An overview of corrosion and its control by the surfactants: a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, studies of the effectiveness of various surfactant inhibitors in inhibiting corrosion have been published. In acid media, surfactants have generally demonstrated inhibitory efficiency (IE%) ranging from roughly 60% to over 98%. The literature on the cationic, anionic, zwitter ionic, neutral, and Gemini surfactants used to prevent steel corrosion in a range of acidic environments is compiled in this review. Also, the relationship between the amphiphilic nature of surfactants and a lower corrosion rate when using various surfactant classes. The surfactant structures, corrosion rates (CR), free energy of adsorption (ΔG°ads), and acid medium-dependent inhibition efficiencies (IE%) are highlighted. By indicating the connection between surfactants’ molecular structure and adsorption mechanisms, the study presents the most reliable quantitative evaluation of surfactants’ effectiveness as corrosion inhibitors in a range of environmental media. The fact that the majority of inhibitors followed Langmuir adsorption isotherm suggested a systematic adsorption mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".