Materials Transactions Online

Materials Transactions, Vol.58 No.02 (2017) pp.211-217
© 2017 The Japan Institute of Metals and Materials

Effect of pH on Hydrogen Absorption into Steel in Neutral and Alkaline Solutions

Norihiro Fujimoto1, Takashi Sawada1, Eiji Tada2 and Atsushi Nishikata2

1NTT Device Technology Labs, NTT Corporation, Atsugi 243-0198, Japan
2Depatment of Materials Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan

The corrosion behavior and the amount of absorbed hydrogen in steel were investigated in neutral and alkaline solutions with pH values ranging from 8.3 to 12.4. The amount of absorbed hydrogen into steel during immersion in the solutions was evaluated by thermal desorption analysis. In the alkaline solution of pH 12.4, the steel maintained a noble potential in a passive state, and almost no hydrogen absorption into the steel was detected. However, as the pH moved towards a more neutral pH, the corrosion potential shifted in the less noble direction, and the amount of hydrogen absorbed increased dramatically. These results indicate that the steel surface became more active in the neutral solutions, and the hydrogen evolution reaction, one of the cathodic reactions of steel corrosion, was enhanced close to the neutral pH with decreasing corrosion potential in the less noble direction. The change of the surface state from passive to active with decreasing pH accelerated the anodic dissolution of steel and made the corrosion potential less noble, resulting in the enhancement of hydrogen evolution and absorption reactions on the steel.


(Received 2016/10/12; Accepted 2016/11/29; Published 2017/01/25)

Keywords: high-strength steel, thermal desorption analysis, corrosion potential, hydrogen embrittlement, carbonation, pre-stressed concrete, pore water

PDF(Free)PDF (Free) Table of ContentsTable of Contents


  1. M.A. Climent and C. GutiƩrrez: Surf. Sci. 330 (1995) L651-L656.
  2. B. Huet, V. L'Hostis, F. Miserque and H. Idrissi: Electrochim. Acta 51 (2005) 172-180.
  3. P. Dangla and W. Dridi: Corros. Sci. 51 (2009) 1747-1756.
  4. M. Perrin, L. Gaillet, C. Tessier and H. Idrissi: Corros. Sci. 52 (2010) 1915-1926.
  5. L. Vehovar, V. Kuhar and A. Vehovar: Eng. Fail. Anal. 5 (1998) 21-27.
  6. M. Ichiba, J. Sakai, T. Doshida and K. Takai: Scr. Mater. 102 (2015) 59-62.
  7. T. Hara and T. Tarui: Zairyo-to-Kankyo 59 (2010) 173-178.
  8. J. Toribio and E. Ovejero: Eng. Fail. Anal. 12 (2005) 654-661.
  9. J. Sanchez, S.F. Lee, M.A. Martin-Rengel, J. Fullea, C. Andrade and J. Ruiz-Hervias: Eng. Fail. Anal. 59 (2016) 467-477.
  10. L. Cheng, M. Enomoto, D. Hirakami, and T. Tarui: ISIJ Inter. 53 (2013) 131-138.
  11. B. Huet, V. L'hostis, G. Santarini, D. Feron and H. Idrissi: Corros. Sci. 49 (2007) 1918-1932.
  12. D.H. Davies and G.T. Burstein: Corrosion 36 (1980) 416-422.
  13. X. Mao, X. Li, R. and W. Revie: Corrosion 50 (1994) 651-657.
  14. M. Moreno, W. Morris, M.G. Alvarez and G.S. Duffo: Corros. Sci. 46 (2004) 2681-2699.
  15. E. Proverbio and P. Longo: Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 2017-2030.
  16. S. Matsuyama: Okurehakai, (Nikkan kogyo shinbun, Japan, 1989) pp. 68-74.
  17. T. Doshida and K. Takai: Acta Mater. 79 (2014) 93-107.
  18. M. Wang, E. Akiyama and K. Tsuzaki: Corros. Sci. 48 (2006) 2189-2202.


© 2017 The Japan Institute of Metals and Materials
Comments to us :