Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Materials and Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/susmat

Sustainable carburization of low carbon steel using organic additives:

A review
O. Adedipe a, R.O. Medupin b, K.O. Yoro c, *, E.T. Dauda d, V.S. Aigbodion e, N.A. Agbo f,
O.W.A. Oyeladun g, J.B. Mokwa h, S.A. Lawal a, O. Eterigho-Ikelegbe i, O.O. Sadare j
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology Minna, Nigeria
b
Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, Federal University of Technology Owerri, Nigeria
c
Energy Technologies Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States
d
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria
e
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria
f
Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria (DICON), Kaduna, Nigeria
g
Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Engineering, Kaduna Polytechnic, Nigeria
h
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal Polytechnic Bida, Nigeria
i
DSI-NRF SARChI Clean Coal Technology Research Group, School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag X3, Wits, 2050 Johannesburg, South Africa
j
Department of Chemical Engineering, Water Innovation and Research Centre, University of Bath, Claveton Down, Bath, North East Somerset, BA27AY, South-West,
United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mild steel is made of iron and other elements, the chief among which is carbon. It is considered one of the most
Mild steel notable alloys in engineering applications because of its high tensile strength advantage and low cost. However,
Carburization mild steel essentially lacks the hard surface quality which is considered key to many structural and industrial
Sustainability
applications. This review explores various aspects of the carburization of mild steel which is targeted at providing
Organic additives
Mechanical properties
the hard surface quality it lacks. This work critically reviews the mechanisms of different carburization methods,
factors affecting carburization quality, and the potential of organic additives for carburizing low-carbon steel.
Furthermore, this review article provides new insights into organic energizers and their benefits to both the
handlers of carburizing operations and the environment in which they are carried out, following the United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal number 12 on sustainable production and consumption. Finally, this
review concludes by providing directions for future research on organic additives-based mild steel carburization.

1. Introduction
Iron is ranked only second to aluminum in the hierarchy of the most
abundant metallic elements in the earth’s crust [1]. These two elements
have become the most commonly used structural metals with iron taking
the more pre-eminent position. This is partly because of reduced energy
requirements during extraction from its ores and also owing to the wide
range of properties its alloys offer. Mild steel, one of such impressive
alloys, is made of iron and other elements, chiefly carbon, and is
considered the most important material because of its high tensile
strength and low cost. This makes it most suitable for general engi­
neering applications. Like other steels, the high iron content gives mild
steel its ferrous and magnetic nature (hence ferromagnetic) and a
relatively high melting point of between 1450 ◦ C and 1520 ◦ C [2].
However, mild steel lacks the hard surface properties required in some
applications. Hence, the option for surface modification where a com­
bination of tough/soft core and hard surface is desirable [3–8]. This
results in coating of various types among which is carburization because
the strength, surface treatment, and hardness of low-carbon steel cannot
be improved only by conventional heat treatment [9].
The carburization process, which takes place in two key steps, occurs
when low-carbon steel is brought into close interaction with a solid,
liquid, or gaseous carburizing medium at an austenitic temperature
range: releasing free carbon through chemical reactions [10]. These free
carbon atoms are rapidly diffused into the surface of steel because of the
large potential difference that exists between atmospheric carbon and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kelvin.yoroo@gmail.com (K.O. Yoro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00723
Received 30 May 2023; Received in revised form 7 September 2023; Accepted 22 September 2023
Available online 23 September 2023
2214-9937/Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
O. Adedipe et al.
steel surface following Fick’s first law of diffusion [11]. The rate of
absorption of additional carbon continues to decline as the surface be­
comes more and more saturated with carbon content until equilibrium is
eventually reached; marking the end of the first step. The diffusion of
carbon takes place in the second step between the surface and the core at
a much slower rate as a result of the reduced carbon gradient between
the two regions. It takes a shorter time for the first step to be completed
which is then maintained for the succeeding process, the depth of which
is dependent on the diffusion of carbon from the exterior to the interior
part of the steel material. Carburizing is performed to obtain a surface
with a carbon content of between 0.6 and 1.10% for steels that usually
contain 0.1 to 0.25% carbon.
The engineering of materials’ surfaces to enhance their life and
functionality has generated intense interest among researchers and
other stakeholders in the field. Appropriate thermo-mechanical surface
treatments result in general rearrangements of atoms in metals and al­
loys with a corresponding clear distinction in physical, chemical, and
mechanical properties [12]. Heat treatment processes such as immersion
hardening, induction hardening, and case carburizing form parts of the
very important surface treatment processes deployed to induce the
desired improvements to materials’ surfaces. Many metallic materials
can be carburized to raise their effectiveness and functionality. The
choice of which carburizing process to implement for specific applica­
tions follows the benefits accruable from such methods. Many carbu­
rized parts are processed by gas carburizing which is one of the most
controllable methods in terms of regulation of effective depth of carbon,
using carbonaceous gases. It is also the fastest method of carburization
[13]. Liquid carburizing was reported to pose a salt disposal challenge
and this makes it less desirable compared to gas carburizing [1]. How­
ever, for economic considerations, flexibility, as well as suitability for
small machine parts, the pack carburizing process is preferred to the duo
of gas and liquid carburizing [14]. Other types of carburizing methods
include plasma and vacuum carburizing. All of these have varying de­
grees of temperature requirements and accuracy.
Romedenne et al. [15] investigated the degree of carburization of
three different steel samples exposed to liquid sodium environment at
600 ◦ C and 650 ◦ C. A larger amount of diffused carbon was observed in
strain-hardened AIM1 steel than in 316 L annealed steel. This was
attributed to the higher density of dislocations. These defects, in addi­
tion to the presence of grain boundaries, could have triggered a faster
conversion of M23C6 into M7C3 carbides. In another study on gas
carburizing, Oh et al. [16] infiltrated the surface of cold-forged chro­
mium alloy steel with carbon from propane (C3H8) gas. Maintaining
carburizing gas volume flow rate at 350 m3/h and other carburizing
parameters, the hardness gradient of the carburized layer was found to
increase as the carbon content of the material decreased. Various
research findings regarding the successful use of inorganic carburizers to
achieve good surface hardening of ferrous metallic parts have been re­
ported in the literature [17–21]. Romedenne et al. [15], deployed
inorganic carburizing sources for the precipitation of carbides on the
surfaces of alloys, while Arthur and Azeko [22], on the other hand, opted
for organic carbon additives. In a bio-cyaniding work on ferrous mate­
rials, they used cassava leaves as a source of cyanide because of their
rich cyanide content. Similarly, Umunakwe et al. [23] used carburizing
powders from palm kernel and coconut shells in a pack carburizing
procedure to carburize steel with significant success. The reports were
akin to an earlier one by Syahid et al. [14] who successfully improved
the fatigue strength of low-carbon steel through the use of a carburizing
process in the media of coconut shell charcoal and shell powder as a
catalyst.
Certain post-carburizing processes are also often carried out to
improve the properties of the carburized surfaces, chief among which is
shot peening. Wu et al. [24] described shot peening as a mechanical
strengthening method of carburized surfaces which is widely used to
improve fatigue strength of gear, bearing, crankshaft, and other me­
chanical components due to its high efficiency and low cost. In a study of
2
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
the catalytic effect of shot peening pre-treatment on the plasma nitriding
process, Unal et al. [25] found that the process could promote nitriding
efficiency and increase the thickness of the white layer, thereby
ameliorating the pay-off of nitriding. Similarly, Tang et al. [26] had
earlier posited that pre-laser shot peening treatment is an excellent
promoter of the adsorption of nitrogen atoms under the same plasma
nitriding process, thereby improving the depths of composite layer and
effective hardening layer. Amanov [27] cited laser shock peening, and
ultrasonic peening as other surface engineering technologies that can as
well improve the adhesion strength between the coating and substrate.
In a more detailed study on the effect of shot peening coverage on
residual stress and surface roughness of 18CrNiMo7–6 steel, Wu et al.
[28] found that the gap between the axial and tangential residual stress
is reduced by shot peening. They concluded that an increase in coverage
from 100% to 400% favors a corresponding increase in the surface re­
sidual stress from 628 MPa to 705 MPa while surface roughness pa­
rameters reportedly decrease with full coverage conditions. Ren et al.
[29], x-rayed the effect of laser shock peening and carbonitriding on
tribological properties of 20Cr2Mn2Mo steel alloy under dry sliding
conditions. Parameters like surface roughness and microhardness as
well as the coefficient of friction improved laser energy and several
impacts. However, with growing laser energy, the primary wear mech­
anism is said to change from abrasive wear to a combination of abrasive
and adhesive wear. Kikuchi et al. [30] agree with earlier submissions
that the fatigue limit of carburized steels treated with peening increased
as the size of surface dents induced by peening decreased, while also
corroborating the fact that a decrease in size supports the effect of re­
sidual stress on the fatigue limit.
This review explores the potential of carburizing low-carbon steel
with organic additives. Studies in this field are fairly abundant but with
a narrow scope. For instance, Arthur and Azeko [22] conducted a review
on the surface hardening of ferrous materials via the use of in-situ
diffusion of carbon and nitrogen from cyanide-based bio-processed
cassava wastes and focusing on the effects of bio-cyaniding on the
microstructure, micro− /nano-hardness, and wear properties of the bio-
cyanided surfaces in the last decade.Although the studies were insight­
ful, it was limited by their area of coverage. In another brief review,
Manne et al. [31] presented different works on the effect of the various
methods of nitriding on mechanical properties, phase changes, and
corrosion resistance of AISI430 ferritic stainless steel. However, the
works reviewed appear too few to inform a conclusion on the effects of
nitriding on the properties of the material. Therefore, this study sum­
marized different methods of carburization with examples that reveal
specific challenges and resolutions with insightful backing for organic
energizers which are less popular than their inorganic counterparts for
carburizing low-carbon steel. This is despite being more beneficial in
terms of cost and eco-friendliness. It is believed that this will contribute
immensely to environmental safety by minimizing carbon emissions and
promoting cleaner and responsible production, as well as consumption.
The review focuses on the most recent studies with >70% of the studies
carried out within the last 5 years.
2. Carburization methods
Different methods of carburizing mild steel are reviewed in this
section to provide an understanding of how they relate to each other and
affect the ultimate results of depth and quality of carburizing. Carbu­
rizing affects fatigue life by changing the chemical composition,
microstructure, hardness, or residual stresses of the carburized mild
steel. Carburization could also be supported by material modification
processes such as shot peening, and surface rolling which are often used
to introduce compressive residual stresses on steel surfaces to delay
crack initiation and propagation consequently [32–34].
O. Adedipe et al. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

