Experimental and theoretical study on corrosion inhibition of mild steel by meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives in acid solution https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 1 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000; https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 Open Access : : ISSN 1847-9286 www.jESE-online.org Original scientific paper Experimental and theoretical study on corrosion inhibition of mild steel by meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives in acid solution Messaoud Meraghni1,2, Touhami Lanez2,, Elhafnaoui Lanez2, Lazhar Bechki3 and Ali Kennoufa2 1University of El Oued, Process Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology, B.P.789, 39000, El Oued, Algeria 2VTRS Laboratory, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of El Oued B.P.789, 39000, El Oued, Algeria 3University of Ouargla, Chemistry Department, PO Box 511, 30000, Ouargla, Algeria Corresponding author: touhami-lanez@univ-elourd.dz Received: June 12, 2022; Accepted: August 23, 2022; Published: August xx, 2022 Abstract The inhibition effect of meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin (TPPH2), meso-tetra4-methophenyl- porphyrin TPPH2(p-Me), and meso-tetra4-actophenyl-porphyrin (TAcPPH2) on the corrosion of XC52 mild steel in aerated 0.5 M aqueous sulfuric acid solution was studied by potentiodynamic polarization experiments and quantum chemical calculations. Results from potentiodynamic polarization showed that inhibition efficiency of three compounds increased upon increasing of the inhibitor concentration and they are acting as mixed type inhibitors, having dominant anodic reactions. Adsorption of all compounds follows the Langmuir adsorption isotherm with moderate values of free energy of adsorption. Quantum chemical calculation using DFT/B3LYP method confirmed a strong bond between meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrins and mild steel surface. The inhibition mechanism was also determined by the potential of zero charge (PZC) measurement at the metal/solution interface. Keywords Low carbon steel; potentiodynamic polarization; quantum chemical method, potential of zero charge Introduction Mild steel is made from iron with low carbon content of approximately 0.05-0.30 % by weight, where other elements such as manganese and silicon may be also added. The presence of carbon content improves toughness and corrosion-resistance of mild steel compared to pure iron. Mild steel is one of the most widely used materials in industry such as electronics, and the manufacture https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 http://www.jese-online.org/ mailto:touhami-lanez@univ-elourd.dz J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 2 of integrated circuits, as well as a construction material for pipeline transport production and processing related industries [1,2]. As many other metals, mild steel is usually exposed to corrosion in various industries. These exposures can make changes in the properties of the metals and thus to unexpected failures of materials in service. Therefore, a metal surface should be protected from corrosion attack, and the most efficient method of metal protection against aqueous acidic corrosion is utilization of organic inhibitors molecules. Despite the fact that mild steel has numerous applications, it shows weak resistance to corrosion attack in corrosive aqueous media [3-5]. Consequently, the development of protective materials able to increase the corrosion resistance of mild steel is mandatory. In this case also, the use of organic compounds as corrosion inhibitors is one of the most widespread protective methods against aqueous corrosion. Organic inhibitors are usually organic molecules containing heteroatoms such as nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur that result in the enhanced adsorption onto a metal surface [6,7]. Also, the presence of aromatic cycles and aliphatic chains in the molecular structures of inhibitors improve their adsorption at a metal surface. In such a manner, a metal surface becomes isolated from the corrosive media and consequently, its corrosion resistance is improved [8,9]. Porphyrins are a class of cyclic tetrapyrroles which possess a highly conjugated, heterocyclic macrocycle. Their 18π electron structure gives rise to their remarkable stability, their structures are formed by four pyrrole subunits connected