Template for Electronic Submission to ACS Journals
Polymeric ionic liquid nanoparticle emulsion as corrosion inhibitor in anticorrosion coating Mona Taghavikish,a Surya Subiantoa, Naba Kumar Dutta a,b Liliana de Campoc, Jitendra Matac, Christine Rehmc and Namita Roy Choudhurya,b,* a
Future Industries Institute, Mawson Lakes Campus, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Adelaide, SA 5095, Australia
b
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia c
Bragg Institute, ANSTO, Lucas Heights, Sydney, NSW 2234, Australia
*: Communicating author:[email protected];[email protected]
Study of the surfactant concentration effect on particle size:
Figure S1. Size distribution and TEM image of PIL nanoparticles using (a) 0.2 wt. % (b) 0.4 wt. % and (c) 0.8 wt. % surfactant.
S-1
Thermogravimetric analysis of both the stable layer and unstable layer of nanoparticle emulsion:
Figure S2. TGA thermogram of a (a) stable and (b) unstable layer of PIL nanoparticles after
Sample
Condition
Icorr (A.cm-2)
Ecorr (V)
EI(%)
centrifuging showing different degradation temperatures for each layer
Figure S3 Comparison of (a) TGA and (b) DSC of SNAP and SNAP/PIL nanoparticles
Table S1. Corrosion potential and current determined from potentiodynamic polarisation of the SNAP and SNAP with 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 wt% emulsion nanoparticle coated samples before and after immersing in a 3.5 % wt/v NaCl solution for 24 hours.
S-2
Before
3.75×10 -6
-0.4608
After
7.03×10 -6
-0.7151
Before
3.60×10 -7
-0.3769
After
1.05×10 -6
-0.5192
Before
3.12×10 -6
-0.46
After
6.07×10 -6
-0.658
Before
3.46 x 10-7
-0.4015
After
4.16 x 10-6
-0.7234
SNAP/0.4wt% Emulsion
SNAP/0.8wt% Emulsion
SNAP/1.6wt% Emulsion
SNAP
43.3
78.6
23.9
16.3
EDS analysis of Blank and SNAP/emulsion
Figure S4. EDS graph of blank metal and SNAP/emulsion before and after 24h in salt solution
S-3
Wettability study on coated substrate with Wilhelmy balance technique
Figure S5. Wetting cycle of SNAP coating
Figure S6. Schematic illustration of diffusion pathway into the metal surface using SNAP and SNAP with emulsion coating.
S-4
Future Industries Institute, Mawson Lakes Campus, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, Adelaide, SA 5095, Australia
b
School of Chemical Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia c
Bragg Institute, ANSTO, Lucas Heights, Sydney, NSW 2234, Australia
*: Communicating author:[email protected];[email protected]
Study of the surfactant concentration effect on particle size:
Figure S1. Size distribution and TEM image of PIL nanoparticles using (a) 0.2 wt. % (b) 0.4 wt. % and (c) 0.8 wt. % surfactant.
S-1
Thermogravimetric analysis of both the stable layer and unstable layer of nanoparticle emulsion:
Figure S2. TGA thermogram of a (a) stable and (b) unstable layer of PIL nanoparticles after
Sample
Condition
Icorr (A.cm-2)
Ecorr (V)
EI(%)
centrifuging showing different degradation temperatures for each layer
Figure S3 Comparison of (a) TGA and (b) DSC of SNAP and SNAP/PIL nanoparticles
Table S1. Corrosion potential and current determined from potentiodynamic polarisation of the SNAP and SNAP with 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 wt% emulsion nanoparticle coated samples before and after immersing in a 3.5 % wt/v NaCl solution for 24 hours.
S-2
Before
3.75×10 -6
-0.4608
After
7.03×10 -6
-0.7151
Before
3.60×10 -7
-0.3769
After
1.05×10 -6
-0.5192
Before
3.12×10 -6
-0.46
After
6.07×10 -6
-0.658
Before
3.46 x 10-7
-0.4015
After
4.16 x 10-6
-0.7234
SNAP/0.4wt% Emulsion
SNAP/0.8wt% Emulsion
SNAP/1.6wt% Emulsion
SNAP
43.3
78.6
23.9
16.3
EDS analysis of Blank and SNAP/emulsion
Figure S4. EDS graph of blank metal and SNAP/emulsion before and after 24h in salt solution
S-3
Wettability study on coated substrate with Wilhelmy balance technique
Figure S5. Wetting cycle of SNAP coating
Figure S6. Schematic illustration of diffusion pathway into the metal surface using SNAP and SNAP with emulsion coating.
S-4