2.1. Pack carburization Table 1

Comparing different carburizing processes. Adapted from Elmi-Hosseini and Li
Pack carburizing, also known as solid carburizing, is one of the [35].
surface-hardening processes in which the surface of low-carbon steels is Process Temperature (◦ C) Typical case depth (μm) Case hardness (HRC)
enriched with carbon by packing the carburizing compound tightly Pack 815–1095 125–1525 50–65
around the parts to be carburized in the presence of activators such as Gas 815–980 75–1525 50–65
barium carbonate (BaCO3), calcium carbonate (CaCO3), potassium Liquid 815–980 75–1525 50–65
carbonate (K2CO3), and sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) [35–37]. It is Vacuum 815–1095 75–1525 50–63
considered the oldest carburizing technique where specimens are
packed in a blend of coke and charcoal and the operator relies on how
carburizing, pack carburizing is economical and adaptable for mass
much of the carbon content is diffused into the specimens’ surface (Fig. 1
production, especially for small parts [20]. It is instructive, however, to
(bottom)) without any sophisticated technology. The components which
report that it is rather difficult, even under a constant temperature
are to be carburized are first degreased to enhance the process of case-
scenario throughout the furnace environment, to obtain a case depth
hardening. A portion of new to two portions of old carburizing mix­
variation of <0.15 mm from maximum to minimum in any given furnace
tures is normally used for the exercise after leaving the old mixture in
load. A case depth of <0.5 mm cannot be guaranteed for the pack
the air for 2 to 3 days to absorb CO2 and moisture. It is reported that a
carburizing process [35].
holding time of 5.5 to 6.5 h at a carburizing temperature of between 700
and 750 ◦ C is required to get the carbon diffused as far as 0.7–0.9 mm
2.1.1. Carburization mechanism of pack carburizing
into the surface of the components. Even though it is extremely labor-
An initial reaction between trapped air in the carburizing compounds
intensive, pack carburizing remains widely used because of minimal
and the carbon atom of the carburizing mixture is reported as the tem­
facility requirements during the process. In recent years,its use has
perature begins to rise (Eq. 1).
gradually been re-emphasized following huge investments in the search
for state-of-the-art carburizing procedures [38]. C + O2 →CO2 (1)
However, it must be mentioned that this foremost carburizing
method is still being employed extensively in the automotive and other 2C + O2 →2CO (2)
industries for the carburization of various parts, including gears, wheels, As the gas becomes increasingly CO-enriched with increased tem­
and rollers [39–41]. In recent times, this method has become unpopular perature, the following reaction results:
for light case depths of <1.27 mm but is often deployed for deep cases,
such as 2.54 mm and above because of new trends in temperature CO2 + C⇌2CO (3)
versatility (Table 1). One of the benefits of pack carburizing is its flex­ In this reaction, oxygen combines with carbon in the pack carbu­
ibility in the choice of furnaces. If the temperature surges too high to rizing medium at elevated temperatures to produce carbon dioxide (Eq.
initiate distortion of the component that is being carburized, the 1) which then reacts with carbon atoms present in the pack to yield
carburizing compound is strong enough to provide the necessary phys­ carbon monoxide. The resulting carbon monoxide decomposes into
ical support to prevent specimen sagging [35]. For parts requiring carbon atoms and carbon dioxide in Eq. 3 in readiness for the next step of
machining after the process of carburizing, the slow cooling of a work­ carbon absorption into the steel surface (as shown in Fig. 2) [11].
piece in the carburizing environment is highly beneficial. Unlike gas

Fig. 1. Schematics of an experimental setup of the pack (bottom), liquid (middle), and gas (top) carburizing processes [35].

3
O. Adedipe et al.
Fig. 2. Mechanism of carbon transfer during carburization [11]
2CO→CO2 + Catomic (4)
and
Fe + Catomic →Fe(C) (5)
where Fe(C) represents dissolved carbon in austenite.
As the emerging carbon in Eq. 5 readily diffuses to the interior of the
component, CO2 so formed reacts with the C of the charcoal (Eq. 3) to
produce CO. Therefore, the cycle continues as much as charcoal, which
is the primary source of carbon during pack-carburization, is not in short
supply. It is commonplace, however, to replenish trapped CO2 in the
pack atmosphere when it is getting used up by the addition of BaCO3
which decomposes during the heating-up to energize the carburized
material [22].
BaCO3 →BaO + CO2 (6)
CO2 + C→2CO (7)
Below 2% CO2, some Fe3C is precipitated. But as CO2 content im­
proves with more air supply, the steel surface is starved of carbon con­
tent. For instance, it was reported that at 900 ◦ C, 6% CO2 yields
approximately 0.70% carbon and 14% CO2 is capable of producing
0.30% carbon. The optimal carburizing temperature is said to be 900 ◦ C
beyond which the carbon absorption rate into the steel surface is faster
than the diffusion rate into the interior. Higher case depth is then
attained quickly, forming a cementite network at the surface of the steel.
The likelihood of cracking is, therefore, high during quenching. It is
extremely difficult, if not completely impossible, to gain full control over
case depth with pack carburization.
4
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
2.2. Liquid carburization
As an alternative to packing carburization, liquid carburization is a
faster case hardening process for steel where parts to be carburized are
placed in a bath of molten cyanide salt to allow carbon to diffuse into the
steel surface [21]. This method is considered most appropriate for case
depth of up to 0.75 mm and is operated between 845 and 950 ◦ C (re­
searchers reported variation in carburizing temperatures) [20]. The
enrichment of the surface with carbon takes place by complete immer­
sion of the parts in the molten salt held at the temperature range. Ac­
cording to Liew et al. [21], the bath may also have alkaline earth
chlorides such as barium chloride, and strontium chloride as activators
to increase the carbon content in the case, in addition to decreasing the
melting point and viscosity of the bath. The amount of carbon (and ni­
trogen) diffused into the steel surface depends on the cyanide content of
the bath and its temperature; hence daily checking of the sodium cya­
nide (NaCN) concentration of the bath is necessary [19]. While the
addition of pure cyanide salt favors high nitrogen and low carbon case,
chlorides in the salt bath hampers nitrogen pick-up and favors the ab­
sorption of carbon into the steel. Parts to be carburized are generally
degreased and preheated between 100 ◦ C and 400 ◦ C before being
immersed in the salt bath. Long carburizing time and high carburizing
temperature could enhance the carbon content of the steel surface which
could result in low as-quenched hardness because of larger amounts of
retained austenite [42]. Therefore, good control of temperature (be­
tween 900 and 925 ◦ C) is required if parts would be quenched directly
after carburization. Depending on the case depth requirement and
temperature of the bath, liquid carburizing can be classified into low and
high-temperature baths as illustrated in Table 2.
The composition ranges of liquid carburizing baths are used at
temperature ranges of 850–900 ◦ C for shallow case depths of between
0.075 and 0.75 mm. This low-temperature range is also adaptable for
O. Adedipe et al. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

