Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

www.elsevier.com/locate/corsci

Validation of corrosion rates measured

by the Tafel extrapolation method
E. McCafferty *

Professorial Lecturer Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering

and Applied Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, United States

Received 15 March 2005; accepted 14 May 2005

Available online 16 September 2005

Abstract

This paper discusses the validity and limitations of the Tafel extrapolation method for the
determination of corrosion rates for activation-controlled corrosion processes. Experimental
corrosion rates determined by the Tafel method are compared with corrosion rates obtained
by an independent chemical (i.e., non-electrochemical) method for iron in hydrochloric acid,
iron in 3.5% NaCl, and for titanium in boiling 1 M sulfuric acid. The methods of confirmation
of the corrosion rates involved colorimetric analysis of the dissolved cation or the use of an
ion-implanted inert Xe marker. Additional examples taken from the literature involving other
metals and other methods of validation are also discussed.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tafel equation; Tafel extrapolation; Corrosion rates; Uniform corrosion; Iron; Titanium

1. Introduction

One of the major laws in electrochemistry is due to Tafel [1], who in 1905 estab-
lished what Bockris and Reddy [2] consider to be the most frequently used law in
electrochemistry. According to TafelÕs law, which was empirically observed, the

*
Address: Consultant, Chemistry Division, Code 6134, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
20375, United States. Fax: +1 202 767 4642.

0010-938X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2005.05.046
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3203

logarithm of the current density in an electrochemical reaction varies linearly with

the electrode potential (at potentials removed from the open-circuit rest potential).
An appreciation of TafelÕs law with regard to corrosion reactions, however, de-
pended upon several subsequent developments. For electrode processes involving a
slow reaction step at the electrode surface (activation polarization), application of
the absolute reaction rate theory of Eyring et al. [3] resulted in the well-known But-
ler–Volmer equation [4]. This equation relates the net current density, i, for a single
electrode process, such as
Fe ! Fe2þ + 2e ð1Þ
to the electrode potential, E:
i ¼ i0 ½eanF ðEE0 Þ=RT  eð1aÞnF ðEE0 Þ=RT  ð2Þ
where i0 is the exchange current density (rate of either the forward or reverse half-cell
reaction) at the equilibrium potential E0, a is the transfer coefficient (usually 0.5),
and n is the number of electrons transferred.
It is well known that the electrochemistry of corroding metals involves two or
more half-cell reactions. For example, for iron in acid solutions, in addition to
Eq. (1), the following half-cell reaction also occurs:
2Hþ + 2e ! H2 ð3Þ
In their landmark paper on the mixed potential theory of corrosion published in
1938 Wagner and Traud [5] gave a detailed account of uniform corrosion based
on the principle of superposition of the partial current–voltage curves for each of
the partial half-cell reactions. For the dissolution of iron in acid solutions, at equi-
librium the total cathodic rate is equal to the total anodic rate:
ji! !
H j þ jiFe j ¼ iH þ iFe ð4Þ
where the forward arrow refers to the cathodic direction. Thus, ji! H j refers to the rate
of the reduction reaction in Eq. (3).
The electrode potential of the steady-state freely corroding condition given by Eq.
(4) is called the corrosion potential Ecorr, which lies between the equilibrium poten-
tials of the two individual half-cell reactions. At Ecorr, Eq. (4) gives:
iFe  ji! !
Fe j ¼ jiH j  iH ¼ icorr ð5Þ
Thus, the net rate of either iron dissolution or hydrogen evolution can be measured
at Ecorr to give the uniform corrosion rate icorr at the freely corroding condition.
Moreover, for such a system the Butler–Volmer equation is modified to give:

i ¼ icorr ½eanF ðEEcorr Þ=RT  eð1aÞnF ðEEcorr Þ=RT  ð6Þ

When the rate of the back reaction is negligible, Eq. (6) gives:
E ¼ a þ b log i ð7Þ
where a and b are constants. Eq. (7) is TafelÕs law. Moreover, in Eq. (6), when
E = Ecorr, then i = icorr. This is the basis for the Tafel extrapolation.
3204 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

A series of contributions from Stern [6–9] placed this method on a firm theoretical
and experimental basis. At the time of the publication of these papers, there was con-
siderable uncertainty as to the interpretation of electrochemical polarization curves.
Final acceptance of the use of polarization curves in the determination of corrosion
rates depended upon the experimental (and non-electrochemical) independent valida-
tion of corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method. The purpose of
this paper is to examine several corrosion systems in which non-electrochemical vali-
dation has been provided for corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation
method.

