IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.
13/stm media köthen
K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing
Krzysztof Rokosz, Tadeusz Hryniewicz
Division of Surface Electrochemistry and Technology Koszalin University of Technology Koszalin Poland
XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel
surface after magnetoelectropolishing
The work presents the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
measurement results of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface
after magnetoelectropolishing in comparison with the re-
sults obtained after a standard electropolishing in still elec-
trolyte and in the electrolyte with moderate mixing. A con-
siderable improvement of the steel surface was found to
appear after the magnetoelectropolishing treatment con-
cerning the general composition. The calculated ratio of
chromium compounds to iron compounds Cr-X/FeX equals
2 after magnetoelectropolishing and only 0.5 after a stan-
dard electropolishing. On the other hand, the ionic Cr6+
content after magnetoelectropolishing was the least
(2.77 at.%), and after a standard electropolishing it was the
highest (30.3 at.%). Such results are expected to influence
the corrosion behavior of the steel and increase the corro-
sion resistance greatly.
Keywords: LDX 2101 steel; Magnetoelectropolishing
MEP; Cr-X/Fe-X ratio; Cr6+ content drop; Models
1. Introduction
Duplex (ferritic–austenitic) wrought stainless steels contain
about 50 % austenite and 50 % ferrite because of the balan-
cing elements that stabilize austenite (C, N, Ni, Cu, Mn)
and ferrite (Cr, Mo, Si) [1]. They exhibit optimum proper-
ties when the ferrite/austenite (a/c) ratio is close to 1 and
no other detrimental phases are presented [2 – 4]. Low car-
bon is maintained in most grades to minimize intergranular
carbide precipitation. Because of their better stress-corro-
sion cracking resistance and appreciably higher yield and
tensile strength, these steels are currently used as direct sub-
stitutes for austenitic stainless steels when service above
260 to 315 8C is not required [1 – 3].
LDX 2101= is a lean duplex stainless steel designed for
general purpose use. Like other duplex stainless steels,
LDX 2101= provides both superior strength and chloride
stress corrosion cracking resistance compared to 300 series
stainless steels. The use of manganese ensures proper fer-
rite–austenite phase balance, while allowing a reduction in
nickel content [5 – 7].
The combination of a duplex structure and high nitrogen
content provide significantly higher strength levels than
316/316L stainless steel. Often a lighter gage of LDX
2101= can be utilized, while maintaining the same strength
as a 300 series fabrication. The resultant weight savings
can dramatically reduce the material and fabrication costs
of a component. The main features of LDX 2101 are: (1)
high resistance to chloride stress corrosion cracking
(SCC), (2) high strength and good fatigue strength, (3) good
general corrosion resistance and chloride pitting resistance,
(4) good machinability and weldability, (5) useful up to
315 8C [5].
The enhanced mechanical strength of LDX 2101 enables
it to be used in thinner cross-sections which can provide
significant cost savings to the end user. LDX 2101 exhibits
good abrasion and erosion resistance and can be fabricated
using standard shop practices developed for duplex stain-
less steels [5 – 7].
This study was carried out to present the X-ray photo-
electron spectroscopy (XPS) measurement results of the du-
plex LDX 2101 steel surface after standard electropolishing
(EP), the EP process with forced moderate mixing (MIX),
and magnetoelectropolishing (MEP) processes [8 – 13].
The results are to reveal the advantage of using MEP over
EP in reference both to the surface film composition [14 –
23], calculated Cr/Fe ratio, and/or chromium compounds
to iron compounds (Cr-X/Fe-X) ratio. Furthermore, based
on the study results, two models of metal/solution interface
were developed, one of them referred to the process of EP
and MIX electropolishing, and the second one regarding
the use of magnetic field in the MEP process.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Material
LDX 2101= duplex steel samples used in the study had the
material composition presented in Table 1. The second
column of Table 1 shows the composition of LDX 2101=
Duplex Stainless Steel as provided by the manufacturer
Outokumpu Stainless, (1104EN-GB:2. Centrum Tryck
AB, Avesta, Sweden, November 2004). The samples were
cut from a cold-rolled metal sheet of the duplex steel after
plate rolling so that the ferritic–austenitic structure was re-
tained. They were prepared in the form of rectangular speci-
mens of dimensions 31 · 52 mm cut of the metal sheet
4 mm thick.
Scanning electron micrographs of the sample surface
after three types of treatment are presented in Fig. 1. They
were taken under the same magnification after standard
electropolishing EP in still electrolyte (Fig. 1a), MIX with
stirring (Fig. 1b), and MEP – after magnetoelectropolishing
(Fig. 1c).
1
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

