Effect of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment on the wettability and aging behavior of metal surfaces
-
Öyküm Kanbir
Dr. Öyküm Kanbir completed his PhD program at Bursa Uludag University. He is a member of the Chamber of Mechanical Engineers of Turkey. He completed his master’s thesis on failure analysis and his doctoral thesis on atmospheric pressure plasmas. He has research in these fields. He has worked in areas such as surface analysis, SEM analysis, plasma surface treatment and adhesion bonds.
,
Kadir Ayas
Kadir Ayas is an integrated PhD student at Bursa Uludag University, Mechanical Engineering Department. He is doing his doctoral thesis on improving the painting performance of polymeric automobile parts by atmospheric pressure plasma treatment. He has conducted studies on surface treatments, adhesion and paintability of polymers.
and
Kadir Çavdar
Prof. Dr. Kadir Çavdar works as a lecturer at Bursa Uludag University. He has research and studies in many fields such as artificial intelligence, computer learning and pattern recognition, construction and manufacturing, tribology, machine elements, machine design, computer aided design and manufacturing, transport technique, mechatronics, finite element method, plasma physics, engineering and technology.
Abstract
Atmospheric pressure plasma (APP) applications have started to come to the fore today because of their fast and stable applicability to material surfaces and many advantages compared to plasma applications made under vacuum. With APP, it is possible to improve the surface energies, adhesion behavior and surface mechanical properties of materials. However, the changes obtained are not permanent since the surface tends to return to its untreated original state after plasma treatment. In this study, the wettability of APP treated metal surfaces, aging behavior and storage conditions that can delay the return of the surface to its untreated initial state were investigated. While one type of material (H300LAD), two different plasma treatments (cold and hot) and three different plasma treatment numbers (1, 2 and 3 times) were determined as test parameters; two different ambient conditions such as air and water (for 1, 10 and 60 min) were chosen as the storage conditions that can delay the return of the plasma treated surfaces to their original state. In addition, the effects of temperature on the aging time were investigated for two different temperature values (−20 °C and 30 °C). The effects of the applied plasma type, plasma treatment number, the storage conditions in which the samples were kept and the temperature on the aging behavior were evaluated and the conditions that could delay the aging time were investigated. The results showed that aging is greatly affected by the type of plasma applied to the surfaces, the storage conditions in which the samples were kept and the temperature.
1 Introduction
Plasma was first used as a term by Langmuir in 1929. Plasma, which is called the fourth state of matter, is formed when a gas is given high energy at a suitable pressure, and when gas molecules start to collide with each other and electrons start to break away from molecules, it becomes a system of positively charged ions and electrons. This state of matter is called plasma. The gas phase of the substance does not conduct electricity, while the plasma phase has thermal and electrical conductivity [1].
Plasmas can be classified according to their production methods as well as according to the temperature and pressure values of the gas whose plasma is obtained. Plasmas that are classified according to their temperature can be divided into hot and cold plasmas [2].
The surface functions of many materials, including organic and inorganic materials and metals, can be changed significantly by plasma treatment [3], [4]. In this regard, atmospheric pressure plasmas (APP) have many advantages [5]. The APP process has significant advantages over other methods thanks to its features such as higher electric field homogeneity, versatility and easy controllability without the need for a vacuum system [6].
Precise surface applications are one of the areas where atmospheric plasmas are most used. With this method, operations such as cleaning, coating, bonding, and activation can be performed on metal surfaces. It is a suitable method for such applications as they are mobile, can be applied to angled surfaces and are produced under atmospheric conditions [7].
Today, because of various research carried out to improve the surface properties of different materials, it has been determined that the surface properties of many materials, including organic materials, inorganic materials and metals, can be changed by plasma treatment [8], [9]. Studies have shown that plasma treatment is a very effective method in changing surface properties such as wettability, permeability, conductivity and adhesion.
Pretreatment of surfaces is an important issue for many industries that use coating, bonding and painting processes [10]. Galvanized steel is used in many sectors such as industry, construction and automotive due to its durability, cheapness, easy processing and the properties gained by metals subjected to galvanization and is becoming increasingly widespread [11]. Galvanized steel, one of the most used materials, requires careful surface preparation for painting or coating. Therefore, the effectiveness of the surface treatment to be performed is important [10].
Plasma activation, which is the subject of the study, is a physical surface modification process and has been a frequently preferred method for improving the surface energies, adhesion behavior and surface mechanical properties of materials in recent years. However, the obtained changes are not permanent because the surface tends to return to its untreated original state after plasma application. For this reason, the stability of the obtained changes with plasma over a certain period becomes important.