2. Examples considered

Three examples are taken from the authorÕs previous work. These are the corro-
sion of iron in acid solutions [10], the corrosion of iron in neutral 3.5% NaCl [11],
and the corrosion of titanium in boiling sulfuric acid [12]. Additional examples for
other metals in various aqueous solutions are also cited.

2.1. Iron in acid solutions

Various investigators have shown that iron [13–18], aluminum [19–21], zinc [22–
24] and other metals [25–28] immersed in acid solutions display anodic and cathodic
regions of Tafel behavior. In the case of iron, the anodic half-cell reaction is given by
Eq. (1), and the cathodic half-cell reaction is given by Eq. (3). The overall chemical
reaction is the sum of these two half-cell reactions:
Fe + 2Hþ ! Fe2þ + H2 ð8Þ
The overall chemical reaction in Eq. (8) suggests four ways to determine the cor-
rosion rate by chemical (non-electrochemical) means. These are: (1) to determine the
quantity of solid iron lost due to corrosion by measuring the weight loss (or thick-
ness lost) of the metallic iron specimen, (2) to measure the concentration of dissolved
Fe2+ ions which are produced in solution, (3) to determine the quantity of hydrogen
gas which is produced by the corrosion reaction, and (4) to determine pH changes in
solution caused by the consumption of H+ ions.
With regard to the last method listed immediately above, usually the volume of
the aqueous solution involved is sufficiently large so that pH changes are too small
to be measured. However, changes in pH can be important in thin-layer condensed
electrolytes, such as in atmospheric corrosion, or for vigorous reactions in small vol-
umes of electrolyte. For example, the dissolution of Al alloy 7075 in acid environ-
ments was shown to cease in small volumes of electrolyte when the supply of
available H+ ions had been consumed [29].
Fig. 1 shows anodic and cathodic polarization curves for pure iron in 1 M HCl
after 24 h immersion [10]. These polarization curves were determined by the poten-
tiostatic method using 10–15 mV increments of potential, and steady state currents
were observed within 20 min at each applied potential. Both the anodic and cathodic
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3205

10000

1000
Current Density in µA/cm2

100

icorr

10

Anodic Cathodic
1
-0.35 -0.40 -0.45 -0.50 -0.55 -0.60 -0.65

E in V vs. S.C.E.

Fig. 1. Polarization curves for iron in de-aerated 1 M HCl [10].

branches of the polarization curve display Tafel behavior, and the Tafel slopes can
be extrapolated back to the open-circuit corrosion potential to give a corrosion cur-
rent rate of 30 lA/cm2.
The open-circuit free corrosion rate was also determined separately by the color-
imetric analysis of dissolved Fe2+ ions using the o-phenanthroline method. Known
aliquots of the solution containing dissolved Fe2+ ions were withdrawn as a function
of time and were analyzed to produce the corrosion-time curve shown in Fig. 2. As
shown in Fig. 2, the corrosion rate determined in this manner was 0.665 lmol Fe2+/
cm2 h. From FaradayÕs law, this rate corresponds to a corrosion current density of
36 lA/cm2, in good agreement with the value determined by the Tafel extrapolation
method.

2.2. Iron in 3.5% NaCl open to the air

In neutral solutions, such as 3.5% NaCl open to the air, the predominant cathodic
half-cell reaction is
O2 + 2H2 O + 4e ! 4OH ð9Þ
rather than the hydrogen evolution reaction which occurs in acid solutions.
Polarization curves for iron after 24 h immersion in 3.5% NaCl solution (0.6 M)
are shown in Fig. 3 [11]. The solution was open to the air and was unstirred (quies-
cent). The chloride concentration is the same as in natural seawater (although the
solution does not contain the various other anions, cations, or organic matter found
in small concentrations in natural seawater). Polarization curves were determined by
the potentiostatic method.
3206 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

25

20
µMoles Fe2+/cm2

15

10

Slope = 0.665 mmoles Fe2+/cm2 hr

= 36 µA/cm2
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time in Hours

Fig. 2. Corrosion-time curve determined by colorimetric analysis of the solution for iron in de-aerated
1 M HCl [10].

