University of San Jose-Recoletos

Senior High School Department

Corners P. Lopez & Magallanes Streets, 6000 Cebu City, Philippines

The Effect of Varied pH Levels of Chlorinated Water to the Corrosion Rate of 316L
Stainless Steels

Proponents:

Maglasang, Mark Joseph

Montemar, Therese Marie
Telen, Francis Anthony

Grade 12 Blessed Cristina of Spoleto

 ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to determine the effects of varied pH levels of chlorinated
water to the corrosion rate of 316L stainless steels which is used in jewelries. The study also
aimed to determine its physical changes after the experiment. The study is grounded on
previous researches and the experiment conducted by the researchers. The experiment is
conducted for two trials. Seven samples of 316L stainless steel were immersed in seven varied
pH levels of chlorinated water, and were weighted after two hours. The results show that low pH
levels of chlorinated water corrode stainless steel, showing weight loss and surface pitting which
resulted to higher corrosion rate compared to high pH levels of chlorinated water. In conclusion,
the researchers conclude that the lower the pH level, the greater the value of weight loss and
corrosion rate.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page 1
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
1. Introduction 4
1.1 Background of the Study 4
1.2 Statement of the Problem/Objectives 4
1.3 Significance of the Study 4
1.4 Scope and Limitations 5
1.5 Hypothesis 5
2. Methodology 6
2.1 Material/Apparatus 6
2.2 Procedure 6-7
2.3 Work Plan 8-9
3. Results and Discussion 10
3.1 Findings 10-16
3.2 Analysis of Data 16-17
4. Conclusion 17
5. Recommendation 18
6. Appendix 18-
7. Bibliography -
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the study

In the industry and engineering world, one of the most important materials used
is stainless steel. It is considered one of the most reliable materials because of its wide
applications in terms of chemical, power generation plants, and primary foundation
materials. This type of material is widely used in finishing industries and in the jewelry
field. Stainless steels have been used successfully in swimming pools for decades (Euro
Inox, 2013). In the jewelry world, almost all stainless steel jewelry is made from one
group of alloys known as 316L steel. According to AZO Materials, Grade 316L, the low
carbon version of 316, is immune from sensitisation (grain boundary carbide
precipitation). It is the standard molybdenum-bearing grade, second in importance to
304 amongst the austenitic stainless steels. The molybdenum gives better overall
corrosion resistant properties than Grade 304, particular higher resistance to pitting and
crevice corrosion in chloride environments. Furthermore, this material contains Iron,
0.03% Carbon, 16-18.5% Chromium, 10-14% Nickel, small amounts of Manganese,
Silicon and Phosphorus. It is known for its strong, durable and rust-resistant properties.
However, there was a case of a customer from a jewelry company wherein the stainless
steel wearer noticed physical changes to the piece after long exposure to the pool, which
resulted to look rough-looking and rough texture. This lead the researchers to investigate
on the corrosion rate of 316L steel when exposed to different pH levels of chlorinated
water or pool water.
Thus, this study aims to determine the effect of varied pH levels of
chlorinated water to the corrosion rate of stainless steel, specifically 316L steel.

1.2 Statement of the Problem/Objectives

The researchers shall do the investigatory project aiming to answer the following
questions: (1) Can chlorinated water corrode 316L stainless steel; (2) What would be the
effect on 316L stainless steel under certain pH levels of chlorinated water; and (3) What
will be the corrosion rate of 316L stainless steel after being tested to varied pH levels of
chlorinated water.

1.3 Significance of the study

The researchers find the investigatory project useful in the world of jewelry. The
investigatory project is done to determine the longevity of its durability and quality under
certain pH levels of chlorinated water. By that, it can help the jewelry makers and
finishing industries in finding more ways in utilizing and strengthening its durability as the
main material used in the jewelry and industry world. Moreover, the study is also made
to inform the jewelry wearers on how the quality of the material is affected when often
exposed to chlorinated water or pool water. The study can also be used as a reference
to the future researchers who would further investigate on this type of stainless steel.
1.4 Scope and Limitations

The investigatory project shall only be limited on the effect and utilization of
stainless steel, specifically the most widely and commonly used in the jewelry and
industry world—the 316L steel under chlorinated water. Furthermore, the researchers
shall limit the usage of seven different pH levels of chlorinated water for the experiment:
three low pH levels of chlorinated water, one standard pH level of chlorinated water,
and three high pH levels of chlorinated water. The researchers shall use HCI
(hydrochloric acid) to lower the pH level of the substance and soda ash to raise the pH
level of the chlorinated water.