Table 2 A significant amount of time is wasted in preparing the items to be

Composition of liquid carburizing baths (wt%). Adapted from Heintzberger carburized by neutralizing them in hot water for about 10 min followed
[43]. by degreasing [43,45]. In addition to this, the energy, as well as the time
Contents Low-temperature baths High-temperature baths required to hold the temperature of the carburizing atmosphere for a
(850–900 ◦ C) (900–950 ◦ C) definite period to ascertain the uniform spread of the carbonaceous
Sodium cyanide 17–23 08–12 agent on the surface of the specimens, is a major concern with liquid
Barium chloride – 45–55 carburization [46]. The poisonous nature of the cyanide salts also raises
Salts of other alkaline earth 0–4 2–10 questions about the safety of liquid carburizing just as the disposal of
Potassium chloride 10–25 10–20
salts poses serious environmental threats after the carburization exercise
Sodium chloride 20–30 0–15
sodium carbonate 30 max. 30 max. [22]. However, this method is excellent for the attainment of constant
other activators 0–5 0–2 temperature to produce uniform case depth and carbon concentration. It
sodium cyanate 1 max 0.30 max is adaptable for large-scale production with minimal distortion [47]. In
comparison to pack and gas carburization, much less time and money
are required in the liquid bath carburizing process and capital invest­
small parts of shallow case depths (< 0.5 mm). Carburization of small
ment is also less compared to gas carburization [48,49].
components is very economical with liquid carburizing baths due to the
faster rate of heating [44].
2.3. Gas carburization
2.2.1. Mechanism of liquid carburization
Gas carburization is a heat treatment method used to improve the
The common chemical reactions that occur during liquid carburizing
mechanical properties of the surface of ferrous metal by enhancing their
baths are as follows [43]:
impact resistance and hardness; thus, providing excellent wear resis­
2NaCN→Na2 + Catom (8) tance and low core hardness [16]. This method is preferred to the solid
carburization method because of the many benefits it offers in terms of
And either reduced carburization time, increased carburization concentration and
temperature, as well as enhanced mass production [50]. It demonstrates
2NaCN + O2 →2NaNCO (cyanate) (9)
better control of carburizing depth and is appropriate for continuous
or operation. However, good gas control, which could prove difficult in any
operation, is a major challenge with the gas carburization method [50].
NaCN + CO2 →NaNCO + CO (10) On the other hand, extra processing time is required in the case of pack
The reactions in Eqs. 9 and 10 occur at the salt bath/atmospheric carburization because of the inevitability of heating and cooling of the
interface, and the created cyanate then reacts as follows: extra thermal mass associated with the compound and the container.
This gives the gas carburization method an edge over pack carburiza­
4NaNCO→2NaCN + Na2 CO3 + CO + 2N (11) tion. Concerns about safety to humans and the environment with respect
to the disposal of Barium-containing compounds and cyanide baths do
NaNCO + C→NaCN + CO (12) not arise with the gas carburization method because of its associated
near-zero waste generation.
4NaNCO + 2O2 →2Na2 CO3 + 2CO + 4N (13)
The preference for the gas carburization method has increased
tremendously in recent times due to its extremely low waste generation
4NaNCO + 4CO2 →2Na2 CO3 + 6CO + 4N (14)
and sustainability potential [51–54]. The enrichment of the steel surface
The reactions from Eq. 11 to 14 occur at the salt bath/steel interface. with carbon occurs by heating the steel in a furnace with a carbonaceous
The main carburizing process takes place through the following atmosphere. Methane or propane is the principal carburizing agent,
reactions: while liquid mixtures based on methyl or ethyl, as well as benzene or
other liquid hydrocarbons, are also widely used as dispersed and
Fe + 2CO→Fe(C) + CO2 (15)
vaporized mixtures. These mixtures are richer in carbon and conse­
Fe + Catom →Fe(C) (16) quently form heavy deposits of soot on components and walls of the
furnace; resulting in the interruption of the carburizing reactions. This,
where Fe(C) represents carbon dissolved in austenite. For deeper case therefore, necessitates the dilution of the hydrocarbon gases with a
depth in the range of 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm, high-temperature baths are carrier gas, made from controlled burning of hydrocarbon, to avoid soot
deployed. Cyanide bath is prepared by using pure NaCN which, upon formation. The generally used carrier gas is endothermically based and
melting in the furnace, readily decomposes to reach a NaCN content of has the following composition: N2 = 39.8%; CO = 20.7%; H2 = 38.7%;
40–50% for case depths up to 0.8 mm. However, for up to 1.5 mm, CH4 = 0.8%. Methane can be combusted with air to a methane ratio of
activated baths containing barium chloride with NaCN content of 2:5 to react as shown in Eq. (20):
approximately 10% are used. The chemical reactions are common to 2CH 4 + O2 (air)→2CO + 4H2 (20)
both low-temperature and high-temperature baths except for the
following additional reactions. Carbon becomes more active as the This endothermic gas mixture offers an extensive range of carbon
temperature of the high-temperature baths rises while nitrogen activity control and a reasonable amount of carbon for carburization when
decreases. operated at a dew point of − 7 ◦ C and above. The hydrocarbon gas to
carrier gas ratio could vary between 1:8 to 1:30, depending on the re­
2NaCH + BaCl2 →Ba(CN)2 + 2NaCl ((17) quirements.The central chemical reactions occurring during gas carbu­
rization are expressed in Eqs. (21)–(23):
Ba(CN)2 + 2NaCl→BaCN 2 + Catom (18)
CH 4 + Fe⇌Fe(C) + 2H2 (21)
The atomic carbon thus formed is absorbed by steel to complete the
carburizing process. 2CO + Fe⇌Fe(C) + CO2 (22)
C + Fe→Fe(C) (19)
CO + H2 + Fe⇌Fe(C) + H2 O (23)