Sorrentino and Carrino [12] applied cold plasma to 2024 aluminum alloy and found that the surface properties deteriorated rapidly within a few hours or a few days due to the exposure of the surface to atmospheric conditions after the treatment. Dominguez-Lopez et al. [13] revealed that the surface wettability properties obtained after atmospheric pressure plasma treatment applied to ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) surfaces disappeared after 90 days of waiting period. Mendez-Linan et al. [14] investigated the aging behavior of carbon surfaces by O2, N2 and Ar plasma treatment. It was stated that the surface properties obtained with plasma were lost regardless of the selected plasma gas. Che et al. [15] observed that the contact angles increased after 80 min after the plasma treatment applied to glass fiber reinforced polyamide 6 (GFPA6). Dominguez-Diaz et al. [16] applied atmospheric pressure plasma treatment to the poly-β-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) surfaces and determined that after the treatment surface returned to its original state after 168 h. Zolek-Tryznowska et al. [17] investigated the aging characteristics of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyethylene terephthalate after corona plasma treatment and noted that the surfaces lost the properties obtained with plasma after 90 h. Demina et al. [18] applied plasma treatment to polylactide films. It was determined that the surfaces treated with 1 s plasma treatment returned to their original state after 1 day, and the increase in treatment time and plasma power slowed down the aging process. Izdebska-Podsiadly and Dörsam [19] applied low temperature argon plasma to polylactide (PLA) film surfaces. It was stated that the hydrophilicity and wettability of the surface were negatively affected by the increase in storage time. Thompson et al. [20] investigated the aging behavior of nylon 6 plastic surfaces treated with low frequency oxygen plasma. It was determined that a sharp increase in hydrophobic recovery was observed in the samples after the first 5 days of storage, and then this increase was stabilized after 14 days. In Jorda-Vilaplana et al. [21] study, polylactic acid samples (PLA 6201D) treated with atmospheric pressure plasma treatment were greatly affected by storage time. After storage, water contact angles increased, and surface energies decreased. Kim et al. [22] applied atmospheric pressure plasma jet to aluminum, stainless steel and copper surfaces. After the treatment, it was determined that the samples retained the surface properties obtained with plasma for about 15 h in the air, and the surfaces returned to their original state after an 8-day storage period. Liu et al. [23] studied the aging behavior of aluminum surfaces after cold atmospheric pressure nitrogen plasma jet treatment. The aging effect was investigated for two different ambient conditions, in water and in air. It has been observed that the aging behavior of the samples varies according to the ambient condition in which they are kept, and the samples kept in water exhibit a longer aging life than the samples kept in air. Prysiazhnyi [24] applied atmospheric pressure plasma treatment to chrome surfaces. After the plasma treatment, the samples were stored in dry and humid air. The hydrophobicity of plasma-treated surfaces increased over time, and it was revealed that the aging effect was greater in dry air. Tang et al. [25] applied atmospheric pressure plasma treatment to AISI 304L stainless steel surface. It was observed that the contact angles of the samples gradually increased and the surface energies gradually decreased after 3–5 min of storage time after the treatment.
In this study, the aging behavior of APP applied to metal surfaces and the storage conditions that can delay the return of the surface to its untreated initial state were investigated. As test parameters, one type of material (galvanized steel, H300LAD), two different plasma treatments (cold and hot plasma), three different plasma treatment numbers (1, 2 and 3 times), two different ambient conditions (air and water) and after plasma application two different temperatures (−20 °C and 30 °C) were determined. First, contact angles of the test samples were measured using water drop before APP application. Then, according to the determined test parameters, the contact angles of the APP applied samples were measured at certain intervals for 5 days, and the effects of the applied plasma type, the number of plasma treatment, the ambient conditions in which the test samples were kept and the temperature on the aging behavior were evaluated and the conditions that could delay the aging period were investigated.
2 Experimental
2.1 Plasma treatment
In this study, Piezobrush PZ3 handheld cold plasma unit developed by Relyon Plasma company was used for cold plasma surface activation and Plasmatool handheld plasma unit was used for hot plasma surface activation. The PZ3 device can produce cold active plasma below 50 °C at a maximum power consumption of 18 W. The plasma treatment distance of the device is between 2 and 10 mm and the processing width is between 5 and 29 mm. Figure 1 shows the Piezobrush PZ3 and the image during the cold plasma treatment applied to the surface with the device.
Treatment with Piezobrush PZ3 handheld cold plasma unit.
Plasmatool is frequently preferred in the industry for corrosion removal, surface activation and cleaning, pre-treatments applied before the painting or varnishing processes of materials and better surface wettability. The device can produce hot plasma at a power consumption of 1,300 W with a power supply of 230 V. The plasma treatment distance is between 5 and 20 mm and the treatment width is in the range of 10–25 mm [26]. Figure 2 shows the Plasmatool and the image during the hot plasma treatment applied to the surface with the device. In this study, both devices were used with ambient air.
Treatment with Plasmatool handheld hot plasma unit.
