Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Free access
Research article
First published online March 1, 2013

Analysis of plasma degreased aluminium foil with XPS

Abstract

Residuals of lubricants adhere as very thin layers of hydrocarbons to the surfaces of cold rolled aluminium foil. Subsequent processing of the foil requires a cleaning process. In this study, a new approach to degrease the aluminium is examined that employs an atmospheric pressure plasma treatment of the surface. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is used to detect hydrocarbon layers on the surface of aluminium foil. The detected carbon content is a measure of the amount of residual lubricants remaining on the surface. Before any treatment, the proportion of carbon on the foil surface amounts to 19% corresponding to a lubricant layer thickness of 3·3 nm. Plasma degreasing reduces the carbon proportion to ∼6% corresponding to a layer thickness of 1·3 nm. With conventional heating, there is a layer thickness of ∼1 nm remaining on the foil surface. Still, the plasma degreasing is a less time and energy consuming cleaning process.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, aluminium foil has replaced tinfoil, which was used as food packaging for a long time. Today, there is a wide variety of applications for aluminium foil, from food packaging to electronics to the utilisation in the construction industry as heat insulation. To manufacture thin foil (down to 6 μm thickness), two sheets have to be doubled and rolled simultaneously. A lubricant with special additives is added to the process in order to prevent both sheets from welding together and to cool down the work rolls and foil during the cold rolling process.1 After production and separation of the doubled foils, they are wound on coils and annealed in chamber furnaces. During this process, the lubricant diffuses from the gap between the foil layers to the sides of the coils where it evaporates. In addition to the high energy consumption, this diffusion takes a long time to completely degrease the coil. Therefore, the industrial sector searches for alternative methods to degrease metal foil, avoiding chemical pollution of the environment and shortening production lines while saving time in the chamber furnaces. Although plasma cannot replace the annealing of hard aluminium foil, the plasma degreasing process shortens the heating process in the manufacturing chain for aluminium foil significantly. The combined cleaning and annealing in a chamber furnace, which is applied up to now, requires ∼1·30 kWh kg−1 of primary energy. With an estimated value of ∼0·12 kWh kg−1 for the additional annealing after the plasma treatment of the foil, the combined process of plasma degreasing and an additional annealing requires just ∼0·33 kWh kg−1 of primary energy. That is an energy reduction of ∼75% compared to the conventional heating.
Today, plasmas are used in many industrial applications. Many studies deal with the plasma surface modification of materials such as wood,2 metal,3 polymer,4 or textile surfaces5 for industrial processes, but also medical applications using the cleansing effect of plasma on human skin.6 Most of them use plasma in an atmosphere with ambient air because of its cheap and simple technical set-up. Generally, plasma modifications of surfaces have proven to be an economic and environmentally friendly method to be used in industrial processes.
In this research, the plasma treatment is performed by a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) with a plain electrode under atmospheric pressure with ambient air as the working gas. Several tests have shown that plasma degreasing is possible, but it is difficult to quantify the grade of degreasing compared to the amount of oil residues on the aluminium surface with optical or mechanical analytics during the separation process. For quick spot checks, water droplets or test inks provide an appropriate method to determine whether or not the foil was degreased. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) is used to detect any residuals of lubricants in the form of a hydrocarbon layer covering the aluminium surface and is able to detect small quantities of material. Furthermore, XPS offers valuable information about the possible growth of an oxide layer after plasma treatment and the thickness of the hydrocarbon layer.

