Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-019-0263-3

Cathodic Protection Performance Evaluation of Magnesium Anodes

on Mild Steel Corrosion in 0.5 M ­H2SO4 and Seawater Environments
Cleophas Akintoye Loto1,2 · Roland Tolulope Loto1 · Abimbola Patricia Popoola2

Received: 9 January 2019 / Revised: 22 March 2019 / Accepted: 20 June 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
The performance of two different sizes of galvanic magnesium anodes on the cathodic protection of mild steel in 0.5 M
sulphuric acid and seawater was evaluated at room temperature of 27 °C. The cathodic protection reactions process was
observed by weight-loss method, its corresponding corrosion rate calculation and potential measurement method. The
­ 2SO4, the experiment
magnesium anodes were observed to be effective as sacrificial anode in the tested environments. In H
recorded very low weight loss of mild steel throughout the experiment. The magnesium anode with a larger cross-sectional
area (magnesium anode 2) recorded a weight loss of 0.0095 g (9.5 mg) and corrosion rate (C.R.) of 0.007 mm/year; smaller
size anode (magnesium anode 1) achieved 0.0785 g (78.5 mg) weight loss and C.R. of 0.062 mm/year during the same time
of 21st day of the experiment. With magnesium anode 2 (bigger size) the potential ranged between − 0.467 V (− 467 mV)
and − 0.441 V (mV) from the start to the end. For magnesium anode 1 (slightly smaller size) the electrode potential ranged
between − 0.524 V (− 524 mV) and (− 0.441 V). In seawater environment, similar low value results were obtained. Mg (anode
2) recorded 0.0008 g (0.80 mg); the smaller anode (Ng anode1) recorded 0.0011 g (1.1 mg) weight loss at 21 days of the
experiment. The results obtained for the potential measurement bear close correlation with the weight-loss method in both
the sulphuric acid and seawater. The varying anode cross-sectional areas used showed the anode size effects.

Keywords  Corrosion · Cathodic protection · Magnesium anodes · Mild steel · Sulphuric acid · Seawater

1 Introduction of the global GDP (2013). By using available corrosion con-

Materials degradation and deterioration by electrochemical
reactions that cause corrosion is one of the biggest chal-
lenges facing our ageing infrastructure today. Many gov-
ernment studies indicate that in the US alone, costs due to
corrosion loss is more than $276 billion annually [1].
The global cost according to recent NACE studies [2] is
estimated to be US$2.5 trillion which is equivalent to 3.4%
* Cleophas Akintoye Loto
akinloto@gmail.com
Roland Tolulope Loto
tolu.loto@gmail.com
Abimbola Patricia Popoola
Popoolaapi@tut.ac.za
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Covenant
University, Canaan Land, Ota, Nigeria
2
Department of Chemical, Metallurgical and Materials
Engineering, Tshwane University of Technology,
Pretoria 0001, South Africa
trol practices, it is estimated that savings of between 15 and
35% of the cost of corrosion could be realised; i.e. between
US$375 and $875 billion annually on a global basis. This
tremendous cost is less surprising when we consider that
corrosion occurs, with varying degrees of severity wherever
metals and other materials are used. Most of the corrosion
loss on the infrastructure can be prevented by science and
technology that is available to us today.
Cathodic protection technique is one of the various meth-
ods available to prevent or control corrosion. It is a proce-
dure used to protect an object from corrosion by making it
a cathode. Cathodic protection is an electrochemical means
of corrosion control in which the oxidation reaction in a
galvanic cell is concentrated at the anode and suppresses
corrosion of the cathode in the same cell. This is achieved
by placing a more easily corroded metal to act as the anode
of the electrochemical cell in contact with the metal to be
protected. This technique was first used in 1824 by Sir Hum-
phry Davy who described it in a series of papers presented
to the Royal Society [3] in London. Cathodic protection is a

