The Electrochemical

Society Interface

You may also like

- CHEMICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
Pitting Corrosion of Metals C/O RATIO ON HOT JUPITERS:
EXAMPLES FROM WASP-12b, CoRoT-
2b, XO-1b, AND HD 189733b
To cite this article: Roger Newman 2010 Electrochem. Soc. Interface 19 33 J. I. Moses, N. Madhusudhan, C. Visscher
et al.

- Nanoparticles reinforced joints produced

using friction stir welding: a review
Tanvir Singh
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
- Analysis of Heat Transfer Phenomenon in
Magnetohydrodynamic Casson Fluid Flow
Through Cattaneo–Christov Heat Diffusion
Theory
G. K. Ramesh, B. J. Gireesha, S. A.
Shehzad et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 51.235.246.122 on 07/04/2025 at 13:57

JES Classics
ECS Science at Its Best

Pitting Corrosion of Metals

by Roger Newman

P
itting corrosion of metals is one of potentials, and although a “rare event” necessary but not a sufficient condition
the most important electrochemical and empirically a stochastic process,1 for pitting. Rapid film-free dissolution
corrosion phenomena. Corrosion of can be considered to nucleate above a creates a special local solution, acidified
steel reinforcement in concrete is always critical potential, or pitting potential by hydrolysis of the dissolving metal
in the news, and it starts off as pitting, (Epit), for which one can legitimately seek cations, in which pit growth can
caused by chloride ions—so it is feasible a deterministic explanation. proceed. Such an acidification process
that pitting is the most costly form of This article is about the pitting- can overcome strong alkalinity, as in the
corrosion. Such an assessment might potential model of José R. Galvele, concrete example given earlier (concrete
not be the same in every decade, and it introduced in 1976,2 and its influence pore-water has a pH of ~13, which can be
is hard to measure the cost of corrosion on the subsequent development of reduced to ~5 at a corrosion site).
J. R. Galvele, “Transport Processes and the Mechanism of Pitting of
Metals,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 123, 464 (1976).
FROM:

control in steel structures and piping, corrosion science. A brief commentary In the following discussion we do not
which is also enormous, but would will be given on Galvele’s subsequent consider the cathodic reaction (oxygen
not usually be attributed to “pitting.” refinements and clarifications of the reduction, chlorine reduction, etc.) that
Pitting is hard to predict or monitor, model.3-5 supports the pit anode; all the results are
and propagates rapidly (large unattacked In the early 1970s, Galvele developed discussed in the context of potentiostatic
cathode…small pit anode), with no the idea that the nucleation of pitting conditions. The evolution of localized
respect for costly materials like stainless corrosion of metals in aqueous halide corrosion under natural immersion
steels, nickel alloys, and aluminum solutions has little to do with the quality conditions has its own distinct features,
alloys. It often grows under the surface of their passivating oxide films (“passive including a kind of “natural selection”
of a component, as shown in Fig. 1, and films”), but rather depends on the rate at wherein corrosion sites of slightly
notoriously tends to trigger mechanical which the metal can dissolve where the differing geometry compete for the
failures by fatigue or stress corrosion passive film has failed locally for some available cathodic current.6
cracking. It is favored by oxidizing reason. In other words, penetration of
the passive film by the electrolyte is a (continued on next page)

The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010 33

Newman necessarily for the very first stages of
(continued from previous page) pit nucleation (Hoar was happy to deal
with both stages separately—he liked to
refer to a kind of surface complexation
by chloride, leading to thinning of the
passive film, and believed that certain
alloys like Ni-Sn had very special
passive films). Galvele attributes to
Vetter and Strehblow the opinion that
to talk of solution composition changes
controlling the initial stages of pitting
is “meaningless.” He cites prior work of
Pickering and Frankenthal, in which a
one-dimensional pit model appeared for
the first time, although he points out
that those authors started with an acidic
solution in which only increases of pH
were possible locally.