10000

1000
Current Density in µA/cm2

100

10

Anodic Cathodic
1
-0.60 -0.70 -0.80 -0.90
E in V vs. Ag/AgCl

Fig. 3. Polarization curves for iron in a quiescent solution of 0.6 M NaCl open to the air [11].
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3207

It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the anodic dissolution of iron in 3.5% NaCl obeys
TafelsÕ law. However, the cathodic polarization curve displays a limiting diffusion
current iL due to the reduction of oxygen according to Eq. (9). Thus, the cathodic
process is controlled by concentration polarization rather than activation polariza-
tion. Nevertheless, both branches can be extrapolated back to the corrosion poten-
tial Ecorr to give the corrosion rate icorr. This is because at the open-circuit corrosion
potential, the net rate of iron dissolution is equal to the net rate of oxygen reduction,
iL. From Fig. 3, the result is icorr = 25 lA/cm2.
Such short-term laboratory experiments in simulated environments are limited in
their ability to predict longer term corrosion rates in natural environments of inter-
est. However, it is useful to compare the short-term behavior of iron in 3.5% NaCl
with the longer term behavior of plain carbon steel in seawater. Using FaradayÕs law
and the density of Fe, a corrosion rate of 25 lA/cm2 is equivalent to a uniform pen-
etration rate of 12 mpy (mils per year, where 1 mil = 0.001 in.). The actual corrosion
rate of plain carbon steel (AISI 1020 steel) in quiet surface water is up to 15 mpy in
the first year and then decreases to 5 mpy after 1000 days [30]. Thus, the agreement
between the laboratory test and actual exposure rates is a reasonable one, so that the
Tafel extrapolation method is useful in this particular application.

2.3. Titanium in boiling sulfuric acid

Titanium has a low corrosion rate in most aqueous solutions, although a notable
exception is for hot acid solutions where titanium displays high corrosion rates.
Fig. 4 shows polarization curves of pure titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12]. These

100
Current Density in mA/cm2

10

Anodic Cathodic
0.1
-0.80 -0.90 -1.00 -1.10 -1.20 -1.30 -1.40
E in V vs. Hg/Hg2SO4

Fig. 4. Polarization curves for titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

3208 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

curves were determined potentiostatically after the steady-state open-circuit poten-

tial had been first obtained (2.5 h immersion). The anodic polarization curve does
not display an extensive Tafel region, and the anodic curve has an active/passive
transition, as has been observed previously for titanium at various temperatures
[31–33]. The existence of a dissolution reaction in conjunction with the onset of a
passivation reaction does not result in a well-defined experimental anodic Tafel
region.
However, it is possible to calculate the anodic Tafel line from the experimental
data, as shown in Fig. 5. The Tafel line of the cathodic polarization curve is first ex-
tended to electrode potentials below the corrosion potential, and then the anodic
current density ia is calculated from
inet ¼ ðiFe þ iH Þ  ðji! !
H j þ jiFe jÞ ð10Þ
or, simply:
ia ðnet experimentalÞ ¼ ia  jic j ð11Þ
where jicj is the cathodic current density. Thus, the anodic current density ia is the
sum of the experimentally observed anodic current density and the extrapolated
cathodic current density. The result from Fig. 5 is that icorr = 1.9 mA/cm2.
The corrosion rate of titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 was also determined by two
different non-electrochemical techniques: (1) colorimetric analysis of dissolved tita-
nium, and (2) the use of implanted Xe (xenon) as an inert marker.