5
O. Adedipe et al.
where Fe(C) represents carbon dissolved in austenite. The reactions in
Eqs. (22) and (23) yield two decarburizing gaseous products of CO2 and
H2O. These products decrease the carbon potential of the atmosphere,
thereby making room for the addition of more carburizing agents like
CH4 to yield H2 and CO, which react with the steel surface according to
Eqs. (24) and (25) to further enrich the surface with carbon content.
CH4 + CO2 →2CO + 2H2 (24)
CH 4 + H2 O→CO + 3H2 (25)
All these reactions take place in the carburizing furnace as illustrated
in Fig. 1. After a time (t > 0) of carburization, the variation of the carbon
concentration may be taken to vary linearly from the gas/steel interface
(x = 0) to Co at a distance x towards the core, and the carbon content
equals the original carbon content of the steel, where x is the case depth.
As carburization continues, the number of carbon atoms added per
second to the steel is given by Fick’s first law expressed in Eq. (26):
J = − Dyc
dC
= Dyc
Cs − Co
(26)
dx x face of steel by heating it to a suitable temperature and holding it in
y contact with molten cyanide to form a thin coating which, after
where J is the net carbon flux per unit area per second and Dc is the
diffusion coefficient of carbon in austenite (Fig. 2). As the component
attains maximum carbon content from the atmosphere at the end of the
first phase of carburizing, the second phase of carbon diffusion begins
where the carbon content reaches a maximum value [28]. Diffusion, at
this second stage, follows Fick’s second law of diffusion given in Eq.
(27).
dCM d2 CM
= DM eff (27)
dt dx2
where CM is the mobile solute carbon concentration and DM eff is the
effective diffusion coefficient of mobile solute carbon (cm2/s) assumed
to be constant throughout the entire diffusion zone as seen in Fig. 2.
2.4. Plasma carburization
To improve the tribological, fatigue behavior, and surface hardness
of carburized steels, several surface modification methods, including the
plasma carburization method have been widely researched [55,56].
Plasma carburization involves spreading carbon-containing paste over
the surface of the component which is melted when exposed to
concentrated energy flow from a laser, electronic beam, plasma arc, or
jet source [57]. It offers outstanding control and reproducibility, low
energy consumption, and fast carburization time over conventional
approaches [48]. A gas mixture which is the critical parameter of the
plasma carburization process has been widely investigated over the
years. According to Biserova-Tahchieva et al. [57], plasma-based
treatments during case-hardening are considered advantageous over
gaseous processes as removing the natural inert layer of parts to be
carburized facilitates the inward diffusion of carbon. Plasma-carburized
alloys show improved surface finish, but increased production costs
[58,59].
2.5. Vacuum carburization
Vacuum carburization (also known as Low-Pressure Carburizing) is
an alternative technology to traditional gas carburiziation. It has been
proven to be very effective in improving the surface hardness and
tribological properties of heavy-duty gear steel, which is attributed to
the advantages of non-intergranular oxidation on the surface and less
quenching distortion [60,61]. The quality of this carburizing technique
has been reported to be much better when compared to other surface
treatment techniques like quench-tempering treatment of 20Cr2Ni4
steel. The carbon concentration profile from the surface to the core
during vacuum carburizing offers the kinetic driving force for austenite
6
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
transformation and carbon diffusion. This method, like the ones dis­
cussed in the preceding sections, is capable of providing parts that are
more resistant to fracture (because of the soft core that can absorb
stresses without cracking) and also provides adequate wear resistance
on the surface. While the process enjoys easy integration into
manufacturing (clean, safe, simple to operate, and easy to maintain),
excellent and environmentally sustainable working conditions with full
automation capability using technology, as well as precise process
control, it, however, suffers some drawbacks. The initial set-up cost of
the equipment is high and the formation of soot and tar, which occur due
to the type, pressure, and quantity of hydrocarbon gas introduced con­
stitutes major disadvantages.
There also exist other carburization methods which are not detailed
in this work. The underlying principle is the same for all the processes
and the overarching goal is to achieve hardened surfaces and soft/tough
cores. While the methods discussed in the preceding sections involve the
introduction of carbon to the surface of low and medium-carbon steel,
the hardening agent in others is nitrogen (nitriding for instance) [62]. In
the case of cyaniding, carbon and nitrogen are introduced into the sur­
quenching, becomes hardened. More advanced techniques are carbon­
itriding, flame hardening, and induction hardening [63]. They all are
focused on improving the surface hardness of the substrate while
maintaining a soft interior for tailored applications.
2.6. Grain boundary condition of carburized steel
The phenomena of internal and grain boundary oxidations and their
associated twists and turns in conventional carburization procedures are
a subject of debate among researchers, especially as they relate to gas
and pack carburization methods [64]. The control of carbon dioxide
(CO2) is critical to gas carburization as high CO2 signals the risk of grain-
boundary oxidation, which weakens the carburized surface [65]. In­
ternal oxidation occurs as a result of the diffusion of oxygen (O2) into the
grain boundary of the steel being carburized. In addressing this chal­
lenge, vacuum carburization, a process that exceeds the accelerating
rate of other carburizing methods is adopted to avoid oxidation [65]. In
vacuum carburization, the temperature of the alloy is raised to 1000 ◦ C
in a vacuum and maintained at very low pressure. Upon attaining the
desired temperature, a carbonaceous gas (for example propane) is
introduced into the compartment as shown in Fig. 1. The carbon pro­
duced by the decomposition of the carbon-rich gas is then diffused
uniformly into the surface of the workpiece (Fig. 1), thereby minimizing
the risk of oxidation on the surface of the workpiece and extending the
lifespan of the steel [66].
According to Dong et al. [67], the oxidation phenomenon is also
alien to the plasma carburization process. It enjoys a uniform carbon
layer without internal oxidation. The process is considered effective for
the high rate of carburization because it prevents many dissociation
steps associated with most carbon-containing gases that produce active
carbon, while also increasing the amount of carbon that reaches the
surface of the material by inducing directional movement in the electric
field. In a study of the effect of grain boundary oxidation on certain
mechanical properties during active applications, Krobath et al. [68]
observed that at a holding temperature of 1200 ◦ C, selective grain
boundary oxidation occurs and results in the formation of a network of
notches at the coarsened austenite grain boundaries. This ultimately
amounts to stress concentration and undeterred formation of cracks
during a succeeding tensile deformation at critical temperatures. A more
recent study by Shi et al. [69] revealed that finer austenite grains favor
subsequent acicular martensite which is driven by grain boundary
migration, a semblance of atomic diffusion. They posited also that
austenite grains obtained as a result of multiple cycles of carburizing are
largely refined, causing a significant increase in the volume fraction of
the prior austenite grain boundaries. This creates sites for the formation
O. Adedipe et al.
of γ-Fe to α-Fe in a subsequent carburization process. Therefore, it can be
concluded that grain boundary conditions play a significant role in
determining the quality of any carburized components.
3. Factors affecting the quality of case-hardening of carburized
components
The depth of carburization is usually associated with the total depth
of carbon penetration during carburization. It is a major determinant of
carburization quality, and it depends on several factors among which are
time and temperature of carburization, carbon potential of the carbu­
rizing media, and composition of the parts to be carburized. This section
reviews various factors that influence the quality of case-hardening of
carburized components.
3.1. Carburization time and temperature
Holding time plays an important role in the resulting properties of
most carburized components. It is described as the length of time parts to
be carburized are allowed to stay in the carburizing environment
[69–71]. Holding time has been reported to influence the mechanical
properties of carburized materials [33]. According to scientific reports
describing the relationship between carburization time and tempera­
ture, higher carburization temperature forces the time of carbon diffu­
sion to reduce. Hence, the rate of carbon diffusion is directly influenced
by carburization temperature. Supriyono & Jamasri [33] corroborated
the submission of earlier researchers by concluding that longer holding
time favors a deeper carburized surface, which in turn enhances the
increase in fatigue strength due to higher carbon content on the surface
of the material. The outcome of the effect of longer holding time on case
depth is illustrated in Table 3. Similarly, Abdenour et al. [72] also
confirmed that case depth and richness in carbon increase is directly
proportional to carburization time.
In a similar study, Betan et al. [73] investigated the influence of
temperature and holding time on the shear strength of Schleicheraoleosa
charcoal-powder carburized mild steel. A similar trend was reported on
the improvement of the mechanical performance of the carburized
materials. It also suggests the advantage of preferring oil to water as a
quenching medium due to the degree of carburization. The conclusion
across different research findings indicates that the hardness property of
carburized material decreases towards the core as a result of retained
austenite and more martensite at prolonged holding time [33,72,74].
According to Liew et al. [21], the surface layers of the carburized steel
are dominated by retained austenite and this reduces towards the core as
the amount of martensite increases. The amount of cementite in the
grain boundaries and the size of retained austenite likewise increase as
holding time increases. As a result, the load-bearing capacity of the
carburized layer is improved alongside the adhesive and abrasive wear
resistance of low-carbon steel when the holding time is extended. This
affects, significantly, the overall performance of the materials.
Fig. 3 illustrates the changes to hardness and young modulus of
carburized steel through case depth as a function of carburizing time.
Hardness properties are reduced from the surface of the materials to the
core. The effect on the microstructure of the materials is also illustrated
Table 3
Case depth for gas carburizing temperature and time.
Time (h) Case depth in mm
870 ◦ C 900 ◦ C 927 ◦ C 955 ◦ C
1 0.46 0.53 0.64 0.74
2 0.64 0.76 0.89 1.04
4 0.98 1.07 1.27 1.30
8 1.27 1.52 1.80 2.11
12 1.55 1.85 2.21 2.59
16 1.80 2.13 2.54 2.97
7
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
in Fig. 4. Carbon content of low-carbon steel is justifiably enriched from
the carbonaceous atmosphere around it. Liew et al. [21] examined the
microstructure of the surface of carburized steel to about 100 μm depth.
Grains with retained austenite and martensite microstructure are shown
in Fig. 4(b). Martensitic structure, however, dominated the subsurface at
10–20 μm beneath the surface as illustrated in Fig. 4(c and d) with fewer
grain boundaries. Extra polishing of the surface of 20 μm to 100 μm
depth revealed a region that is rich in martensite but deficient in grain
boundary (Fig. 4(e)). Elmi Hosseini and Li. [30], in an earlier study,
similarly observed the formation of martensite microstructure at the
surface of carburized steel upon quenching, and ferrite-pearlite micro­
structure in the core. Chen et al. [56] gave an idea of the trajectory of the
hardness profile from the surface of the carburized part to the core
where the hardness number is minimum. It was reported that hardness
decreases significantly from the surface where the hardness number is
maximum and continues slowly after about 1.5 mm into the core until it
finally stabilizes. Consequently, it can be concluded that carburizing
time and temperature are vital to the overall mechanical properties and
microstructure of carburized parts. Therefore, the control of tempera­
ture and time during the process is one key requirement to achieving
excellent carburized parts.
3.2. Carbon potential of the carburizing atmosphere
The carbon potential of a carburizing environment is said to influ­
ence both the rate at which carbon is diffused into steel surfaces during
carburization and the depth of penetration. To enhance the carburiza­
tion process and enrich the carbon content of case-hardened zones,
energizers are often deployed to help materials with low carbon po­
tentials. Industrial chemicals are traditionally used to energize the
process. However, viable alternatives have been discovered in plants
and other organic matter [75]. A list of some of these organic energizers
is summarized in Table 4 and discussed in one of the previous sections.
This section focuses on the potential of waste organic materials as sus­
tainable replacements for the enhancement of case-hardened surfaces of
low-carbon steel, given environmental concerns raised about industrial
chemical energizers [62].
Kolawole et al. [76] adopted organic waste materials as carbon
sources in a bid to enhance the surface properties of mild steel by
carburization. It was found that the tensile strength and hardness of
carburized steel increased with increasing carburizing temperature
while ductility was on the decline. Other authors have also established
the potential of this category of energizers for efficient carbon diffusion
into the surface [62,77]. Findings according to Aondona and Azoro, [62]
indicated that natural and organic energizers from plant and animal
sources are now preferred to industrial chemical energizers. Waste
materials like sugar cane bagasse, rice husks, eggshells, melon shells,
Aceraceae flower droppings, and charcoal are prominent among non-
chemical energizers used [33]. A comparison of the impact energy of
CaCO3, one of the commonest industrial chemical energizers, and
eggshell showed that the latter performed better on leaf-spring steel at
the carburizing temperatures of 950 and 1000 ◦ C with the carburizing
times of 1 h and 1½ h, respectively.
3.3. Dynamics of carbon diffusion
Fick’s law of diffusion describes carbon diffusion within the part to
be carburized. Since the diffusion flux and the concentration gradient
around the surface respond to time as a result of carbon accumulation, it
is considered a non-steady-state diffusion, and can be expressed by
Fick’s second law (Eq. 28). Ignoring the dependence of D on carbon
content, Eq. (28) is revised to yield Eq. (29). Certain boundary condi­
tions are specified while surface carbon concentration is assumed to be
constant and the part is thick enough relative to the case depth. Eq. (29)
can be further expressed as Eq. (30) where C is the concentration at
depth x after time t. The parameter, Cs is defined as the concentration at
O. Adedipe et al. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

Fig. 3. (a) Hardness as a function of penetration time (b) Hardness and young modulus of steel for different carburizing times [72].

Fig. 4. Microstructure of the surface at various depths (a) surface after slight polishing (b) subsurface 5 mm beneath the surface (c) subsurface 10 mm beneath the
surface (d) subsurface 20 mm beneath the surface, (e) subsurface 100 mm beneath the surface [21]

8
O. Adedipe et al. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

Table 4
Summary of studies on the pack carburization process using organic energizers.
Ref Carburizer Carburizer Holding Carburizing Focus of study Findings
type time temperature