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 72   Page 2 of 7
widely used method for controlling the corrosion of metallic
structures in contact with many types of conducting envi-
ronments such as seawater, soils, acids, alkalis and natural
waters. Cathodic protection essentially reduces the corrosion
rate of a metallic structure by reducing its corrosion poten-
tial, bringing the metal closer to an immune state.
Cathodic protection systems are most commonly used to
protect steel, water/fuel pipelines and storage tanks; steel
pier piles, ships, offshore oil platforms and onshore oil well
casings among others. In some cases, cathodic protection
can be an effective method of controlling stress corrosion
cracking. There is still keen interest in research on cathodic
protection by corrosion research scientist [4–14] due to its
technological and economic importance.
A side effect of improperly performed cathodic protec-
tion may, however, be the production of molecular hydrogen,
leading to its absorption in the protected metal and subse-
quent hydrogen embrittlement [15]. Hydrogen embrittlement
is the process by which various metals, most importantly
high-strength steel, become brittle and crack following expo-
sure to hydrogen. This may lead to catastrophic failures. It
may also cause disbondment of coatings; the coating would
then act as an insulating shield to the cathodic protection
currents. It cannot be used to prevent atmospheric corrosion
on metals.
The two mostly used methods of CP are the galvanic or
sacrificial anode method and the impressed current cathodic
protection. Galvanic anode systems employ reactive metals
as auxiliary anodes that are directly electrically connected to
the steel to be protected. Impressed-current systems employ
inert anodes and use an external source of DC power to
impress a current from an external anode onto the cathode
surface. Galvanic or sacrificial anodes are made in various
shapes using alloys of zinc, magnesium and aluminium.
The electrochemical potential, current capacity and con-
sumption rate of these alloys are superior for CP than iron.
A sacrificial anode, or sacrificial rod, is a metallic anode
used in an electrochemical process where it is intended to
be dissolved to protect other metallic components. Galvanic
anodes are designed and selected to have a more “active”
voltage (technically a more negative electrochemical poten-
tial) than the metal of the structure (typically steel). Sacri-
ficial protection is inexpensive because it has the obvious
advantage that it does not need any external power source.
It also gives a fairly uniform distribution of current, but that
current output is low and the only way to increase it is to use
more anodes. Little or no maintenance is required except
to replace the anode, which should be necessary only after
several years of service. But because the system is cheap
and simple, there is usually no convenient way to monitor
the amount of protection being given [16].
There are many examples of the application of sacrifi-
cial anodes and these include ships, hulls, offshore oil and
13
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72
gas drilling rigs, production platforms/semisubmersibles
and support underwater pipelines, underground pipelines,
buried structures, harbour piling and jetties, floating docks,
dolphins, buoys, lock gates and submerged concrete struc-
tures. There are many other uses, including a large range of
industrial equipment where the surfaces are in contact with
corrosive electrolytes e.g. heat exchangers, pump impellers
and vessel internals [17].
The impressed current cathodic protection is used for
larger structures that galvanic anodes could not economically
deliver current to provide complete protection. Impressed
current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems use anodes con-
nected to a DC power source (a cathodic protection rectifier).
Anodes for ICCP systems include silicon, cast iron, graphite,
mixed metal oxide, platinum and niobium coated wire.
Cathodic protection (CP) is widely applied for corrosion
prevention on steel structures in contact with sea water;
one of its most important applications is the protection of
platforms and submerged structures. However, the severe
environmental conditions in deep water which is character-
ised by the absence of oxygen (then possibly promoting the
growth of sulphate-reducing bacteria), the presence of sul-
phides and neutral to slightly acidic pH are factors that could
influence chemical equilibrium (in particular, carbonate and
bicarbonate), and thus modifying the protection conditions
and affecting the electrochemical behaviour of the anodic
material [18].
Cathodic protection has performed tremendous roles
in the sustainability and longevity of engineering metallic
materials in service. This investigation focuses on contin-
uous efforts being made to improve the efficiency of this
method to mitigate the debilitating effect of corrosion in the
society. This could enhance wider engineering applications
and the economic benefits.
This experimental work examines the performance of
magnesium alloy as sacrificial anodes for the cathodic pro-
tection of mild steel in both sea water and sulphuric acid
media. It aims at investigating the rate of corrosion of the
test specimens and the corresponding protection effective-
ness of the anodes at the tested conditions.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Preparation of Specimens
The mild steel and magnesium anode plates used for this work
were locally obtained in Nigeria. The mild steel specimen had
a percent nominal chemical composition of 0.130 C, 0.147
Cu, 0.173 Si, 0.397 Mn, 0.017 P, 0.031 S, 0.010 Co, 0.0005
Ca, 0.021 Zn and the rest 99.2 Fe. The magnesium anode
used had ~ 99.36% magnesium composition. The seawater
was that of the Atlantic Ocean obtained from Bar-beach shore
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72 Page 3 of 7  72

0.35 0.3

Corrosion Rate (mmpy)

0.3 0.25
Weight Loss (g)

