Table 1.

Mass in Terms of Grams of the Coated Metals Before and After

Submersion in NaCl Solution

Group NaCl Mass Before Mass After Mass Loss Mean Mass
(g) (g) (g) Loss(g)
20.18 20.17 0.01
T1 (25:75) 20.20 20.18 0.02 0.02
20.23 20.21 0.02
20.26 20.24 0.02
T2 (50:50) 20.30 20.29 0.01 0.01
20.24 20.23 0.01
20.27 20.23 0.04
T3(75:25) 20.22 20.19 0.03 0.03
20.31 20.27 0.04
20.28 20.22 0.06
Uncoated 20.33 20.27 0.06 0.06
20.14 20.07 0.07

The mass loss in grams of the coated A36 steel before and after

submersion in the 5% NaCl solutions varies in different treatments. All

replicates that no received treatments exhibited the highest mass loss of 0.06g.

This implies that the A36 steel have undergone corrosion indicating that these

treatments show the least effectiveness in terms of mass loss in grams.

However, all replicates that received Treatment 2 (50% M. Oleifera crude leaves

extract and50%ethanol) exhibited the lowest mass loss of 0.01g. This implies

that the A36 steel have undergone no corrosion indicating that this treatment

shows the most effectiveness in terms of mass loss in grams (Table 1).
Table 2.

Mass in Terms of Grams of the Coated Metals Before and After

Submersion in HCl Solution

Group HCl Mass Before Mass After Mass Loss Mean Mass
(g) (g) (g) Loss(g)
20.14 20.06 0.08
T1 (25:75) 20.26 20.19 0.07 0.07
20.31 20.25 0.06
20.18 20.13 0.05
T2 (50:50) 20.27 20.23 0.04 0.05
20.30 20.25 0.05
20.22 20.17 0.05
T3(75:25) 20.24 20.18 0.06 0.06
20.28 20.22 0.05
20.25 20.12 0.13
Uncoated 20.23 20.11 0.12 0.12
20.21 20.09 0.12

The mass loss in grams of the coated A36 steel before and after

submersion in the 15% HCl solution varies in different treatments. All

replicates that received no treatment exhibited the highest mass loss of 0.12g.

This implies that the A36 steel have undergone corrosion indicating that these

treatments show the least effectiveness in terms of mass loss in grams.

However, all replicates that received Treatment 2 (50% M. Oleifera crude leaves

extract and 50% ethanol), exhibited the lowest mass loss of 0.05g. This implies

that the A36 steel have undergone no corrosion indicating that this treatment

shows the most effectiveness in terms of mass loss in grams (Table 1).
Table 3.

Percent Inhibition of Corrosion Among All Replicates in All Treatments in

NaCl Solution after 168 Hours

Corrosion Rates Percent Inhibitory

Group NaCl Mean Mass Loss(g) (cm/hr) Efficiency

T1 (25:75) 0.02 2.54375244×10-¹⁰ 66.67%

T2 (50:50) 0.01 1.271876272×10-¹⁰ 83.33%

T3(75:25) 0.03 3.815628816×10-¹⁰ 50%

Uncoated 0.06 7.631257631×10-¹⁰ 0.0%

Using the formula for the percent inhibition efficiency (%IE) of corrosion

among all replicates in all treatments in the 5% NaCl solution, all replicates

that received treatment 2 accounts for the highest % IE with a value of 83.33%

resulting to a 0.01g mean mass loss. On the other hand, all replicates that

received treatment 3 only accounts for the lowest % IE with a value of 50%

resulting to the lowest mean mass loss of 0.03g (Table 3).

Table 4.

Percent Inhibition of Corrosion Among All Replicates in All Treatments in

HCl Solution after (24) Hours

Group HCl Mean Mass Loss(g) Corrosion Rates Percent Inhibitory

(cm/hr) Efficiency

T1 (25:75) 0.07 6.232193732×10-⁹ 41.67%

T2 (50:50) 0.05 4.451566952×10-⁹ 58.33%

T3(75:25) 0.06 4.451566952×10-⁹ 50%

Uncoated 0.12 1.068376068×10-⁸ 0.0%

Using the formula for the percent inhibition efficiency (%IE) of corrosion

among all replicates in all treatments in the 5% NaCl solution, all replicates

that received treatment 2 accounts for the highest % IE with a value of 58.33%

resulting to a 0.05g mean mass loss. On the other hand, all replicates that

received treatment 1 accounts for the lowest % IE with a value of 41.67%

resulting to the lowest mean mass loss of 0.07g (Table 4).

Treatment Mean Percent Inhibitory

T1 54.17%

T2 70.83%

T3 50%

Table 5.
Mean Percent Inhibition Among All Replicates in All Setups in both NaCl

and HCl Solutions

Table 5 shows the mean percent inhibition of the Treatments in the NaCl

and HCl solution with Treatment 2 having the highest percent inhibition with a

value of 70.83% indicating it is the most efficient in terms of corrosion

inhibition. While Treatment 3 exhibited the lowest percent inhibition with a

value of 5.83% indicating that it is the least efficient in inhibiting corrosion.