Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

www.elsevier.com/locate/corsci

Validation of corrosion rates measured

by the Tafel extrapolation method
E. McCaerty

Professorial Lecturer Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering

and Applied Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, United States
Received 15 March 2005; accepted 14 May 2005
Available online 16 September 2005

Abstract
This paper discusses the validity and limitations of the Tafel extrapolation method for the
determination of corrosion rates for activation-controlled corrosion processes. Experimental
corrosion rates determined by the Tafel method are compared with corrosion rates obtained
by an independent chemical (i.e., non-electrochemical) method for iron in hydrochloric acid,
iron in 3.5% NaCl, and for titanium in boiling 1 M sulfuric acid. The methods of conrmation
of the corrosion rates involved colorimetric analysis of the dissolved cation or the use of an
ion-implanted inert Xe marker. Additional examples taken from the literature involving other
metals and other methods of validation are also discussed.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tafel equation; Tafel extrapolation; Corrosion rates; Uniform corrosion; Iron; Titanium

1. Introduction
One of the major laws in electrochemistry is due to Tafel [1], who in 1905 established what Bockris and Reddy [2] consider to be the most frequently used law in
electrochemistry. According to Tafels law, which was empirically observed, the
*
Address: Consultant, Chemistry Division, Code 6134, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
20375, United States. Fax: +1 202 767 4642.

0010-938X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2005.05.046

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3203

logarithm of the current density in an electrochemical reaction varies linearly with

the electrode potential (at potentials removed from the open-circuit rest potential).
An appreciation of Tafels law with regard to corrosion reactions, however, depended upon several subsequent developments. For electrode processes involving a
slow reaction step at the electrode surface (activation polarization), application of
the absolute reaction rate theory of Eyring et al. [3] resulted in the well-known ButlerVolmer equation [4]. This equation relates the net current density, i, for a single
electrode process, such as
Fe ! Fe2 + 2e

to the electrode potential, E:

i i0 eanF EE0 =RT  e1anF EE0 =RT 

where i0 is the exchange current density (rate of either the forward or reverse half-cell
reaction) at the equilibrium potential E0, a is the transfer coecient (usually 0.5),
and n is the number of electrons transferred.
It is well known that the electrochemistry of corroding metals involves two or
more half-cell reactions. For example, for iron in acid solutions, in addition to
Eq. (1), the following half-cell reaction also occurs:
2H + 2e ! H2

In their landmark paper on the mixed potential theory of corrosion published in

1938 Wagner and Traud [5] gave a detailed account of uniform corrosion based
on the principle of superposition of the partial currentvoltage curves for each of
the partial half-cell reactions. For the dissolution of iron in acid solutions, at equilibrium the total cathodic rate is equal to the total anodic rate:
!
ji!
H j jiFe j iH iFe

where the forward arrow refers to the cathodic direction. Thus, ji!
H j refers to the rate
of the reduction reaction in Eq. (3).
The electrode potential of the steady-state freely corroding condition given by Eq.
(4) is called the corrosion potential Ecorr, which lies between the equilibrium potentials of the two individual half-cell reactions. At Ecorr, Eq. (4) gives:
!
iFe  ji!
Fe j jiH j  iH icorr

Thus, the net rate of either iron dissolution or hydrogen evolution can be measured
at Ecorr to give the uniform corrosion rate icorr at the freely corroding condition.
Moreover, for such a system the ButlerVolmer equation is modied to give:
i icorr eanF EEcorr =RT  e1anF EEcorr =RT 

When the rate of the back reaction is negligible, Eq. (6) gives:
E a b log i

where a and b are constants. Eq. (7) is Tafels law. Moreover, in Eq. (6), when
E = Ecorr, then i = icorr. This is the basis for the Tafel extrapolation.

3204

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

A series of contributions from Stern [69] placed this method on a rm theoretical

and experimental basis. At the time of the publication of these papers, there was considerable uncertainty as to the interpretation of electrochemical polarization curves.
Final acceptance of the use of polarization curves in the determination of corrosion
rates depended upon the experimental (and non-electrochemical) independent validation of corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method. The purpose of
this paper is to examine several corrosion systems in which non-electrochemical validation has been provided for corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation
method.