together via methine bridges. The presence of four nitrogen atoms in their skeletons qualifies them to be potential corrosion inhibitors. Additionally, the fully aromatic character of meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives facilitates the mobility of electrons in the rings, which makes possible their application in many fields such as electrochemistry and catalysis [9], photomedicine [10] and photosynthesis [11]. In the present work, the corrosion inhibition efficiency of 5,10,15,20-tetraphenylporphyrin (TPPH2), 5,10,15,20-tetra-p-tolylporphyrin (TPPH2(p-Me)), and 1,1',1'',1'''-(porphyrin-5,10,15,20- tetrayltetrakis(benzene-4,1-diyl))tetrakis(ethan-1-one) (TAcPPH2) on XC52 steel in sulfuric acid solution has been studied using potentiodynamic polarization measurements and quantum chemical calculations. Experimental Materials and sample preparation Sulfuric acid (Sigma Aldrich) used as corrosive medium in this study was of analytical grade and used as sourced without further preparation. The chemical composition of the XC52 mild steel used in this study is: 0.065 wt.% C, 0.245 wt.% Si, 1.685 wt.% Mn, 0.002 wt.% P, 0.001 wt.% S, 0.042 wt.% Cr, 0.005 wt.% Cr, 0.026 wt.% Ni, 0.042 wt.% Al, 0.010 wt.% Cu, 0.067 wt.% Nb, 0.019 wt.% Ti, 0.014 wt.% V and the remainder Fe. It was obtained as platelets from ANABIB Ltd (Ghardaïa, Algeria). Electrochemical measurements The electrochemical measurements were conducted on a PGZ301 potentiostat (radiometer analytical SAS, France) connected to a standard three-electrode electrochemical cell assembly composed of a saturated calomel electrode (Hg/Hg2Cl2/Cl-) and a platinum wire as the reference and auxiliary electrode, respectively. Mild steel (XC52) rod with 0.707 cm2 of exposed surface area served as the working electrode. All experiments were performed in atmospheric conditions M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 3 without stirring. Prior to each assay, the working electrode was immersed in the test solution until a stable value for the open circuit potential was obtained (40 to 60 minutes). Synthesis The synthesis of meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives (TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me), and TAcPPH2) used in this work as potential inhibitors of corrosion of XC52 mild steel in aqueous sulfuric acid solution, was performed following our previously reported procedure [10]. Molecular structures of three synthesized porphyrin derivatives are shown in Figure 1. TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 Figure 1. Chemical structures of meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives A stock solution of each inhibitor (300 ppm) was prepared by weighing 300 mg of synthesized material dissolved in one liter of 0.5M sulfuric acid. Other concentrations (10 – 100 ppm) were obtained from the stock solution following successive dilution. The XC52 mild steel electrode used for electrochemical assays was prepared, degreased, and cleaned as previously reported [11,12]. Structure optimizations were run using density functional theory (DFT) implemented in Gaussian 09 package [13]. All calculations were carried out with the unrestricted Becker’s three parameter hybrid exchange functional [14] combined with Lee-Yang-Parr nonlocal correlation function, abbreviated as B3LYP [15–17] with basis set 6-311++G(d,p) [18–20]. https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 4 Results and discussion Potentiodynamic polarization study Potentiodynamic polarization curves were used to study the corrosion inhibition of XC52 mild steel in aerated 0.5 M aqueous sulfuric acid solution, in the absence and presence of different concentrations of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me), and TAcPPH2 at 25±1 °C. The obtained Tafel curves are shown in Figure 2. -650 -600 -550 -500 -450 -400 -350 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) E / mV Blank 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 40 ppm 50 ppm 60 ppm 70 ppm 80 ppm 90 ppm 100 ppm TPPH 2 -650 -600 -550 -500 -450 -400 -350 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) E / mV Blank 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 40 ppm 50 ppm 60 ppm 70 ppm 80 ppm 90 ppm 100 ppm TPPH 2 (p-Me) -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) E / mV Blank 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 40 ppm 50 ppm 60 ppm 70 ppm 80 ppm 90 ppm 100 ppm TAcPPH 2 Figure 2. Potentiodynamic