EFFECT OF MAGNESIUM FLUORIDE COATING ON CORROSION BEHAVIOR OF MAGNESIUM ALLOY

O Saliza Azlina,Mohd Shafiq Ruba’Ai,D Kurniawan

doi:10.26480/macem.01.2020.13.16

O Saliza Azlina, Mohd Shafiq Ruba’Ai + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.26480/macem.01.2020.13.16

Copy DOI

Abstract

Magnesium and its alloys are explored as potential biomedical materials for being lightweight, bio-absorbable, and having attractive biological properties. A major hindrance for their use is their high corrosion rate, in particular when exposed to body fluids. This study aims at suppressing the corrosion rate of a magnesium alloy (Mg1.0Ca) by coating it with magnesium fluoride (MgF2). The coating was done by immersion of the work-piece in hydrofluoric acid solution. For comparison, pure magnesium was also coated with MgF2. The MgF2 coated magnesium exhibits significantly lower corrosion rate than pure magnesium. The MgF2 coated magnesium alloy shows even lower corrosion rate. The MgF2 coating works in inhibiting corrosion on magnesium alloy Mg1.0Ca. The corrosion inhibition was also contributed by other compound formed during reaction between Mg1.0Ca and hydrofluoric acid and the alloy in Mg1.0Ca.

Highlights

Metallic biomaterials are usually made of stainless steels, titanium alloys, or cobalt–chromium alloys
This study aims at suppressing the corrosion rate of a magnesium- calcium alloy (Mg1.0Ca) by fluoride conversion through immersion in hydrofluoric acid solution
The widthof the grain boundary of the magnesium alloy was wider compared to pure magnesium, in agreement with previous study (Wan et al, 2008)

Summary

Introduction

Metallic biomaterials are usually made of stainless steels, titanium alloys, or cobalt–chromium alloys They serve well for medical devices that are directly in contact with human body, including implants (Gu et al, 2014; Shadanbaz and Dias, 2012; Chiu et al, 2007). These metallic implants are reported to lead to the problem of stress shielding effect which is caused by the mismatch in mechanical properties between these implant materials and human bone (Sara et al, 2014). This means additional cost and more inconvenience to the patient (Gu et al, 2014; Pietak et al, 2008)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion