ICE | The Israel Chemist and Chemical Engineer | Issue 6

18 Scientific Article The Israel Chemist and Chemical Engineer Issue 6 · July 2020 · Av 5780 Dr. Alec Groysman graduated in 1973 from the Chemico-Technological University named after Mendeleev in Moscow. He received his PhD in physical chemistry and corrosion in 1983 in Moscow. Alec Groysman has experience in corrosion and corrosion control in the oil refining and petrochemical industry. He is a lecturer of the courses “Materials and Standards in Oil and Gas Engineering” and “Corrosion and Corrosion Control” at the Technion (Haifa, Israel). His first book “ Corrosion for Everybody ” published by Springer in 2010 received the innovation award winner of Materials Performance Readers’ choice in 2012 year in the USA. His second book “ Corrosion in Systems for Transportation and Storage of PetroleumProducts and Biofuels ” was published by Springer in 2014. His third book “ Corrosion Problems and Solutions in Oil Refining and Petrochemical Industry ” was published by Springer in 2017. He has special interests in the relationship between environment and corrosion phenomena, and the role of safety and human factor in corrosion management, corrosion education and in the searching of relationships between corrosion, art, history, and philosophy. Dr. Alec Groysman is the Honorary President of the Israeli Association of Chemical Engineers and Chemists. Terminology confusion in corrosion science and engineering Alec Groysman Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel Email: [email protected] Introduction During my many years of teaching the subject of corrosion in universities and colleges, I came across astounding situations in which scientists and engineers referred to the same things by different names, or used wrongly or confused several designations and definitions in corrosion science and engineering. For example, they confused cathodic and anodic protection; passive and active protection; absolute, reversible, and stationary electrode potentials; standard and normal hydrogen electrodes. Some people do not know whether there is any difference between stainless steel and “Nirosta”; between the chemical elements niobium (Nb) and columbium (Cb); between electrolytic, galvanic, voltaic, electrochemical, and corrosion cells. We can even meet such confusion in monographs, textbooks, and papers on corrosion. We came across nine different terms that define the one dealloying phenomenon. Nobody seems to wonder how the use of such synonyms in language began. However, such situations in corrosion science and engineering may lead to confusion. Some terms are misleading: why do we refer to the dealloying phenomenon when iron leaches but carbon remains in the cast iron, as graphitic corrosion rather than as de iron ification? Is this only because scientists have agreed to use some terms that are historically wrong? We enter into the labyrinth of terminology using terms such as superalloys, high performance alloys, superaustenitic, and superduplex . Try to find explanations for these words. All these terms and such questions, as well as ambiguity in terminology, brought me to think about clarifying this unfortunate situation in corrosion science and technology. A recent event, which happened to one of my students, prompted me to write this paper. He reported at a conference organized by an oil company on the definition of efficiency of sacrificial Al-Zn ring bracelets for corrosion control of the outer surface of a submerged coated pipeline made from carbon steel, transporting crude oil in the Caspian Sea. Several engineers from the oil company urged the student to replace the term cathodic protection by anodic protection . The student was frustrated because he was taught that this instance was indeed cathodic protection. The problem of such engineers is that they “ do not know what they do not know ”. The aim of this work is to clear up the confusion. We invite you to participate in an attempt to sort out and resolve the