The Study of Corrosion Behaviour of Cu In Some Commercial Beverages By Chemical and Electrochemical Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The corrosion behaviour of pure copper in 16 selected commercial beverages was studied. Experiments were also conducted in the presence of citric and phosphoric acids to investigate their role in the corrosion process in these beverages. Two experimental approaches were used to investigate the corrosion behavior: a chemical method in which the dissolved metal concentration was measured after immersion of a sample in a beverage and an electrochemical method using the Tafel extrapolation technique. The metal surfaces were also examined by SEM/EDX after the immersion tests and electrochemical polarization. Among the important conclusions from this research are that the order in which the various beverages affect the corrosion rate as evaluated by Tafel extrapolation of the polarization curves did not agree with the order based on measurement of the dissolved metal concentration as determined by the immersion tests. Second, the ranking of the beverages according to their ability to dissolve copper based on shortterm immersion tests (1 day) did not agree with that based on long-term tests (~5 or 7 days). These discrepancies likely stem from the complicated dynamics of the corrosion of metal and the various physical, chemical and electrochemical processes that take place in these beverages. No simple correlation was found between the beverage properties and composition and the dissolved copper concentrations after immersion, whether based on shortterm or long-term tests. However, the corrosion rate of copper in the 7 soft drinks as determined by the Tafel extrapolation method was found to depend on the pH, but not in other beverages such as juices, hot drinks, milk and alcohol. SEM examination of copper surfaces showed that they corroded uniformly in all test beverages. Evidence for the formation of corrosion products containing chlorine was found in both the immersion test and the polarization scan when the applied potential increased to 1.0 V above the open-circuit potential. Of the beverages considered in this study, Gatorade was consistently found to be the most corrosive for copper.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".