526(94)90131-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhao B.; Guo X. C.; Bie W. B.; Chang B. Q.; Zhao C. Y. Thermo-mechanical coupling effect on surface residual stress during ultrasonic vibration-assisted forming grinding gear. J. Manuf. Processes 2020, 59, 19–32. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.09.041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Eghbali F.; Moayed M. H.; Davoodi A.; Ebrahimi N. Critical pitting temperature (CPT) assessment of 2205 duplex stainless steel in 0.1M NaCl at various molybdate concentrations. Corros. Sci. 2011, 53, 513–522. 10.1016/j.corsci.2010.08.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Haruna T.; Morikawa Y.; Fujimoto S.; Shibata T. Electrochemical noise analysis for estimation of corrosion rate of carbon steel in bicarbonate solution. Corros. Sci. 2003, 45, 2093–2104. 10.1016/S0010-938X(03)00031-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang T.; Shao Y.; Meng G.; Wang F. Electrochemical noise analysis of the corrosion of AZ91D magnesium alloy in alkaline chloride solution. Electrochim. Acta 2007, 53, 561–568. 10.1016/j.electacta.2007.07.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Amand S.; Musiani M.; Orazem M. E.; Pébère N.; Tribollet B.; Vivier V. Constant-phase-element behavior caused by inhomogeneous water uptake in anti-corrosion coatings. Electrochim. Acta 2013, 87, 693–700. 10.1016/j.electacta.2012.09.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Shabanova I. N.; Maratkanova A. N.; Sosnov V. A. Satellites in core level XPS spectra of the Fe-based systems. J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1998, 88–91, 339–342. 10.1016/S0368-2048(97)00152-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Yamashita T.; Hayes P. Analysis of XPS spectra of Fe2+ and Fe3+ ions in oxide materials. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2008, 254, 2441–2449. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2007.09.063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Salvi A. M.; Castle J. E.; Watts J. F.; Desimoni E. Peak fitting of the chromium 2p XPS spectrum. Appl. Surf. Sci. 1995, 90, 333–341. 10.1016/0169-4332(95)00168-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang G.; Du Y.; Chen S.; Ren Y.; Ma Y. Effect of secondary passivation on corrosion behavior and semiconducting properties of passive film of 2205 duplex stainless steel. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 15, 6828–6840. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.11.118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang Z.; Seyeux A.; Zanna S.; Maurice V.; Marcus P. Chloride-induced alterations of the passive film on 316L stainless steel and blocking effect of pre-passivation. Electrochim. Acta 2020, 329, 135159 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.135159. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mandel M.; Kietov V.; Hornig R.; Vollmer M.; Frenck J.-M.; Wüstefeld C.; Rafaja D.; Niendorf T.; Krüger L. On the polarisation and Mott-Schottky characteristics of an Fe-Mn-Al-Ni shape-memory alloy and pure Fe in NaCl-free and NaCl-contaminated Ca(OH)2,sat solution—A comparative study. Corros. Sci. 2021, 179, 109172 10.1016/j.corsci.2020.109172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhao Q.; Pan Z.; Wang X.; Luo H.; Liu Y.; Li X. Corrosion and passive behavior of AlxCrFeNi3–x (x = 0.6, 0.8, 1.0) eutectic high entropy alloys in chloride environment. Corros. Sci. 2022, 208, 110666 10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110666. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Klapper H. S.; Goellner J.; Heyn A. The influence of the cathodic process on the interpretation of electrochemical noise signals arising from pitting corrosion of stainless steels. Corros. Sci. 2010, 52, 1362–1372. 10.1016/j.corsci.2009.12.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ao4c04805_si_001.pdf (653.3KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The raw data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES