2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.289
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of Soil Biocorrosion Severeness on the Pipeline Locations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bacterial biofilms on surfaces are known to produce adverse impacts in many situations such as pipeline corrosion, water contamination, and hospital associated infections. Intensive effort is focused on the design of antibacterial surfaces to limit bacterial attachment and subsequent biofilm formation. The use of superhydrophobic surfaces (SHS) is considered a promising anti-biofouling strategy because such surfaces have been reported to significantly reduce bacterial adhesion. Some variation in experimental design is evident in tests of superhydrophobic surfaces with some studies employing a continuous flow of bacterial suspension over the superhydrophobic surface, whereas others have simply immersed the material in a static bacterial suspension for various periods of time. Crick et al . (2011) and Ozkan et al .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bacterial biofilms on surfaces are known to produce adverse impacts in many situations such as pipeline corrosion, water contamination, and hospital associated infections. Intensive effort is focused on the design of antibacterial surfaces to limit bacterial attachment and subsequent biofilm formation. The use of superhydrophobic surfaces (SHS) is considered a promising anti-biofouling strategy because such surfaces have been reported to significantly reduce bacterial adhesion. Some variation in experimental design is evident in tests of superhydrophobic surfaces with some studies employing a continuous flow of bacterial suspension over the superhydrophobic surface, whereas others have simply immersed the material in a static bacterial suspension for various periods of time. Crick et al . (2011) and Ozkan et al .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biofouling on material surfaces is known to bring adverse effects to a wide range of industries such as medical institutions, food storage, hull antifouling, textiles, and water purification plants. In the general process of biological contamination, the adsorption of protein on the surface is the first step and provides conditions for subsequent bacterial attachment and biofilm formation. , In order to alleviate and eliminate this influence, a lot of efforts have been focused on the design and synthesis of antibiofouling membranes and coatings. , There are several different ways to achieve antibiofouling, such as a hydration layer causing fouling resistance in surfaces and omniphobic slippery surfaces and air-bubble layer causing fouling release in surfaces. , Currently, fluoropolymer-based fouling release coatings provided a low free energy surface to reduce the adhesion of fouling organisms and have gained great interest. ,, Rather than preventing protein and bacteria from attaching, fouling release coatings aim to weaken the interfacial bonds so that the attached protein and bacteria are more readily taken away from the depositing surfaces, like the self-cleaning ability of lotus leaves. Thus, a large number of such coatings were explored and superhydrophobic coatings are one of them. , The antibiofouling property of a superhydrophobic surface is due to low surface free energy and an entrapped air-bubble layer that reduces contact between the bacteria and the surface . For example, Ozkan et al reported 80 and 50% reductions in adhesion of S.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%