polarization curves of mild steel in 0.5 M H2SO4 in the absence (blank) and presence of different (10-100 ppm) concentrations of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 Figure 2 shows that in the presence of inhibitors, all anodic Tafel slopes were lower compared to the blank solution, thus showing the effect of the inhibitors on the metal dissolution reaction. In contrast, cathodic Tafel slopes were less affected. This infers that compounds in the present study were inhibitors of mixed type, having dominant anodic reaction [21]. The corrosion current densities were determined from the intersection of anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes, while inhibition efficiency (IE / %) was calculated from the corrosion current density of XC52 mild still electrodes in the absence and presence of the inhibitor using the equation (1) [22]:  − =     0 0 100 j j IE j (1) where j0 and j are the current density values in the absence and presence of inhibitor respectively. Corrosion current density values and IE calculated by eq. (1), are for different concentrations (10-100 ppm) of three inhibitors presented in Table 1. lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) lo g ( j / m A c m -2 ) M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 5 Table 1. Inhibition efficiencies of different concentrations of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me), and TAcPPH2 inhibitors toward XC52 mild steel corrosion in 0.5 M H2SO4 C / ppm TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 j / mA cm- IE / % j / mA cm-2 IE / % j / mA cm-2 IE / % -- 0.6727 -- 0.6727 -- 0.6727 -- 10 0.4311 36 0.4039 40 0.4002 41 20 0.3988 41 0.3908 42 0.3142 53 30 0.3669 45 0.3621 46 0.2075 69 40 0.3308 51 0.3284 51 0.1808 73 50 0.3003 55 0.2915 57 0.178 74 60 0.2502 63 0.2414 64 0.1341 80 70 0.2365 65 0.2313 66 0.1279 81 80 0.2283 66 0.2194 67 0.1223 82 90 0.2194 67 0.2091 69 0.1097 84 100 0.2088 69 0.1988 70 0.1031 85 It is clearly seen from Table 1 that the current density values decrease considerably with increasing concentration of the inhibitors due to the formation of a barrier film on the mild steel surface. Moreover, for all three inhibitors, inhibition efficiency increases with concentration, while the maximum IE of 85 % is observed for 100 ppm of TAcPPH2, indicating significant protection of the mild steel from corrosion. Anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes As shown in Table 2, in solutions without and with different concentrations of inhibitors, the values of anodic Tafel slope (a) varied from 48 to 72 mV for TPPH2, from 52 to 71 mV for TPPH2(p-Me), and from 48 to 80 mV for TAcPPH2. The values of cathodic slopes (c) varied from -121 to -160 mV for TPPH2, from -135 to -193 mV for TPPH2(p-Me), and from -149 to -194 mV for TAcPPH2. These limits represent typical anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes that were reported in the literature for mild steel in acidic solutions [23,24]. As it can be observed from Table 1 and 2, the variations of anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes caused by the addition of the inhibitors, affected both the corrosion potential and the anodic and cathodic current densities. As a increases, the potential on the anodic mild steel surface also increases; however, the potential distribution along the cathodic surface is not affected significantly. Therefore, as a increases, the potential difference between the anodic and cathodic regions decreases, and this results in lower corrosion rates. Table 2. Anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes for the mild steel immersed in 0.5 M H2SO4 medium for 30 min C / ppm TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 Ecorr / mV a / mV dec-1 c / mV dec-1 Ecorr / mV a / mV dec-1 c / mV dec-1 Ecorr / mV a / mV dec-1 c / mV dec-1 00 -516 72 -154 -503 71 -183 -501 80 -188 10 -511 65 -150 -499 66 -193 -492 63 -183 20 -506 56 -140 -497 61 -173 -468 69 -191 30 -511 56 -140 -493 63 -187 -485 56 -160 40 -512 57 -140 -495 61 -192 -481 61 -194 50 -510 56 -138 -493 59 -185 -480 62 -185 60 -505 53 -137 -489 58 -176 -498 57 -165 70 -503 54 -141 -507 64 -156 -492 53 -149 80 -512 56 -135 -490 57 -182 -480 60 -185 90 -509 53 -137 -487 52 -154 -497 60 -170 100 -504 48 -121 -498 55 -135 -499 48 -175 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 6 Adsorption isotherm In order to find out the mode of adsorption of three porphyrin derivative inhibitors