Abstract
To explore the influence of the microstructure of plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) coating on the loading of corrosion inhibitors and the silanization treatment on its surface, PEO coatings were first prepared on the surface of AZ31B magnesium alloy under different voltages. Secondly, sodium tungstate (Na(2)WO(4)) was loaded into the micropores and onto the surface of the PEO coatings via vacuum impregnation, and which were subsequently subjected to silanization treatment. The phase composition of the coatings was studied by XRD, while the elemental composition and valence state were investigated by XPS. The surface and cross-sectional morphology of the coatings, as well as the composition and distribution of elements, were studied by SEM and EDS. Image J software was employed to analyze the thickness of the coatings. The results show that the microstructure of PEO coatings prepared under different voltages varies, which affects the loading of Na(2)WO(4) on the surface of PEO coating and the sealing effect of silanization treatment, thereby influencing the corrosion resistance of the coatings. As the voltage increases, the coating thickness and roughness gradually increase, while the surface porosity first increases and then decreases, and the loaded content of Na(2)WO(4) also follows a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. Meanwhile, at 300 V and 350 V, silanization treatment effectively seals the PEO coatings loaded with Na(2)WO(4). However, when the voltage increases to 400 V, due to the uneven surface of the PEO coating, nonuniform distribution of micropores, and high roughness, the silanization treatment fails to completely cover the coating. This results in defects such as pits on the surface of the composite coating prepared at 400 V. Therefore, the composite coating prepared at 350 V exhibits the best corrosion resistance. After immersion in a 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution for 240 h, the composite coating formed at 350 V remains intact, and its low-frequency impedance modulus |Z|(0.01Hz) is as high as 1.06 × 10(6) cm(2). This value is approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that of the composite coating fabricated at 400 V and about three orders of magnitude higher than that of the pure PEO coating prepared at 350 V.