0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0
Exposure Time (days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Exposure Time (Days)
MS with Magnesium anode 1 (g) MS with Magnesium anode 2 (g)
MS with Magnesium anode 1 (g) MS with Magnesium anode 2 (g)
Mild steel (MS) only (Control) (g)
Mild steel (MS) only (Control) (g)

Fig. 1  Weight loss with exposure time of mild steel protected with

Mg anodes in H­ 2SO4 Fig. 2  Corrosion rate with exposure time of mild steel in sulphuric
acid

of Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria. The sulphuric acid was of

AnalaR grade. The concentration of the acid used was 0.5 M 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
­H2SO4. The metallic test samples were cut into dimensions -0.1

Potential vs. SCE (V)

-0.2
of 200 mm × 350 mm × 3 mm. They were initially pickled in
-0.3
dilute hydrochloric acid, HCl. These test specimens were then -0.4
ground with silicon abrasive paper of 60, 120, 220, 320 grits, -0.5
polished to 1 μm, cleaned thoroughly with distilled water/ -0.6
ethanol, dried and kept in a desiccator for further weight-loss -0.7
experimental tests. Some selected specimens were in turn, -0.8
-0.9
mounted in araldite resin after spot welding to the connect- Exposure Time (Days)
ing insulated flexible wire. They were to be used for potential Magnesium anode 1 (g) Magnesium anode 2
measurements of the steel test specimens/galvanic anodes Mild steel (Control) (g)
(Mg). There were two types of magnesium anodes used with
variables dimensions of: (i) 15 × 30 mm = 450 mm2 (4.5 cm2) Fig. 3  Plot of potential with exposure time of mild steel in sulphuric
surface area and designated as ‘magnesium anode 1’ and (ii) acid
20 × 25 mm = 500 mm2 (5 cm2) surface area and designated
as ‘magnesium anode 2’.
0.003
2.2 Weight‑Loss Experiment 0.0025
Weight Loss (g)

0.002
Weighed test pieces were fully and separately immersed for 0.0015
21 days in each of the different beakers containing the 0.5 M
0.001
­H2SO4, Seawater and 0.5 M ­H2SO4 + Seawater in which the
0.0005
test pieces were separately protected by wire connection to
0
each of the magnesium anodes. Each of the test specimens
0 5 10 15 20 25
and the anodes was taken out every 3 days, washed with dis- Exposure Time (days)
tilled water, rinsed with ethanol, dried and re-weighed. Plots MS with Magnesium anode 1 (g) MS with Magnesium anode 2 (g)
of weight loss versus exposure time and corrosion rate versus Mild steel (MS) only Control (g)
exposure time were made (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). Similar
experiment as above was done for the unprotected specimens, Fig. 4  Weight loss with exposure time of mild steel protected with
that is, those that were not protected with magnesium anodes. Mg anodes in seawater
Weight-loss corrosion rate was employed as an evaluation
method because it is an effective method to determine the
corrosion rate covering the entire testing period as opposed where, W = Weight loss in milligrams; D = Metal density
to the LPR measurements which represent the corrosion rate in g/cm3, A = Exposed area of sample in c­ m2; T = Time of
at a specific time in the testing. Corrosion rate was calculated exposure of the metal sample in hours.
from the formula in Eq. 1.
C. R.(mm∕y) = 87 × (W∕DAT) (1)

13
 72   Page 4 of 7 Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72

Corrosion Rate (mmpy)

0.0025 3 Results and Discussion
0.002
The principle of cathodic protection can be explained to
0.0015
be derived from a situation such as when two metals are
0.001 electrically connected to each other and placed/immersed
in an electrolyte such as acid or seawater, electrons will
0.0005
flow from the more active metal to the other due to the
0 differences in electrical potential—which is the driving
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Exposure Time (Days)
force. Anode, the more active metal, supplies current and
dissolves gradually into ions in the electrolyte, and at the
MS with Magnesium anode 1 (g) MS with Magnesium anode 2 (g)
same time produces electrons which the cathode (the less
Mild steel (MS) only Control (g)
active) receives through the metallic connection (galvanic)
with the anode. The cathode is thus negatively polarised
Fig. 5  Corrosion rate with exposure time of mild steel protected with
and becomes protected from corrosion [19].
Mg anodes in seawater

3.1 Sulphuric Acid Environment

0
Potential vs. SCE (V)

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
3.1.1 Weight Loss and Corrosion Rate of Mild Steel
-0.2