The mechanical properties of carburized parts

Coconut and dog conch Investigation of coconut
[79] Organic 3, 6, 12 h 950 ◦ C were improved and case depth improved with
shell powder and dog conch powder.
increased carburizing time.
Better surface hardening, as well as improved
banana peel, cow bone, Replace chemical energizers
[62] Organic 8h 920 ◦ C mechanical performance, is achievable with an
periwinkle with eco-friendly ones.
organic energizer.
Deeper case depth and stronger carburized
Effect of charcoal on the properties of
[77] Organic Charcoal 2, 3, 4 h 930 ◦ C materials resulted from holding time at the
carburized mild steel.
carburizing temperature.
Effect of palm kernel shell and
The hardness, wear resistance properties as well
Palm kernel shell, eggshell as carbon source on
[75] Organic 1h 900 ◦ C as strength of the carburized parts were
eggshell microstructure and mechanical
significantly improved.
performance of gray cast iron.
Bio-cyaniding is an economical alternative to
Using cassava to harden the surface of conventional surface hardening methods of
[22] Organic Cassava leaves 3h 800–950 ◦ C
ferrous materials. metals in terms of equipment, operating
temperature, and time.
Assessment of how suitable Low-carbon steel was successfully carburized
850, 900, and
[81] Organic Periwinkle snail shell ½, ¾, 1 h periwinkle snail shell is for using a periwinkle snail shell with improved case
950 ◦ C
carburizing steel. hardening capacity.
Assessing the suitability of date seed/ The organic carburizer has the potential as a
800, 900, and
[76] Organic Date-seed/snail shells 3h snail shells to improve the mechanical source of carbon to improve the mechanical
1000 ◦ C
properties of steel. properties of low-carbon steel.
The tensile and fatigue strength of carburized low
Study of fatigue strength after
[14] Organic Coconut shell charcoal 4h 950 ◦ C carbon steel get improved with organic
carburizing with organic carburizer.
carburizer.
Effect of temperature and charcoal Carbon content was improved between 0.710%
Cow bone and coconut 900, 950, and
[82] Organic 3h composition on low carbon steel and 1.20% and hardness got enhanced by 64 kgf/
shell 1000 ◦ C
hardness. mm2 at 900 ◦ C, 950 ◦ C, and 1000 ◦ C.
A carburizer mixture of 80 wt% and 20 wt% of
Effect of a mixture of palm kernel and
Palm kernel and coconut coconut and palm kernel shell respectively gave
[23] Organic 3h 950 ◦ C coconut shell on tensile strength and
shell the optimal properties of tensile and hardness of
hardness properties of steel.
the low carbon steel specimens used.
Study on optimal carburizing The study generated a dataset for future research
Palm kernel, coconut 1 h, 1½ h, 950, 1000,
[83] Organic temperature and holding time of AISI on carburizing of AISI 5130 steel for industrial
shell, and eggshell 2 h and 3 h 1050, 1100 ◦ C
5130 steel using nano carburizers. use.
Determination of appropriate cooling
Wear resistance, surface hardness and carbon
medium for pack carburizing
[38] Organic Cane molasses 2h 875 ◦ C content of the steel increased as a result of 10%
quenching treatment of low carbon
cane molasses in the cooling medium.
steel.
Study of various carburizing Cow bone is a viable energizer in pack carburizing
[80] Organic Cow bone and charcoal 8h 900 ◦ C
compounds of mild steel.
The wear rate of buffalo bone carburized steel
Not Effect of buffalo bone charcoal on
[84] Organic Buffalo bone charcoal 950 ◦ C decreases making the useful life of the material
specified wear properties of low carbon steel.
increase.
Bamboo charcoal & cow Study on alternative carburizing Cow bone powder is a good alternative to
[85] Organic 2, 4, 6 h 900 ◦ C
bone powder media inorganic energizers.
Study of holding time and fatigue The higher fatigue strength of carburized steel is
[33] Organic Mahogany charcoal 2, 3, 4 h 930 ◦ C
characteristics of steel attributed to the longer holding time.
Schleicheraoleosa 800, 850, Relationship between carburizing The mechanical strength of steel was improved by
[73] Organic 1, 1½, 2 h
charcoal 900 ◦ C temperature and time and mild steel quenching in the carburized oil and water media.
Study of selected bio-carburizing
Bio-based carburizing agents significantly
Shells of palm kernel, egg, agents concerning mechanical and
[86] Organic 3h 900 ◦ C improve the hardness and tribological properties
coconut, & wood charcoal microstructure characteristics of gray
of carburized substrates.
cast iron

the surface at time t and the expression erf(x/(2√Dt)) is termed the sufficiently clear that the difference between the environmental carbon
Gaussian error function. and its concentration on the metal surface drives carbon diffusion into
( ) the steel from the gas phase [78]. The measurement of carbon concen­
∂C ∂ ∂C
= D (28) tration and influx is, therefore, vital to the control of the carburizing
∂t x ∂t
process. Activation energy, an important thermodynamic parameter
that influences surface thickness with regard to temperature and time,
∂C ∂2 C
=D 2 (29) provides insights into determining satisfactory process conditions for
∂t ∂x effective carburizing [35,43]. The management of the diffusion process
C − Co
(
x
) is a lot easier when using the gas-related carburizing technique. As a
= 1 − erf √̅̅̅̅̅ (30) result, Wang et al. [78] concluded that carbon flux is crucial to the
Cs − Co 2 Dt
regulation of the time of penetration and dissemination in each pulse of
The dynamics of carbon flux is the main parameter that influences carbon flow. They did a comparison of carburizing pressure and carbon
the microstructure evolution during the carburizing treatment accord­ flux of three different alloy steels in similar carburizing conditions as
ing to Yang et al. [66]; hence, the quality of case-hardening. It is illustrated in Fig. 5. The study covered changes in surface carbon

9
O. Adedipe et al. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723

Fig. 5. Effect of carburizing pressure on (a) mass increment, (b) average carbon flux, and (c) segmented average carbon flux for 12Cr2Ni4A steel at 950 ◦ C [78].

enrichment, changes in average carbon flux as well as its segmented of carburizing pressure on surface carbon diffusion. The plots in Figs. 5-
average carbon flux for the three alloys at a carburizing temperature and 7: show these relationships for 12Cr2Ni4A steel.
pressure of 950 ◦ C, and 100–300 Pa, respectively to establish the effect In the boost stage of 12Cr2Ni4A steel, mass is observed to increase

Fig. 6. Effect of carburizing pressure on (a) mass increment, (b) average carbon flux, and (c) segmented average carbon flux for 16Cr3NiWMoVNbE steel at
950 ◦ C [78].