2. Examples considered
Three examples are taken from the authors previous work. These are the corrosion of iron in acid solutions [10], the corrosion of iron in neutral 3.5% NaCl [11],
and the corrosion of titanium in boiling sulfuric acid [12]. Additional examples for
other metals in various aqueous solutions are also cited.
2.1. Iron in acid solutions
Various investigators have shown that iron [1318], aluminum [1921], zinc [22
24] and other metals [2528] immersed in acid solutions display anodic and cathodic
regions of Tafel behavior. In the case of iron, the anodic half-cell reaction is given by
Eq. (1), and the cathodic half-cell reaction is given by Eq. (3). The overall chemical
reaction is the sum of these two half-cell reactions:
Fe + 2H ! Fe2 + H2

The overall chemical reaction in Eq. (8) suggests four ways to determine the corrosion rate by chemical (non-electrochemical) means. These are: (1) to determine the
quantity of solid iron lost due to corrosion by measuring the weight loss (or thickness lost) of the metallic iron specimen, (2) to measure the concentration of dissolved
Fe2+ ions which are produced in solution, (3) to determine the quantity of hydrogen
gas which is produced by the corrosion reaction, and (4) to determine pH changes in
solution caused by the consumption of H+ ions.
With regard to the last method listed immediately above, usually the volume of
the aqueous solution involved is suciently large so that pH changes are too small
to be measured. However, changes in pH can be important in thin-layer condensed
electrolytes, such as in atmospheric corrosion, or for vigorous reactions in small volumes of electrolyte. For example, the dissolution of Al alloy 7075 in acid environments was shown to cease in small volumes of electrolyte when the supply of
available H+ ions had been consumed [29].
Fig. 1 shows anodic and cathodic polarization curves for pure iron in 1 M HCl
after 24 h immersion [10]. These polarization curves were determined by the potentiostatic method using 1015 mV increments of potential, and steady state currents
were observed within 20 min at each applied potential. Both the anodic and cathodic

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3205

Current Density in A/cm2

10000

1000

100
icorr

10

Anodic
1
-0.35

-0.40

Cathodic
-0.45

-0.50

-0.55

-0.60

-0.65

E in V vs. S.C.E.
Fig. 1. Polarization curves for iron in de-aerated 1 M HCl [10].

branches of the polarization curve display Tafel behavior, and the Tafel slopes can
be extrapolated back to the open-circuit corrosion potential to give a corrosion current rate of 30 lA/cm2.
The open-circuit free corrosion rate was also determined separately by the colorimetric analysis of dissolved Fe2+ ions using the o-phenanthroline method. Known
aliquots of the solution containing dissolved Fe2+ ions were withdrawn as a function
of time and were analyzed to produce the corrosion-time curve shown in Fig. 2. As
shown in Fig. 2, the corrosion rate determined in this manner was 0.665 lmol Fe2+/
cm2 h. From Faradays law, this rate corresponds to a corrosion current density of
36 lA/cm2, in good agreement with the value determined by the Tafel extrapolation
method.
2.2. Iron in 3.5% NaCl open to the air
In neutral solutions, such as 3.5% NaCl open to the air, the predominant cathodic
half-cell reaction is
O2 + 2H2 O + 4e ! 4OH

rather than the hydrogen evolution reaction which occurs in acid solutions.
Polarization curves for iron after 24 h immersion in 3.5% NaCl solution (0.6 M)
are shown in Fig. 3 [11]. The solution was open to the air and was unstirred (quiescent). The chloride concentration is the same as in natural seawater (although the
solution does not contain the various other anions, cations, or organic matter found
in small concentrations in natural seawater). Polarization curves were determined by
the potentiostatic method.

3206

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

25

Moles Fe2+/cm2

20

15

10

Slope = 0.665 mmoles Fe2+/cm2 hr

= 36 A/cm2

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time in Hours
Fig. 2. Corrosion-time curve determined by colorimetric analysis of the solution for iron in de-aerated
1 M HCl [10].

10000

Current Density in A/cm2

1000

100

10

Anodic

Cathodic

1
-0.60

-0.70

-0.80

-0.90

E in V vs. Ag/AgCl
Fig. 3. Polarization curves for iron in a quiescent solution of 0.6 M NaCl open to the air [11].

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3207

It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the anodic dissolution of iron in 3.5% NaCl obeys
Tafels law. However, the cathodic polarization curve displays a limiting diusion
current iL due to the reduction of oxygen according to Eq. (9). Thus, the cathodic
process is controlled by concentration polarization rather than activation polarization. Nevertheless, both branches can be extrapolated back to the corrosion potential Ecorr to give the corrosion rate icorr. This is because at the open-circuit corrosion
potential, the net rate of iron dissolution is equal to the net rate of oxygen reduction,
iL. From Fig. 3, the result is icorr = 25 lA/cm2.
Such short-term laboratory experiments in simulated environments are limited in
their ability to predict longer term corrosion rates in natural environments of interest. However, it is useful to compare the short-term behavior of iron in 3.5% NaCl
with the longer term behavior of plain carbon steel in seawater. Using Faradays law
and the density of Fe, a corrosion rate of 25 lA/cm2 is equivalent to a uniform penetration rate of 12 mpy (mils per year, where 1 mil = 0.001 in.). The actual corrosion
rate of plain carbon steel (AISI 1020 steel) in quiet surface water is up to 15 mpy in
the rst year and then decreases to 5 mpy after 1000 days [30]. Thus, the agreement
between the laboratory test and actual exposure rates is a reasonable one, so that the
Tafel extrapolation method is useful in this particular application.
2.3. Titanium in boiling sulfuric acid
Titanium has a low corrosion rate in most aqueous solutions, although a notable
exception is for hot acid solutions where titanium displays high corrosion rates.
Fig. 4 shows polarization curves of pure titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12]. These

Current Density in mA/cm2

100

10

Anodic
0.1
-0.80

-0.90

Cathodic
-1.00

-1.10

-1.20

-1.30

-1.40

E in V vs. Hg/Hg2SO4
Fig. 4. Polarization curves for titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

3208

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

curves were determined potentiostatically after the steady-state open-circuit potential had been rst obtained (2.5 h immersion). The anodic polarization curve does
not display an extensive Tafel region, and the anodic curve has an active/passive
transition, as has been observed previously for titanium at various temperatures
[3133]. The existence of a dissolution reaction in conjunction with the onset of a
passivation reaction does not result in a well-dened experimental anodic Tafel
region.
However, it is possible to calculate the anodic Tafel line from the experimental
data, as shown in Fig. 5. The Tafel line of the cathodic polarization curve is rst extended to electrode potentials below the corrosion potential, and then the anodic
current density ia is calculated from
!
inet iFe iH  ji!
H j jiFe j

10

or, simply:
ia net experimental ia  jic j

11

where jicj is the cathodic current density. Thus, the anodic current density ia is the
sum of the experimentally observed anodic current density and the extrapolated
cathodic current density. The result from Fig. 5 is that icorr = 1.9 mA/cm2.
The corrosion rate of titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 was also determined by two
dierent non-electrochemical techniques: (1) colorimetric analysis of dissolved titanium, and (2) the use of implanted Xe (xenon) as an inert marker.

10
Calculated anodic

Current Density in mA/cm2

Anodic Tafel line

Experimental
anodic
1
Experimental
cathodic
Extrapolated
cathodic

0.1
-1.05

-1.10

-1.15

-1.20

-1.25

-1.30

E in V vs. Hg/Hg2SO4
Fig. 5. An expanded view near the corrosion potential of polarization curves of titanium in boiling 1 M
H2SO4.