10
Calculated anodic

Anodic Tafel line

Current Density in mA/cm2

Experimental
anodic

Experimental
cathodic

Extrapolated
cathodic

0.1
-1.05 -1.10 -1.15 -1.20 -1.25 -1.30

E in V vs. Hg/Hg2SO4

Fig. 5. An expanded view near the corrosion potential of polarization curves of titanium in boiling 1 M
H2SO4.
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3209

12

10

Ti Dissolved in mg/cm2
8

Slope = 2.0 mg/cm2 hr

4 = 2.2 mA/cm2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Hours

Fig. 6. Colorimetric analysis of dissolved titanium in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

Fig. 6 shows corrosion time curves for freely corroding titanium in boiling 1 M
H2SO4. The concentration of dissolved titanium was determined colorimetrically
using the hydrogen peroxide method. From FaradayÕs law, the slope of 2.0 mg/
cm2 h in Fig. 6 corresponds to a corrosion current density of 2.2 ma/cm2, assuming
that the dissolution of Ti occurs as Ti2+ [33], the lowest oxidation state for titanium
ions.
In the inert marker method, ion-implanted Xe is used in conjunction with the sur-
face analysis technique of Rutherford backscattering (RBS). Ion implanted Xe was
placed in the near-surface region of titanium by allowing a 90 keV beam of Xe ions
of fluence 3.5 · 1015 ions/cm2 to bombard the titanium surface held in a high vacuum
ion implantation system [12]. The RBS method is a surface analysis method which
use He atoms (a particles) as collider particles to probe the composition of the sur-
face [34].
Fig. 7 shows RBS data for the ion-implanted Xe in pure titanium before immer-
sion into boiling 1 M H2SO4. After immersion, the Xe signal is diminished because
Xe atoms dissolve into solution as they are uncovered by the corrosion process.
Corrosion rates were determined in the following manner. It is assumed that the
shape of the Xe profiles in Fig. 7 is changed only by the removal of Xe atoms from
the surface as the surface moves inward due to corrosion. The shift in energy of the
remaining Xe profile with respect to the initial profile (before corrosion) is converted
into a thickness of material removed by means of a well-known energy loss rate
d(Energy)/dx for He ions in titanium. For example, 2.5 MeV He ions incident on
the sample that are scattered by a Xe atom and are subsequently detected have an
3210 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

Fig. 7. Rutherford backscattering (RBS) profiles for Xe implanted into titanium before and after
immersion in boiling 1 M H2SO4 [12].

effective d(Energy)/dx = 0.9 keV nm1 (1 nm = 1.0 · 109 m). If an energy shift of
10 keV is measured in the Xe profile, the thickness of material removed, t, is
10 keV/0.9 keV nm1 = 11.1 nm.
In this manner, Fig. 8, which is a plot of titanium thickness removed as a function
of time, was determined. After an initial incubation time of approximately 15 s to
remove the initial air-formed oxide film, the rate titanium dissolution was constant.
From Fig. 8, the corrosion rate is 2.2 nm/s. Use of the density of titanium (4.51
g/cm3) gives this rate to be 3.6 mg/cm2 h, or 4.0 mA/cm2 (again assuming dissolution
of Ti as Ti2+). Thus, the corrosion rates determined by the three methods are 1.9
ma/cm2 for the Tafel extrapolation method, 2.2 ma/cm2 for colorimetric analysis
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3211

30

25

20
Titanium Removed in nm

15
Slope
10 = 2.2 nm/sec

= 3.6 mg/cm2hr
5

-5
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time in Seconds

Fig. 8. Titanium thickness removed as a function of immersion time in boiling 1 M H2SO4 as determined
from RBS profiles [12].

of dissolved titanium, and 4.0 ma/cm2 for the inert marker method (see also Table 1).
There is good agreement between the first two methods, and the result for the inert
marker method is acceptable considering that the corrosion process has been sam-
pled by this technique for a duration of seconds rather than hours, as in the first
two approaches.

