4.1 Result of Phytochemical Analysis
Qualitative and quantitative analyses findings are as shown in Tables 4 and 5. Futhermore, the result observed in Table 4 confrimed what was reported by [20]
Table 3
Table of Results of Qualitative Analysis
Constituents | Result |
Saponins | + |
Flavonoid | + |
Tannin | + |
Phenolic Content | + |
Steroid | + |
Terpenoid | + |
Alkaloid | + |
+ indicates phytochemical present |
Table 4
Table of Results of Quantitative Analysis
Constituents | Bp (mg/g) |
Saponins | 0.0247 |
Flavonoid | 0.0921 |
Tannin | 0.0057 |
Phenolic Content | 0.0096 |
Steroid | 0.0058 |
Terpenoid | 0.0102 |
Alkaloid | 0.0091 |
4.2 Results of the Weight Measurement Analysis
The lowest corrosion rate was observed in experimental run: 16 is shown in Table 5.This result has lower corroison rate than what was observed by [5] with the same amount of extract but in HCl corrosive environment both at 30 and 45 oC respectively
Table 5
Table of Results from Weight Loss analysis
Std | Run | A: Time of immersion (days) | B: Temperature (0C) | C: Inhibition concentration (g/l) | Weight loss | Corrosion rate(g/cm2 days) |
2 | 1 | 12.00 | 30.00 | 0.50 | 0.133 | 0.002471 |
13 | 2 | 7.50 | 45.00 | 0.50 | 0.087 | 0.002587 |
3 | 3 | 3.00 | 60.00 | 0.50 | 0.138 | 0.010260 |
6 | 4 | 12.00 | 45.00 | 0.20 | 0.279 | 0.005184 |
12 | 5 | 7.50 | 60.00 | 0.80 | 0.065 | 0.001933 |
10 | 6 | 7.50 | 60.00 | 0.20 | 0.324 | 0.009633 |
16 | 7 | 7.50 | 45.00 | 0.50 | 0.087 | 0.002587 |
9 | 8 | 7.50 | 30.00 | 0.20 | 0.164 | 0.004876 |
15 | 9 | 7.50 | 45.00 | 0.50 | 0.087 | 0.002587 |
8 | 10 | 12.00 | 45.00 | 0.80 | 0.096 | 0.001784 |
14 | 11 | 7.50 | 45.00 | 0.50 | 0.087 | 0.002587 |
5 | 12 | 3.00 | 45.00 | 0.20 | 0.075 | 0.005575 |
11 | 13 | 7.50 | 30.00 | 0.80 | 0.109 | 0.003241 |
1 | 14 | 3.00 | 30.00 | 0.50 | 0.079 | 0.005872 |
4 | 15 | 12.00 | 60.00 | 0.50 | 0.224 | 0.004162 |
7 | 16 | 3.00 | 45.00 | 0.80 | 0.015 | 0.000115 |
17 | 17 | 7.50 | 45.00 | 0.50 | 0.087 | 0.002587 |
4.3 Results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
The ANOVA is shown as in Table 6a, P-value represented the probability of the occurrence of the interraction. The implied model's Model F-value is 5.73. The significant terms in the model are A, B, C, and B2. The regression coefficient R2 and adjusted R2 are 0.8804, and 0.7267. The statistical analysis was done for Normality Test using SPSS Version 14. Table 6b showed that; corrosion rate is normally distributed by skewness (standard vale / std. error) = 1.93 ( which within the range of ± 1.96).Table 6c showed the test for Normality.