Experimental

All XPS experiments were performed at room temperature in an ultrahigh vacuum apparatus (Omicron Multiprobe) with a base pressure of 1×10−8 Pa. The specimen is an aluminium foil of 14 μm thickness, which is taken directly from the cold rolling process, without annealing. It is clamped onto a molybdenum holder. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is operated by using a hemispherical analyser (Omicron EA 125) in combination with a non-monochromatic X-ray source (Omicron DAR 400). The specimen is hit by X-ray photons at an angle of 45° to the surface normal. In this study, the Al Kα line with a photon energy of 1486·6 eV is used for all experiments. The analyser is mounted in an angle of 45° to the surface normal. The hemispherical analyser detects photoelectrons with a calculated resolution of 0·83 eV for detail spectra and 2·07 eV for survey spectra. All resulting spectra are displayed as a function of the binding energy with respect to the Fermi level. The experimental set-up of XPS is described in detail in another publication.7
Photoelectron peaks in the XPS spectra can be assigned to the corresponding atomic orbitals. The calculation of the surface stoichiometry requires a fitting of these peak areas with Gaussian functions. The mathematical fit is realised by Originlab OriginPro 7G and the peak fitting module, which uses Levenberg–Marquardt algorithms to iteratively approximate experimental data and Gaussians. Stoichiometric calculation takes account of photoelectric cross-sections as calculated by Scofield,8 inelastic mean free paths [Seah and Dench9 (N1s) and the NIST Database10] and the energy dependent transmission function11 of the hemispherical analyser.
Plasma treatment of aluminium specimen is realised by a DBD as used in a preceding work.12 The electrode is installed in the preparation chamber. A transfer system is used to transfer the sample from the air lock to the preparation chamber where the sample is positioned beneath the electrode at a distance of ∼1·5 mm. During plasma treatments, the preparation chamber is filled with ambient air to simulate the circumstances of an industrial environment. The high voltage (HV) source is an alternating pulse generator, which is operated at a frequency of 10 kHz and a pulse width of 0·6 μs. With a voltage of 12·6 kV, the HV generator delivers a plasma power of ∼1·6 W (power measurement by the method of Falkenstein and Coogan)13 at an energy density of 4·9 J cm−3. The DBD treatment takes ∼2 min. Immediately after plasma treatment, the pressure in the preparation chamber is lowered to 10−6 Pa to ensure that the foil surface remains clean.
The required energy density of ∼5 J cm−3 to sufficiently clean the aluminium foil was obtained in a preceding experiment, which was part of a research project by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) in cooperation with industry partners. In this experiment, a relationship between the energy density and the effect of plasma treatment was developed. Aluminium foil, from the same batch that we used in our XPS measurements, was plasma treated by varying different parameters (discharge gap, electrical power and duration of treatment). The effect of treatment was determined by measuring the surface tension of the aluminium foil with test ink. The surface tension of foil surfaces is increased by reducing the hydrocarbon layer. The industry uses water drops as described in the European standard EN-546-4 to determine if the foil is cleaned. According to this test, a foil is cleaned when a water droplet spreads on the foil surface. In order to observe the rate of degreasing, different test inks are used, each with its own surface tension: formamide and ethylene glycol (30, …, 58 mN m−1), formamide and water (60, …, 70 mN m−1) and pure water (72 mN m−1). With a surface tension of pure water, the foil is assumed to be sufficiently degreased for further processing; thus, there are no test inks with higher values used. Test inks are used, because they allow performing a large number of tests in a short time. The resulting graphic (Fig. 1) shows that a surface tension of 72 mN m−1 can be achieved by plasma treatment of aluminium foil with an energy density of at least 5 J cm−3.
Figure 1 Surface tension as function of energy density of plasma treatment

Results and discussion

The elemental composition of the aluminium foil is calculated from the areas enclosed by the peaks in the XPS survey spectra (not shown here). For this calculation, the Al 2p atomic orbital is used for aluminium, C 1s for carbon, O 1s for oxygen and N 1s for nitrogen. A stoichiometry of 35 at-% aluminium, 19 at-% carbon and 46 at-% oxygen is found for the aluminium foil before plasma treatment. After plasma treatment, we find a stoichiometry of 37 at-% aluminium, 6 at-% carbon, 55 at-% oxygen and 3 at-% nitrogen. For comparison, we find a stoichiometry of 43 at-% aluminium, 5 at-% carbon and 53 at-% oxygen for a foil for domestic usage, which was industrially cleaned in a conventional way. The relative intensities of all three foil samples are shown in Table 1. Owing to the plasma treatment, we observe a considerable reduction in carbon, while the amount of oxygen is increased. Additionally, nitrogen is detected in the plasma treated surface.
Table 1 XPS statistics of detected elements on aluminium foil sample before and after plasma treatment; full widths at half maximum (FWHMs) are fixated on equal widths for every peak for C 1s and N 1s respectively
Element assignmentPeakBinding energy/eVFWHM/eVRelative intensity
Al foil, untreated
Al 2p   0·35
Al0Al173·51·20·08
Al3+Al276·22·00·27
C 1s   0·19
C–CC1286·71·80·12
C–OC2288·11·80·03
C = OC3289·71·80·01
COOHC4291·01·80·03
O 1s 533·92·70·46
     
Al foil, 2 min plasma treated
Al 2p   0·37
Al0Al173·41·20·08
Al3+Al275·92·00·29
C 1s   0·06
C–CC1286·41·80·03
C–OC2287·91·80·01
C = OC3289·31·80·01
COOHC4291·01·80·01
O 1s 533·32·20·55
N 1s   0·032
AlNN1399·21·80·006
NON2401·41·80·004
N3404·61·80·004
N4408·71·80·018
     