In Figure 3, the experimental setup specially designed for the cold APP treatment applied to the test samples is shown.
Experiment setup prepared for cold APP process.
2.2 Materials
In this study, H300LAD produced in accordance with BS EN 10346 standards, was used. The test samples were prepared from the galvanized material with the dimensions of 70 × 25 × 1 mm.
2.3 Contact angle measurements
Water contact angle measurement is a method used to express the degree of wettability of the surface. On surfaces with high energy, water is uniformly distributed on the surface and forms a thin film. In this case, the contact angle is zero and the surface is completely wettable. Such surfaces are called hydrophilic. On surfaces with low energy, water drops settle on the surface separately, in this case it is understood that the wettability of the surface is low, and the surface is called hydrophobic [27]. As the contact angle decreases, the surface energy, adhesiveness, and wettability increase, while as the contact angle increases, the surface energy, wettability and adhesive properties decrease [28].
The water contact angles of the test samples prepared from the galvanized material were measured separately before and after the plasma treatment. All the average water contact angle values obtained in the study were reached by taking the average of three measurements.
2.4 Aging of test samples
Since the surface tends to return to its original state after plasma treatment, the changes obtained are not permanent. For this reason, the stability of the changes provided by plasma over a certain period becomes important. In this study, hot and cold atmospheric pressure plasma was applied to the galvanized steel material. The aging behavior of the material was investigated by measuring the water contact angle.
The surfaces of the test samples prepared from galvanized steel material were treated separately with cold and hot plasma as 1, 2 and 3 times. To investigate the effects of the storage conditions on the aging behavior after the plasma treatment, the water contact angles were measured after the samples were kept in air, in water for different aging times and different temperatures.
Water contact angle measurements were made at room temperature in the experimental group in which the samples were kept in the air. Three different holding times were determined, such as 1, 10 and 60 min, in the experimental group in which the samples were kept in water. The contact angles of the samples, which remained in the water for the specified time, were measured after they were removed from the water and their surfaces were dried. The effects of temperature on the aging process were investigated for two different temperature values such as −20 °C and 30 °C. After plasma treatment was applied to the samples in this experimental group, the samples were covered with aluminum foil to prevent the surface from contacting with air, and the water contact angles were measured after they were kept at the specified temperatures for 3 h.
The water contact angles of the samples in all experimental groups were measured at regular intervals for 5 days. With the results obtained, the aging behavior of galvanized steel material was investigated for different plasma types, different plasma treatment numbers, different ambient conditions, and different temperature values. The obtained aging lifetimes were compared, and it was determined whether the stated experimental parameters were a factor affecting the aging life and the storage conditions that could delay the return of the surface to its untreated initial state were investigated. The flowchart summarizing this methodology used is shown in Figure 4.
Methodology used to investigate the aging behavior of APP applied metal surfaces and storage conditions that can delay the return of the surface to its untreated initial state.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Contact angle measurements
In this part of the study, firstly, the contact angles of untreated samples were measured. It has been determined that the contact angle of the relevant material before any plasma treatment is 62° on average. The contact angle photograph of the test samples is given in Figure 5 and the contact angle values are given in Table 1.
Contact angles of galvanized steel material before plasma treatment.
Values of average water contact angles of galvanized steel before plasma treatment.
| Sample name | Water contact angle | Average water contact angle |
|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 60° | |
| Sample 2 | 64° | 62° |
| Sample 3 | 62° |
The aging behavior of galvanized steel material, which is treated cold and hot atmospheric pressure plasma, was evaluated by measuring the water contact angle at certain intervals for 5 days. After the plasma applied with three different plasma treatment numbers, the samples were kept in air, water, and different temperatures to determine the effects of the storage conditions on the aging behavior, and the water contact angles were measured.
In Table 2, the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept in the air after the cold plasma treatment is given and in Table 3, the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept in water for 1, 10 and 60 min after the cold plasma treatment is given.
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept in the air after the cold plasma treatment.
| Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 24 | 36 | 48 | 60 | |
| 1 | 44.33° | 44.50° | 49.80° | 59° | 63.50° | – |
| 2 | 44.75° | 46.16° | 47.83° | 54.66° | 62.66° | – |
| 3 | 40.20° | 44.60° | 44.33° | 44.75° | 51.33° | 61.33° |
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept in the water for 1, 10 and 60 min after the cold plasma treatment.