The Approach in the 1976 Paper

The 1976 paper begins by presenting
a simple one-dimensional, local-
acidification model, based on metal
dissolution, metal cation diffusion,
and hydrolysis of these cations. Galvele
postulates that pit nucleation requires
a critical chemistry to develop at the
dissolving metal surface in a one-
dimensional cavity whose depth,
he believed, could be as small as the
thickness of the passive film (2 or 3
nm)—Fig. 2. With today’s knowledge
we can be fairly sure that the depth of
the nucleating cavity (or rather the
effective diffusion length in what must
be a highly confined geometry), and
the concentration of the critical metal
salt solution, were both underestimated
in Galvele’s treatment. Most authorities
now refer to critical concentrations
of order 1M or higher in Men+ , which
for believable anodic current densities
(say, less than 100 A cm-2 in the most
extreme case10 ), entails an effective
diffusion length of at least 0.1-1 μm. For
“perfectly” flat surfaces, this leads to the
speculation that a slow blistering type of
corrosion occurs under the passive film,
with only molecular-sized channels for
communication with the bulk solution;
then this structure pops open, leading
to pit growth—similar to a proposal of
Mattin and Burstein,11 and recalling
earlier work by authors who referred to
“salt islands” or “blisters.” This critical
chemistry is postulated to correspond
to a thermodynamic criterion : a critical
solubility of metal cations in equilibrium
with the relevant oxide or hydroxide.
Ion migration is introduced later in the
Fig. 1. Pitting corrosion of a stainless steel pipe, showing growth of pits under the metal surface.
paper, and leads to some of the most
Courtesy of Intertek-CAPCIS impressive predictions of the model.
Metal dissolution occurs at the bottom
of the cavity
One factor that may have influenced the passive film in setting Epit has to be
Galvele in developing his pitting model questioned. The passive film, according Me → Men+ + ne- (1)
was his experience of the role of plastic to this argument, merely affects the pit
strain in stress corrosion cracking, which nucleation rate. and instantaneous cation hydrolysis
led him to study the pitting of plastically In his 1976 paper,2 Galvele refers to occurs by the following.
straining metals.7-9 The reasoning is earlier work by Hoar, Kaesche, Freiman,
simple—if pits prefer to nucleate at Hisamatsu, and others, in which the Men+ + H2 O = MeOH (n-1)+ + H + (2)
sites of passive-film rupture, yet still authors argued for the importance
respect the pitting potential, the role of of local acidification, though not