on the surface of XC52 mild steel and the adsorption isotherm that fits the experimental results, the θ/Cinh values were plotted versus inhibitor concentration (Cinh) for all investigated compounds (Figure 3). The obtained straight lines follow the Langmuir adsorption isotherm that is given by the equation (2) [25]:  = +inh inh ads 1C C K (2) where θ is surface coverage degree, Cinh is concentration of tested inhibitor compounds, and Kads is adsorption equilibrium constant. The surface coverage degree (θ) was calculated based on the assumption that the inhibition efficiency (IE) is due mainly to the blocking effect of the adsorbed inhibitor molecules on the metal surface. Hence, θ is given by the equation (3) [26]: 0 1 100 IE j j  = = − (3) The values of adsorption equilibrium constant (Kads) obtained from intercepts of linear lines at θ/Cinh axes in Figure 3, are listed in Table 3. The results demonstrate that all values of the linear correlation coefficients (R2) and all slopes are almost equal to one, which confirms that adsorption of all three studied inhibitor molecules in 0.5 M aqueous sulfuric acid on the surface of the X52 mild steel obeys Langmuir adsorption isotherm. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Experimental Linear fit C /   M C / M TPPH 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Experimental Linear fit C /   M C / M PTTH 2 (p-Me) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Experimental Linear fit C /   M C / M TAcPPH 2 Figure 3. Langmuir’s adsorption plots of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 on mild steel in 0.5 M H2SO4 solution C  -1 /  M C  -1 /  M C  -1 /  M M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 7 Table 3. Langmuir adsorption isotherm and thermodynamic parameters for adsorption of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 in 0.5 M H2SO4 on XC52 mild steel at 25 °C Molecule Equation R2 Kads / M-1 ΔG°ads / kJ mol-1 TPPH2 y = 1.1239x + 51.40 0.999 1.94×104 -34.4 TPPH2(p-Me) y = 1.0967x + 46.27 0.999 2.16×104 -34.7 TAcPPH2 y = 1.0438x + 17.44 0.999 5.73×104 -37.1 The standard free energy of adsorption (ΔG°ads) is obtained using the equation (4) [27]: Goads = -RT ln (55.5Kads) (4) where R is the gas constant (8.32 J mol-1K-1) and T is absolute temperature (298 K). The values of ΔG°ads calculated using Eq. (4) are listed in Table 3. Generally, for ∆G°ads values of around -20 kJ mol-1 or less negative, adsorption is regarded as the physisorption, those around -40 kJ mol-1 or higher, the adsorption is regarded as the chemisorpt- ion [28]. In the present study the values of ∆G°ads suggest that adsorption of all studied inhibitors at XC52 mild steel surface is physisorption. Inhibition mechanism The mechanism of the corrosion inhibition is generally based on the physical adsorption of inhibitor molecules onto the metal surface. This type of adsorption arises from the electrostatic attractive forces between protonated form of inhibitor molecule and the electrically negative charged surface of the metal. The surface charge of the metal can be attributed to the electric field existing at the metal/solution interface. This surface charge at the open circuit potential can be calculated using the equation (5) [29]: Er = Ecorr – Eq=0 (5) where Er is referred to as Antropov’s rational potential or potential on the correlative scale, Eq=0 is the potential of zero charge, and Ecorr is the corrosion potential. If Er is negative, the electrode sur- face in this case has a negative net charge and the adsorption of the protonated molecule is favou- rized [26]. The recommended value of PZC in sulphuric acid for mild steel is equal to -0.129 V vs. SCE [30,31]. Nominating this value into eq. (5) and considering Ecorr = -512 mV (Table 2), Er was calculated as -383 mV. The obtained negative value of Er indicates that investigated compounds in 0.5 M sulphuric acid are protonated and subsequently act as cations and adsorb electrostatically on the negatively charged surface of the XC52 mild steel. Note that for any other Ecorr value taken from Table 2, a negative value of Er would also be obtained. To make evidence of the protonation of porphyrins in the acidic corrosive medium, some UV-vis spectra of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 in DMSO and 0.5 M H2SO4 were taken. The obtained electronic absorption spectra (Figure 4) consist of two distinct regions. The first appears at around 410-416 nm which involves the