1.5 Hypothesis

The researchers hypothesized that chlorinated water can corrode this type of
stainless steel under certain substances and conditions. The researchers believe that
low pH chlorinated water can corrode stainless steel, producing surface pitting and
crevice corrosion. According to Webcorr Corrosion Consulting Services, pitting and
crevice corrosion is caused by the environment (chemistry) that may contain aggressive
chemical species such as chloride. Chloride is particularly damaging to the passive film
(oxide) so pitting can initiate at oxide breaks and begin corrosion. Furthermore, the
researchers hypothesized that the corrosion rate of stainless steel is higher when
exposed on low pH levels of chlorinated water than those exposed under high pH levels
of chlorinated water.
2. Methodology
The materials/apparatuses, and the procedure for the investigatory project shall be
explained further in this section.
2.1 Material/ Apparatus
For the experiment setup, here are the following materials to be used:
Beaker - 7 pieces
Petri dish - 7 pieces
316L steel - 7 pieces ( 1.25 inches - length; 1mm - width and 6.48 g per piece)
HCI (Hydrochloric acid) – 1 bottle (100mL)
Soda Ash (Sodium bicarbonate) - ½ kilo
pH meter
chlorinated water – 100 ml per beaker (0.2mg Cl / liter of H2O)
surgical gloves - 3 pairs
small weighing scale
paper
measuring cup
masking tape and marker
spoon
timer

2.2 Procedure
The experiment is guided by the following steps/procedures:

Getting the pH level of chlorinated water

1. In each beaker, pour 100 mL of chlorinated water.
2. With a pH meter, test the pH level of one beaker if it is in its standard pH level.
The standard pH level of chlorinated water is 7.4. Make sure that all the beakers
with chlorinated water have the same pH level.
3. Set aside one beaker of chlorinated water and label it with its standard pH level
of chlorinated water (7.4) using masking tape and marker.

Varying the pH level for 3 beakers using Hydrochloric Acid

4. Separate the three other beakers and pour 10mL of HCI with the use of the
measuring cup to vary its pH levels. Since the pH level of the chlorinated water is
7.4, each beaker should have a difference of 0.5 for each beaker, varying its pH
level. Also, record the amount of HCI poured unto each beaker.
5. Make sure that each beaker contains different concentrations of HCI. If the
standard pH level is 7.4, the next beaker should have a pH level of 6.9. The next
beaker should have a 6.4 pH level and the last one should have a pH level of 5.9.
6. Test the pH levels of each beaker if it reached the exact pH level needed. If it did
not reach the desired pH level, pour another 10mL of HCI using measuring cup.
7. Label each beaker according to its pH level using masking tape and marker.
Varying pH level for remaining 3 beakers using Sodium bicarbonate
8. Scoop sodium carbonate to a paper and weigh it into 10mg with the use of
weighing scale. Pour it and mix it with the use of spoon to the chlorinated water
of the three remaining beakers and make sure that each beaker varies in soda
ash concentration. Since there should be a difference of 0.5 from its standard pH
level, the next beaker should have a standard pH level of 7.9, the next beaker
should have 8.4 pH and the last beaker should have a 8.9 pH.
9. To vary its pH level, pour another 10mg of sodium bicarbonate to the beaker and
record its pH level using pH meter. Repeat the process until the desired pH level
is achieved.
10. Record the exact amount of soda ash poured unto each beaker. Test each
beaker with a pH meter if it has reached its certain pH level. Label the varied pH
level of each beaker with the use of masking tape and marker.

Experiment and Observations

11. Before submerging the steel, weigh it first using the weighing scale and record it.
12. Once all the chlorinated water have different pH levels from different beakers, put
the 316L steel in each beaker. Let it sit for two hours and observe its changes.
13. After an hour, use the spoon to get the steel and weigh each of them. Record its
final weight.
14. Put each steel to a petri dish to record observations.
15. Observe and document its physical changes with the use of microscope if it
shows any surface pitting or crevice corrosion. Record the observations.

The experiment must be done for two trials.