34 The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010

 standards. The likely reason for this is
that his proposed level of acidification is
too mild to sustain the required anodic
current density. Nowadays pitting (and
this may be this author’s bias drawn
from the preponderance of studies of
stainless steel and aluminum) is generally
considered to require molar, not
micromolar levels of Men+ at the bottom
of the pit. Importantly, a particular
effect sets in when the solution becomes
very concentrated, as explained first
by Mankowski and Smialowska,13 and
later by Edwards14 —the extreme anodic
current densities required for pitting, at
least of stainless steel or aluminum, only
become possible when the concentration
of the metal salt solution in the pit gets to
the point (several molar) that the mean
ionic activity coefficient rises steeply
above 1, reaching as high as 50 in the
FeCr system. This leads to extremely low
pH values, not to mention any aggressive
effect of the accompanying high chloride
concentration.
What Galvele did, in effect, was
to equate the critical chemistry for
depassivation, which does not correspond
to any particular high current density,
and is more appropriate for the initiation
of crevice corrosion, to the critical
chemistry for pit nucleation, which has
to permit anodic current densities in the
A cm-2 range. The corresponding stability
products estimated by Galvele were about
10 -6 A cm-1, whereas modern values range
Fig. 2. Galvele’s model pit geometry.2 up to 10 -4 A cm-1. But this subtlety did
not become clear until the 1990s, and
Then, rewriting the hydrolysis 4. Hydrolysis equilibrium constant for still could be wrong for particular metals
equilibrium as: eq 2 = K1 (from literature) such as zinc. Also, Galvele was well
5. Ionic product of water = Kw (from aware that some metals might meet the
2Men+ + H2 O + OH- literature) provisional pit-stability criterion but be
= 2MeOH (n-1)+ + H + (3) For many conditions of interest, the unable to generate the current densities
product of the depth (x) and the current required for pit nucleation, and referred
allows the pH of the external solution density (i) essentially determines the to this possibility in the context of pure
to be varied in a nicely transparent way. concentration (cMen+) of Men+ , because H + chromium, which is extremely resistant
For pitting to be possible in practice, this and MeOH (n-1)+ are present at much lower if not immune to pitting.
external pH must lie within the region concentration than Men+. Galvele did Clearly the necessity of having a
of stability of an oxide or hydroxide, not give the (x.i) product any particular highly concentrated metal salt solution
otherwise the metal just dissolves name, but later (x.i), or alternatively the in the pit nucleus necessitates revision of
actively, so many metals only pit in basic critical value of (x.i) to stabilize a pit, some details of Galvele’s model, without
halide solutions. became known as the “stability product” detracting from its remarkable power to
The above reasoning leads to a set of (but note that the critical value of (x.i) explain a wide range of observations.
five equations that can be solved for the should depend on pH, except near pH 7; Progress in understanding the effects of
steady-state concentrations of all species researchers who have used the term concentrated pit chemistries has been
as a function of the anodic current stability product generally used only one slow, but until recently was actively
density at the bottom of the “pit” (i) and pH, either acidic or neutral). advancing under the auspices of the U.S.
the depth of the pit (x), provided that By solving the five equations with Department of Energy and others, in
the bulk solution is assumed to act as appropriate boundary conditions, relation to the Yucca Mountain Project.
supporting electrolyte, that diffusivities diagrams are generated, showing the
have their dilute-solution values, and concentrations of Men+ , MeOH (n-1)+ , Effects of pH or Secondary Anions
that mixing beyond the pit mouth is and H + as a function of (x.i). Then, by
instantaneous. The five equations are referring to the equilibrium between One of the themes of Galvele’s
constructed on the following basis: metal oxide (or hydroxide) and Men+, pitting program (the 1976 paper and
1. Sum of fluxes of Men+ and MeOH (n-1)+ a critical value of (x.i) giving sufficient those following) was the progressive
= i/nF (with diffusivities from acidification can be calculated for any rationalization of the pH and buffer-
literature) assumed (that is, sufficient) equilibrium anion dependence of the pitting