Table 1. Chemical composition of LDX 2101= (wt.%). For each run, an electrolytic cell made of glass was used,
containing up to 500 cm3 of electrolyte.
Element Typical (wt.%) Content (wt.%)
composition as measured
2.3. XPS studies
Chromium 21.5 21.43
Nickel 1.5 1.54 The XPS measurements on electrochemically polished
Manganese 5.0 4.90 LDX 2101= duplex steel samples were performed using a
Molybdenum 0.3 0.26 SCIENCE SES 2 002 instrument. Knowing that hm =
Nitrogen 0.22 0.244 1 486.6 eV and the Planck constant h = 4.135667516(91) ·
Carbon 0.03 0.025 10–15 eV s one may calculate the frequency m and the wave-
Silicon – 0.70 length of the X-ray radiation. The experimental resolution
Copper – 0.23 corresponds with an energy step of 0.2 eV. The details of
Vanadium – 0.067
the XPS studies are given in Hryniewicz and Rokosz [19].
Cobalt – 0.03
The XP spectra were recorded in normal emission.
In view of optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio, one XPS
Phosphorus – 0.021
measurement cycle covered 20 sweeps. Next the Cr/Fe ratio
Aluminum – 0.02
was determined for all measurements done. CasaXPS
Tungsten – 0.01
2.3.14 software was used for the XPS analyses. Following
Tin – 0.006
the CasaXPS 2.3.14 software, the interpretation of XPS re-
Iron Balance Balance
sults was performed in accordance to the algorithm [24 –
27] with the specific data presented in literature [28 – 47].

2.2. Set up and parameters
The electrolytic polishing was performed both in the ab-
sence (EP) and in the presence of electrolyte stirring
(MIX) without as well as using the magnetic field (MEP);
current density of 200 ± 20 A dm–2 was used in each mode
of electropolishing. A magnetic sensor model SMS-102,
made by ASONIK Co. Poland, was used to measure the
magnetic field intensity.
The experimental set-up used for both the standard
electropolishing (B = 0 mT, i = 200 ± 20 A dm–2), and for
the magnetoelectropolishing (B = 400 ± 50 mT, i = 200 ±
20 A dm–2) was presented earlier in Hryniewicz et al. [14],
with the schemes of connections and particular components
of the set-up given in Rokosz and Hryniewicz [15]. The
main elements of the set-up are: a processing cell with hea-
ter and/or mixing element, a direct current (dc) power sup-
ply Telzas PDN 24-48-(60)/30(25), a permanent neody-
mium magnet, the electrodes and connecting wiring. The
studies were carried out in the electrolyte at a temperature
of 65 8C, with the temperature control of ± 10 8C. For the
studies, a proprietary mixed sulfuric/orthophosphoric acids
electrolyte (H3PO4 : H2SO4 = 1.5 and 10 % H2O) was used.
3. Results
Results of XPS spectra for essential elements of the studied
LDX 2101= duplex steel samples are presented in Figs. 2 –
10, with the results of fitting and the most interesting con-
tents of elements and compounds given Tables 2 – 6.
In Fig. 2 there are the XPS results presented for iron Fe
2p in the steel surface film after EP, MIX, MEP treatments.
Figure 2a presents three Fe 2p spectra juxtaposed in one
plot, and the spectra fittings are given in Fig. 2b. Peak of
BE & 707 eV represents metallic iron Fe0 and the
BE & 711 eV represents the iron compounds, most prob-
ably Fe2O3 and/or FeOOH.
Figure 2 and Table 2 show that after MIX electropolish-
ing a minimum amount of iron as a metal is visible. An in-
creasing amount of metallic iron is observed after EP treat-
ment, and its maximum is noted after MEP. It could be
interpreted as a surface layer thickness. After MEP the layer
is the thinnest and after MIX the thickest one.
In Fig. 3 the XPS results are presented for chromium Cr
2p in the steel surface film after EP, MIX, MEP treatments.
Figure 3a presents three Cr 2p spectra juxtaposed in one
plot, and the spectra fittings are given in Fig. 3b. From Ta-
ble 3 it may be noticed there are no clear differences visible

Fig. 1. SEM images of LDX 2101 surface after: (a) EP, (b) MIX, (c) MEP.