10
O. Adedipe et al.
Fig. 7. Effect of carburizing pressure on (a) mass increment, (b) average carbon flux, and (c) segmented average carbon flux for 18Cr2Ni4WA steel at 950 ◦ C [78].
linearly from 0 to 60 s. Subsequently, the slope becomes less steep as
mass gradually decreases, approaching zero after 120 s. The segmented
average carbon flux value, which is 5.98 × 10− 6 and 7.7 × 10− 6 at 90 s,
respectively are also seen to increase from 1.04 × 10− 5 to 1.36 × 10− 5 at
30 s, and 8.11 × 10− 6 to 9.58 × 10− 6 at 60 s [78]. From 120 to 150 s, this
remained nearly identical at the three pressures, displaying compara­
tively insignificant flux values. The relationship between carburizing
pressure and carbon flux of the three medium-high alloy steels demon­
strate that the three parameters of carbon mass enrichment, average and
segmented carbon flux of the alloys exhibit similar trend under similar
carburization temperature of 950 ◦ C and carburizing pressures of 100,
200, and 300 Pa [78].
For the three materials discussed in this sub-section, the value of
carbon flux was the smallest at the lowest carburizing pressure consid­
ered. At higher carburizing pressure, however, relative density proves
significant for effective carbon flux and the pumping rate decreases as
the flow rate contributes insignificantly to the gas exchange rate. So, the
gas stays longer on the surface of the part, thereby raising the relative
density. However, at the highest carburizing pressure, the value of
carbon flux was close to that under 200 Pa, indicating that flow rate and
relative effective density attained equilibrium. Therefore, it can be
concluded that in actual gas carburizing, a pressure of 300 Pa will have
relatively little effect on the process.
4. Advances in organic additives in carburization processes
Carburizing additives play significant roles in determining the
quality of surface hardening of low-carbon steel [77]. As far as could be
ascertained, inorganic activators are the most widely used in
manufacturing processes with tremendous success as reported in some
studies [22,77]. Barium, sodium, and calcium carbonates are the
commonly reported inorganic energizers that have been successfully
11
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
used, particularly in the pack carburizing process. However, the need to
ensure the safety of both the environment and personnel through the use
of more sustainable manufacturing procedures has necessitated in­
vestigations into alternative materials to replace inorganic energizers.
This has yielded impressive results as the suitability of some organic
waste materials like palm kernel shells, animal bones, egg shells, peri­
winkle and sea snail shells as carburizing media has proven to be
adequate for the exercise. Ramli et al. [79] reported that the choice of
the right carburizing media contributes significantly to the quality of the
optimum carburizing performance and hence, the improvement of the
mechanical properties of carburized surfaces. This section examines
different organic carburizing media for successful surface modification
of mild steel.
The studies summarized in Table 4 are focused on the deployment of
organic solid waste materials as additives for the carburization of low-
carbon steel. The unanimous submission of the authors points to the
fact that organic additives have been established as more sustainable
and eco-friendly alternatives in steel carburation. This will not only lead
to cost reduction but will also contribute immensely to the preservation
of the environment in furtherance of United Nations Sustainable
Development Goal #12 (UN’s SDGs) on sustainable production and
consumption [22]. Ramli et al. [79] appear to be one of the most
prominent among the researchers who have attempted to improve the
mechanical properties of steel surfaces via carburization using coconut
shell powder as an additive. Some of the works carried out by other
authors who investigated the suitability of organic carbon additives and
energizers are also set out in the table. The eco-friendly nature of those
materials was identified as the major reason why future players in steel
carburizing processes should look in the direction of plant and animal
solid wastes as reliable sources of carbon for surface hardening of low-
carbon steel [62,79]. The researchers mentioned in Table 4 agree with
the relationship between carburizing temperature and holding time.
O. Adedipe et al.
Arthur and Azeko [22] varied the carburizing temperature between
800 ◦ C and 950 ◦ C and found similar trends with those reported by
Ramli et al. [79], which revealed that significant carburizing could
hardly take place at 850 ◦ C, considering holding time as a major factor.
A higher holding time reportedly favored a harder surface zone [77].
According to Aondora and Azoro [62], energizers could meaningfully
reduce the holding time of carburizing, with natural energizers having
an edge in terms of carbon potential; except that they cannot be used as a
good source of activated carbon [79].
These organic materials are applicable in pack carburizing processes
where they are packed around specimens to be carburized. Several re­
searchers have also compared the effect of single and hybrid organic
carburizing media on the overall carburizing efficiency and quality of
surfaces. Kolawole et al. [76] observed that better carburizing properties
were achievable with hybrid carburizing media (coconut and palm
kernel shells). The tensile strength and hardness of the specimens were
significantly improved when the carburizing additives were combined
and used for the same purpose under the same conditions. This agrees
with what Ihom et al. [80] reported earlier about how hybrid carbu­
rizing compares favorably with single carburizing. With the results
summarized in Table 4 and a host of other works on organic energizers,
it can be concluded, with a caveat for further investigations, that organic
energizers are cheaper, more eco-friendly, and preferable alternatives to
the likes of BaCO3, Na2CO3, and other inorganic energizers during
carburizing processes [81].
5. Future perspectives of organic additives-based mild steel
carburization
Organic sources of carbon for carburizing steel are attracting
tremendous attention from the scientific community for many industrial
applications [86]. Recent advancements in engineering call for material
modifications for improved design and reliability. Its prominence and
preference in the manufacture of bearing notwithstanding, high-carbon
chromium steel requires surface modification to improve its service life
as a bearing material [87]. In the same vein, plain carbon and low alloy
steels are indispensable for many structural and industrial applications.
The peculiarity of certain applications, therefore, necessitates their
surface treatments by some thermodynamic processes in order not to
compromise core toughness and strength. Therefore, parts manufac­
tured from these steels are used only after being sufficiently carburized
[63]. Salawu et al. [88] reported that the increasing demand for super
hard alloys for advanced engineering applications prompts the need to
develop materials of superior mechanical properties for such applica­
tions as gear, bearings, sprockets, and housings. Advancement in surface
engineering is said to have assumed significant importance, especially in
the last few decades with a promising potential in sundry technological
applications including aerospace, marine, automobile, energy, textiles,
and chemical among others [89]. The above argument forms the basis
for this review article which is focused on organic carbon sources for
surface hardness of steel.
The findings of this work show that many organic additives are
reliable carbon sources for improved strength and wear resistance of
low-carbon steel as a result of the different proportions of carbon con­
tent in them [83,90,91]. Further processing of palm kernel and coconut
shells makes them reliable sources of organic carbon, and was found to
improve the mechanical properties of low-carbon steel [92]. Activated
charcoal has served as a dependable additive for improving the modulus
of rupture and strength of wood composite; suggestingthat better results
are achievable with metal heat treatment [93–95]. Most importantly,
the excellent grain refinement potential of a z-pulverized eggshell when
combined with other organic additives was found to improve the yield
point of some alloys [96,97] and hence, carburized mild steel.
Based on our findings in this review, we propose that the future of
steel carburization does not only lie in the deployment of organic ad­
ditives, but also on the use of hybrid organic additives.
12
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
6. Conclusions
Different potentials of numerous organic additives have been
assessed in this study, most of which can be harnessed to achieve higher
quality carburization, while spending less than when inorganic additives
or single organic additives were to be deployed. Most of the organic
additives are simply organic wastes that would ordinarily have had a
negative impact on the environment as a result of possible indiscrimi­
nate disposal or burning. The cost of spending less on raw materials and
putting waste materials into productive use is not only a current trend in
modern manufacturing, but also the future compliance with sustainable
production and consumption, as well as the United Nations’ sustainable
development goals. Furthermore, while inorganic additives are not
readily accessible and have to be sourced deliberately, organic additives
are ubiquitous and sometimes constitute environmental hazards from
mishandling in many sub-Saharan African cities. Eggshells, palm kernel
shells, coconut shells, and wood are oftentimes burnt in the open space
which pollutes the environment and adding no value to production. The
future lies, therefore, in harnessing all the readily available raw mate­
rials for creating a controlled carbonaceous atmosphere for carburiza­
tion purposes.
In summary, increasing advocacy for cleaner production necessitates
the increased search for cleaner sources of carbonaceous environments
for steel carburization. This study has revealed the mechanisms of
different methods of carburization, factors affecting carburization
quality, and organic additives for carburization. The research efforts in
this review has also provided insightful backing for organic energizers,
and their benefits to both the users and the environment. This paper
strongly recommends the deployment of hybrid organic additives
through simple and less expensive environment-friendly techniques that
would contribute to solving the world’s perennial energy and pollution
crises.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
Authors acknowledge the financial support given by the National
Research Fund (NRF) under the aegis of the Tertiary Education Trust
Fund (TETFund), Nigeria, (TETF/ES/DR&D-CE/NRF2020/SETI/87/
VOL.1).
References
[1] V. Balaram, Geoscience frontiers rare earth elements: a review of applications,
occurrence, exploration, analysis, recycling, and environmental impact, Geosci.
Front. 10 (4) (2019) 1285–1303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2018.12.005.
[2] P. Rasaili, K.N. Sharma, A. Bhattarai, Comparison of ferromagnetic materials: past
work, recent trends, and application, Condens. Matter 7 (1) (2022) 12, https://doi.
org/10.3390/condmat7010012.
[3] E.T. Bentria, O.S. Akande, A. Ramesh, N. Laycock, W. Hamer, M. Normand,
C. Becquart, O. Bouhali, F. El-Mellouhi, Applied surface science insights on the
effect of water content in carburizing gas mixtures on the metal dusting corrosion
of iron, Appl. Surf. Sci. 579 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsusc.2021.152138, 152138.