2. Net flux of O in O-containing concentration of Men+. The problem is— potential. In 1976, the absence of
species = 0 (with diffusivities from what is this sufficient concentration? migration in the initial model made
literature) Galvele starts by assuming that it is 10 -6 it difficult to obtain a full range of
3. Net flux of H in H-containing mol dm-3, and states that conclusions predictions, but some features were
species = 0 (with diffusivities from drawn using this assumption could be in successfully reproduced. For iron, and
literature) error by one pH unit either way. But some assuming Tafel kinetics within the
of his critical pH values (9.5 for Fe or Ni; pit nucleus (this is a simplification of
5.0 for Al) appear very high by modern
The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010 35
Newman so he had to solve the complete set of Finally, Galvele discusses the
(continued from previous page) reaction-transport equations, but now relationship between the pitting potential
that we know the critical pit chemistry and the protection or repassivation
course), Galvele found that Epit should be is always concentrated, we can make potential. He notes the obvious
constant between pH 7 and about pH 10, the simplifying assumption that at the conclusion that the latter is lower than
but should then increase as follows: dissolving pit surface (x = 0, c = c0): the former because the pit depth x, in his
model, is larger.
Epit = a + b log cOH- (4) n+ 1 -
c0Me = — c0Cl = c*
n
(6) Related Advances
(in this equation b is a coefficient, not a
Tafel coefficient). The influence of the 1976 paper
where c* is a convenient symbol for the has been enormous, although some
In 1981, by considering further
critical pit chemistry, expressed as cMen+ at researchers find its conclusions
hydrolysis steps than Eq. 2,3 Galvele was
the dissolving surface (x = 0). distasteful, because the importance of
able to rationalize the pH-independence
That being the case, all we have to do the passive film per se is eliminated, or
of the pitting potential of aluminum—a
is to treat Cl- as a non-reacting species, at least reduced to the mundane task of
really important result. (Which is not to
for which: reducing the number of pits. If funding
say that the tendency for pitting is pH-
independent—the corrosion potential agencies had believed in Galvele’s model,
c0Cl = c∞ exp F.Δ fewer funds might have been available
-
falls at high pH, and pitting thus ceases —— (7)
under open-circuit conditions.) Similarly, RT for corrosion research using ultra-high
by considering the buffering effect of vacuum equipment over the past 30
anions of weak acids, he successfully This equation comes from the years. As Galvele says in his conclusions:
rationalized the beneficial effect of consideration that the diffusion and
moderate additions of such ions,2-4 but All the observations reported so
migration fluxes of a non-reacting ion far in the literature on the pitting
noted that when their concentration are equal and opposite at steady-state;
approaches that of chloride, the potential can be explained by
Δ is the IR drop in the pit nucleus. Since
assumption of a supporting NaCl - transport phenomena. Processes
c0Cl is always the same (n.c*) at the pitting like competitive adsorption, salt
electrolyte in the pit must break down. potential, this reduces to:
So it was not until his later work that formation, film contamination,
he tackled the fact that pitting vanishes etc., even though present during
2.3RT
Δ = Q – ——— the pitting process, do not play
completely above a certain concentration log c∞ (8)
ratio of inhibiting to aggressive anions— F a major role in fixing the pitting
where the former include OH-. This is of where potential.
huge importance in concrete technology,
The 1976 paper has been cited in
where a critical ratio of OH- to free Cl- 2.3RT
Q = ——— log n.c* (9) over 250 journal publications. T. R. Beck
exists, below which corrosion of the steel F was already applying reaction-transport
reinforcement is inevitable.15 In the 1976
models to stress corrosion cracking, and
paper there is a section dealing with the
so that later used some of Galvele’s insights in
inhibiting effect of sulfate ions on pitting
2.3RT his work on pitting,24 although Beck’s
of stainless steel, where Galvele shows Epit = P + Q – ——— log c∞ (10) work, and that of R. C. Alkire (many
that in a reaction/diffusion/migration F
publications, of which Ref. 25 is given
model, the double charge on the sulfate as an example), tended to focus on
where P will depend on the anodic
leads to a spectacular enrichment, diffusion-controlled conditions—that
dissolution kinetics of the metal in the
relative to chloride, at the bottom of a is, the presence of a metal chloride salt