2
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

between a kind of chromium compounds and their amount
in surface layers after EP and MIX electropolishing. After
MEP the amount of chromium in the surface layer is about
3 to 4 times higher.
In Fig. 4 the XPS results are given for oxygen O 1s in the
steel surface film after EP, MIX, MEP treatments. In
Fig. 4a O 1s curves are shown for EP, MIX and MEP treat-
ments, and the spectra fittings are presented in Fig. 4b, with
more detailed data given in Table 4. After MIX and MEP
the curves overlap and the binding energy could suggest
that in the surface layer there are mostly hydroxides, and
sulfates of iron, and chromium.
For EP a higher amount of oxygen is observed in the
form of sulfates and phosphates of iron, and chromium.
That observation is confirmed by the results shown in the
Figs. 5 and 6 and Tables 5 and 6, concerning phosphorus,
and sulfur, respectively.
Figure 7 shows the curves of Mo 3d for all treatments
(EP, MIX, and MEP), which have very similar shapes.
There are two peaks: BE & 227 eV (Mo 3d5/2) clearly visi-
ble, which could correspond to molybdenum as a metal
Mo0, and BE & 233 eV (Mo 3d5/2) that could correspond
to ionic Mo6+.
Figure 8 shows the curves of Mn 2p for all treatments
(EP, MIX and MEP), with very similar aggregations of
points rather than the curve courses. One may notice one-
peak aggregations at BE & 642.2 eV though not very
clearly visible that can correspond to molybdenum as a
Mn2+.
Figure 9 shows the curves of N 1s for all treatments (EP,
MIX and MEP), which have very similar shapes. There are
not very clearly visible one-peak approximations at
BE & 400.6 eV that could correspond to C – N single bonds.
In Fig. 10 spectra are presented for nickel Ni 2p after EP,
MIX and MEP treatments. The aggregations indicate no
clear differences visible amongst the spectra.
The ratios of chromium compounds to iron compounds
of the LDX 2101 steel after EP, MIX, and MEP treatments
are presented in Fig. 11. One can easily see the highest val-
ue of Cr-X/Fe-X ratio was obtained on the steel after magne-
toelectropolishing, MEP.
The Cr-X/Fe-X ratios were calculated on the basis of Fe
2p3/2 and Cr 2p3/2 XPS spectra fitting and isolating from
them the metallic part and the chemical compounds with
other elements. The calculation of these ratios regarded the
sensitivity factor both for chromium and iron.

Table 2. Results of fitting Fe 2p3/2 data.

EP BE (eV) 707.1 709.6 711.8 713.8

FWHM 0.9 1.6 1.7 2.9

AREA 0.8 1.3 4.8 3.5

Fe 2p (at.%) 7.65 12.98 45.88 33.48

Iron Compounds Fe0 FeO FeOOH Fex(SO4)y

Fex(PO4)y

References [26, 32, 41] [26, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36] [26, 32, 36] [31, 33, 36, 42, 43]

MIX BE (eV) 706.8 708.7 711.9 715.8

FWHM 1.8 2.3 2.9 2.8

AREA 0.4 0.6 4.7 0.7

Fe 2p (at.%) 5.8 8.97 74.16 11.06

Iron Compounds Fe0 FeO FeOOH Fex(PO4)y

Fex(SO4)y sat (Fe2+)

References [31, 37, 41, 42] [26, 29, 32, 35, 36] [26, 31, 32, 36] [28, 31, 33, 36, 42, 43]

MEP BE (eV) 707.1 709.2 711.5 713.8

FWHM 1.3 1.6 2.4 2.7

AREA 3.3 2.2 3.9 2.0

Fe 2p (at.%) 29.5 19.4 34.43 17.07

Iron Compounds Fe0 FeO FeOOH Fex(SO4)y

Fex(SO4)y Fex(PO4)

References [26, 32, 41] [26, 32, 35, 36] [26, 27, 28, 32, 36, 41] [31, 33, 36, 42, 43]

3
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

The ionic Cr6+ content at Cr 2p3/2 in the LDX 2101 steel
surface layer after EP, MIX, and MEP treatments is pre-
sented in Fig. 12. A reverse behavior to that of Fig. 11 is ob-
served in ionic chromium content. The studies indicate the
least amount of Cr6+ after MEP.
4. Discussion
XPS results and characterization of passive film formed on
LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after EP, MIX, and MEP
treatments have been obtained. The main elements of the
steel: iron, chromium, molybdenum, oxygen, nickel, man-
ganese, phosphorus, sulfur, and nitrogen, were analyzed.
There are many references [26 – 37, 41 – 43] treating the
fitting procedure of iron (see Table 2), whereas for chro-
mium fitting (see Table 3) the procedure comes from [26,
32, 37 – 41].
Extremely interesting XPS spectra (Figs. 2 and 3) and
corresponding to them Tables 2 and 3 refer to the variability
of iron and chromium in the steel surface film. The variabil-
ity of iron (Fe 2p) after EP and MEP is quite alike, with
lower iron levels visible after MIX (Fig. 2). On the other
hand, the variability of chromium is distinctly different
after MEP in comparison with the XPS results of Cr 2p after
both EP and MIX treatments (Fig. 3, and Table 3). One may
easily see that there is no difference in the chromium varia-
bility between EP and MIX samples, whereas the use of
magnetic field results in a meaningful jump in the chro-
mium content in the steel film surface after MEP (Fig. 3).
For the fitting procedure, in view of getting the least error
and presenting the essential differences, the authors decided
to use the same number of peaks. The interpretation of the
peaks was performed on the basis of available literature
[26 – 49] (see Tables 2 – 6). The authors know that there
are many other precise methods, e. g. the Gupta-Sen com-
plex multiplet splitting method of fitting. However, con-
cerning the number of elements forming an alloy such as
LDX 2101= duplex steel, including the elements coming
from the electrolyte solution (specifically sulfur and phos-
phorus), that method does not provide a clear and univocal
answer to the question of which compounds are present in
the surface layer. Another aspect of the problem is the fact

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. XPS results of iron (Fe 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and MEP: (a) three spectra juxtaposed, (b) spectra fitting.

4
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

that the XPS studies were carried out for a maximum depth,
with the sample irradiated at a right angle. Under such an
examination and layered surface film studied, the values
obtained are the average of all sub-layers. For that reason
the authors decided to use the ratio of chromium com-
pounds to iron compounds as the main parameter differen-
tiating the surface layers remaining after each of the surface
treatment applied [26]. Such in-depth XPS studies, to be
carried out under different angles of irradiation, are planned
in the future to reveal the complexity of the sub-layers
forming the surface layer penetrated from top down to the
core.
The XPS results for other elements, concerning oxygen
(O 1 s) variability (Fig. 4 and Table 4), phosphorus (P 2p)
variability (Fig. 5 and Table 5), and sulfur (S 2p) variability
(Fig. 6 and Table 6) do not provide clear information. Oxy-
gen and phosphorus reveal a higher peak after EP (Figs. 4
and 5), and sulfur – after MEP (Fig. 6).
There are no changes visible in the variability of molyb-
denum spectra (Mo 3d) (Fig. 7) and nitrogen (N 1s)
(Fig. 9) spectra of LDX 2101 steel after EP, MIX and
MEP with a similar peak noticed after each treatment.
Nearly the same observation refers to manganese (Mn 2p)
spectra (Fig. 8), though in this case no clear peak may be
found. Totally random XPS results of nickel (Ni 2p) of
LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and MEP (Fig. 10) do not present
a clear regularity and are not of interest in any surface fin-
ishing performed.
The most essential and meaningful are the changes in
chromium content in the steel surface film after magnetoe-
lectropolishing MEP, with the results presented in Figs. 11
and 12. The ratio of chromium compounds to iron
compounds (Fig. 11) appears to be the highest after MEP
(Cr-X/Fe-X = 2), much less after MIX (Cr-X/Fe-X = 0.7),
and even lower (Cr-X/Fe-X = 0.5) after EP treatment. Also
very important is ionic Cr6+ content in the LDX 2101 steel
surface film after EP, MIX and MEP treatments (Fig. 12).
Surprisingly, being in correlation with the data of Fig. 11,
the highest Cr6+ content (30.3 at.%) appeared to be after a
standard electropolishing EP, and the lowest (2.77 at.%) –
after MEP.
For electropolishing EP and MIX of the duplex steel, the
interface model presented in Fig. 13 is relevant. The mech-
anism of dissolution during EP is based on the diffusion of

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3. XPS results of chromium (Cr 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and MEP: (a) three spectra juxtaposed, (b) spectra fitting.