[4] A. Amanov, Surface engineering-controlled tribological behavior and adhesion
strength of Ni-Cr coating sprayed onto carburized AISI 4340 steel substrates, Surf.
Coat. Technol. 370 (2019) 144–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
surfcoat.2019.04.087.
[5] A.D. Pekdemir, Application of diffusion and transition state theories on the
carburizing of steel AISI 316 by annealing in uranium carbide powder, Heliyon
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02305, 0–4.
[6] M.A. Chowdhury, I. Hossain, N. Hossain, S. Zahid, C. Sakib-uz-zaman, B.A. Shuvho,
Analysis of thin film electrochemical deposition process diffused by carbon tool
O. Adedipe et al.
steels, Results Chem. 100878 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rechem.2023.100878.
[7] L. Yin, X. Ma, G. Tang, Z. Fu, S. Yang, T. Wang, L. Wang, L. Li, Characterization of
carburized 14Cr14Co13Mo4 stainless steel by low-pressure carburizing, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 358 (2019) 654–660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.11.090.
[8] S. Dinkar, P. Prakash, E. Brodu, B. Hooreweder, S. Van Dadbakhsh, J. Kruth,
J. Humbeeck, K. Vanmeensel, Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of
highly conductive parts made of optically absorptive carburized CuCr1 powder,
Mater. Des. 198 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109369, 109369.
[9] N.A. Agbo, E.T. Dauda, T. Ause, O.A.W. Oyeladun, The suitability of periwinkle
shell as energizer in case hardening of 0.08% mild steel using coconut shell as
carburizer at 900◦ C, in: 33rd Annual Conference of Nigerian Metallurgical Society,
2017, pp. 245–253.
[10] J.A. Mathews, J. Sietsma, R.H. Petrov, M.J. Santofimia, Materials & design
influence of chemical segregation on bainitic microstructures in a carburized
bearing steel, Mater. Des. 223 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2022.111232, 111232.
[11] E. Wołowiec-Korecka, M. Korecki, M. Sut, A. Brewka, P. Kula, Calculation of the
mixture flow in a low-pressure carburizing process, Metals 9 (4) (2019) 1–8,
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9040439.
[12] F.O. Aramide, S.A. Ibitoye, I.O. Oladele, J.O. Borode, Effects of carburization time
and temperature on the mechanical properties of carburized mild steel, using
activated carbon as carburizer, Mater. Res. 12 (4) (2009) 483–487, https://doi.
org/10.1590/s1516-14392009000400018.
[13] J. Wu, P. Wei, H. Liu, X. Zhang, Z. He, Evaluation of pre-shot peening on
improvement of carburizing heat treatment of AISI 9310 gear steel, J. Mater. Res.
Technol. 18 (2022) 2784–2796, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.03.163.
[14] M. Syahid, A. Hayat, S. Arief, Rudi, Fatigue strength improvement of low carbon
steel through carburizing process with coconut shell charcoal, IOP Conf. Ser.:
Mater. Sci. Eng. 875 (1) (2020), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/875/1/
012064.
[15] M. Romedenne, F. Rouillard, D. Hamon, B. Malard, D. Monceau, Carburization of
austenitic and ferritic stainless steels in liquid sodium: comparison between
experimental observations and simulations, Corros. Sci. 159 (2019), https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.corsci.2019.108147, 108147.
[16] C. Oh, B. Kang, C. Yoo, C. Yoon, Factors affecting the hardness characteristics of
microstructures in gas carburized chromium alloy steels, Turk. J. Comp. Math. Edu.
12 (6) (2021) 712–721, https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i6.2076.
[17] K.E. Nygren, Z. Yu, F. Rouillard, A. Couet, Effect of sample thickness on the
oxidation and carburization kinetics of 9Cr-1Mo steel in high and atmospheric
pressure CO2 at 550 ◦ C, Corros. Sci. 163 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
corsci.2019.108292.
[18] M.F. Slim, G. Geandier, F. Rouillard, B. Malard, Determination of residual stress
gradient in a Ti-stabilized austenitic stainless steel cladding candidate after
carburization in liquid sodium at 500 ◦ C and 600 ◦ C, Acta Mater. 221 (2021)
117435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117435.
[19] J. Chai, R. Pestman, W. Chen, A.I. Dugulan, B. Feng, Z. Men, P. Wang, E.J.
M. Hensen, The role of H2 in Fe carburization by CO in Fischer-Tropsch catalysts,
J. Catal. 400 (2021) 93–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2021.05.027.
[20] F.I. Haider, Suryanto, M.H. Mahmood, Carbon diffusion in 304I austenitic stainless
steel at 650 steel at 650–750◦ c in carburizing environment, Int. J. Rec. Technol.
Eng. 7 (6) (2019) 76–78.
[21] W.Y.H. Liew, R. Protasius, J.L.J. Ling, N.J. Siambun, N.A. Mohd-Lair,
Reciprocating wear behaviour of mild steel carburized using Na2CO3-NaCl, Tribol.
Int. 95 (2016) 406–418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2015.11.040.
[22] E.K. Arthur, S.T. Azeko, Surface hardening of ferrous materials with cassava
(Manihot spp) waste: a review, Sci. Afr. 9 (2020), e00483, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00483.
[23] R. Umunakwe, O.C. Okoye, C.I. Madueke, D.O. Komolafe, et al., FUOYE J. Eng.
Technol. 2 (1) (2017), https://doi.org/10.46792/fuoyejet.v2i1.83.
[24] J. Wu, P. Wei, H. Liu, X. Zhang, Z. He, Evaluation of pre-shot peening on
improvement of carburizing heat treatment of AISI 9310 gear steel, J. Mater. Res
Technol. 18 (2022) 2784–2796, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.03.163.
[25] O. Unal, E. Maleki, R. Varol, Plasma nitriding of gradient structured AISI 304 at
low temperature: shot peening as a catalyst treatment, Vacuum 164 (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2019.03.027, 194e7.
[26] L. Tang, W. Jia, J. Hu, An enhanced rapid plasma nitriding by laser shock peening,
Mater. Lett. 231 (2018) 91e3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.08.010.
[27] A. Amanov, Surface engineering-controlled tribological behavior and adhesion
strength of Ni-Cr coating sprayed onto carburized AISI 4340 steel substrates, Surf.
Coat. Technol. 370 (December 2018) (2019) 144–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
surfcoat.2019.04.087.
[28] J. Wu, H. Liu, P. Wei, Q. Lin, S. Zhou, Effect of shot peening coverage on residual
stress and surface roughness of 18CrNiMo7–6 steel, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 183 (May)
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105785.
[29] Y. Ren, H. Wan, Y. Chen, H. Zhu, H. Lu, X. Ren, Effect of laser shock peening and
carbonitriding on tribological properties of 20Cr2Mn2Mo steel alloy under dry
sliding conditions, Surf. Coat. Technol. 417 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
surfcoat.2021.127215, 127215.
[30] S. Kikuchi, K. Minamizawa, J. Arakawa, H. Akebono, S. Takesue, M. Hayakawa,
Combined effect of surface morphology and residual stress induced by finr particle
and shot peening on the fatigue limit for carburized steels, Int. J. Fatig. 168 (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107441, 107441.
[31] V. Manne, S.K. Singh, N. Sateesh, R. Subbiah, Materials today: proceedings a
review on the influence of nitriding on AISI430 ferritic stainless steel, Mater.
13
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
Today: Proceed. 26 (2020) 1010–1013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2020.01.298.
[32] F.E. Kennedy, E.R. Boose, D.F. Wilcock, Fluid Mechanics, in: F. Kreith (Ed.), The
CRC handbook of mechanical engineering, 1998, pp. 12–20. New York,
Washington D. C.
[33] Supriyono, Jamasri, Holding time effect of pack carburizing on fatigue
characteristic of v-notch shaft steel specimens, AIP Conf. Proceed. 2018 (1855),
020005, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4985450.
[34] O. Asi, A. Çetin, J. Pineault, M. Belassel, The relationship between case depth and
bending fatigue strength of gas carburized SAE 8620 steel, Surf. Coat. Technol. 201
(2007) 5979–5987, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.11.006.
[35] S.R. Elmi Hosseini, Z. Li, Pack Carburizing: Characteristics, Microstructure, and
Modeling, Encyclo. of Iron, Steel, & Their Alloys, 2016, pp. 1–24, https://doi.org/
10.1081/e-eisa-120051080.
[36] Ramli, C.C. Wu, Novel study on mechanical properties of pack carburizing SCM
420 steel with energizer dog conch, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 35 (5) (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1142/S021797922150065X.
[37] D.N.K.P. Negara, I.M. Widiyarta, The study on mechanical properties of pack
carburized low carbon steel using BaCO3 as an energizer, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater.
Sci. Eng. 673 (1) (2019) 4–10, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/673/1/
012125.
[38] S. Darmo, S. Sinarep, R. Soenoko, A study of the pack carburizing quenching
treatment with cane molasses cooling medium effect on the wear resistance of low
carbon steel, Eastern-Euro, J. Enterprise Technol. 2 (12− 110) (2021) 32–37,
https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2021.228627.
[39] P. Zhang, F.C. Zhang, Z.G. Yan, T.S. Wang, L.H. Qian, Wear property of low-
temperature bainite in the surface layer of a carburized low carbon steel, Wear 271
(5–6) (2011) 697–704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2010.12.025.
[40] S. Kumar, V. Kumar, A.K. Singh, S.K. Singh, Influence of surface treatments on
erosion behaviour of various steel alloys: a literature review, Trib. Online 13 (5)
(2018) 254–261, https://doi.org/10.2474/trol.13.254.
[41] W. Chen, X. He, W. Yu, J. Shi, M. Wang, K. Yao, Characterization of the
microstructure and hardness of case-carburized gear steel, Micron 144 (2021)
103028, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2021.103028.
[42] D. Rajendra, G.R. Brown, G.C. Reilly, Thermal based surface modification
techniques for enhancing the corrosion and wear resistance of metallic implants: a
review, Vacuum 203 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2022.111298,
111298.
[43] P.J. Heintzberger, The Influence of Carburising Temperature on the Case Depth
and Properties of Vacuum Carburised, September, 2017.
[44] K.E. Madu, A.E. Uyaelumuo, Parametric effects of carburization time and
temperature on the mechanical properties of carburized mild Steel, SSRN Electro.
J. (2018) 14–21, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3209937.
[45] M.Z. Hasan, A.A. Hussein, A.S. Hasan, O.M. Ali, Improvement of AISI 1018 carbon
steel Gr 1018 mechanical properties by liquid carburizing in salt bath, Mater.
Today: Proceed. 20 (2020) 512–516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2019.09.179.
[46] T. Turpin, J. Dulcy, M. Gantois, Carbon diffusion and phase transformations during
gas carburizing of high-alloyed stainless steels: experimental study and theoretical
modelling, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 36 (2005) 2751–2760.
[47] U. Tewary, G. Mohapatra, S.S. Sahay, Distortion mechanisms during carburizing
and quenching in a transmission shaft, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 26 (10) (2017)
4893–4904, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-2951-9.
[48] R. Montanari, A. Lanzutti, M. Richetta, J. Tursunbaev, E. Vaglio, A. Varone,
C. Verona, Plasma carburizing of laser powder bed fusion manufactured 316 l steel
for enhancing the surface hardness, Coatings 12 (2) (2022) 1–13, https://doi.org/
10.3390/coatings12020258.
[49] K.M. Srinivas, S. Bharath, P.N.V.K. Chaitanya, M. Pramod, R. Subbiah, Improving
tribological properties of P91 steels through carburizing process, Mater. Today:
Proceed. 27 (2020) 1575–1578, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.254.
[50] X. GuangTao, M. Hao, Y. Qiao, Y. Zhang, G. Wang, M. Zhao, Characterization of
elastic-plastic properties of surface-modified layers introduced by carburizing,
Mech. Mater. 144 (2020), 103364.