 2.3 Work Plan

Gantt Chart
DECEMBER
ACTIVITIES 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Topic
Consultation
and Approval
Minutes of the
Meeting
(Dec. 11,
2018)
Introduction

JANUARY
ACTIVITIE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
and 3
Revision of
Papers
Gathering
of
Materials

MARCH

ACTIVITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Experiment Day 1
Experiment Day 2
Chapter 4 and
5
Finalization of Papers
Final Research
Paper Submission

LEGEND:
Experiment Trial Days
GROUP MAKING
GROUP SUBMISSION
FINAL GROUP SUBMISSION
 Logistics of the Experiment

Material Quantity Cost Total Location

Hydrochloric acid 100ml 400.00php 400.00 php Southern Pharmacy

(HCI) /bottle (100ml)

Soda ash ½ kilo 40.00php/half 40.00 php Southern Pharmacy

kilo

Chlorine 200mg 50.00php/200mg 50.00 php Southern Pharmacy

316L stainless steel 7 pieces 42. 85php/piece 299.95 php Hardware store

Overall total: 789.95 php

3. Results and Discussions
In this chapter, the researchers present and analyze the data gathered from the experiment.

3.1 Findings
In the experiment conducted, the researchers initially recorded the following:

Sample Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HCI/Sodium 3.0 mL 2.0 mL 1.0 mL None 10mg 20mg 30mg
carbonate HCI HCI HCI (100mL Na2CO Na2CO Na2CO
(mg/ml) in Chlorina 3 3 3
100 mL ted
chlorinated water
water only)
pH level 5.9 6.4 6.9 7.4 7.9 8.4 8.9
Weight (g) 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g
Length of 1.25 in 1.25 in 1.25 in 1.25 in 1.25 in 1.25 in 1.25 in
sample (in)
Width of 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm
sample
(mm)
Table 1. Initial Data on Samples

Table 1 shows the sample and its initial data specifically of the following: weight in grams
and height in inches of the 316L steel, the specific pH level of each beaker, and the specific
weight of Hydrochloric acid and Sodium carbonate used for each beaker. The data applies to
both Trial 1 and Trial 2.

Sample Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker

1 (5.9 2 (6.4 3 (6.9 4 (7.4 5 (7.9 6 (8.4 7 (8.9
pH) pH) pH) pH) pH) pH) pH)
Initial Mass 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g
(g)
Final Mass 6.45 g 6.45 g 6.46 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.47 g
(g)
Weight Loss 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
(g)
Immersion 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Time (mins) minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes
Table 2. Initial and Final Mass of 316L steel for Trial 1

Table 2 shows the Trial 1 data gathered. The table shows comparison of the mass of the
samples before immersing it to its respective beakers and after its immersion. As seen above,
there is a difference before and after conducting the experiment for trial 1. Moreover, the sample
in the beaker 1 has the highest weight loss rate compared to other samples of other beakers.

Sample Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker

1 (5.9 2 (6.4 3 (6.9 4 (7.4 5 (7.9 6 (8.4 7 (8.9
pH) pH) pH) pH) pH) pH) pH)
Initial Mass 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g
(g)
Final Mass 6.44 g 6.45 g 6.46 g 6.46 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.48 g
(g)
Weight Loss 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00
(g)
Immersion 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Time (mins) minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes
Table 3. Initial and Final Mass of 316L steel for Trial 2

Table 3 shows the gathered data for Trial 2. The table shows the comparison of the
sample’s masses before and after its immersion. It can be seen that there is a difference before
and after the experiment for trial 2. Still, the same with Table 2, the sample in the beaker 1 has
the highest weight loss rate compared to other samples of other beakers in Trial 2.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the comparison of weight loss from trials 1 and 2. The chart shows that
there is a difference of 0.01 for beaker 1 in trials 1 and 2, and a difference of 0.01 for beaker 4 in
trials 1 and 2. The rest of the beakers shows no difference in trials 1 and 2.

Sample Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Initial Mass 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g 6.48 g
(g)
Final Weight 6.45 g 6.45 g 6.46 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.47 g
in g (Trial 1)
Final Weight 6.44 g 6.45 g 6.46 g 6.46 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.48 g
in g (Trial 2)
Average Final 6.45 g 6.45 g 6.46 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.47 g 6.48 g
Weight
Weight 0.035 0.030 0.020 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.005
Loss(initial
weight - ave.
Final weight)
(g)
Table 4. Average Final Weight and Weight Loss

Table 4 shows the comparison of the final weight from trial 1 and 2, and the average final
weight from trial 1 and 2. Moreover, the table also shows the weight loss as the difference of the
initial mass of each sample and its respective average final weight.