| Holding time (min) | Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 24 | 36 | 48 | 60 | 72 | 120 | ||
| 1 | 44° | 43° | 45.16° | 49° | 56° | 61.33° | – | – | |
| 1 | 2 | 43° | 43.40° | 48.16° | 48.66° | 53.30° | 63.66° | – | – |
| 3 | 44° | 42° | 43.83° | 46.33° | 49.66° | 51.75° | 61.66° | – | |
| 1 | 35° | 35.66° | 39.50° | 40.33° | 44.33° | 44.25° | 50.66° | 62.33° | |
| 10 | 2 | 39.33° | 39° | 40.16° | 43° | 48.75° | 49.75° | 50° | 62° |
| 3 | 34.75° | 35.83° | 38.66° | 44.66° | 46.50° | 45.75° | 53.33° | 61.66° | |
| 1 | 29° | 30° | 32.20° | 35.66° | 43° | 48° | 54.66° | 62° | |
| 60 | 2 | 30° | 33.20° | 33° | 38° | 41.33° | 46.25° | 54.25° | 62.75° |
| 3 | 30.75° | 32.66° | 36.20° | 41.66° | 42.66° | 47.66° | 54.33° | 61.50° | |
Evaluation of the results in Tables 2 and 3 lead to the observation that the samples kept in the air after the cold plasma treatment aged faster than the samples kept in water for three different holding times (1, 10 and 60 min), and the time to return to the initial state of the water contact angles was shorter. The samples, which were kept in the air and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 48 h, and the samples that were treated with plasma 3 times after 60 h. The samples, which were kept in water for 1 min and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 60 h, and samples that were treated with 3 times of plasma after 72 h. All the samples, which were kept in water for 10 min and 60 min and treated 1, 2 and 3 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 120 h. Considering these results, it was seen that the number of plasma treatment was a factor for the aging life of the samples kept in air and kept in water for 1 min. It was observed that the number of plasma treatments did not affect the aging life in the samples that were kept in water for 10 and 60 min. In addition, considering the same plasma treatment numbers, it was observed that the surface wettability properties of the samples kept in water improved compared to the samples kept in air. In addition, lower contact angle and higher surface wettability properties were obtained after plasma treatment as the holding times in water increased. When the contact angle results were examined, it was observed that keeping the samples in water extended the aging life. However, since the samples kept in water for 10 and 60 min both gave an aging time of 120 h, it was observed that keeping the galvanized steel materials in water for more than a certain period of time did not affect the aging life after cold APP treatment.
In addition, when the results were examined, it was observed that the samples that were kept in the air after the cold plasma treatment and treated with 1 and 2 times of plasma largely preserved the surface properties obtained with plasma in the first 24 h. While this period increased up to 36 h in the samples treated with 3 times of plasma. The samples that were kept in water for 1 min and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma preserved the surface properties obtained with plasma in the first 36 h, and the samples treated with 3 times of plasma in the first 48 h. In all of the samples that were kept in water for 10 and 60 min and treated 1, 2 and 3 times with plasma, the surface properties obtained with plasma were largely preserved in the first 60 h.
In Table 4, the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept at −20 °C and 30 °C for 3 h after the cold plasma treatment, is given.
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept at −20 °C and 30 °C for 3 h after the cold plasma treatment.
| Holding temperature (°C) | Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 2 | 16 | 32 | 48 | 72 | ||
| 1 | 35.20° | 36.50° | 41.20° | 41.66° | 48.33° | 62.33° | |
| −20 | 2 | 34.25° | 37° | 41.25° | 43.33° | 44.33° | 62.33° |
| 3 | 33.50° | 36.83° | 39.25° | 40° | 44.33° | 61.66° | |
| 1 | 42.66° | 44° | 48° | 50.66° | 62° | – | |
| 30 | 2 | 40° | 40° | 44.66° | 47.66° | 61.66° | – |
| 3 | 39.33° | 41° | 42° | 41.66° | 43° | 61.66° | |
When the results in Table 4 were evaluated, it was determined that the temperature after the cold plasma treatment affects the aging life. All the samples, which were kept at −20 °C for 3 h and treated 1, 2 and 3 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 72 h. The samples which were kept at 30 °C and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma returned to their original state after 48 h, the samples treated 3 times with plasma returned to their original state after 72 h. The samples, which were kept at both 30 °C and −20 °C and treated 3 times with plasma, gave an aging life of 72 h. The reason for this is thought to be due to the improvement of the wettability of the surface thanks to the increased plasma treatment number. Considering these results, it has been determined that the temperature affects the aging life. The samples showed shorter aging life at higher temperatures, while at lower temperatures the samples exhibited longer aging life and better surface wettability properties.
In Table 5, the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept in the air after the hot plasma treatment is given and Table 6 shows the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept in water for 1, 10 and 60 min after the hot plasma treatment.
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept in the air after the hot plasma treatment.
| Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| 1 | 44.50° | 44° | 61.66° | – |
| 2 | 41.50° | 42° | 62° | – |
| 3 | 33.25° | 33.83° | 47.33° | 62° |
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept in the water for 1, 10 and 60 min after the hot plasma treatment.
| Holding time (min) | Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 24 | 30 | 36 | ||
| 1 | 38.75° | 40° | 42° | 62° | – | – | – | |
| 1 | 2 | 38.66° | 41.25° | 41.66° | 61.66° | – | – | – |
| 3 | 39° | 40.25° | 41° | 41.50° | 62.33° | – | – | |
| 1 | 34.33° | 36.66° | 41° | 49.33° | 62° | – | – | |
| 10 | 2 | 35.50° | 37° | 40.25° | 45° | 50.66° | 62° | – |
| 3 | 35.33° | 38° | 42° | 46.33° | 48.33° | 62.33° | – | |
| 1 | 32° | 35.25° | 39.33° | 42° | 43.25° | 51.33° | 61.66° | |
| 60 | 2 | 32° | 35.66° | 38.66° | 41.33° | 44.33° | 52.66° | 62.33° |
| 3 | 31.66° | 34.66° | 37.33° | 42° | 45° | 47.33° | 61.66° | |
When the results in Tables 5 and 6 were evaluated, after the hot plasma treatment, just like in the cold plasma treatment, the samples kept in the air were observed to age faster than the samples in the other experimental groups, which were kept in water for three different holding times. In addition, it has been determined that the return times of the water contact angles to their initial state are shorter. The samples, which were kept in the air and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 8 h, and the samples that were treated 3 times with plasma after 12 h. The samples, which were kept in water for 1 min and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 12 h, and the samples that were treated 3 times with plasma after 24 h. The samples, which were kept in water for 10 min and treated 1 time with plasma, returned to their original state after 24 h, and the samples that plasma treated 2 and 3 times returned to their original state after 30 h. All the samples, which were kept in water for 60 min and 1-, 2- and 3-times plasma treated, returned to their original state after 36 h. Considering these results, it was seen that the number of plasma treatments was a factor for the aging life of the samples, which were kept in air, kept in water for 1 and 10 min. It was observed that the number of plasma treatment did not affect the aging life in the samples that were kept in water for 60 min. In addition, considering the same plasma treatment numbers, it was observed that the surface wettability properties of the samples kept in water improved compared to the samples kept in air. When the results were examined, lower contact angle and higher surface wettability properties were obtained after the plasma treatment as the holding times in water increased. In addition, considering the same plasma treatment numbers, it was determined that the aging life of the samples increased with the increase in holding times in water.
In addition, when the test results were examined, it was observed that the samples that were kept in the air after the hot plasma treatment and treated with plasma 1 and 2 times, largely preserved the surface properties obtained with plasma in the first 4 h. While this period increased to 8 h in the samples treated with three repetitions. The surface properties obtained with plasma were preserved in the first 8 h for the samples that were kept in water for 1 min and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, and the samples 3 times plasma treated in the first 12 h. These properties were preserved in the first 12 h in the samples that were kept in water for 10 min and plasma treated 1 and 2 times, and in the first 24 h in the samples that were plasma treated 3 times of plasma. Finally, the surface properties obtained with plasma were preserved in the first 24 h in the samples that were kept in water for 60 min and plasma treated 1 and 2 times, and in the first 30 h in the samples that were treated with 3 times.
Table 7 shows the variation of the average water contact angle values over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the test samples kept at −20 °C and 30 °C for 3 h after the hot plasma treatment.
Variation of the average water contact angles over time after different plasma treatment numbers of the samples kept at −20 °C and 30 °C for 3 h after the hot plasma treatment.
| Holding temperature (°C) | Treatment number (times) | Aging time (h) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 18 | ||
| 1 | 38.50° | 40.66° | 44.33° | 63.66° | – | |
| −20 | 2 | 39° | 40.33° | 44° | 62.66° | – |
| 3 | 39.66° | 41° | 42.33° | 50° | 62.33° | |
| 1 | 45.66° | 49° | 62° | – | – | |
| 30 | 2 | 42.33° | 47.33° | 62.33° | – | – |
| 3 | 39.33° | 42.33° | 48.66° | 62° | – | |
When the results in Table 7 were evaluated, it has been determined that after the hot plasma treatment, just like the cold plasma treatment, the temperature affects the aging life. The samples, which were kept at −20 °C for 3 h and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 12 h, and the samples treated with 3 times of plasma after 18 h. The samples, which were kept at 30 °C and treated 1 and 2 times with plasma, returned to their original state after 8 h, and the samples treated with 3 times of plasma after 12 h. The samples that plasma treated 3 times have a longer aging life at −20 °C and 30 °C than the other samples in their own experimental groups. The reason for this is thought to be due to the improvement of the wettability of the surface thanks to the increasing number of plasma treatments. In the light of these data, it has been seen that temperature affects the aging life after hot plasma treatment. The samples showed shorter aging life at higher temperatures, and longer aging life and better surface wettability properties at lower temperatures.
