Papers - Nature of Passivity in Stainless Steels and Other Alloys, I and II.

Since its first mention in the literature in the eighteenth century12 the phenomenon of passivity in metals has stimulated much speculation and attendant controversy as to its nature and cause. No one of the numerous theories so far proposed has been generally accepted. ‡ Faraday,' in 1836, associated the passivity of iron with a protective film over the surface of the metal, which materially prevents or slows down reaction with corrosive environments. His theory was that oxidizing acids like nitric acid form an unstable oxygen or oxide layer over the iron surface, which protects the underlying metal from further attack. This concept was simple yet plausible, and without alteration has frequently been assigned in present-day discussions as explanation of the passivity of many metals. With the advent in recent times of stainless steels, it is not surprising that this oxide film theory of passivity proposed by Faraday has been used to explain the phenomenal corrosion resistance of stainless steels and other passive alloys. The passive alloys, such as the chrome-iron alloys, are supposedly covered with a protective oxide film, which forms on exposure of the alloy to air, is extremely stable and self-healing, and accounts for the remarkable resistance of these alloys to corrosion. Within the past few years, several investigators, following the theory of film protection, have attempted to gauge the resistance of the supposed film on steels. Brennert8 and Donker and Dengg9 determined the potential at which a negative ion (e.g., C1-) moving in an electric field reacted with the metal anode, as detected by increased current flow or change in potential of the steel electrode in an electrolytic cell. The potential corresponding to reaction Brennert called the film break-through potential.