Figure 1. Corrosion Rate Formula (Gateinc.com)

Sample Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker Beaker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Weight Loss 0.035 0.030 0.020 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.005
(g)
Corrosion 0.0733 0.0629 0.0419 0.0314 0.0210 0.0210 0.0105
Rate (mm/yr) mm/yr mm/yr mm/yr mm/yr mm/yr mm/yr mm/yr
Table 5. Corrosion Rate of Samples

Figure 1 shows the corrosion rate formula used to attain the value of corrosion rate among
samples. Furthermore, table 5 also shows the different corrosion rates of each sample, with the
sample from beaker 1 as the highest corrosion rate of 0.0733 mm/yr and sample from beaker 7
as the lowest corrosion rate of 0.0105 mm/yr.

Sample Corrosion Initial Final Final Physical

Rate Physical Physical Physical Findings
State State Trial 1 State Trial 2
Beaker 1 0.0733 Shows
mm/yr pitting the
surface,
rough-
looking
surface
 Beaker 2 0.0629 Starts to
mm/yr show
surface
pitting;
shows
rough-
looking
surfaces
Beaker 3 0.0419 Shows
mm/yr rough
surfaces
and edges

Beaker 4 0.0314 Slightly

mm/yr shows
some
rough-
looking
surfaces
Beaker 5 0.0210 Shows
mm/yr little
roughness
on edges

Beaker 6 0.0210 Shows

mm/yr little to no
rough
edges or
surfaces
Beaker 7 0.0105 Shows no
mm/yr rough
looking
surfaces

Table 6. Physical Data and Observations of Samples

Table 6 shows the physical appearance of the samples from beakers 1 to 7. The
researchers used the microscope to determine any surface pitting and to the state of its surface
in a microscopic level. Furthermore, the table also describes the physical appearance of the
samples in a microscopic level as seen by the researchers.
 Graph 1. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss of Different Graph 2. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss of Different

Concentrations of HCI with its corresponding pH level for Trial 1 Concentrations of HCI with its corresponding pH level for Trial 2

Graph 1 shows the comparison to accumulated weight loss of the different concentrations
of Hydrochloric acid (HCI) in 100mL chlorinated water for Trial 1. It is clearly seen that the two
high concentration of HCI (20 and 30mL) among the HCI solution has the highest corrosive
effect (mass loss) among the steel samples. Graph 2, on the other hand, shows the comparison
to accumulated weight loss of the different concentrations of Hydrochloric acid (HCI) in 100mL
chlorinated water for Trial 2. It is clearly seen that the highest concentration of HCI (30 mL) has
the highest corrosive effect (mass loss) among the steel specimens.

Graph 3. Accumulated Weight Loss of Chlorinated Water (7.4 pH) Graph 4. Accumulated Weight Loss of Chlorinated Water (7.4 pH)

for Trial 1 for Trial 2

Graph 3 shows the accumulated weight loss of the steel specimen to the 100mL chlorinated
water concentration (0.0002mg Cl/100mL H2O). It shows that the concentration does not greatly
affect the steel specimen as its weight loss is not that high compared to other samples
aforementioned. Graph 4, on the other hand, shows the accumulated weight loss of the steel
specimen to the chlorinated water concentration but with a slight difference to the Trial 1 of the
same pH level. Both setup does not greatly affect the steel specimen.
 Graph 5. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss of Different Graph 6. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss of Different

Concentrations of Na2CO3 with its corresponding pH level for Trial 1 Concentrations of Na2CO3 with its corresponding pH level for Trial 2

Graph 5 shows the accumulated weight loss to the different concentrations of the Sodium
carbonate (Na2CO3) in 100mL chlorinated water. It can be clearly identified that the
concentration did not do much corrosive effect (mass loss) compared to Graph 1 for it shows
the same weight loss among the samples. In Graph 6, it shows the accumulated weight loss to
the different concentrations of Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3). Compared to Graph 5, there is a
difference in the 3rd sample, which has 8.9 pH level (30 mg Na2CO3/100 mL Chlorinated
water). It can be clearly observed that there is no weight loss in Trial 2, compared to Trial 1 that
has a weight loss of 0.01 g.

Graph 7. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss among Samples Graph 8. Comparison to Accumulated Weight Loss among Samples

within Time Frame of Immersion for Trial 1 within Time Frame of Immersion for Trial 2

Graph 7 shows the accumulated weight loss among samples with varied pH levels within
immersion time for Trial 1 and Graph 8 shows the accumulated weight loss among samples with
varied pH levels within immersion time for Trial 2. It can be observed that among the two
graphs, there is minimal difference in terms of accumulated weight loss, in trials 1 and 2.
 Graph 9. Comparison of Average Accumulated Weight Loss from Trials 1 and 2

with its corresponding pH level

Graph 9 shows the average accumulated weight loss from trials 1 and 2 among samples
with varied pH levels. It can be seen that in the graph, the pH level with the highest average
accumulated weight loss among the given samples is the sample with 5.9 pH.

3.2 Analysis of Data

Table 1 shows the initial data for each sample according to the following: specific pH
level for each beaker, the concentration of the chemicals to be used to vary pH levels in
chlorinated water, and the specifications of the samples to be immersed in the solution. The
initial data shall be the same for trials 1 and 2 so as to determine its difference in its weight loss.
The initial data shall be used in getting the corrosion rate for each sample.
For tables 2 and 3, it shows the following data: final mass of the sample after its
immersion to the solution and its weight loss for trials 1 and 2. The two tables show that there
are slight differences from its initial mass to its final mass after its immersion for about 120
minutes. Moreover, the figure 1 compares the weight loss of trials 1 and 2. From the given data,
it shows that the differences also vary depending on the pH level that the sample are immersed
in. It shows that the lowest pH level, 5.9, has the highest difference from its initial mass to its
final mass with a weight loss of 0.03 g (Trial 1) and 0.04 (Trial 2). The lowest difference from its
initial mass to its final mass is the highest pH level, 8.9, with a weight loss of 0.01 g (Trial 1) and
0.00 g (Trial 2). This shows that there is a relationship between the pH level and the weight loss
among the steel samples in a specific solution. The lower the pH level, the greater will be its
weight loss.
For table 4, it determines the average final weight of the different steel specimens from
its final weight from trials 1 and 2. It also determines the final weight loss from its initial mass of
the steel sample to its average final weight of the specific sample after its immersion. The table
shows that the sample with the highest weight loss of 0.035 g is still the beaker 1 (5.9 pH) and
the lowest weight loss of 0.005 g is the beaker 7 (8.9 pH). This proves that pH levels affect the
weight loss of a given sample.
Figure 1 shows how corrosion rate can be attained with the use of the formula with its
unit: millimeter per year (mm/yr). The table 5 shows the weight loss and corrosion rate of the
different samples with its specific pH levels. Still, the beaker 1 has the highest corrosion rate of
0.0733 mm/yr and the beaker 7 has the lowest corrosion rate of 0.0105 mm/yr. This shows that
there is an influence of the weight loss to the corrosion rate of that specific steel specimen.
Table 6 shows the photos documented as data for the physical changes of steel
specimens before the immersion and after the immersion of the specimens in its respective
solutions. The table also shows the physical observations of the researchers under the
microscope. It shows that the lower the pH level, the more it will experience or undergo surface
pitting (holes and pits along the surface). Other samples (higher pH levels) did not undergo
such, instead, it exhibit the rough-looking texture along its surfaces.
Graphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shows the comparison to accumulated weight loss of the
different concentrations of HCI to chlorinated water, chlorine to water, and Sodium carbonate to
chlorinated water for trials 1 and 2. In summary, the graphs show that there is a relationship
between the weight loss of the specific steel specimen to the concentrations of the mentioned
chemicals dissolved into water. The chemicals were used to vary its pH level, which is the main
factor that affects its weight loss. As what is aforementioned, the lower the pH the greater the
value of weight loss for that specific sample.
Graphs 7 and 8 shows the comparison to accumulated weight loss of the samples to the
total time of its immersion for trials 1 and 2. All of the samples were timed altogether, and it
shows that specific pH levels have the same weight loss. Graph 9, shows the average
accumulated weight loss among the two trials in the given time. Still, the highest weight loss
with the given time of 120 minutes is the beaker 1 (5.9 pH). This shows and proves that the
lower pH level of the solution, the higher the chance of it to corrode the 316L steel and show
higher rate of corrosion and potentially show great value in weight loss compared to higher pH
levels.

4. Conclusions
The researchers conclude that there is a relationship between the concentration of
certain solutions to its pH level, classifying it as an acid or base. Moreover, the researchers
conclude that the pH level of a solution can greatly affect the sample immersed in it which can
be observed through its weight loss. Weight loss in turn, contributes to the corrosion rate of the
material that if it has a greater value of weight loss, the specific sample will definitely have a
greater corrosion rate compared to those who have lesser value of weight loss. Corrosion rate is
also affected by the time of its immersion, as to how long the material will be immersed in a
certain solution. Therefore, to answer the problems of the study, the researchers conclude that
chlorinated water can corrode 316L steel but with minimal difference. Moreover, the lower the
pH level, the higher the chance of the steel to show surface pitting and rough-looking surfaces,
and the corrosion rate of the varied pH levels are the following: 0.0733 mm/yr (5.9 pH), 0.0629
mm/yr (6.4 pH), 0.0419 mm/yr (6.9 pH), 0.0314 mm/yr (7.4 pH), 0.0210 mm/yr (both 7.9 and 8.4
pH) and 0.0105 mm/yr (8.9 pH). The lower the pH level, the greater the value for weight loss
and corrosion rate.