2.4. Additional examples

A comparison of the results for the corrosion rates determined by the Tafel
extrapolation method and by a second independent method is given in Table 1. Re-
sults are also taken from the literature for a selection of metals in various aqueous
environments. These methods involve weight loss or thickness of penetration due
to uniform corrosion, measurement of the volume of hydrogen gas evolved, or solu-
tion analysis of the dissolved cation by colorimetric analysis or atomic absorption
spectrophotometry (AAS).
Weight loss measurements or solution analyses are converted into equivalent cur-
rent densities using FaradayÕs law. For gas evolution measurements, the equivalent
current density follows from the molar volume of a gas, 22,400 ml at standard tem-
perature and pressure (0 C and 760 Torr), and FaradayÕs law.
In compiling Table 1, the electrochemical techniques of linear polarization or AC
impedance have not been considered. This is because these two techniques each mea-
sure the polarization resistance Rp = (dE/d log i) as E ! Ecorr, and Rp is related to
the corrosion rate through the Tafel slopes ba and bc by Stern–Geary equation [7]:
 3212
Table 1
Comparison of corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method with corrosion rates determined by a second method
Environment Immersion icorr Tafel icorr second Type of second Reference
time method method method
Iron 1 M HCl 24 h 30 lA/cm2 36 lA/cm2 Colorimetric McCafferty and McArdle [10]
Iron 1 M HBr 120 h 23 lA/cm2 16 lA/cm2 Colorimetric McCafferty and Zettlemoyer [35]
1 M HI 120 h 10 lA/cm2 7 lA/cm2 Colorimetric
Iron 1 M HCl 8h 50 lA/cm2 50 lA/cm2 Colorimetric Kaesche and Hackerman [13]

E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

Iron O2-free 4% NaCl, pH 1 10 h 10.5 lA/cm2 11.1 lA/cm2 Weight loss Stern [36]
Fe + 0.11% Cu O2-free 4% NaCl, pH 1 10 h 154 lA/cm2 156 lA/cm2 Weight loss Stern [36]
Fe + 0.08% Cu O2-free 4% NaCl, pH 1 10 h 270 lA/cm2 290 lA/cm2 Weight loss Stern [36]
Fe + 0.017% P O2-free 4% NaCl, pH 1 10 h 390 lA/cm2 400 lA/cm2 Weight loss Stern [36]
Iron 0.1 N H2SO4 20 h 33 lA/cm2 27 lA/cm2 (48 h) Weight loss Cleary and Greene [37]
Fe + 0.35% C 20 h 500 lA/cm2 791 lA/cm2 (48 h) Weight loss
Iron 0.5 M H2SO4 20 h 0.20 mA/cm2 0.15–0.19 mA/cm2 AAS of solutiona Lorenz and Mansfeld [18]
Iron 3.5% NaCl 24 h 25 lA/cm2 (12 mpy) 5–15 mpy Penetration [30] McCafferty [11]
(seawater)
Titanium Boiling 1 M H2SO4 2.5 h 1.9 mA/cm2 2.2 mA/cm2 Colorimetric Hubler and McCafferty [12]
4.0 mA/cm2 Inert marker
Al alloy 3003 Acetate buffer, pH 4.6 1 Week 8.2 lA/cm2 9.1 lA/cm2 H2 evolution Evans and Koehler [38]
Citrate buffer, pH 2.5 1.2 lA/cm2 1.3 lA/cm2 H2 evolution
Prune juice 1.4 lA/cm2 1.5 lA/cm2 H2 evolution
Al alloy 3003 0.1 M HCl 24 h 31 lA/cm2 31 lA/cm2 Colorimetric McCafferty et al. [20]
1.0 M HCl 4h 7.5 mA/cm2 7.3 mA/cm2 Colorimetric
Zinc 1 M HCl Not stated 1.23 mA/cm2 0.62 mA/cm2 Weight loss Stupnisek-Lisac et al. [23]
Zinc 10% NH4Cl Not stated 60 lA/cm2 100 lA/cm2 AAS of solutiona Maja et al. [39]
(linear sweep)
Zinc alloy 0.5 N NH4Cl Not stated 0.27 mA/cm2 0.10 mA/cm2 Weight loss Bhatt and Udhayan [40]
Copper 0.5 M H2SO4 25 C 72 h 25.7 lA/cm2 22.5 lA/cm2 Weight loss Quartarone et al. [41]
55 C 72 h 54.6 lA/cm2 39.3 lA/cm2 Weight loss
Copper 0.5 M H2SO4 72 h Weight loss Quartarone et al. [41]
25 C 25.7 lA/cm2 22.5 lA/cm2
55 C 54.6 lA/cm2 39.3 lA/cm2
Fe-14 Cr 1 N H2SO4 30 C 20 min 0.438 mA/cm2 0.477 mA/cm2 b
Weight loss Yau and Streicher [42]
Fe-25 Cr 0.709 mA/cm2 0.791 mA/cm2 b

a
Atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
b
Assumes divalent dissolution of each metal and stoichiometric dissolution of each component of the binary alloy on an atomic fraction basis.
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3213