[51] E. Bentria, S.O. Akande, A. Ramesh, N. Laycock, W. Hamer, M. Normand,
C. Becquart, O. Bouhali, F. El-Mellouhi, Applied surface science insights on the
effect of water content in carburizing gas mixtures on the metal dusting corrosion
of iron, Appl. Surf. Sci. 579 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsusc.2021.152138, 152138.
[52] C.J. Scheuer, R.P. Cardoso, F.I. Zanetti, T. Amaral, S.F. Brunatto, Surface &
Coatings Technology low-temperature plasma carburizing of AISI 420 martensitic
stainless steel: influence of gas mixture and gas flow rate, Surf. Coat. Technol. 206
(24) (2012) 5085–5090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.06.022.
[53] T. Hirata, T. Yamaguchi, Y. Yokoyama, H. Hoshino, Surface modification by high-
speed laser gas carburization in low-alloy steel, Mater. Lett. 280 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2020.128586, 128586.
[54] M. Li, Practical approach to determining effective case depth of gas carburizing, in:
American Gear Manufacturers Association Fall Technical Meeting 2015, AGMA
FTM 2015, April, 2015, pp. 28–39.
[55] M.J. García, M. Milanese, M. Piccoli, R. Moroso, J. Niedbalski, L. Nosei, Stability of
expanded austenite, generated by ion carburizing and ion nitriding of AISI 316L SS,
under high temperature and high energy pulsed ion beam irradiation, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 218 (2013) 142–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2012.12.043.
[56] Z. Chen, T. Zhou, R. Zhao, H. Zhang, S. Lu, W. Yang, H. Zhou, Improved fatigue
wear resistance of gray cast iron by localized laser carburizing, Mater. Sci. Eng.: A
644 (2015) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2015.07.046.
O. Adedipe et al.
[57] A. Biserova-Tahchieva, J.M. Cabrera, N. Llorca-Isern, Study of the thermochemical
surface treatment effect on the phase precipitation and degradation behaviour of
DSS and SDSS, Mater 13 (1) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010165.
[58] T. de Souza Lamim, L.M. Anselmo, T. Bendo, E.A. Bernardelli, C. Binder, A. Nelmo
Klein, J.D. Biasoli de Mello, Effect of low-temperature plasma carburizing on
surface topography, mechanical and tribological properties of sintered iron and
nitrided sintered iron, Tribol. Int. 168 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
triboint.2022.107452.
[59] B. Venkatesh, C. Anil Kumar Reddy, Experimental study on heat treatment and
mechanical behaviour of M50 NiL steel-A review, Mater. Today: Proceed. 46
(2021) 795–798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.766.
[60] W. Chen, X. He, W. Yu, M. Wang, K. Yao, Microstructure, hardness, and tensile
properties of vacuum carburizing gear steel, Metals 11 (2021).
[61] N. Xiao, W. Hui, Y. Zhang, X. Zhao, Hydrogen embrittlement behavior of a
vacuum- carburized gear steel, Acta Metall. Sin. 57 (2021) 977–988.
[62] I.P. Aondona, K.U. Azoro, The development of eco-friendly energizers as
replacement for industrial chemical energizers in the casehardening of mild steel
materials, Int. J. Mech. Civil Eng. 2 (2) (2019) 11. www.abjournals.org.
[63] M. Mathew, P.K. Rajendrakumar, Optimization of process parameters of boro-
carburized low carbon steel for tensile strength by Taquchi method with grey
relational analysis, Mater. Des. 32 (6) (2011) 3637–3644, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2011.02.007.
[64] J. Guo, T. Cao, C. Cheng, X. Meng, J. Zhao, Effect of carburization (pyrolysis
furnace tube main failure factor) on the microstructure and properties of HPNb
alloy tube, Eng. Fail. Anal. 115 (2020) 104610, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2020.104610.
[65] R. Gecu, A. Karaaslan, Casting temperature dependent wear and corrosion
behaviour of 304 stainless steel reinforced A356 aluminium matrix bimetal
composites fabricated by vacuum-assisted melt infiltration casting, Wear 2020
(August 2019) 446–447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203183.
[66] Y. Yang, X. Cui, X. Zhao, M. Dong, J. Zhou, G. Jin, Surface nanocrystallized
structural steel with enhanced tribological properties under different sliding
conditions, Wear (2020) 460–461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203429.
[67] Z.H. Dong, W. Zhang, H.W. Kang, Y.J. Xie, M. Ebrahimnia, X. Peng, Surface &
Coatings Technology Surface hardening of laser melting deposited 12CrNi2 alloy
steel by enhanced plasma carburizing via hollow cathode discharge, Surf. Coat.
Technol. 397 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2020.125976.
[68] R. Krobath, C. Bernhard, S. Ilie, J. Six, S. Hahn, P. Pennerstorfer, The role of grain
boundary oxidation on surface crack formation under continuous casting
conditions, Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh 164 (11) (2019) 461–465, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00501-019-00902-0.
[69] L. Shi, X. Cui, J. Li, G. Jin, J. Liu, H. Tian, Improving the wear resistance of heavy-
duty gear steels by cyclic carburizing, Tribol. Int. 171 (2022), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.triboint.2022.107576, 107576.
[70] T. Chowwanonthapunya, X. Mu, C. Peeratatsuwan, Study on carburized steel used
in maritime industry: The influences of carburizing temperature, Maritime
Technol. Res. 2 (1) (2020) 33–39, https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2020.204835.
[71] B. Sulistiyono, Y.S. Irawan, A. Suprapto, R. Soenoko, The comparison pack
carburizing-nitriding sus 316 with gas type welding grade and ultra-high purity,
EUREKA, Phys. Eng. 2021 (3) (2021) 119–126, https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-
4262.2021.001839.
[72] S. Abdenour, A. Linda, C. Oualid, B. Ali, L.M. Salah, D. Hamid, C. Francisco,
Influence of the carburization time on the structural and mechanical properties of
XC20 steel, Mater. Res. Expr. 8 (8) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/
ac1ece.
[73] A. Betan, M. Saduk, F. Niron, I. Budayawati, Effect of carburizing temperature and
holding time on mechanical properties low carbon steel using SchleicheraOleosa,
Carbon. Charc. (2019) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.18-10-2019.2289858.
[74] S. Fan, H. Hao, Q. Zhang, Han, Improvement in mechanical properties of a surface-
carburized ferrite–martensite dual-phase steel by inter-critical annealing, J. Mater.
Eng. Perform. 29 (11) (2020) 7034–7044, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-020-
05196-9.
[75] E.Y. Salawu, O.O. Ajayi, A. Inegbenebor, S. Akinlabi, E. Akinlabi, Influence of
pulverized palm kernel and eggshell additives on the hardness, coefficient of
friction and microstructure of grey cast iron material for advance applications, Res.
Eng. 3 (July) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2019.100025, 100025.
[76] M.Y. Kolawole, E.A. Awoyemi, O.M. Abiona, Potential of date-seed/snail shells as a
carburizer for enhanced mechanical properties of mild-steel, J. Eng. Sci. 8 (2)
(2021) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.21272/jes.2021.8(2).c1.
14
Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38 (2023) e00723
[77] S. Supriyono, The effects of pack carburizing using charcoal on properties of mild
steel, Media Mesin: Majalah Teknik Mesin 19 (1) (2018) 38–42, https://doi.org/
10.23917/mesin.v19i1.5812.
[78] H. Wang, J. Liu, Y. Tian, Z. Wang, X. An, M.A. Steel, Mathematical modelling of
carbon flux parameters for low-pressure vacuum carburizing with medium-high
alloy steel, coat 10 (2020) 1075, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10111075.
[79] C.C. Ramli Wu, A. Shaaban, Mechanical properties of pack carburized scm 420
steel processed using natural shell powders and extended carburization time,
Crystals 11 (9) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11091136.
[80] P.A. Ihom, Case hardening of mild steel using cowbone as energizer, Afr. J. Eng.
Res. Vol. 1 (4) (2013) 97–101.
[81] S.A. Adzor, V.U. Nwoke, R.O. Akaluzia, Investigation of the suitability of
periwinkle snail shells as carburizing material for the surface hardness
improvement of low carbon steel, Europ. J. Mater. Sci. 3 (2) (2016) 13–23. www.
eajournals.org.
[82] Miswanto, T.O. Rajaguguk, S. Sumardi, The study of low carbon steel pack
carburizing using cow bone and coconut shell, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 478
(1) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/478/1/012037.
[83] S.A. Afolalu, E.H. Asonaminasom, S.O. Ongbali, A.A. Abioye, M.O. Udo, E.
Y. Salawu, Dataset on experimental investigation of optimum carburising
temperature and holding time of bi-nano additives treatment of AISI 5130 steel,
Data Brief 19 (2018) 2279–2283.
[84] Nitha, P. Sampelawang, Y. Bontong, S.T. Lembang, W.Y. Tandirerung, Low carbon
steel wearing properties due to pack carburizing with buffalo bones charcoal as
energizer, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 15 (9) (2020) 1085–1087.
[85] S. Darmo, R. Sutanto, Pack Carburizing of SS400 steel using cow bone crossbreed
Powder as Energizer 7(12), 2019, pp. 267–273.
[86] E.Y. Salawu, O.O. Ajayi, A.O. Inegbenebor, S. Akinlabi, E. Akinlabi, A.P.I. Popoola,
U.O. Uyo, Investigation of the effects of selected bio-based carburising agents on
mechanical and microstructural characteristics of gray cast iron, Heliyon 6 (2)
(2020), e03418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03418.
[87] F. Zhang, Z. Yang, Development of and perspective on high-performance
nanostructured Bainitic bearing Steel, Eng. 5 (2) (2019) 319–328, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.024.
[88] E.Y. Salawu, O.O. Ajayi, A.O. Inegbenebor, Turbulence flow simulation of molten
metals in runners for defect control in casting of a spur gear blank, Int. J. Mech.
Eng. Technol. 10 (1) (2019) 1921–1933.
[89] O.K. Abubakre, R.O. Medupin, I.B. Akintunde, O.T. Jimoh, A.S. Abdulkareem, R.
A. Muriana, Carbon nanotube-reinforced polymer nanocomposites for sustainable
biomedical applications: A review, Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and
Devices 100557 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsamd.2023.100557.
[90] L.I. Obidike, K.O. Yoro, Effect of zeolitic nano-catalyst on biodiesel yield and
biochar formation during the pyrolysis of tallow, Biofuels 13 (6) (2022) 683–692.
10.1080/17597269.2021.1882718.
[91] S.A. Afolalu, O.P. Abioye, E.Y. Salawu, I.P. Okokpujie, A.A. Abioye, O.
A. Omotosho, O.O. Ajayi, Impact of heat treatment on HSS cutting tool (ASTM
A600) and its behaviour during machining of mild steel (ASTM A36), in: AIP
Conference Proceedings, 1957, AIP Publishing, April, 050003. No. 1, 2018.
[92] R. Ntenga, E. Mfoumou, A. Beakou, M. Tango, J. Kamga, A. Ahmed, Dataset on the
microstructure morphology and elemental composition of the palm kernel shell
and the coconut kernel shell by TEM/SEM and EDXA/EDS, Data Brief 22 (2019)
336–343.
[93] A. Kumar, A. Gupta, K.V. Sharma, M. Nasir, T.A. Khan, Influence of activated
charcoal as filler on the properties of wood composites, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 46
(2013) 34–39.
[94] J.N. Caguiat, D.S. Yanchus, R.S. Gabhi, D.W. Kirk, C.Q. Jia, Identifying the
structures retained when transforming wood into biocarbon, J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 136 (2018) 77–86.
[95] G. Qiao, R. Ma, N. Cai, C. Zhang, Z. Jin, Mechanical properties and microstructure
of Si/SiC materials derived from native wood, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 323 (1–2) (2002)
301–305.
[96] S. Shamim, H. Singh, C. Sasikumar, D.K. Yadav, Microstructures and mechanical
properties of Al-Si-mg-Ti/egg shell particulate composites, Mater. Today: Proc. 4
(2) (2017) 2887–2892.
[97] A. Mittal, M. Teotia, R.K. Soni, J. Mittal, Applications of egg-shell and eggshell
membrane as adsorbents: a review, J. Mol. Liq. 223 (2016) 376–387.