5
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

cations of iron and chromium from C to B layer along with
the complexes containing molecules of water, cations of
iron, chromium, nickel, molybdenum and manganese, and
PO43– and SO42– anions of total negative charge. During
these EP and MIX treatments, a porous passive layer con-
taining in its volume a balance between ferro- and ferri-
and/or paramagnetic compounds of iron and chromium are
formed. The ratio of chromium compounds to iron com-
pounds in the whole volume of passive layer equals 0.5 for
EP and 0.7 for MIX treatments.
Figure 14 presents the interface model valid for MEP
treatment, with the B layer divided into 3 sublayers. The
sublayer B3, the thinnest of the three sublayers, is com-
posed of paramagnetic hydrated salts, mainly phosphates
and sulfates of iron and/or chromium, together with a trace
amount of ferro- and ferrimagnetic compounds. In the tran-
sition sublayer B2 there are both paramagnetic oxides and
hydroxides of iron and/or chromium (Cr – Cr, FeO, Fe2O3,
Cr2O3, a, c-CrOOH, MnO) as well as ferromagnetic (Fe –
Fe, Ni – Ni, b-CrOOH, CrO2) and ferrimagnetic (FeO –
Fe2O3, NiO – Fe2O3, MnO – Fe2O3) compounds. In the sub-
layer B1 a reverse situation takes place: the most probable
ferro- and ferrimagnetic compounds prevail. The ratio of
chromium compounds to iron compounds in the whole
volume of the passive layer after electropolishing in the
magnetic field MEP has increased four times and equals
about 2.
The two models of surface layer presented above have
their consequences in the change in the alloy behavior and
its characteristics. As was found previously by Hryniewicz
et al. [50 – 52], such a change in surface film composition
may also affect other mechanical properties, such as nano-
hardness and Young’s modulus [50, 53], and de-hydrogena-
tion effect by Hryniewicz et al. [51, 52].
5. Conclusion
Studies of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after electropol-
ishing (EP, MIX) and magnetoelectropolishing MEP were
carried out using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The re-
sults obtained allowed several essential conclusions to be
drawn:
1. The magnetic field was effectively used to enhance the
electropolishing process and improve the duplex steel
surface quality
2. Two models of the metal/solution interface were devel-
oped, one of them referred to the processes of EP and
MIX electropolishing, and the second one valid for the
magnetoelectropolishing MEP

Table 3. Results of fitting Cr 2p3/2 data.

EP BE (eV) 574.3 577.1 579.6

FWHM 1.2 2.0 2.8

AREA 0.3 2.2 1.1

Cr 2p (at.%) 9.13 60.58 30.30

Chromium Compounds Cr0 CrOOH Cr6+

References [26, 32, 37, 38, 41] [26, 32, 38, 39, 41] [38, 40]

MIX BE (eV) 574.4 577.6 579.7

FWHM 2.3 2.4 1.5

AREA 0.8 2.6 0.6

Cr 2p (at.%) 19.8 65.46 14.74

Chromium Compounds Cr0 Cr(OH)3 Cr6+

References [26, 32, 37, 38, 41] [26, 32, 38, 39] [38, 40]

MEP BE [eV] 574.4 577.2 579.9

FWHM 1.7 2.8 1.7

AREA 1.9 11.5 0.4

Cr 2p (at.%) 13.93 83.31 2.77

Chromium Compounds Cr0 CrOOH Cr6+

References [26, 32, 37, 38, 41] [26, 32, 38, 39, 41] [38, 40]

6
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4. XPS results of oxygen (O 1 s) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and MEP: (a) three spectra juxtaposed, (b) spectra fitting.

Table 4. Analysis by one-peak fitting of O1s data (dominant compounds).

O 1s BE (eV) FWHM AREA Compound Type References

EP 531.8 2.2 84.8 sulfate [26, 27, 31, 32, 38, 39]
MIX 532.0 2.4 72.5 sulfate [26, 27, 31, 32, 38, 39]
MEP 531.9 2.5 78.7 sulfate [26, 27, 31, 32, 38, 39]

Table 5. Analysis by one-peak fitting of P 2p data.