Al foil, customary
Al 2p   0·43
Al0Al173·41·20·06
Al3+Al276·41·90·37
C 1s   0·05
C–CC1286·01·80·02
C–OC2287·51·80·02
C = OC3289·61·80·00
COOHC4292·01·80·01
O 1s 533·92·20·53

Carbon

The detailed spectrum for C 1s shows at least four peaks (Fig. 2). The main peak (C1) is always centred at a binding energy of 286 eV. It points to acyclic or cyclic carbon compounds (C–C, C–H). The second compound (C2) is ∼1·5 eV next to the main peak and shows single oxidised carbon compounds (C–O), which are a sign for hydroxyl groups. The next fraction (C3) at ∼289·7 eV is an evidence for carbonyl groups (C = O) as a second step of carbon oxidation. Further oxidation of these carbonyl groups leads to carboxyl groups or carboxylic acid, which are shown in the last chemical shift (C4) at ∼291 eV. These values are confirmed in several other studies with similar results (Table 2).14,15
Figure 2 XPS spectra from C 1s region before plasma treatment
Table 2 Comparison of statistics of detected peaks for C 1s detailed spectrum
PeakAssignmentFWHM/eVElectron binding energy/eV
This studyDahle et al.14Munkert et al.15
C1C–C1·8286·4285·0285·0
C2C–OH1·8287·9286·5286·5
C3C = O1·8289·3287·9287·9
C4COOH1·8291·0289·1
Owing to the plasma treatment, all peaks of the C 1s orbital are reduced (Fig. 3). The lower oxidation states (C1, C2) experience a greater reduction in intensity than higher states. The plasma treatment shows only a small effect on the carbonyl peak. This may lead to the conclusion that hydrocarbons, which are too long or too heavy to be removed by the plasma treatment, get a higher oxidation state or polymerise.
Figure 3 XPS spectra from C 1s region after plasma treatment

Aluminium

The spectra of Al 2p allows to distinguish two peaks (Fig. 4). The main peak (Al1) is centred at an electron binding energy of ∼73·5 eV and is associated with metallic aluminium. With a shift of ∼3 eV, there is a second peak (Al2), which points to oxidised aluminium.16 This is the native oxide layer that typically forms on aluminium surfaces when exposed to air. The maximum depth in the sample from which the XPS gains information is <10 nm. Thus, the amount of aluminium detected by XPS is a first clue for the organic layer to have a thickness of <10 nm. There is nearly no change in the relative intensities of aluminium before and after the plasma treatment (Fig. 5).
Figure 4 XPS spectra from Al 2p region before plasma treatment
Figure 5 XPS spectra from Al 2p region after plasma treatment

Oxygen

The spectrum of oxygen shows one peak at an electron binding energy of ∼533·9 eV. It is mainly associated with aluminium oxide and with a small amount of aluminium hydroxide.16,17 Oxygen can be found in the native oxide layer as well as in the hydrocarbon layer. The amount of oxygen in the hydrocarbon layer is negligibly small compared to the aluminium oxide layer.

Nitrogen

After plasma treatment, at least four peaks are recorded in the spectrum of the N 1s region. The first peak (N1) is centred at an electron binding energy of 399·2 eV; compounds of nitrogen with aluminium form nitrides (AlN) most likely at these binding energies. The next peak (N2) is centred at a shift of 2·2 eV. The best assignment is a nitric oxide radical (NO) that connects to chains of the hydrocarbon layer. The third peak (N3) has a chemical shift of 5·4 eV to the first peak (N1) and can be identified as a nitrite compound ( ). The fourth peak (N4), at an electron binding energy of 408·7 eV, points to nitrate compounds ( ).
This production of NO ions depends on the heat, power and treatment time of the DBD. Nitrite is an intermediate for the oxidation of a nitrogen radical to nitrate. Therefore, a huge amount of nitrate but only a small amount of nitrite can be detected after plasma treatment times of ∼2 min. A study of Helmke et al. revealed the presence of these compounds by analysing the acidification of plasma treated organic surfaces.18 The assignments of nitrogen compounds in this study are in accordance with other publications (Table 3).19 21 Total nitrogen bound on the aluminium surface is ∼3 at.-% (mainly nitrate).
Table 3 Comparison of statistics of detected peaks for N 1s detailed spectrum
PeakAssignmentFWHM/eVElectron binding energy/eV
This studyKundu et al.19Rosenberger et al.20Baltrusaitis et al.21
N1AlN1·8399·2398·5–398·8396·0–398·7396·9
N2NO1·8401·4401·4–401·6396·0–400·0
N31·8404·6403·7–404·8402·2–405·1403·6
N41·8408·7407·4