transition from the ground state to the second excited state, and this band is called the Soret band. The second region consists of a weak transition to the first excited state in the range between 512 and 650 nm, and these bands are called the Q bands. The Soret band of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 in DMSO is centered at 410, 412, and 416 nm respectively, and the Q-bands are all located between 512 and 650 nm [32]. The change in spectra upon addition of diluted acid is attributed to the attachment of protons to two imino nitrogen atoms of the free-base [33]. Other evidence of the physical adsorption of inhibitor onto the XC52 mild steel surface is the increasing of the polarization resistance (Rp) upon increasing the inhibitor concentration. The polarization resistance can be calculated using the Stern–Geary equation (6) [34]: https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 8 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavelength, nm H 2 SO 4 0.5 M DMSO TPPH2 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 TPPH2(p-Me) A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavelength, nm H 2 SO 4 0.5 M DMSO 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 TAcPPH2 A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavelength, nm H 2 SO 4 0.5 M DMSO Figure 4. UV-visible spectra of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 in DMSO and 0.5 M H2SO4 ( )      = =  + p corr2.3 a c a c E R i i (6) Table 4 summarized the polarization resistance values obtained from Tafel extrapolation method for selected inhibitor concentrations. The increasing values of the polarization resistance upon increasing the inhibitor concentration reflects adsorption of the inhibitor onto the metal surface which passivates efficiently active sites and inhibits corrosion [35,36]. Table 4. Polarization resistance and Tafel slopes of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 in 0.5 M H2SO4 Compound Ecorr / mV a/ mV dec-1 c/ mV dec-1 Rp / Ω cm 2 30 ppm TPPH2 -511.3 56 -139.7 47.64 TPPH2(p-Me) -493.3 62.9 -186.9 62.7 TAcPPH2 -484.6 55.9 -159.9 87.66 40 ppm TPPH2 -512.4 56.8 -139.9 50.79 TPPH2(p-Me) -495.6 61.4 -191.8 66.08 TAcPPH2 -481.3 61.5 -194.3 117.28 50 ppm TPPH2 -510.0 56.5 -138.4 54.25 TPPH2(p-Me) -493.4 59.2 -185.4 73.43 TAcPPH2 -479.6 62.1 -185.3 128.44 60 ppm TPPH2 -505.5 53 -147.3 83.5 TPPH2(p-Me) -489.7 58.1 -176 90.0 TAcPPH2 -497.9 56.9 -165.1 162.5 M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 9 Spectroscopic analysis UV–visible spectroscopy technique was used to determine the surface adsorption of the inhibitor molecules. The analysis was done before and after each corrosion assay. The UV–vis. spectra of inhibitors in both cases are shown in Figure 5. The inhibitor solutions before the immersion of the metal show adsorption peaks at 452, 439, and 426 nm which correspond to the inhibitors TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2, respectively. It is clear from Figure 5 that this peak reallocated after the corrosion assessment. All spectra show a remarkable change in the adsorption band, which is associated with adsorption of inhibiting molecules on XC52 mild steel surface [37,38]. 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavenumber, nm Before immersion after immersion TPPH2 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavenumber, nm Before immersion After immersion TPPH2(p-Me) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Before immersion After immersion A b s o rb a n c e , a .u . Wavelength, nm TAcPPH2 Figure 5. UV–vis spectra of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 before and after immersion of XC52 mild steel specimen in 0.5 M H2SO4 for 36 h, at 298 K. Molecular orbital analysis The highest occupied molecular orbital energy (EHOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy (ELUMO) are respectively connected with the electron donating and withdrawing capacities of a compound. The less negative EHOMO and more negative ELUMO are related to low chemical stability and high chemical reactivity because of ease transition of electrons [39]. A smaller energy gap ΔE (ELUMO - EHOMO) is often interpreted by stronger chemisorption bond and consequently higher inhibition efficiency [40,41]. In order to obtain more information about the frontier molecular orbitals and consequent inhibitory action of the investigated compounds, theoretical study based on molecular orbital analysis was performed. The