In Table 8, the aging times of the test samples, which were kept in different storage conditions after cold and hot plasma treatment, are given comparatively after different plasma treatment numbers.
Aging times after different plasma treatment numbers of test samples kept in different storage conditions after cold and hot plasma treatment.
| Storage conditions | Aging times after cold plasma treatment 1/2/3 times (h) |
Aging times after hot plasma treatment 1/2/3 times (h) |
|---|---|---|
| In air | 48/48/60 | 8/8/12 |
| In water (1 min) | 60/60/72 | 12/12/24 |
| In water (10 min) | 120/120/120 | 24/30/30 |
| In water (60 min) | 120/120/120 | 36/36/36 |
| At −20 °C | 72/72/72 | 12/12/18 |
| At 30 °C | 48/48/72 | 8/8/12 |
When the results in Table 8 were evaluated, it was observed that the applied plasma type affected the aging behavior of the galvanized steel material. It has been observed that the surface properties obtained after the hot plasma treatment are lost in a shorter time and the material has a shorter aging life. After the cold plasma treatment, it has been determined that this method is more effective because these surface properties are preserved for much longer periods and the material has a longer aging life.
In addition, according to the test results obtained, considering the one plasma treatment number, it was understood that the galvanized steel treated with cold plasma showed different aging life under different storage conditions. Samples kept in air and 30 °C gave 48 h, samples kept in water for 1 min gave 60 h, samples kept at −20 °C gave 72 h, samples kept in water for 10 min and 60 min gave an aging life of 120 h. The aging life of galvanized steel treated with hot plasma with one plasma treatment number under different storage conditions are also different. Samples kept in air and at 30 °C gave 8 h, samples kept in water for 1 min and at −20 °C gave 12 h, samples kept in water for 10 min gave 24 h and samples kept in water for 60 min gave an aging life of 36 h.
4 Conclusions
In this study, the aging behavior of galvanized steels after atmospheric pressure plasma treatment and the storage conditions that can delay the return of the surface to its untreated initial state were investigated. It has been demonstrated that the existing surface mechanical properties of galvanized steels used in sectors such as industry, construction, and automotive can be improved with atmospheric pressure plasma treatment, and that it is possible to increase the surface energy and improve wettability properties. However, it is known that the changes obtained from plasma are temporary due to the tendency of the surface to return to its untreated initial state after plasma treatment. In this study, the different experimental parameters presented and how long the properties obtained with plasma can be preserved are also explained in detail. The effects of storage conditions on the aging behavior of galvanized steel material after plasma treatment were investigated by keeping the material in air, water, and different temperatures. The results showed that aging is greatly affected by the type of plasma applied to the surfaces, the storage conditions in which the samples were kept and the temperature. In addition, it has been observed that keeping the material in water for a certain period and at low temperatures was also effective on extending its aging life. This study demonstrates that with atmospheric pressure plasma treatment, it is possible to obtain better surface mechanical properties of galvanized steel materials, which have a wide range of uses, and it is stated how long the properties obtained with plasma can be preserved under different conditions.
About the authors
Dr. Öyküm Kanbir completed his PhD program at Bursa Uludag University. He is a member of the Chamber of Mechanical Engineers of Turkey. He completed his master’s thesis on failure analysis and his doctoral thesis on atmospheric pressure plasmas. He has research in these fields. He has worked in areas such as surface analysis, SEM analysis, plasma surface treatment and adhesion bonds.
Kadir Ayas is an integrated PhD student at Bursa Uludag University, Mechanical Engineering Department. He is doing his doctoral thesis on improving the painting performance of polymeric automobile parts by atmospheric pressure plasma treatment. He has conducted studies on surface treatments, adhesion and paintability of polymers.
Prof. Dr. Kadir Çavdar works as a lecturer at Bursa Uludag University. He has research and studies in many fields such as artificial intelligence, computer learning and pattern recognition, construction and manufacturing, tribology, machine elements, machine design, computer aided design and manufacturing, transport technique, mechatronics, finite element method, plasma physics, engineering and technology.
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: Kanbir: planning methodology to reach the conclusions, data management and reporting, execution of the experiments; Ayas: planning methodology to reach the conclusions, data management and reporting, execution of the experiments; Çavdar: constructing hypothesis, planning methodology to reach the conclusions, taking responsibility in logical interpretation and conclusion of the results; Çetin: taking responsibility in necessary literature review for the study, data management and reporting.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.
-
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: Not applicable.