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3209

12

Ti Dissolved in mg/cm2

10

Slope = 2.0 mg/cm2 hr

= 2.2 mA/cm2

0
0

Time in Hours
Fig. 6. Colorimetric analysis of dissolved titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

Fig. 6 shows corrosion time curves for freely corroding titanium in boiling 1 M
H2SO4. The concentration of dissolved titanium was determined colorimetrically
using the hydrogen peroxide method. From Faradays law, the slope of 2.0 mg/
cm2 h in Fig. 6 corresponds to a corrosion current density of 2.2 ma/cm2, assuming
that the dissolution of Ti occurs as Ti2+ [33], the lowest oxidation state for titanium
ions.
In the inert marker method, ion-implanted Xe is used in conjunction with the surface analysis technique of Rutherford backscattering (RBS). Ion implanted Xe was
placed in the near-surface region of titanium by allowing a 90 keV beam of Xe ions
of uence 3.5 1015 ions/cm2 to bombard the titanium surface held in a high vacuum
ion implantation system [12]. The RBS method is a surface analysis method which
use He atoms (a particles) as collider particles to probe the composition of the surface [34].
Fig. 7 shows RBS data for the ion-implanted Xe in pure titanium before immersion into boiling 1 M H2SO4. After immersion, the Xe signal is diminished because
Xe atoms dissolve into solution as they are uncovered by the corrosion process.
Corrosion rates were determined in the following manner. It is assumed that the
shape of the Xe proles in Fig. 7 is changed only by the removal of Xe atoms from
the surface as the surface moves inward due to corrosion. The shift in energy of the
remaining Xe prole with respect to the initial prole (before corrosion) is converted
into a thickness of material removed by means of a well-known energy loss rate
d(Energy)/dx for He ions in titanium. For example, 2.5 MeV He ions incident on
the sample that are scattered by a Xe atom and are subsequently detected have an

3210

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

Fig. 7. Rutherford backscattering (RBS) proles for Xe implanted into titanium before and after
immersion in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

eective d(Energy)/dx = 0.9 keV nm1 (1 nm = 1.0 109 m). If an energy shift of
10 keV is measured in the Xe prole, the thickness of material removed, t, is
10 keV/0.9 keV nm1 = 11.1 nm.
In this manner, Fig. 8, which is a plot of titanium thickness removed as a function
of time, was determined. After an initial incubation time of approximately 15 s to
remove the initial air-formed oxide lm, the rate titanium dissolution was constant.
From Fig. 8, the corrosion rate is 2.2 nm/s. Use of the density of titanium (4.51
g/cm3) gives this rate to be 3.6 mg/cm2 h, or 4.0 mA/cm2 (again assuming dissolution
of Ti as Ti2+). Thus, the corrosion rates determined by the three methods are 1.9
ma/cm2 for the Tafel extrapolation method, 2.2 ma/cm2 for colorimetric analysis

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3211

30

Titanium Removed in nm

25

20

15

Slope
= 2.2 nm/sec

10

= 3.6 mg/cm2hr
5

-5
-10

10

20

30

40

50

Time in Seconds
Fig. 8. Titanium thickness removed as a function of immersion time in boiling 1 M H2SO4 as determined
from RBS proles [12].

of dissolved titanium, and 4.0 ma/cm2 for the inert marker method (see also Table 1).
There is good agreement between the rst two methods, and the result for the inert
marker method is acceptable considering that the corrosion process has been sampled by this technique for a duration of seconds rather than hours, as in the rst
two approaches.
2.4. Additional examples
A comparison of the results for the corrosion rates determined by the Tafel
extrapolation method and by a second independent method is given in Table 1. Results are also taken from the literature for a selection of metals in various aqueous
environments. These methods involve weight loss or thickness of penetration due
to uniform corrosion, measurement of the volume of hydrogen gas evolved, or solution analysis of the dissolved cation by colorimetric analysis or atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (AAS).
Weight loss measurements or solution analyses are converted into equivalent current densities using Faradays law. For gas evolution measurements, the equivalent
current density follows from the molar volume of a gas, 22,400 ml at standard temperature and pressure (0 C and 760 Torr), and Faradays law.
In compiling Table 1, the electrochemical techniques of linear polarization or AC
impedance have not been considered. This is because these two techniques each measure the polarization resistance Rp = (dE/d log i) as E ! Ecorr, and Rp is related to
the corrosion rate through the Tafel slopes ba and bc by SternGeary equation [7]:

