|
Potential-pH Diagrams
|

|
|
|
Intelligent Tools
|
|

|
|
|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|
Corrosion Calculator
|
|

|
|
|
|
Corrosion Economics Estimator
|
|

|
|
|
|
|
|
TUTORIAL ON ELECTROCHEMICAL IMPEDANCE SPECTROSCOPY
David C. Silverman
|
|
Table of Contents
Pseudoinductance
Inductive behavior of an electrochemical impedance response as a function of frequency
is manifested by the resistance in the limit of zero frequency being smaller than
the modulus at an intermediate frequency. In Nyquist format, the spectrum would have
the appearance shown in this figure
.
In Bode format, the spectrum would have the appearance shown in this figure
.
A brief comment about inductors and inductance is necessary before discussing how
these figures were generated. In electricity, a magnetic field in the vicinity of
a coiled wire carrying a current induces a potential that causes the current to change.
This phenomenon obviously has little relationship to the physics occurring on a
corroding surface. The value of an inductor used as part of an analogous circuit
to model an electrochemical impedance spectrum very likely has little relationship
to the process being modeled. Hence, the term "pseudoinductance" is used in this
tutorial to describe this dependence of impedance on frequency.
As stated in the section on Analysis Using Simple Circuits
corrosion of alloys and related conductive materials is often an electrochemical
degradation process governed by chemical kinetics and thermodynamics. This statement
means that for the inductance to be real and not an experimental artifact, it should
be relatable to actual corrosion kinetics. The equation used to generate the above
simulations was originally proposed for an adsorption process with electron transfer
at equilibrium that precedes the rate determining step (I. Epelboin, M. Keddam,
and H. Takenouti, J. Appl. Electrochem. 2, 71 (1972)). The kinetic equations might
be written as
A + M ↔ A-M
A-M → Product
where A is the adsorbing reactant, M is the metal and A-M is the adsorbed species.
The impedance equation related to such a reaction sequence was written as
(21)
The simulations assumed that Rs was 10 ohm-cm2, R1 was 104
ohm-cm2, R2 was 4.3x103 ohm-cm2, τ1
was 1 second, and τ2 was 100 seconds. The important point is that an inductor
was not used in the model. Also, note the effect of the value of β on the
appearance of the spectrum. Once again, a constant phase element should be assumed
in place of a capacitance.
The following case study (D. C. Silverman, Corrosion, 45(10), 824 (1989)1 (439k))
provides an example of how one might verify that the pseudoinductive behavior is not
an artifact and the type of information that may be obtained about corrosion. The
following impedance spectrum was observed when analyzing corrosion of steel in a waste
stream under controlled velocity conditions
.
The simulation used equation (21). Ensuring that the response is a function of corrosion
and not an artifact of the experiment is especially important when pseudoinductive
behavior is observed. The reason is that violation of the criteria listed
in the section Critical Criteria for Proper Spectra
can also cause this type of behavior.
One procedure for ensuring the absence of experimental artifacts is as follows:
- Linearity - Generate spectra at different excitation amplitudes, e.g. 2mV, 5mV, and 10mV.
- Stability - Generate spectra in two directions, high to low frequency and low
to high frequency and compare to make sure that they are the same. Also, generate
spectra only at a stable corrosion potential.
- Causality - difficult to check experimentally.
- Finally:
- Compare polarization resistances estimated from the impedance model to those
estimated from the polarization resistance technique.
- Compare mass loss estimated from impedance to that calculated from the electrode.
In this case, linearity was examined by generating the spectra at three excitation
amplitudes, 2mV, 5mV, and 10mV. The results are shown in these figures, Nyquist format
,
Bode modulus format
,
and Bode phase angle format
.
Close comparison of the figures revealed that 5mV was probably the optimum choice,
weighing the need for linearity with the need for a reasonable signal to noise ratio.
But the fact that the results for all three amplitudes agreed strongly suggested that
linearity was not violated.
Though the spectra were not generated with both decreasing and increasing frequency,
they were generated at a stable corrosion potential. The corrosion potential before
and after generation of the spectra was virtually the same. Thus, stability might be
assumed, to be verified by comparison of corrosion rate estimates.
The following table shows a comparison of corrosion rates.
| Impedance vs. DC Polarization |
Impedance vs. mass loss |
| Exposure(hr) |
Imped Rp (ohm-cm2) |
DC Rp (ohm-cm2) |
Experiment # |
Impedance (mm/y) |
Mass Loss (mm/y) |
| (4) |
721 |
490 |
1 |
0.51 |
0.74 |
| (24) |
409 |
305 |
- |
- |
- |
| (4) |
510 |
436 |
2 |
0.56 |
0.71 |
| (24) |
487 |
410 |
- |
- |
- |
The agreement of polarization resistance values between those estimated from
the impedance spectrum and those estimated from polarization resistance measurements
strongly suggest that the pseudoinductance is real. The agreement of the corrosion
rates by impedance and mass loss strongly suggest that the low frequency resistance
is, indeed, the polarization resistance.
Following is another impedance spectrum showing pseudoinductance
.
This spectrum is part of the study discussed in the section entitled
Corrosion Rate Estimation. The agreement
of corrosion rates in the table shown in that section indicates that excellent
estimates of corrosion rates can be obtained even when the pseudoinductance is
accompanied by a constant phase element with an exponent in the range of 0.5.
|
Previous Page: Diffusion Impedance
Return to Table of Contents
1 © NACE International publication and year shown in citation above. All rights reserved. Displayed with permission from NACE International, Houston, TX (http://www.nace.org). Published in Corrosion, in the month and year shown in the citation above.
|
David C. Silverman, Ph.D. - Primary Consultant
E-Mail: dcsilverman@argentumsolutions.com
Phone: 314-576-3586
Fax: 314-754-9825
Address: The Argentum House
14314 Strawbridge Ct.
Chesterfield, MO 63017
|
|