References
[1] M. N. Hirsh and H. J. Oskam, Gaseous Electronics, vol. I, Los Angeles, USA, Academic Press, 1978.Search in Google Scholar
[2] R. Shishoo, Plasma Technologies For Textiles, Cambridge, USA, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2007.10.1533/9781845692575Search in Google Scholar
[3] J. S. Kim, Y. K. Kim, and K. H. Lee, “Effects of atmospheric plasma treatment on the interfacial characteristics of ethylene–vinyl acetate/polyurethane composites,” J. Colloid Interface Sci., vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 187–191, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2003.10.013.Search in Google Scholar
[4] S. J. Park and B. J. Kim, “Influence of oxygen plasma treatment on hydrogen chloride removal of activated carbon fibers,” J. Colloid Interface Sci., vol. 275, no. 2, pp. 590–595, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.03.011.Search in Google Scholar
[5] J. B. Lynch, P. D. Spence, D. E. Baker, and T. A. Postlethwaite, “Atmospheric pressure plasma treatment of polyethylene via a pulse dielectric barrier discharge: comparison using various gas compositions versus corona discharge in air,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 319–331, 1999, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19990110)71:2<319::AID-APP16>3.0.CO;2-T.10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19990110)71:2<319::AID-APP16>3.3.CO;2-KSearch in Google Scholar
[6] M. J. Shenton, G. C. Stevens, N. P. Wright, and X. Duan, “Chemical-surface modification of polymers using atmospheric pressure nonequilibrium plasmas and comparisons with vacuum plasmas,” J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 95–109, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.10056.Search in Google Scholar
[7] E. Dallı, “Atmosferik basınç soğuk plazma jetler,” Master Thesis, Eskişehir, Turkey, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[8] J. P. Boudou, J. I. Paredes, A. Cuesta, A. Martinez-Alonso, and J. M. D. Tascon, “Oxygen plasma modification of pitch-based isotropic carbon fibres,” Carbon, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 41–56, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(02)00270-1.Search in Google Scholar
[9] S. K. Øiseth, A. Krozer, B. Kasemo, and J. Lausmaa, “Surface modification of spin-coated high-density polyethylene films by argon and oxygen glow discharge plasma treatments,” Appl. Surf. Sci., vol. 202, nos. 1–2, pp. 92–103, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(02)00928-5.Search in Google Scholar
[10] A. Rabl, M. Stummer, M. Pfund, and N. Enzinger, “Surface treatment for effective bonding in the sports industry,” Mater. Test., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 128–133, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111132.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Ö. Aydın and P. Topuz, “Effect of hot dip galvanized coating on the corrosion resistance of the external surface of reinforcement steel,” Mater. Test., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 146–150, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.110835.Search in Google Scholar
[12] L. Sorrentino and L. Carrino, “Influence of process parameters of oxygen cold plasma treatment on wettability ageing time of 2024 aluminium alloy,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 136–143, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2008.01.009.Search in Google Scholar
[13] I. Dominguez-Lopez, M. Dominguez-Diaz, A. L. Garcia-Garcia, J. D. O. Barceinas-Sanchez, and H. Martinez, “Effect of atmospheric plasma treatment on the wettability of UHMWPE,” Mater. Lett., vol. 285, 2021, Art. no. 129159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2020.129159.Search in Google Scholar
[14] J. I. Mendez-Linan, et al.., “Aging effect of plasma-treated carbon surfaces: an overlooked phenomenon,” Carbon, vol. 169, pp. 32–44, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2020.06.085.Search in Google Scholar
[15] C. Che, B. Dashtbozorg, X. Li, H. Dong, and M. Jenkins, “Effect of μplasma modification on the wettability and the ageing behaviour of glass fibre reinforced polyamide 6 (GFPA6),” Materials, vol. 14, no. 24, p. 7721, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247721.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[16] M. Dominguez-Diaz, J. Escorcia-Garcia, and H. Martinez, “Influence of the crystalline structure stability in the wettability of poly-β-hydroxybutyrate:polyethylene glycol 6000 fiber mats treated by atmospheric-pressure plasma,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B, vol. 447, pp. 84–91, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2019.03.041.Search in Google Scholar
[17] Z. Zolek-Tryznowska, M. Prica, Z. Pavlovic, L. Cveticanin, and T. Annusik, “The influence of aging on surface free energy of corona treated packaging films,” Polym. Test., vol. 89, 2020, Art. no. 106629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106629.Search in Google Scholar
[18] T. S. Demina, M. S. Piskarev, A. I. Shpichka, A. B. Gilman, and P. S. Timashev, “Wettability and aging of polylactide films as a function of AC-discharge plasma treatment conditions,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1492, 2020, Art. no. 012001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1492/1/012001.Search in Google Scholar
[19] J. Izdebska-Podsiadly and E. Dörsam, “Effects of argon low temperature plasma on PLA film surface and aging behaviors,” Vacuum, vol. 145, pp. 278–284, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2017.09.001.Search in Google Scholar