P 2p BE (eV) FWHM Area Compound Type References

EP 133.7 1.8 11.3 phosphate [38, 41]

MIX 133.7 1.7 7.5 phosphate [38, 41]
MEP 133.8 1.9 7.4 phosphate [38, 41]

7
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen

K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing

Fig. 8. XPS results of manganese (Mn 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX
and MEP.

Fig. 5. XPS results of phosphorus (P 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX
and MEP.

Fig. 9. XPS results of nitrogen (N 1s) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and
MEP.
Fig. 6. XPS results of sulfur (S 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and
MEP.

Fig. 7. XPS results of molybdenum (Mo 3d) of LDX 2101 after EP, Fig. 10. XPS results of nickel (Ni 2p) of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and
MIX and MEP. MEP.

Table 6. Analysis by one-peak fitting of S 2p data.

S 2p BE (eV) FWHM Area Compound Type References

EP 169.3 2.3 3.0 sulfate [26, 36, 38, 43]
MIX 169.6 2.4 3.7 sulfate [26, 36, 38, 43]
MEP 169.6 2.4 4.4 sulfate [26, 36, 38, 43]

8
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen
K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing
Fig. 11. Calculated Cr-X/Fe-X ratio of LDX 2101 after EP, MIX and
MEP.
Fig. 12. Ionic Cr6+ content at Cr 2p3/2 in the LDX 2101 steel after EP,
MIX and MEP.
3. The most essential were the results for the main alloying
element: the chromium content in the surface film
formed after EP, MIX, and MEP treatments
4. Cr-X/Fe-X ratio of LDX 2101 steel after MEP was the
highest and equalled 2, the lowest after EP (0.5) with
an intermediate value (0.7) obtained after MIX
5. An advantageous result in the Cr6+ content was detected
the least (2.77 at.%) after MEP, much higher
(14.74 at.%) after MIX, and the highest (30.3 at.%) after
EP operation.
Such a change in the surface film composition after MEP
surely influences the LDX 2101 steel corrosion behavior;
this will be studied in the next part of the work.
The manufacturer Outokumpu Stainless Steel is acknowledged for de-
livering samples for the studies. The Authors acknowledge Dr. Gregor
Mori of Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Austria, for providing bulk chem-
ical composition of the LDX 2101= duplex steel used in the studies.
Professor Steinar Raaen of Physics Department of NTNH Trondheim,
Norway, is greatly acknowledged for making available the XPS appa-
ratus and valuable discussion of the raw results.
References
[1] Metals Handbook, 10th Edition, Properties and Selection. Irons,
Steels and High-Performance Alloys. ASM International, Materi-
als Park, OH 44073, Vol. 1 (1990).
[2] X. Li, L. Guo, D. Han, J. Li, Y. Jiang: Steel Res. Intern. 84 (2013)
155. DOI:10.1002/srin.201200131
Fig. 13. Model of metal/solution interface in the process of EP and
MIX electropolishing: A – polished steel, B – layer of solid polishing
products: hydrated salts with ions derived from the solution and stain-
less steel, C – continuous layer of solution consisting of water mole-
cules and ions, D – solution (electrolyte).
Fig. 14. Model of metal/solution interface in the process of MEP pol-
ishing of austenitic steel alloy: A – polished steel, B – a layer of solid
products made from polishing compounds: ferri- and ferromagnetic
with paramagnetic inclusions (B1), ferri- and ferromagnetic as well as
paramagnetic (B2), paramagnetic with ferri- and ferromagnetic inclu-
sions (B3), C – liquid coating solution consisting of water molecules
and ions, D – solution (electrolyte).
[3] J.O. Nilsson: Materials Sci. Technol. 8(9) (1992) 685.
[4] J.O. Nilsson: Materials Sci. Technol. 9(7) (1993) 545.
DOI:10.1179/026708393790172222
[5] http://www.rolledalloys.com/products/duplex-stainless-steels/
ldx-2101.