1
icorr ¼   ð12Þ
1
2:303Rp ba
þ jb1c j

so that ba and bc must be measured or estimated. Thus, neither the linear polariza-
tion nor AC impedance technique is totally independent of the Tafel method.
It can be seen that for most (but not all) of the corrosion systems in Table 1, there
is good agreement between corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation
and by the second independent non-electrochemical method.

3. Limitations of the Tafel extrapolation method

The Tafel extrapolation method for the determination of corrosion rates is valid if
the following conditions apply:

(1) At least one of the branches of the polarization curves is under activation con-
trol. (It is preferable that both branches obey Tafel behavior.) Concentration
polarization may occur toward the tail end of the Tafel regions, but this is usu-
ally a minor effect. For instance, for high anodic dissolution rates, the accumu-
lation of dissolved cations near the electrode surface may cause a concentration
effect, which is manifested as a slight deviation from the anodic Tafel region at
high anodic overvoltages. Stirring the solution can minimize concentration
polarization effects.
(2) Well-defined anodic or cathodic Tafel regions exist (over at least one decade of
current).
(3) The anodic and cathodic reactions which occur at the corrosion potential are
also the only reactions which occur during determination of the polarization
curves. That is, changes in electrode potential should not induce additional
electrochemical reactions in either the anodic or cathodic direction.
(4) Corrosion is general (i.e., uniform) in nature, and localized corrosion does not
occur [43]. For instance, vigorous preferential attack of the metal along grain
boundaries may cause individual grains of the metal to become dislodged from
the metal surface. These dislodged grains would continue to produce dissolved
metal ions in solution, but are disconnected from the electrochemical circuit so
as not to contribute to the corrosion rate measured by the Tafel method. This
phenomenon is called the ‘‘chunk effect’’ [44].
(5) The polarization curves are for the steady-state. Potentiodynamic curves
obtained using rapid scans are not expected to yield Tafel regions or measured
corrosion rates which are representative of the system in the steady-state
condition.

In the Tafel extrapolation method, use of both the anodic and cathodic Tafel re-
gions is preferred, of course, over the use of only one Tafel region. However, the cor-
rosion rate can also be determined by Tafel extrapolation of either the cathodic or
anodic polarization curve alone. If only one polarization curve alone is used, it is
3214 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215

generally the cathodic curve which usually produces a longer and better defined Tafel
region. Anodic polarization may sometimes produce concentration effects, as noted
above, as well as roughening of the surface which can lead to deviations from Tafel
behavior. Thus, extrapolation of the cathodic Tafel region back to zero overvoltage
gives the net rate of the cathodic reaction at the corrosion potential; but from Eq.
(5), this is also the net rate of the anodic reaction at the corrosion potential.

4. Summary

The Tafel region of a polarization curve can be extrapolated back to the steady-
state open-circuit corrosion potential to give the open-circuit corrosion rate provided
that: (1) the branch of the polarization curve is under activation control, (2) corro-
sion is uniform (general), (3) there is a well-defined Tafel region, and (4) changes in
electrode potential do not induce additional electrode reactions.
Corrosion rates determined by the Tafel extrapolation method have compared
favorably with corrosion rates determined by an independent chemical method for
various metals in different aqueous solutions. These independent methods have in-
volved weight loss measurements, measurement of the depth of penetration due to
uniform corrosion, solution analysis by colorimetric methods or atomic absorption
spectrophotometry, measurement of the volume of hydrogen gas evolved, or the use
of an ion-implanted inert marker.

References

[1] J. Tafel, Z. Physik. Chem. 50 (1905) 6661.