EHOMO and ELUMO of the investigated compounds were obtained using density functional theory (DFT) without imposing any symmetry constraints, and calculations were realized with the Gaussian 09 package [10]. The exchange functional of Becke and the correlation functional of Lee, Yang and Parr (B3LYP) were employed with 6-311++G(d,p) basis sets. The obtained https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 10 contour diagrams of HOMO and LUMO are shown in Figure 6, and the values of the energy of frontier orbitals are reported in Table 5. According to Figure 6 and data Table 5, the compound TAcPPH2 has the lowest energy gap value (2.6009 eV) which is the reason for its highest inhibition efficiency. On the other hand, compound TPPH2(p-Me) has slightly lower energy gap value (2.7056 eV) than TPPH2 (2.7247 eV), which explains the slightly higher inhibition efficiency of TPPH2(p-Me) compared to TPPH2. Gauss-Sum 2.2 program [42] was used to calculate group contributions to the molecular orbitals (HOMO and LUMO) and prepare the density of states (DOS) plot for the highest and lowest energy gap of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 shown in Figure 7. The DOS spectra were generated by convoluting the molecular orbital information with Gaussian curves of unit height. LUMO  HOMO TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 Figure 6. Contour diagrams of HOMO and LUMO of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 Table 5. Energy (eV) of HOMO, LUMO, and energy gap of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2. Parameters Compounds TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 EHOMO / eV -5.2934 -5.1696 -5.5688 ELUMO / eV -2.5688 -2.4640 -2.9679 ΔE /eV 2.7247 2.7056 2.6009 Molecular electrostatic potential map analysis Molecular electrostatic potential (MEP) map gives an idea about the chemical reactivity of the studied inhibitors. Also, MEP shows the preferred site for the electrophile attack which is colored in red around the amine functions in compounds TPPH2 and TPPH2(p-Me). The nitrogen atom in these two compounds is the most preferred site for the nucleophilic attack (Figure 8). The MEP map analysis also shows four red surfaces on each acetyl group of the compound TAcPPH2, and this may be the reason of high corrosion efficiency of this compound. Figure 8 also shows that the compound TAcPPH2 shows the maximal negative potential value (-0.0674 a.u.) and the highest positive potentiality value (+0.0674 a.u.). M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 11 Figure 7. Density of states diagrams and HOMO-LUMO energy gap of TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 +0.0383 -0.0383 +0.048 -0.0489 +0.0674 -0.0674 TPPH2 TPPH2(p-Me) TAcPPH2 Figure 8. Molecular electrostatic potential map of the studied TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2 inhibitors Conclusion In this work, three meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives (TPPH2, TPPH2(p-Me) and TAcPPH2) were tested as corrosion inhibitors of XC52 mild steel in 0.5 M sulphuric acid solution. The results of potentiodynamic polarization showed that the use of TAcPPH2 can decrease the corrosion of XC52 mild steel by up to 81%, whereas for the TPPH2 and TPPH2(p-Me), the inhibition efficiency reaches 65%. Three investigated meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrin derivatives showed dominant anodic reaction. The adsorption of meso-tetraphenyl-porphyrins investigated obeys Langmuir adsorption isotherm. Also, the order of magnitude of adsorption energy indicates that physical adsorption occurs. https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 CORROSION INHIBITION OF MILD STEEL IN ACID SOLUTION 12 The PZC measurement suggested that the mild steel surface was negatively charged in H2SO4 solution, and electrostatic interaction was established between adsorbed protonated molecules and negatively charged mild steel surface. Quantum chemical approach was used to calculate HOMO, LUMO, and energy gap using DFT/B3LYP method. The results confirmed a strong bond between meso- tetraphenyl-porphyrins and mild steel surface and suggest a good correlation between calculated quantum chemical parameters and the experimental inhibition efficiency of the inhibitors. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Directorate-General of Scientific Research and Technological Development (DGRSDT) of the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Research. Extends thanks to VTRS staff for providing facilities. References [1] F. Javidan, A. Heidarpour, X.L. Zhao, J. Minkkinen, Thin-Walled Structures 102 (2016) 273- 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TWS.2016.02.002 [2] G. Ghosh, P. Rostron, R. Garg, A. Panday, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 199 (2018) 609- 618. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFRACMECH.2018.06.018 [3] D. Dwivedi, K. Lepková, T. Becker, RSC Advances 7(8) (2017) 4580-4610. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA25094G [4] M. Finšgar, J. Jackson, Corrosion Science 86 (2014) 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2014.04.044 [5] W. Boukhedena, S. Deghboudj, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 11(4) (2021) 227-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1050 [6] F. E. Abeng, V. C. Anadebe, P. Y. Nkom, K. J. Uwakwe, E. G. Kamalu, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 11(1) (2021) 11-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.887 [7] I. A. Kartsonakis, C. A. Charitidis, Applied Sciences 10 (2020) 6594. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10186594 [8] V. G. Sribharathy, S. Rajendran, Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering 2 (2012) 121-131. https://doi.org/10.5599/jese.2012.0014 [9] C. Zuriaga-Monroy, R. Oviedo-Roa, L.E. Montiel-Sánchez, A. Vega-Paz, J. Marín-Cruz, J.M. Martínez-Magadán, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 55 (2016) 3506-3516. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.IECR.5B03884/SUPPL_FILE/IE5B03884_SI_001.PDF [10] A. Boutarfaia, L. Bechki, T. Lanez, E. Lanez, M. Kadri, Current Bioactive Compounds 16 (2019) 1063-1071. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573407215666191017105239 [11] T. Zaiz, T. Lanez, Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences 4 (2015) 182-191. https://doi.org/10.4314/JFAS.V4I2.8 [12] T. Zaiz, T. Lanez, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 4 (2012) 2678-2680. [13] M. Frisch, G. Trucks, H. Schlegel, G.S.- Wallingford, U. CT, U. 2009, Gaussian 09; Gaussian Inc, Gaussian, (2016). [14] A. D. Becke, Physical Review A 38 (1988) 3098-3100. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3098 [15] A. D. Becke, The Journal of Chemical Physics 98 (1993) 5648-5652. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464913 [16] B. Miehlich, A. Savin, H. Stoll, H. Preuss, Chemical Physics Letters 157 (1989) 200-206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(89)87234-3 [17] P. M. W. Gill, B. G. Johnson, J. A. Pople, M. J. Frisch, Chemical Physics Letters 197 (1992) 499– 505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(92)85807-M [18] T. Clark, J. Chandrasekhar, G. W. Spitznagel, P. V. R. Schleyer, Journal of Computational Chemistry 4 (1983) 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCC.540040303 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TWS.2016.02.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGFRACMECH.2018.06.018 https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA25094G https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2014.04.044 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1050 http://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.887 https://doi.org/10.3390/APP10186594 https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.IECR.5B03884/SUPPL_FILE/IE5B03884_SI_001.PDF https://doi.org/10.2174/1573407215666191017105239 https://doi.org/10.4314/JFAS.V4I2.8 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3098 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464913 https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(89)87234-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(92)85807-M https://doi.org/10.1002/JCC.540040303 M. Meraghni et al. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 00(0) (2022) 000-000 https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 13 [19] R. Ditchfield, W. J. Hehre, J. A. Pople, The Journal of Chemical Physics 54 (1971) 724-728. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1674902 [20] W. J. Hehre, J. S. Binkley, J. A. Pople, W. J. Pietro, M.S . Gordon, Journal of the American Chemical Society 104 (1982) 2797-2803. https://doi.org/10.1021/JA00374A017 [21] M. Birdeanu, C. Epuran, I. Fratilescu, E. Fagadar-Cosma, Processes 9 (2021) 1890. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111890 [22] M. Behpour, S. M. Ghoreishi, N. Soltani, M. Salavati-Niasari, Corrosion Science 51 (2009) 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2009.02.011 [23] M. W. Khalil, Materials Science & Engineering Technology 23 (1992) 111-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/mawe.19920230311 [24] J. Ge, O. B. Isgor, Materials and Corrosion 58 (2007) 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1002/maco.200604043 [25] M. Christov, A. Popova, Corrosion Science 46 (2004) 1613-1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2003.10.013 [26] P. Li, J.Y. Lin, K.L. Tan, J.Y. Lee, Electrochimica Acta 42 (1997) 605-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4686(96)00205-8 [27] A. Popova, M. Christov, Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy 43(1) (2008) 37-47. [28] T. Benabbouha, M. Siniti, H. El Attari, K. Chefira, F. Chibi, R. Nmila, H. Rchid, Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion 4 (2018) 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-018-0161-0 [29] L. I. Antropov, Zhurnal Fizicheskoi Khimii 37 (1963) 965-978. [30] I. A. Ammar, F. M. El Khorafi, Materials and Corrosion 24 (1973) 702-707. https://doi.org/10.1002/MACO.19730240806 [31] E. E. Mola, Electrochimica Acta 26 (1981) 1209-1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013- 4686(81)85101-8 [32] D. Swain, A. Rana, P.K. Panda, S.V. Rao, Chemical Physics Letters 610 (2014) 310-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2014.07.013 [33] R. Giovannetti, L. Alibabaei, F. Pucciarelli, Inorganica Chimica Acta 363(7) (2010) 1561-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ica.2009.12.015 [34] L. Larabi, Y. Harek, M. Traisnel, A. Mansri, Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 34 (2004) 833- 839. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACH.0000035609.09564.E6 [35] F. Mansfeld, Corrosion 37 (1981) 301-307. https://doi.org/10.5006/1.3621688 [36] F. Mohsenifar, H. Jafari, K. Sayin, Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion 2 (2016) 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-015-0031-y [37] I. Fratilescu, A. Lascu, B.O. Taranu C. Epuran, M. Birdeanu, A. Macsim, E. Tanasa, E. Vasile, E. Fagadar-Cosma, Nanomaterials 12 (2022) 1930. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12111930 [38] A. Dehghani, G. Bahlakeh, B. Ramezanzadeh, M. Ramezanzadeh, Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers 100 (2019) 239-261. [39] M. Uzzaman, M.K. Hasan, S. Mahmud, A. Yousuf, S. Islam, M.N. Uddin, A. Barua, Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 25 (2021) 100706. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IMU.2021.100706 [40] R. G. Parr, Z. Zhou, Accounts of Chemical Research 26 (2002) 256-258. https://doi.org/10.1021/AR00029A005 [41] P.W. Ayers, R.G. Parr, R.G. Pearson, The Journal of Chemical Physics 124 (2006) 194107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2196882 [42] N. M. O’Boyle, A. L. Tenderholt, K. M. Langner, Journal of Computational Chemistry 29 (2008) 839-845. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCC.20823 ©2022 by the authors; licensee IAPC, Zagreb, Croatia. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) https://dx.doi.org/10.5599/jese.1400 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1674902 https://doi.org/10.1021/JA00374A017 https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111890 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2009.02.011 https://doi.org/10.1002/mawe.19920230311 https://doi.org/10.1002/maco.200604043 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2003.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4686(96)00205-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/MACO.19730240806 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(81)85101-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4686(81)85101-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2014.07.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ica.2009.12.015 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACH.0000035609.09564.E6 https://doi.org/10.5006/1.3621688 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-015-0031-y https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12111930 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IMU.2021.100706 https://doi.org/10.1021/AR00029A005 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2196882 https://doi.org/10.1002/JCC.20823 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)