[6] http://www.sandmeyersteel.com/LDX2101.html.
[7] http://www.outokumpu.com/stainless/na LDX duplex steel.pdf.
[8] T. Hryniewicz, R. Rokicki, K. Rokosz: Met. Finisch. 104(12)
(2006) 26. DOI:10.1016/S0026-0576(06)80361-2
[9] T. Hryniewicz, R. Rokicki, K. Rokosz: Trans. Inst. Met. Finish.
85(6) (2007) 325. DOI:10.1179/174591907X246537
[10] R. Rokicki, T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz: Medical Device & Diag-
nostic Industry 30(1) (2008) 102.
[11] R. Rokicki: US Patent 7632390 (2009).
[12] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz, M. Filippi: Materials 2(1) (2009) 129.
DOI:10.3390/ma2010129
[13] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz: Mat. Chem. Phys. 122 (2010) 169,.
DOI:10.1016/j.matchemphys.2010.02.055
[14] T. Hryniewicz, R. Rokicki, K. Rokosz: Corrosion 64(8) (2008)
660. DOI:10.5006/1.3279927
[15] K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: Corrosion 66(3) (2010) 035004-1...11
(11pages). DOI:10.5006/1.3360910
[16] T. Hryniewicz, R. Rokicki, K. Rokosz: Surf. Coat. Technol.
202(9) (2008) 1668. DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2007.07.067
[17] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz, R. Rokicki: Corr. Sci. 50(9) (2008)
2676. DOI:10.1016/j.corsci.2008.06.048
[18] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz: Mat. Chem. Phys. 123 (2010) 47.
DOI:10.1016/j.matchemphys.2010.03.060
[19] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz: Surf. Coat. Technol. 204 (2010) 2583.
DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2010.02.005
9
 IJMR_MK110984 – 29.7.13/stm media köthen
K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz: XPS measurements of LDX 2101 duplex steel surface after magnetoelectropolishing
[20] K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz, W. Malorny, J. Valíček, L. Cepova:
Transactions VSB, TU Ostrava 56(1) (2010) 301, (ISSN 1210 –
0471, ISBN 978-80-248-2302-7).
[21] K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz, S. Raaen: Steel Res. Intern. 83 (2012).
DOI:10.1002/srin.201200046
[22] C.C. Shih, C.M. Shih, Y.Y. Su, L.H.J. Su, M.S. Chang, S.J. Lin:
Corr. Sci. 46(2) (2004) 427.
DOI:10.1016/S0010-938X(03)00148-3
[23] G. Selvaduray, S. Trigwell, Effect of Surface Treatment on the
Surface Characteristics of AISI 316L Stainless Steel, Proc. Mater.
and Processes for Medical Devices Conference, Boston MA,
2005, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/selvaduray/page/recent/
316LStainlessSteel.pdf.
[24] S. Trigwell, G. Selvaduray, Effect of Surface Treatment on the
Surface Characteristics of AISI 316L Stainless Steel, NASA
Technical Report, Kennedy Space Center, Rep. No. KSC-2005-
182, 2005, http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120003602
&qs=N%3D4294966819%26Nn%3D4294966526%257C
Availability%2BType%257CAcquire%2Bfrom%2BCASI.
[25] X.Y. Wang, Y.S. Wu, L. Zhang, Z.Y. Yu: Corrosion 57(6) (2001)
540. DOI:10.5006/1.3290380
[26] CasaXPS Version 2.3.16 http://www.casaxps.com.
[27] V. Crist: Handbook of monochromatic XPS spectra, The elements
and native oxides, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2000).
[28] C.D. Wagner, W.M. Riggs, L.E. Davis, J.E. Moulder, G.E. Mui-
lenberg (Eds.): Handbook of X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy.
Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN (2000).
[29] A. Grosvenor, B.A. Kobe, M.C. Biesinger, N.S. McIntyre: Surf.
Interface Analysis 36(12) (2004) 1564. DOI:10.1002/sia.1984
[30] M. Fantauzzi, A. Pacella, D. Atzei, A. Gianfagna, G.B. Andreoz-
zi, A. Rossi: Analyt. Bioanalyt. Chem. 396(8) (2013) 2889.
PMid:20217397; DOI:10.1007/s00216-010-3576-0
[31] S.G. Wang, G. Han, G.H. Yu, Y. Jiang, C. Wang, A. Kohn, R.C.C.
Ward: J. Magnetism and Magnet. Mater. 310 (2007) 1935.
DOI:10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.10.767