local environment. Thus P incorporates
pit, consistent with complete inhibition. Q film on the dissolving surface—which
the dissolution kinetics, the
Probably he considered this as a special is far removed from Galvele’s relatively
passivation tendency, and the last term
case, and his hesitation to generalize such dilute local chemistries. Others were
the chloride concentration dependence.
an inhibition model in the 1976 paper attracted by the idea of pit nucleation at
This extension of Galvele’s analysis is
may be another consequence of his view a mechanical or otherwise-formed flaw
previously unpublished in this explicit
that critical pit chemistries were not, in that could be imaged directly26—such
form, but is obvious enough from
general, especially concentrated in Men+. efforts continue today, with evidence for
published literature.
pores under passive films on aluminum27
Effect of Ionic Strength Solid-Solution Alloying (these authors, however, do not discuss
of the Bulk Solution the consequences of exposing the pore
in detail, regarding this exposure as the
A natural consequence of Galvele’s
A striking feature of pitting in pure essential event in pit nucleation). Many
pitting model is that solid-solution
NaCl solution is the dependence of the publications dealt with the dissolution
alloying effects on the pitting potential
pitting potential (Epit) on the external of stainless steels in pits or pit-like
are due to differences in anodic kinetics in
NaCl concentration, c∞. Many authors geometries,28 including the requirement
the local environment of a pit nucleus (i.e.,
have confirmed that this dependence is that a certain fraction of saturation in
differences in P, and perhaps, though not
of the form: metal chloride salt must be achieved.29
necessarily, differences in Q). Muller and
Others dealt with aluminum pitting,
Galvele showed that this was consistent
Epit = A–B log c∞ (5) the critical chemistry requirement in
with the behavior of Al-Cu, Al-Zn, and
that case,30 and the distinction between
Al-Mg alloys,16-17 and commented on the
pits and tunnels.31 A persistent theme
with B generally falling in the range feasibility of a similar interpretation for
was the initiation of crevice corrosion,
60-90 mV. Galvele brilliantly adapted a stainless steels, although they referred
which according to most authors occurs
scheme of Vetter to show that this could to a sparingly soluble Mo salt in that
by a slow process of passive dissolution,
be rationalized as the variation of the case—not a fashionable view nowadays.
gradually building up the necessary
IR potential drop in the pit nucleus (at The present author has spent a large part
chemistry,32,33 but according to others, is
its critical chemistry) with the external of his career arguing for the dissolution-
due to pitting that would be metastable
NaCl concentration c. Galvele had to kinetics argument for Mo alloying,18-22
if it were to occur on a free surface, but
assume that the critical chemistry could and has also published similar arguments
is stabilized by the crevice (higher ‘x’ in
be either dilute or concentrated in Men+, related to the Al-Zn system.23
Galvele’s model).34
36 The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010
 The peak of the influence of the foils in cross-section,42 and a numerical Award of NACE International, and the
stability product was around 1990, model that reproduces the lacy metal H. H. Uhlig Award of the ECS Corrosion
when Pistorius and Burstein, building covers observed over pits in stainless Division. He may be reached at roger.
on an approach of Frankel, et al.,28 steel.43 These are necessarily mature pits, [email protected].
applied the stability constant concept but similar issues arise in considering the
to metastable pits in stainless steel, by behavior of very small pit nuclei. The References
carrying out exhaustive analyses of small point is that any open cavity must split
current transients that occur below the into active and passive areas, because 1. D. E. Williams, C. Westcott, and M.
usually-defined pitting potential.12 By there is a dilution of the acidic solution Fleischmann, J. Electrochem. Soc.,
integrating such transients and assuming near the pit rim—at least for stainless 132, 1796 (1985).
a hemispherical geometry, they were able steels. All these studies take the Galvele 2. J. R. Galvele, J. Electrochem. Soc., 123,
to determine the anodic current density type of criterion as their starting point. So 464 (1976).
in the pit as a function of its radius. do recent refinements of computational 3. J. R. Galvele, Corros. Sci., 21, 551
Various analyses and conclusions flowed methods for pitting.44 All improved (1981).