3212

Table 1
Comparison of corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method with corrosion rates determined by a second method
Immersion
time

icorr Tafel
method

icorr second
method

Type of second
method

Reference

1 M HCl
1 M HBr
1 M HI
1 M HCl
O2-free 4% NaCl,
O2-free 4% NaCl,
O2-free 4% NaCl,
O2-free 4% NaCl,
0.1 N H2SO4

30 lA/cm2
23 lA/cm2
10 lA/cm2
50 lA/cm2
10.5 lA/cm2
154 lA/cm2
270 lA/cm2
390 lA/cm2
33 lA/cm2
500 lA/cm2
0.20 mA/cm2
25 lA/cm2 (12 mpy)

Colorimetric
Colorimetric
Colorimetric
Colorimetric
Weight loss
Weight loss
Weight loss
Weight loss
Weight loss
Weight loss
AAS of solutiona
Penetration [30]

Titanium

Boiling 1 M H2SO4

2.5 h

1.9 mA/cm2

Al alloy 3003

Acetate buer, pH 4.6

Citrate buer, pH 2.5
Prune juice
0.1 M HCl
1.0 M HCl
1 M HCl
10% NH4Cl

1 Week

0.5 N NH4Cl
0.5 M H2SO4 25 C
55 C
0.5 M H2SO4
25 C
55 C
1 N H2SO4 30 C

Not stated
72 h
72 h
72 h

8.2 lA/cm2
1.2 lA/cm2
1.4 lA/cm2
31 lA/cm2
7.5 mA/cm2
1.23 mA/cm2
60 lA/cm2
(linear sweep)
0.27 mA/cm2
25.7 lA/cm2
54.6 lA/cm2

36 lA/cm2
16 lA/cm2
7 lA/cm2
50 lA/cm2
11.1 lA/cm2
156 lA/cm2
290 lA/cm2
400 lA/cm2
27 lA/cm2 (48 h)
791 lA/cm2 (48 h)
0.150.19 mA/cm2
515 mpy
(seawater)
2.2 mA/cm2
4.0 mA/cm2
9.1 lA/cm2
1.3 lA/cm2
1.5 lA/cm2
31 lA/cm2
7.3 mA/cm2
0.62 mA/cm2
100 lA/cm2

McCaerty and McArdle [10]

McCaerty and Zettlemoyer [35]

0.5 M H2SO4
3.5% NaCl

24 h
120 h
120 h
8h
10 h
10 h
10 h
10 h
20 h
20 h
20 h
24 h

0.10 mA/cm2
22.5 lA/cm2
39.3 lA/cm2

Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight

Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Fe + 0.11% Cu
Fe + 0.08% Cu
Fe + 0.017% P
Iron
Fe + 0.35% C
Iron
Iron

Al alloy 3003
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc alloy
Copper
Copper

Fe-14 Cr
Fe-25 Cr
a
b

pH
pH
pH
pH

1
1
1
1

24 h
4h
Not stated
Not stated

20 min

25.7 lA/cm2
54.6 lA/cm2
0.438 mA/cm2
0.709 mA/cm2

22.5 lA/cm2
39.3 lA/cm2
0.477 mA/cm2
0.791 mA/cm2

Colorimetric
Inert marker
H2 evolution
H2 evolution
H2 evolution
Colorimetric
Colorimetric
Weight loss
AAS of solutiona
loss
loss
loss
loss

Weight loss

Kaesche and Hackerman [13]

Stern [36]
Stern [36]
Stern [36]
Stern [36]
Cleary and Greene [37]
Lorenz and Mansfeld [18]
McCaerty [11]
Hubler and McCaerty [12]
Evans and Koehler [38]

McCaerty et al. [20]

Stupnisek-Lisac et al. [23]
Maja et al. [39]
Bhatt and Udhayan [40]
Quartarone et al. [41]
Quartarone et al. [41]

Yau and Streicher [42]

Atomic absorption spectrophotometry.