-0.4 Presented in Figs. 1, 2 are the results obtained for the

-0.6
-0.8
Exposure Time (Days)
Magnesium anode 1 (g)
Mild steel (Control) (g)
Fig. 6  Plot of potential with exposure time of mild steel in seawater
2.3 Potential Measurements
The prepared specimens were tested for potential meas-
urements. They were immersed, in turns, in the test media
after being connected to the magnesium anode. Potential
measurement tests were also performed in the different
test media for the unprotected test specimens, that is,
those not connected with the Mg anodes. The potential
was recorded at every 3-day interval using a digital volt-
meter and saturated calomel electrode as the reference
electrode. Plots of potential (vs. SCE) with the exposure
time were made. It is important to mention that all the
experiments in this investigation were performed at the
room temperature of 27.
2.4 Photomicrographs
Photomicrographs were made from the surface of the
representative specimens at very low magnifications of
optical microscope (× 50), and are presented in Fig. 7.
Magnesium anode 2 (g)
specimens immersed in 0.5 M H ­ 2SO4 using separately two
magnesium anodes of different sizes and surface areas for
the cathodic protection of the mild steel specimens. In
Fig. 1, it could be observed that there was a consider-
able very low weight loss of mild steel throughout the
experiment with the magnesium anode with a larger cross-
sectional area (magnesium anode 2) recording a weight
loss of 0.0095 g (9.5 mg) as against the relatively smaller
size anode (magnesium anode 1) which achieved 0.0785 g
(78.5 mg) weight loss during the same time of 21st day
of the experiment. The weight-loss results recorded for
the experiment with unprotected mild steel was 0.298 g
(298 mg) at the same period of the experiment which was
comparatively significantly higher. The clear observation
from the anode protected results is that the rate of loss of
metal to corrosion in this test medium decreased with the
increase in the magnesium anode surface area.
The corresponding corrosion rate results presented in
Fig. 2 followed the same trend as above. While with the
Mg anode 2, a mild steel corrosion rate of just 0.007 mm/
year was recorded; it was clearly different with the smaller
size anode, the Mg anode 1, in which the corrosion rate
was 0.062 mm/year. It must be remembered that the two
anodes of the same stock were sacrificial anodes to pro-
tect the mild steel. The unprotected mild steel underwent
apparent corrosion in the H ­ 2SO4 test medium. As at the
21st day of the experiment, it recorded 0.298 mm/year cor-
rosion rate. This result was not unexpected as the test acid
was a strong one and its corrosion degradation effect on
mild steel is already well-known. It could be observed that
the two anodes performed well relatively but the slightly
bigger anode performed better due to size effect.