Table 6
Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-value | p-value | |
Model | 0.0001 | 9 | 0.0000 | 5.73 | 0.0157 | significant |
A-Time | 0.0000 | 1 | 0.0000 | 5.69 | 0.0486 | |
B-Temp | 0.0000 | 1 | 0.0000 | 6.07 | 0.0432 | |
C-Inhibition Conc | 0.0000 | 1 | 0.0000 | 19.77 | 0.0030 | |
AB | 1.818 | 1 | 1.818 | 0.9728 | 0.3568 | |
AC | 2.809 | 1 | 2.809 | 0.1503 | 0.7098 | |
BC | 9.196 | 1 | 9.196 | 4.92 | 0.0621 | |
A² | 2.688 | 1 | 2.688 | 1.44 | 0.2695 | |
B² | 0.0000 | 1 | 0.0000 | 11.97 | 0.0106 | |
C² | 3.420 | 1 | 3.420 | 0.0018 | 0.9671 | |
Residual | 0.0000 | 7 | 1.869 | | | |
Lack of Fit | 0.0000 | 3 | 4.362 | | | |
Pure Error | 0.0000 | 4 | 0.0000 | | | |
Cor Total | 0.0001 | 16 | | | | |
Table 6b: Stastistical Descriptives
|
|
Statistic
|
Std. Error
|
Corrosion rate
|
Mean
|
.00379346
|
.000698012
|
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
|
Lower Bound
|
.00231374
|
|
Upper Bound
|
.00527318
|
|
5% Trimmed Mean
|
.00363123
|
|
Median
|
.00258700
|
|
Variance
|
.000
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
.002877975
|
|
Minimum
|
.000247
|
|
Maximum
|
.010260
|
|
Range
|
.010013
|
|
Interquartile Range
|
.003521
|
|
Skewness
|
1.065
|
.550
|
Kurtosis
|
.787
|
1.063
|
Table 6
| Kolmogorov-Smirnova | Shapiro-Wilk |
Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. |
corrosionrate | .192 | 17 | .097 | .895 | 17 | .057 |
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction |
According to the Kolmogoro-Smirnov analysis Table 6c, the P value is 0.097, which is greater than 0.05, and is considered significant. Accepting the null hypothesis, we came to the conclusion that there is no appreciable deviation from the normal distribution in the sample data.
According to the Shapiro-Wilk analysis table, the P value is 0.057 (greater than 0.05, level of significance). The null hypothesis is still accepted, and we determine that normally distributed data.
Figure 1 is the Plot of Normal Plot of Residuals and Fig. 2a showed the Plot of Predicted Vs. Actual. Figure 2b showed that there is an outliner. Figures 3–5 depicted the 3D plots. According to Fig. 3, corrosion rate increased as temperature increased. However, in Fig. 4, corrosion rate decreased as inhibition concentration increased. Figure 5 demonstrated that corrosion rate increased with increasing temperature. The regression equation in terms of actual variables is in Eq. 4.
Regression equation in Terms of Actual Variables
Corrosion rate = 0.0173468–0.000496639(Time) − 0.000599311(Temp) + 0.00620903 (Inhibition Conc) − 9.98889 (Time * Temp) + 0.000196296 (Time * Inhibition Conc) -0.000336944 (Temp * Inhibition C Raphinus onc) + 3.94568(Time2) + 1.02456 (Temp2) + 0.000316667 (Inhibition Conc2). (4)
4.4 Experimental Validation
The optimal variables predicted by the software were: Temp: 58.6oC, Time: 6.3 days and Conc: 0.63g/l. This was validated.
4.5 Results of the FTIR Analysis
Figure 6 showed the spectra of lowest corrosion rate mild steel with protective film; with C = O (carboxylic acids), N–H (amines), C–H bonds (Alkanes); C-Cl (Alkyl halides), OH− (carboxyl group) and = C–H(Alkenes). while Fig. 6 (Mild steel with OPL) revealed N–H; C = O; C = N; C-Cl; C = N; C-H bonds, was responsible for adsorption process that acted as barrier more to corrosion.
This confirmed results of [20, 21].
4.6 Results of Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Analysis
Figure 7a showed the surface of balnk mildsteel; which was heavily damaged due to itsd corrosive environment. The mildsteel of the best proceee as oberved from the experimental design as shown in Fig. 7b; reealved that there was less damage with reduced surface roughness and formation of passive film which indicated minimal corrosion due to the presence of inhibitor. Moreover; the midlsteel of the optiaml process level (validated experiment) as shown in Fig. 7c; showed that more passive film was formed that was absorbed on the metal surface.This acted more asa barrier to bolck access of the corrosive species and laso mititgated corrosion. This reuslt confirmed adsorption of BLE on metal surface and also justifed results of [18, 23–24].
4.7 Results of EDS Analysis
The EDS result of blank mildsteel was shown in Fig. 8a. Figure 8c showed that more heteroatoms containing organic molecules exhibit remarkable corrosion inhibition than Fig. 8b. The inhibition was attributed to presence of lone pair and pi electrons in the molecule, which allow them to easily deposit on metal surface. This demonstrated that phytochemicals acted as inhibition which formed more adsopriton to the metal surface in Fig. 8c which confirmed the results of [22–23].