Assumes divalent dissolution of each metal and stoichiometric dissolution of each component of the binary alloy on an atomic fraction basis.

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

Environment

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

3213

1


12

icorr
2:303Rp

1
ba

jb1c j

so that ba and bc must be measured or estimated. Thus, neither the linear polarization nor AC impedance technique is totally independent of the Tafel method.
It can be seen that for most (but not all) of the corrosion systems in Table 1, there
is good agreement between corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation
and by the second independent non-electrochemical method.
3. Limitations of the Tafel extrapolation method
The Tafel extrapolation method for the determination of corrosion rates is valid if
the following conditions apply:
(1) At least one of the branches of the polarization curves is under activation control. (It is preferable that both branches obey Tafel behavior.) Concentration
polarization may occur toward the tail end of the Tafel regions, but this is usually a minor eect. For instance, for high anodic dissolution rates, the accumulation of dissolved cations near the electrode surface may cause a concentration
eect, which is manifested as a slight deviation from the anodic Tafel region at
high anodic overvoltages. Stirring the solution can minimize concentration
polarization eects.
(2) Well-dened anodic or cathodic Tafel regions exist (over at least one decade of
current).
(3) The anodic and cathodic reactions which occur at the corrosion potential are
also the only reactions which occur during determination of the polarization
curves. That is, changes in electrode potential should not induce additional
electrochemical reactions in either the anodic or cathodic direction.
(4) Corrosion is general (i.e., uniform) in nature, and localized corrosion does not
occur [43]. For instance, vigorous preferential attack of the metal along grain
boundaries may cause individual grains of the metal to become dislodged from
the metal surface. These dislodged grains would continue to produce dissolved
metal ions in solution, but are disconnected from the electrochemical circuit so
as not to contribute to the corrosion rate measured by the Tafel method. This
phenomenon is called the chunk eect [44].
(5) The polarization curves are for the steady-state. Potentiodynamic curves
obtained using rapid scans are not expected to yield Tafel regions or measured
corrosion rates which are representative of the system in the steady-state
condition.
In the Tafel extrapolation method, use of both the anodic and cathodic Tafel regions is preferred, of course, over the use of only one Tafel region. However, the corrosion rate can also be determined by Tafel extrapolation of either the cathodic or
anodic polarization curve alone. If only one polarization curve alone is used, it is

3214

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

generally the cathodic curve which usually produces a longer and better dened Tafel
region. Anodic polarization may sometimes produce concentration eects, as noted
above, as well as roughening of the surface which can lead to deviations from Tafel
behavior. Thus, extrapolation of the cathodic Tafel region back to zero overvoltage
gives the net rate of the cathodic reaction at the corrosion potential; but from Eq.
(5), this is also the net rate of the anodic reaction at the corrosion potential.