13
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72 Page 5 of 7  72
Fig. 7  Surface optical photomicrographs of mild steel specimens
under various conditions: a = as-received; b = in ­H2SO4 unpro-
tected—control; c = in sulphuric acid and protected with Mg anode;
3.1.2 Potential Measurements
Figure 3 shows the results obtained for the potential meas-
urement of mild steel specimens protected by magnesium
anodes and also, the specimen not protected in sulphuric
acid. The mild steel specimens protected with the two mag-
nesium anodes (different in size) had slightly fluctuating
electrode potentials that put them in the protective passive
range right from the start of the experiment to the end. The
electrode potential recorded with the use of magnesium
anode 2 (bigger size) ranged from the start with a value
of − 0.467 V (− 467 mV) and ended with − 0.441 V (mV).
Likewise with the use of magnesium anode 1 (slightly
smaller size) the electrode potential started with − 0.524 V
(− 524 mV) and ended on the 21st day of the experiment
as like the use of magnesium anode 2 value (− 0.441 V).
From the results, the curves crisscrossed each other, that
is, their electrochemical corrosion reactions behaviour were
similar and very close indeed. The result of the unprotected
mild steel was distinctly different. It started with a potential
value of − 0.550 V (− 550 mV) and decreased steadily to
− 0.793 V (− 793 mV) after 21 days. This result indicates the
vulnerability of the unprotected test electrode with the mag-
nesium sacrificial anode to the corrosive attack of ­H2SO4.
d = in seawater and protected with Mg anode. All the mild steel speci-
mens used here were protected with the larger Mg anode 2
3.2 Seawater Environment
3.2.1 Weight Loss and Corrosion Rate of Mild Steel
The results obtained for the weight loss and the corre-
sponding corrosion rate versus exposure time for the steel
specimens immersed in seawater and protected with mag-
nesium anodes specimens are presented in Figs. 4, 5. In
Fig. 4, the results obtained for the unprotected mild steel
recorded 0.0027 g (2.7 mg) at 21 days of the experiment.
The slightly bigger magnesium anode (magnesium anode
2) recorded 0.0008 g (0.80 mg) weight loss and the sec-
ond anode (relatively smaller) had a weight loss of 0.0011 g
(1.1 mg) at 21 days of the experiment. Apparently, the short
experimental period seemed short to achieve more weight
loss quantitatively.
The corresponding corrosion rate is presented in Fig. 5.
The same trend as above was followed. The unprotected mild
steel specimen recorded a corrosion rate of 0.0021 mm/year;
while the magnesium anode 1 and 2 recorded 0.0008 and
0.0006 mm/year respectively. In Fig. 5, it can be seen that
the corrosion rate of mild steel protected with large magne-
sium anode is relatively more stable and lower than that of the
13
 72   Page 6 of 7
smaller magnesium anode. The impact of the anode size effect
on the cathodic protection performance is also here confirmed.
3.2.2 Potential Measurements
Figure 6 shows the results obtained for the potential meas-
urement of the mild steel specimens protected with magne-
sium anode and also the unprotected specimens in seawater in
0.5 M H2SO4. The electrode potentials obtained for the mild
steel specimens protected with the bigger magnesium anode
ranged from − 0.475 V (− 475) to − 0.43 V (− 483 Mv) after
21 days. The smaller anode’s electrode potential also ranged
from − 0.564 V (− 564 mV) at start to − 0.605 V (− 605 mV)
at 21 days. The unprotected mild steel specimen’s potential,
started with − 0.651 V (− 651 mV) and ended with − 0.698 V
(− 698 mV) at 21 days. All the curves featured some sight
fluctuations. While the electrochemical reactions behaviour
of the magnesium anode protected specimens were within the
passive electrode potentials range, the unprotected specimens
fell slightly outside the passive electrode potentials range and
indicating some active corrosion reactions. These results are
essentially in agreement with results obtained for the gravi-
metric experiments.
In summary, as could be observed from Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6, a relatively greater weight loss was achieved for the mild
steel protected with the smaller magnesium anode than the
bigger anode. The deduction, therefore, is that the rate of loss
of metal to corrosion decreases as the area of the magnesium
sacrificial anode increases. When all the results are compared,
the overall positive effect of the magnesium sacrificial anode
cathodic protection can be clearly observed.
In general, as previously mentioned [20], galvanic anodes
are designed and selected to have a more “active” voltage- that
is, technically having more negative electrochemical potential
than the metal of the structure/component, usually steel. By
mechanism, for effective cathodic protection, CP, the potential
of the metal electrode (steel) surface is polarised (pushed) to
more negative direction until the surface has a uniform poten-
tial. At this stage, the driving force (difference in potential) for
the corrosion reaction is halted. There is continued corrosion
of galvanic or sacrificial anode with the consumption of the
anode material until eventual replacement. The current flow
from the anode to the cathode causes the polarisation. The dif-
ference in electrochemical potential between the anode and the
cathode is the driving force for the CP current flow.
4 Optical Microscopy Photomicrographs
The photomicrographs obtained from the surface of the rep-
resentative specimens at very low magnifications of optical
microscope, are presented in Fig. 7 and designated as A, B,
C and D.
13
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72
Figure 7a shows the microstructural surface as-received;
while Fig. 7b shows the surface after immersion in 0.5 M
sulphuric acid at 21 days and unprotected with the magne-
sium anode that is, the control experiment. Though not very
clear, the surface feature was that of general corrosion. The
photomicrograph obtained for the specimen immersed in
sulphuric acid and protected with the Mg anode, C, showed
minimal surface corrosion when compared with the untested
specimen. The specimen immersed in seawater, D, and pro-
tected with the anode did not show visible corrosion. These
observations are in agreement with the gravimetric and elec-
trode potential electrochemical corrosion results.
5 Conclusions
1. Magnesium anode was protective for mild steel test elec-
trode in seawater.
­ 2SO4 the magnesium sacrificial anode was
2. In the 0.5 M H
also found to be protective for mild steel specimens. It
can therefore be effectively used at ambient temperatures
for cathodic protection in this strong acid environment.
3. The different sizes of the magnesium anode used for
cathodic protection showed variation in performance.
The bigger the anode, the better the protective perfor-
mance due to the more electrons supplied to protect the
cathode. Also, the bigger size anode takes longer time
for replacement.
Acknowledgements  The authors acknowledge the support of Covenant
University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ota, Nigeria for
providing the research facilities for this work. The laboratory work
contribution of Mr. Henry Ajisegiri is also acknowledged.
Compliance with Ethical Standards 
Conflict of interest  The author declares that there is no conflict of in-
terest.
References
1. Michel PH, Brongers CC, Gerhardus HK, Neil G (2010) Corro-
sion costs and preventive strategies in the United States. Publica-
tion No. FHWA-RD-01-156. Technologie and NACE. https//www.
Nace.or/uploadedfiles/publications/ccsupp.pdf Accessed 09 Jan
2019
2. NACE International—IMPACT (2019) http://impac​t.nace.org/
econo​mic-impac​t.aspx. Accessed 09 Jan 2019
3. Davey H (1824) Recollections of the development of my mind
and character. Phil Trans Roy Soc 114; 151-242 and 328. Adapted
from Cathodic Protection. Wikipedia, http://en.Wikip​edia.org.
Accessed 08 Jan 2019
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion (2019) 5:72 Page 7 of 7  72
4. Gan F, Sun Z-W, Sabde G, Chin D-T (1994) Cathodic protection
to mitigate external corrosion of underground steel pipe beneath
disbonded coating. CORROSION 50(10):804–816. https​://doi.
org/10.5006/1.32934​70
5. Parthiban GT, Ravi R, Saraswathy V, Palaniswamy N, Sivan V
(2008) Cathodic protection of steel in concrete using magnesium
alloy anode. Corros Sci 50(12):3329–3335
6. Moe-Cheuna MS, Chong C (2013) Application of cathodic protec-
tion for controlling macrocell corrosion in chloride contaminated
RC structures. Constr Build Mater 45(8):199–207
7. Stratfull RF (1974) Experimental cathodic protection of a bridge
deck. Transp Res Rec 500:1–15
8. Rousseau C, Barand F, Lelyter L, Gil O (2009) Cathodic protec-
tion by zinc sacrificial anodes: impact on marine sediment metal-
lic contamination. J Hazard Mater 167(8):953–958
9. Mao A, Mahaut M-L, Pineau S, Barillier D, Caplat C (2011)
Assessment of sacrificial anode impact by aluminium accumula-
tion in mussel Mytilus edulis: a large scale laboratory test. Mar
Pollut Bull 62(10):2707–2713
10. Atshan Ahmed A, Hasan Basim O, Ali Mohammed H (2013)
Effect of anode type and position on the cathodic protection of
carbon steel in sea water. Int J Curr Eng Technol 3(5):2017–2024
11. Ukpong I, Bamgboye O, Soriya O (2018) Synergistic inhibition
of mild steel corrosion in seawater and acidic medium by cathodic
protection and Monodora myristica using zinc anode. Int J Corros
5:1–8. https​://doi.org/10.1155/2018/56489​07
12. Hassan Basim O, Sahir MA (2017) Corrosion of carbon steel in
two phase flow ­(CO2 gas-CaCO3 solution) controlled by sacrificial
anode. J Natl Gas Sci Eng 25:12. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse​
.2017.06.032
13. Narozny M, Zakowski K, Darowicki K (2018) Application of
electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to evaluate cathodically
coated steel in seawater. Constr Build Mater 181:721–726. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2018.06.033
14. Khadom AA, Hameed KW (2012) Prevention of steel corrosion
by cathodic protection techniques. Int J Chem Technol 4(1):17–30
15. Cathodic Protection (2019) Wikipedia, http://en.wikip​edia.org.
pp. 4. Accessed 08 Jan 2019
16. Bradford SA (2001) Corro. Control, 2nd edn. Casi Publishing Inc.,
Alberta
17. Allen MD, Barnes NR (1988) Combination of corrosion survey
methods improves protection. Oil Gas J 86(9):5
18. Fabio B (2006) Test results on sacrificial anodes used for seawater,
CORROSION, March 12–16, NACE Int. Paper Number 06297
19. Dick B, Jim B (2006) Protection against atmospheric corrosion.
Deep Corrosion Services Inc, Houston
20. Loto CA, Popoola API (2011) Effect of anode size and variations
on the cathodic protection of mild steel in seawater and sulphuric
acid. Int J Phys Sci 6(12):2861–2868
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13