[32] L. Pramatarova, E. Pecheva, V. Krastev, F. Riesz: J. Mater. Sci:
Materials in Medicine: 18 (2007) 435. PMid:17334694;
DOI:10.1007/s10854-007-9254-0
[33] J.R. Kish, M.B. Ives, J.R. Rodda: Corr. Sci. 45 (7) (2003) 1571.
DOI:10.1016/S0010-938X(02)00232-9
[34] C.D Wagner, W.M. Riggs, L.E. Davis, J.F. Moulder: Handbook of
X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Perkin Elmer Corp., Physics
and Electronics Division, Eden Prairie, MN (1979).
[35] X. Zhang, G. Zhuang, J. Chen, H. Xue: Chinese Sci. Bullet. 50(8)
(2005) 738. DOI:10.1007/BF03183671
[36] K.N. Barquist: Synthesis and environmental adsorption applica-
tions of functionalized zeolites and iron oxide/zeolite composites,
Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Iowa (2009).
[37] S. Tang, N. Lu, S.-W. Myung, H-S. Cho: Surf. Coat. Technol.
200(18-19) (2006) 5220.
[38] V.L. Tauson, D.N. Babkin, E.E. Lustenberg, S.V. Lipko, I.Yu.
Parkhomenko: Geochem. Intern. 46(6) (2008) 565.
DOI:10.1134/S0016702908060037
[39] K.W. Vogt, L.A. Naugher, P.A. Kohl: Thin Solid Films 256
(1995) 106. DOI:10.1016/0040-6090(94)06308-7
[40] M.C. Biesinger, C. Brown, J.R. Mycroft, R.D. Davidson, N.C.
McIntyre: Surf. Interface Analysis 36 (2004) 1550.
DOI:10.1002/sia.1983
[41] B. Stypuła, J. Banaś, M. Starowicz: Anodic behaviour of 2205
chromium-nickel steel in concentrated sulfuric acid in the trans-
passive region (Anodowe zachowania sie˛ stali chromowo-niklo-
wej 2205 w ste˛z_ onym kwasie siarkowym w obszarze traspasyw-
nym), Proc. 33rd Sci. Confer., AGH, Kraków, (2009).
PMid:19919967
10
[42] T.L. Daulton, B.J. Little: Ultramicroscopy 106 (2006) 561. http://
srdata.nist.gov/xps/. DOI:10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.02.005
[43] M. Descostes, F. Mercier, N. Thromat, C. Beaucaire, M. Gautier-
Soyer: Appl. Surf. Sci. 165 (2000) 288.
DOI:10.1016/S0169-4332(00)00443-8
[44] H. Konno, K. Sasaki, M. Tsunekawa, T. Takamori, R. Furuichi:
Bunseki Kagaku 40 (1991) 609.
DOI:10.2116/bunsekikagaku.40.11_609
[45] C.M. Eggleston, J.J. Ehrhardt, W. Stumm: Amer. Mineral. 81
(1996) 1036.
[46] D. Brion, Appl. Surf. Sci. 5 (1980) 133.
DOI:10.1016/0378-5963(80)90148-8
[47] H.W. Nesbitt, I.J. Muir: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 58 (1994)
4667. DOI:10.1016/0016-7037(94)90199-6
[48] P. Mills, J.L. Sullivan: J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. London 16 (1983)
723. DOI:10.1088/0022-3727/16/5/005
[49] T. Hryniewicz, K. Rokosz, J. Valíček, R. Rokicki: Mater. Lett. 83
(2012) 69. DOI:10.1016/j.matlet.2012.06.010
[50] T. Hryniewicz, P. Konarski, K. Rokosz, R. Rokicki: Surf. Coat.
Technol. 205 (2011) 4228,. DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.03.024
[51] T. Hryniewicz, P. Konarski, R. Rokicki, J. Valíček: Surf. Coat.
Technol. 206 (2012) 4027. DOI:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.03.083
[52] K. Rokosz, T. Hryniewicz, J. Valíček, M. Harničárová, M. Vyle-
žík: Nanoindentation measurements of AISI 316L biomaterial
samples after annual immersion in Ringer’s solution followed by
electrochemical polishing in a magnetic field, PAK (Measure-
ment Automation and Monitoring) 58(5) (2012) 460.
(Received March 19, 2013; accepted July 16, 2013)
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/146.110984
Int. J. Mater. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.)
104 (2013) E; page 1 – 10
# Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 1862-5282
Correspondence address
Prof. Tadeusz Hryniewicz, PhD
Koszalin University of Technology
Raclawicka 15 – 17
75-620 Koszalin
Poland
Tel.: +48 94 3478244
Fax: +48 94 3426753
E-mail: Tadeusz.Hryniewicz@tu.koszalin.pl
You will find the article and additional material by enter-
ing the document number MK110984 on our website at
www.ijmr.de