4. Summary
The Tafel region of a polarization curve can be extrapolated back to the steadystate open-circuit corrosion potential to give the open-circuit corrosion rate provided
that: (1) the branch of the polarization curve is under activation control, (2) corrosion is uniform (general), (3) there is a well-dened Tafel region, and (4) changes in
electrode potential do not induce additional electrode reactions.
Corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method have compared
favorably with corrosion rates determined by an independent chemical method for
various metals in dierent aqueous solutions. These independent methods have involved weight loss measurements, measurement of the depth of penetration due to
uniform corrosion, solution analysis by colorimetric methods or atomic absorption
spectrophotometry, measurement of the volume of hydrogen gas evolved, or the use
of an ion-implanted inert marker.
References
[1] J. Tafel, Z. Physik. Chem. 50 (1905) 6661.
[2] J.OM. Bockris, A.K.N. ReddyModern Electrochemistry, vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York, 1977,
p. 15.
[3] H. Eyring, S. Glasstone, K.J. Laidler, J. Chem. Phys. 7 (1939) 1053.
[4] J.OM. Bockris, A.K.N. ReddyModern Electrochemistry, vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York, 1977,
p. 883.
[5] C. Wagner, W. Traud, Z. Elektrochem. 44 (1938) 39.
[6] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 102 (1955) 609.
[7] M. Stern, A.L. Geary, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 56.
[8] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 559.
[9] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 645.
[10] E. McCaerty, J.V. McArdle, J. Electrochem. Soc. 142 (1995) 1447.
[11] E. McCaerty, J. Electrochem. Soc. 121 (1974) 1007.
[12] G.K. Hubler, E. McCaerty, Corros. Sci. 20 (1980) 103.
[13] H. Kaesche, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 105 (1958) 191.
[14] N. Hackerman, R.M. Hurd, R.R. Annand, Corrosion 18 (1962) 37t.
[15] E.J. Kelly, J. Electrochem. Soc. 112 (1965) 124.
[16] E. McCaerty, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 999.
[17] R. Driver, R.J. Meakins, Br. Corros. J. 9 (1974) 233.
[18] W.J. Lorenz, F. Mansfeld, Corros. Sci. 21 (1981) 647.
[19] M.N. Desai, C.B. Shah, Y.B. Desai, S.M. Desai, M.H. Ghandi, Br. Corros. J. 4 (1969) 315.
[20] E. McCaerty, P.G. Moore, G.T. Peace, J. Electrochem. Soc. 129 (1982) 9.
[21] M. Metikos-Hukovic, Z. Grubac, E. Stupnisek-Lisac, Corrosion 50 (1994) 146.

E. McCaerty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 32023215

[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]

3215

M.S. Abdel-Aal, Z.A. Ahmed, M.S. Hassan, J. Appl. Electrochem. 22 (1992) 1104.
E. Stupnisek-Lisac, D. Kasunic, J. Vorkapic-Furac, Corrosion 51 (1995) 767.
M. Abdallah, Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 2705.
H.P. Lee, K. Nobe, J. Electrochem. Soc. 133 (1986) 2035.
B. Miller, R.E. Visco, J. Electrochem. Soc. 115 (1968) 251.
T. Laitenen, K. Salmi, G. Sundholm, P. Viinikka, A. Yli-Pentti, Electrochim. Acta 37 (1992) 1797.
D. Tromans, B. Foster, F. Weinberg, Corros. Sci. 39 (1997) 1291.
E. McCaerty, Corrosion 54 (1998) 862.
S.C. Dexter, Handbook of Oceanographic Engineering Materials, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1979, p. 111.
M. Stern, H. Wissenberg, J. Electrochem. Soc. 106 (1959), pp. 755, 759.
N.D. Tomashov, R.M. Altovsky, G.P. Chernova, J. Electrochem. Soc. 108 (1961) 113.
N.T. Thomas, K. Nobe, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 1450.
L.C. Feldman, in: A.W. Czanderna, D.M. Hercules (Eds.), Ion Spectroscopies for Surface Analysis,
Plenum Press, New York, 1991, p. 311.
E. McCaerty, A.C. Zettlemoyer, J. Phys. Chem. 71 (1967) 2444.
M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 102 (1955) 663.
H.J. Cleary, N.D. Greene, Corros. Sci. 9 (1969) 3.
S. Evans, E.L. Koehler, J. Electrochem. Soc. 108 (1961) 509.
M. Maja, N. Penazzi, G. Farnia, G. Sandona, Electrochim. Acta 38 (1993) 1453.
D.P. Bhatt, R. Udhayan, J. Power Sources 47 (1994) 177.
G. Quartarone, T. Bellomi, A. Zingales, Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 715.
Y.-H. Yau, M.A. Streicher, Corrosion 47 (1991) 352.
E. McCaerty, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 146.
G.A. Marsh, E. Schaschl, J. Electrochem. Soc. 107 (1960) 960.