from the work, including the belief that schemes for simulation of pit growth (e.g., 4. S. M. Gravano and J. R. Galvele,
pits were always covered by an anodic Ref. 45) must draw inspiration, in various Corros. Sci., 24, 517 (1984).
salt film from the earliest instant of ways, from Galvele’s pioneering research. 5. J. R. Galvele, Corros. Sci., 47, 3053
their nucleation (this remains somewhat (2005).
controversial; Frankel, et al.28 believed Acknowledgments 6. M. I. Suleiman and R. C. Newman,
that the salt film was required for pit Corros. Sci., 36, 1657 (1994).
stability, but not for the initial growth of While writing this article, Roger 7. J. R. Galvele and S. B. deWexler, J.
metastable pits). An important finding Newman’s position at the University Electrochem. Soc., 119, C216 (1972).
was that the milder the conditions, the of Toronto was co-funded by NSERC 8. S. B. deWexler and J. R. Galvele, J.
more occluded were the detected pits (Canada) and UNENE, the University Electrochem. Soc., 121, 1271 (1974).
(i.e., the current density was lower than Network of Excellence in Nuclear 9. I.A. Meier and J. R. Galvele, J.
expected for an open cavity). Pits have an Engineering. Electrochem. Soc., 125, 1594 (1978).
ability to self-select for survival, and even 10. G. S. Frankel, J. Electrochem. Soc., 145,
more so under open-circuit rather than About the Author 2186 (1998).
potentiostatic conditions. Subsequent 11. S. P. Mattin and G. T. Burstein, Philos.
studies of surface-roughness effects Roger Newman is a professor in the Mag. Lett., 76, 341 (1997).
tended to confirm the general validity of Department of Chemical Engineering 12. P. C. Pistorius and G. T. Burstein,
such a simple analytical approach.35,36 and Applied Chemistry at the University Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 341, 531
There appears to be a large gulf between of Toronto. By training he is a materials (1992).
the artificial pit or “lead-in-pencil” scientist. He spent 20 years as an academic 13. J. Mankowski and Z. Szklarska-
electrode, with its dimensions of tens to in the Corrosion and Protection Centre, Smialowska, Corros. Sci., 15, 493
hundreds of microns, and the tiny fissure University of Manchester Institute (1975).
envisaged by Galvele as the pit nucleus. of Science and Technology (UMIST), 14. R. A. H. Edwards, in Advances in
But in 1997, Laycock and Newman20 Manchester, UK. His research specialties Localized Corrosion, H. S. Isaacs, U.
showed that a simple measurement of are localized corrosion and stress Bertocci, J. Kruger, and S. Smialowska,
the transition potential between the corrosion cracking of metals. He has Editors, p. 381, NACE, Houston
bare and salt-covered states for artificial received a number of awards for corrosion (1991).
pits in stainless steel, as a function of research, including the Fischer Medal of 15. T. Yonezawa, V. Ashworth, and R. P.
the prevailing anodic limiting current DECHEMA, the U. R. Evans Award of the M. Procter, Corrosion, 44, 489 (1988).
density, enabled an extrapolation to very Institute of Corrosion, the W. R. Whitney
small length scales that could predict the (continued on next page)
pitting potential accurately, including its
variation with chloride concentration,
Mo alloying, etc. The substitution of
bromide for chloride, which tends to
eliminate the beneficial effect of alloyed
Mo, was shown to obey the same kind of
rules22 (see Fig. 3).
More recently, the “x.i” concept has
been incorporated into models of crevice
or thin-film corrosion, and combined
with scaling laws for crevice corrosion,
to make important rationalizations and
predictions.37 Bulk Al-based metallic
glasses provide another new type of
material where the size-scale of pit nuclei
is critical.38
It is fundamental to Galvele’s model,
and necessary for clarity, that there is
a clear-cut boundary condition at the
mouth of the pit. Yet authors who discuss
phenomena involving electrolyte flow,
and/or effects of enrichment or depletion
of ions outside the pit, including
communication between nearby pits,39-41
find Galvele’s basic framework useful, and
indeed indispensable for their analysis.
Since the late 1990s, the shape Fig. 3. Method used by Laycock20 and Ernst 22 to predict pitting potentials from the results of artificial
evolution of pits has come to the fore, pit (pencil electrode) experiments in which the transition potential between film-free and salt-covered
with electrochemical measurements of dissolution was measured as a function of pit depth via the limiting anodic current density (ilim),
single pit growth,42 video microscopy of drawing heavily on Galvele’s pit model.
The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010 37
Newman
(continued from previous page)