5. Recommendations
The researchers recommend to the future researchers to lengthen the time frame for
immersion of materials in solutions to get more accurate results. Moreover, it is also
recommended to research more about the chemicals to be used, and the sample that will be
utilized for the experiment. This is to avoid changing your materials before the whole duration of
the experiment. Lastly, the researchers recommend to the future researchers to use higher
technology and more digital apparatuses during the experiment so as to avoid the delay of
gathering data for the study.

6. Appendix
Calculations
Beaker 1
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (35 𝐾𝐾)
R= 𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾
= 260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3 = 0.0733 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾

Beaker 2
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (30 𝐾𝐾)
R= = = 0.0629 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾
𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾 260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3

Beaker 3
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (20 𝐾𝐾)
R= 𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾
=260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3 = 0.0419 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾

Beaker 4
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (15 𝐾𝐾)
R= 𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾
=260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3 = 0.0314 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾

Beaker 5
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (10 𝐾𝐾)
R= = = 0.0210 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾
𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾 260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3

Beaker 6
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (10 𝐾𝐾)
R= 𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾
=260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3 = 0.0210 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾

Beaker 7
𝐾 (𝐾𝐾 −𝐾𝐾) 3272 𝐾𝐾 (5 𝐾𝐾)
R= 𝐾⋅𝐾𝐾⋅𝐾
=260350 𝐾𝐾 2 ⋅120 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾⋅8.03𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾 3 = 0.0105 𝐾𝐾/𝐾𝐾

7. Bibliography
Ashta Chemicals Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2019, from

http://www.ashtachemicals.com/PDFs/Hydrochloric%20acid%20%28rev%2009-
12%29.pdf

Corrosive pool water - pool water chemistry and corrosion. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5,
2019, from https://www.askalanaquestion.com/corrosive_pool_water.htm
eBay. (n.d.). Your-Guide-to-Buying-Stainless-Steel-Jewelry-. Retrieved December 17,
2018, from https://www.ebay.com/gds/Your-Guide-to-Buying-Stainless-Steel-Jewelry-
/10000000177633099/g.html

Gamry.com. (2019). Calculation of Corrosion Rate. [online] Available at:

https://www.gamry.com/Framework%20Help/HTML5%20-%20Tripane%20-
%20Audience%20A/Content/EFM/Introduction/Calculation%20of%20Corrosion%20Rate.ht
m [Accessed 1 Mar. 2019].

GATE, Inc. - Oil & Gas Engineering. (2019). Corrosion Testing: Methods, Results &
Interpretation. [online] Available at: https://www.gateinc.com/gatekeeper/gat2004-gkp-
2013-09 [Accessed 1 Mar. 2019].

Hospira Sodium Bicarbonate Data Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2019, from
https://www.pfizer.com/sites/default/files/products/material_safety_data/Sodium_Bicarbona
te_Injection%28Hospira%29_30-June-2016.pdf

Liquid Chlorine/Cloro Liquido Safety Data Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2019, from
http://www.aniq.org.mx/pqta/pdf/E-20020-4%20SDS-Liquid_Chlorine.pdf

pH and chlorine values swimming pool - Water quality pool. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5,
2019, from https://www.pahlen.com/users-guide/ph-and-chlorine/

Polymer Solutions. (2015). Retrieved December 21, 2018, from

https://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/why-does-stainless-steel-rust/
Pure Chems Sodium Bicarbonate Material Safety Data Sheet. (n.d.-b). Retrieved January
13, 2019, from https://www.pure-chemical.com/msds/SODIUM%20BICARBONATE.pdf

WebCorr Corrosion Consulting Services Singapore. (n.d.). Corrosion Consulting Services,

Corrosion Short Courses and Corrosion Expert Witness. WebCorr has NACE certified
Corrosion Specialist providing corrosion consultancy, corrosion training courses and
corrosion expert witness. Retrieved January 13, 2019, from
http://www.corrosionclinic.com/index.html