Comparison of 304 SS, 2205 SS, and 410 SS Corrosion by Sulfate-Reducing Desulfovibrio ferrophilus | Zendy

Junlei Wang | Zendy; Hongfang Liu | Zendy; Pruch Kijkla | Zendy; Sith Kumseranee | Zendy; Suchada Punpruk | Zendy; Magdy ElSaid Mohamed | Zendy; Mazen A. Saleh | Zendy; Tingyue Gu | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Comparison of 304 SS, 2205 SS, and 410 SS Corrosion by Sulfate-Reducing Desulfovibrio ferrophilus

Author(s) -

Junlei Wang,

Hongfang Liu,

Pruch Kijkla,

Sith Kumseranee,

Suchada Punpruk,

Magdy ElSaid Mohamed,

Mazen A. Saleh,

Tingyue Gu

Publication year - 2021

Publication title -

journal of chemistry

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.436

H-Index - 50

eISSN - 2090-9063

pISSN - 2090-9071

DOI - 10.1155/2021/3268404

Subject(s) - chemistry , sulfate reducing bacteria , corrosion , seawater , metallurgy , strain (injury) , sulfate , electrochemistry , desulfovibrio , nuclear chemistry , incubation , bacteria , biochemistry , materials science , electrode , medicine , oceanography , organic chemistry , biology , genetics , geology

Three types of stainless steel (304 SS, 410 SS, and 2205 SS) were evaluated for their corrosion behaviors in microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) by Desulfovibrio ferrophilus strain IS5, a relatively new and very corrosive sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) strain. The incubation lasted for 7 days in enriched artificial seawater at 28°C and the results showed that 410 SS had a rather large weight loss (6.2 mg/cm2) and a maximum pit depth (118 µm), but 2205 SS and 304 SS did not suffer from significant weight loss or pitting. Electrochemical tests indicated that 2205 SS was slightly more resistant to SRB MIC than 304 SS, while 410 SS was far less resistant.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research