[2] J.OÕM. Bockris, A.K.N. ReddyModern Electrochemistry, vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York, 1977,
p. 15.
[3] H. Eyring, S. Glasstone, K.J. Laidler, J. Chem. Phys. 7 (1939) 1053.
[4] J.OÕM. Bockris, A.K.N. ReddyModern Electrochemistry, vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York, 1977,
p. 883.
[5] C. Wagner, W. Traud, Z. Elektrochem. 44 (1938) 39.
[6] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 102 (1955) 609.
[7] M. Stern, A.L. Geary, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 56.
[8] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 559.
[9] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 104 (1957) 645.
[10] E. McCafferty, J.V. McArdle, J. Electrochem. Soc. 142 (1995) 1447.
[11] E. McCafferty, J. Electrochem. Soc. 121 (1974) 1007.
[12] G.K. Hubler, E. McCafferty, Corros. Sci. 20 (1980) 103.
[13] H. Kaesche, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 105 (1958) 191.
[14] N. Hackerman, R.M. Hurd, R.R. Annand, Corrosion 18 (1962) 37t.
[15] E.J. Kelly, J. Electrochem. Soc. 112 (1965) 124.
[16] E. McCafferty, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 999.
[17] R. Driver, R.J. Meakins, Br. Corros. J. 9 (1974) 233.
[18] W.J. Lorenz, F. Mansfeld, Corros. Sci. 21 (1981) 647.
[19] M.N. Desai, C.B. Shah, Y.B. Desai, S.M. Desai, M.H. Ghandi, Br. Corros. J. 4 (1969) 315.
[20] E. McCafferty, P.G. Moore, G.T. Peace, J. Electrochem. Soc. 129 (1982) 9.
[21] M. Metikos-Hukovic, Z. Grubac, E. Stupnisek-Lisac, Corrosion 50 (1994) 146.
 E. McCafferty / Corrosion Science 47 (2005) 3202–3215 3215

[22] M.S. Abdel-Aal, Z.A. Ahmed, M.S. Hassan, J. Appl. Electrochem. 22 (1992) 1104.
[23] E. Stupnisek-Lisac, D. Kasunic, J. Vorkapic-Furac, Corrosion 51 (1995) 767.
[24] M. Abdallah, Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 2705.
[25] H.P. Lee, K. Nobe, J. Electrochem. Soc. 133 (1986) 2035.
[26] B. Miller, R.E. Visco, J. Electrochem. Soc. 115 (1968) 251.
[27] T. Laitenen, K. Salmi, G. Sundholm, P. Viinikka, A. Yli-Pentti, Electrochim. Acta 37 (1992) 1797.
[28] D. Tromans, B. Foster, F. Weinberg, Corros. Sci. 39 (1997) 1291.
[29] E. McCafferty, Corrosion 54 (1998) 862.
[30] S.C. Dexter, Handbook of Oceanographic Engineering Materials, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1979, p. 111.
[31] M. Stern, H. Wissenberg, J. Electrochem. Soc. 106 (1959), pp. 755, 759.
[32] N.D. Tomashov, R.M. Altovsky, G.P. Chernova, J. Electrochem. Soc. 108 (1961) 113.
[33] N.T. Thomas, K. Nobe, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 1450.
[34] L.C. Feldman, in: A.W. Czanderna, D.M. Hercules (Eds.), Ion Spectroscopies for Surface Analysis,
Plenum Press, New York, 1991, p. 311.
[35] E. McCafferty, A.C. Zettlemoyer, J. Phys. Chem. 71 (1967) 2444.
[36] M. Stern, J. Electrochem. Soc. 102 (1955) 663.
[37] H.J. Cleary, N.D. Greene, Corros. Sci. 9 (1969) 3.
[38] S. Evans, E.L. Koehler, J. Electrochem. Soc. 108 (1961) 509.
[39] M. Maja, N. Penazzi, G. Farnia, G. Sandona, Electrochim. Acta 38 (1993) 1453.
[40] D.P. Bhatt, R. Udhayan, J. Power Sources 47 (1994) 177.
[41] G. Quartarone, T. Bellomi, A. Zingales, Corros. Sci. 45 (2003) 715.
[42] Y.-H. Yau, M.A. Streicher, Corrosion 47 (1991) 352.
[43] E. McCafferty, N. Hackerman, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 146.
[44] G.A. Marsh, E. Schaschl, J. Electrochem. Soc. 107 (1960) 960.