16. I. L. Muller and J. R. Galvele, Corros.

THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY Monograph Series
Sci., 17, 995 (1977).
17. I. L. Muller and J. R. Galvele, Corros. The following volumes are sponsored by ECS, and published
Sci., 17, 179 (1977). by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. They should be ordered from: ECS,
18. R. C. Newman, Corros. Sci., 25, 331 65 South Main St., Pennington, NJ 08534-2839, USA or
(1985).
19. R. C. Newman, Corros. Sci., 25, 34l www.electrochem.org/dl/bookstore.htm
(1985).
20. N. J. Laycock and R. C. Newman,
Corros. Sci., 39, 1771 (1997). Fuel Cells: Problems and Solutions
21. R. C. Newman, Corrosion, 57, 1030 by V. Bagotsky (2009)
(2001). 320 pages. ISBN 978-0-470-23289-7
22. P. Ernst and R. C. Newman,
Electrochem. Solid-State Lett., 11, C1 Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy
(2008). by M. E. Orazem and B. Tribollet (2008)
23. F. Sato and R. C. Newman, Corrosion,
524 pages. ISBN 978-0-470-04140-6
55, 3 (1999).
24. T. R. Beck and S. G. Chan, Corrosion,
Fundamentals of Electrochemical Deposition
37, 665 (1981).
25. M. Verhoff and R. C. Alkire, J. (2nd Edition)
Electrochem. Soc., 147, 1359 (2000). by M. Paunovic and M. Schlesinger (2006)
26. G. E. Thompson, P. E. Doherty, and 373 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-71221-3
G. C. Wood, J. Electrochem. Soc., 129,
1515 (1982). Fundamentals of Electrochemistry (2nd Edition)
27. K. R. Zavadil, J. A. Ohlhausen and P. Edited by V. S. Bagotsky (2005)
G. Kotula, J. Electrochem. Soc.,153, 722 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-70058-6
B296 (2006).
28. G. S. Frankel, L. Stockert, F. Hunkeler, Electrochemical Systems (3rd edition)
and H. Boehni, Corrosion, 43, 429 by John Newman and Karen E. Thomas-Alyea (2004)
(1987). 647 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-47756-3
29. G. T. Gaudet, W. T. Mo, J. Tilly, J. W.
Tester, T. A. Hatton, H. S. Isaacs, and Modern Electroplating (4th edition)
R. C. Newman, AIChE Journal, 32,
Edited by M. Schlesinger and M. Paunovic (2000)
949 (1986).
30. F. Hunkeler and H. Boehni, Werkstoffe 888 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-16824-9
und Korrosion, 34, 593 (1983).
31. M. Baumgartner and H. Kaesche, Atmospheric Corrosion
Corros. Sci., 31, 231 (1990). by C. Leygraf and T. Graedel (2000)
32. S. M. Sharland, Corros. Sci., 27, 289 3684 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-37219-6
(1987).
33. S. M. Sharland and P. W. Tasker, Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook (2nd edition)
Corros. Sci., 28, 603 (1988). by R. Winston Revie (2000). paperback
34. N. J. Laycock, J. Stewart, and R. 1340 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-78494-4
C. Newman, Corros. Sci., 39, 1791
(1997). Semiconductor Wafer Bonding
35. M. H. Moayed and R. C. Newman, by Q. -Y. Tong and U. Gösele (1999)
Corros. Sci., 48, 1004 (2006). 297 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-57481-1
36. G. T. Burstein and P. C. Pistorius,
Corrosion, 51, 380 (1995).
Corrosion of Stainless Steels (2nd edition)
37. F. Cui, F. J. Presuel-Moreno, and R. G.
Kelly, Corros. Sci., 47, 2987 (2005). by A. J. Sedriks (1996)
38. A. M. Lucente and J. R. Scully, J. 437 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-00792-0
Electrochem. Soc., 155, C234 (2008).
39. N. D. Budiansky, F. Bocher, H. Synthetic Diamond: Emerging CVD Science and Technology
Cong, M. F. Hurley, and J. R. Scully, Edited by K. E. Spear and J. P. Dismukes (1994)
Corrosion, 63, 537 (2007). 688 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-53589-8
40. J. R. Scully, N. D. Budiansky, Y.
Tiwary, A. S. Mikhailov, and J. L. Electrochemical Oxygen Technology
Hudson, Corros. Sci., 50, 316 (2008). by K. Kinoshita (1992)
41. A. S. Mikhailov, J. R. Scully, and J. L. 444 pages. ISBN 978-0-471-57043-1
Hudson, Surf. Sci., 603, 1912 (2009).
42. P. Ernst and R. C. Newman, Corros.
Sci., 44, 927 (2002). ECS Members will receive a discount. All prices subject to change
without notice.
43. N. J. Laycock and S. P. White, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 148, B264 (2001).

www.electrochem.org
44. S. Scheiner and C. Hellmich,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.,
198, 2898 (2009).
45. G. Engelhardt, M. Urquidi-
MacDonald, and D. D. MacDonald,
Corros. Sci., 38, 1613 (1996).
38 The Electrochemical Society Interface • Spring 2010