[20] R. Thompson, D. Austin, C. Wang, A. Neville, and L. Lin, “Low-frequency plasma activation of nylon 6,” Appl. Surf. Sci., vol. 544, 2021, Art. no. 148929, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.148929.Search in Google Scholar
[21] A. Jorda-Vilaplana, L. Sanchez-Nacher, D. Garcia-Sanoguera, A. Carbonell, and J. M. Ferri, “Effects of aging on the adhesive properties of poly(lactic acid) by atmospheric air plasma treatment,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., vol. 133, no. 11, 2016, Art. no. 43040, https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43040.Search in Google Scholar
[22] M. C. Kim, S. H. Yang, J. H. Boo, and J. G. Han, “Surface treatment of metals using an atmospheric pressure plasma jet and their surface characteristics,” Surf. Coat. Technol., vols. 174–175, pp. 839–844, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0257-8972(03)00560-7.Search in Google Scholar
[23] X. Liu, et al., “Characteristic and application study of cold atmospheric-pressure nitrogen plasma jet,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1959–1968, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2015.2427852.Search in Google Scholar
[24] V. Prysiazhnyi, “Atmospheric pressure plasma treatment and following aging effect of chromium surfaces,” J. Surf. Eng. Mat. Adv. Technol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 138–145, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4236/jsemat.2013.32018.Search in Google Scholar
[25] S. Tang, O. J. Kwon, N. Lu, and H. S. Choi, “Surface free energy changes of stainless steel after one atmospheric pressure plasma treatment,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1218–1223, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02719497.Search in Google Scholar
[26] Relyon Plasma, “Products”. [Online]. Available at: https://www.relyon-plasma.com/products/?lang=en Accessed: Oct. 15, 2024.Search in Google Scholar
[27] A. Y. Aydar, V. Rodriguez-Martinez, and B. E. Farkas, “Determination and modeling of contact angle of canola oil and olive oil on a PTFE surface at elevated temperatures using air or steam as surrounding media,” LWT Food Sci. Technol., vol. 65, pp. 304–310, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.022.Search in Google Scholar
[28] A. W. Adamson, The physical chemistry of surfaces, 5th ed. New York, USA, Wiley Interscience, 1990.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review on three-point bending test for evaluating the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, and adhesion strength of coating/substrate systems
- Gas metal arc weldability of a Strenx 700MC-AISI304 dissimilar joint
- Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties of 5554 aluminum alloy fabricated by wire arc additive manufacturing
- Coating of TIG-welded micro-alloyed 38MnVS6 steel with flux-cored wire and FeB addition: microstructure, hardness, and wear properties
- Manufacturing parameters’ effects on the flexural properties of 3D-printed PLA
- Modified hot-spot stress method for fatigue life estimation of welded components
- Water as blowing agent in polyurethane resins creating porous cancellous bone surrogates for biomechanical osteosynthesis applications
- Enhancing cervical spine health: a vibration-focused multibody dynamics model for neck support system design
- Characterization of novel fibers extracted from Rumex obtusifolius L. plant for potential composite applications
- Interface metallurgical characteristics of dissimilar friction welded steels
- Effect of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment on the wettability and aging behavior of metal surfaces
- Microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar ferritic (S355)–austenitic (AISI 304) steel joints welded by robotic GMAW
- Enhanced Greylag Goose optimizer for solving constrained engineering design problems
- Effect of sustainable cooling and lubrication method on the hole quality and machinability performance in drilling of AA7075 alloy with cryogenically treated carbide drills
- Design optimization of a connecting rod for energy savings
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review on three-point bending test for evaluating the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, and adhesion strength of coating/substrate systems
- Gas metal arc weldability of a Strenx 700MC-AISI304 dissimilar joint
- Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties of 5554 aluminum alloy fabricated by wire arc additive manufacturing
- Coating of TIG-welded micro-alloyed 38MnVS6 steel with flux-cored wire and FeB addition: microstructure, hardness, and wear properties
- Manufacturing parameters’ effects on the flexural properties of 3D-printed PLA
- Modified hot-spot stress method for fatigue life estimation of welded components
- Water as blowing agent in polyurethane resins creating porous cancellous bone surrogates for biomechanical osteosynthesis applications
- Enhancing cervical spine health: a vibration-focused multibody dynamics model for neck support system design
- Characterization of novel fibers extracted from Rumex obtusifolius L. plant for potential composite applications
- Interface metallurgical characteristics of dissimilar friction welded steels
- Effect of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment on the wettability and aging behavior of metal surfaces
- Microstructure and mechanical properties of dissimilar ferritic (S355)–austenitic (AISI 304) steel joints welded by robotic GMAW
- Enhanced Greylag Goose optimizer for solving constrained engineering design problems
- Effect of sustainable cooling and lubrication method on the hole quality and machinability performance in drilling of AA7075 alloy with cryogenically treated carbide drills
- Design optimization of a connecting rod for energy savings