Thickness of oxide and hydrocarbon layer

Most metals show a native oxide layer which protects them from further corrosion. In the case of aluminium, this layer is a thin but dense oxide film. Assuming an ideal layer, the thickness of this film can be determined from the relative intensities of the Al0 peak and the Al3+ peak. The appropriate relationship is described by other publications17,22,23 as follows
(1)
where dmo is the thickness of the oxide layer, θ is the electron take off angle, λmo,Al 2p and λm,Al 2p are the inelastic mean free paths of electrons in the metal layer and the oxide layer, Dmo,Al 2p with 4·61×1022 atoms cm−3 and Dm,Al 2p with 6·02×1022 atoms cm−3 are the atomic densities23 of atoms in the oxide layer and in the metal, and Imo,Al 2p and Im,Al 2p are the relative intensities of the Al3+ peak and the Al0 peak. The inelastic mean free paths λm and λo can be determined using the NIST Standard Reference Database 7·1.10 Taking into account the take-off angle of 45°, λm,Al 2p = 2·57 nm and λmo,Al 2p = 2·68 nm, we find oxide layers of ∼3·2 nm before plasma treatment and 3·3 nm after plasma treatment for the aluminium foil. As the thickness of the oxide layer is at least 3 nm, the simplified formula of McCafferty and Wightman23 can be used to calculate the thickness of the hydrocarbon layer by the ratio of the intensities of the O 1s peak generated by the oxide layer to the C 1s peak
(2)
where λmo,O 1s and λc,C 1s are the inelastic mean free paths of electrons in the oxide layer and in the hydrocarbon layer respectively. σO 1s and σC 1s are the cross-sections of photoionisation of oxygen and carbon, Dmo,O 1s is the atomic density of oxygen atoms in the oxide layer, Dc,C 1s is the atomic density of carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon layer, IO 1s is the intensity of the O 1s peak (oxide layer) and IC 1s is the intensity of the C 1s peak (hydrocarbon layer). The atomic density of carbon is Dc,C1s = 1·13×1023 atoms cm−3. The atomic density of oxygen atoms in the oxide layer has a value of Dmo,O 1s≈6·91×1022 atoms cm−3.23 The cross-sections of photoionisation are given by Scofield (for Al Kα: σO 1s = 2·95, σC 1s = 1·00).8 The values for inelastic mean free paths can be obtained from the NIST Standard Reference Database 7·110 (λmo,O 1s = 1·96 nm, λc,C 1s = 3·67 nm). Applied to this study, assuming an ideal layer system, the carbon layer thickness amounts to dc = 3·3 nm before plasma treatment. After plasma treatment, there is a residual carbon layer thickness of dc = ∼1·3 nm left. The carbon layer thickness of a conventional cleaned aluminium foil is dc = ∼1 nm.
Summarising the information of these results, it is apparent that the hydrocarbon layer of aluminium foils is not only reduced but also partially oxidised by the plasma treatment. What remains are fragments of oxidised hydrocarbon chains, which do not evaporate at the used plasma energy density of ∼5 J cm−3. Heating the aluminium coils to clean the foil surfaces takes a lot of time, but a short treatment of the foil surface by an atmospheric pressure plasma in ambient air removes the organic contaminations sufficiently.
Comparing the plasma degreased foil with standard household aluminium foil using test inks, both foils have similar surface tensions. The XPS analysis shows a reduction in the hydrocarbon layer of about 3·3–1·3 nm, which confirms the result of the test inks that the foil has been degreased. Compared to the hydrocarbon layer of ∼1 nm on a customary aluminium foil, the plasma degreased foil has nearly the same carbon layer thickness.

Conclusion

The decrease in the amount of carbon due to the plasma treatment of aluminium foils is shown by XPS. Assuming that there is no carbon bound in other layers of the observed specimen than in the residual oil, a short plasma treatment is able to partially remove the hydrocarbon layer.
The additional proportion of nitrogen on the surface appears to be a time and temperature dependent effect of the plasma treatment, as this effect did not occur on foils with a treatment time of <1 s. As the industry prefers a fast treatment due to rapid cycle times, this amount of nitrogen can be neglected in industrial production processes.
Data of the aluminium foil before plasma treatment reveal a carbon layer with a thickness of 3·3 nm. This is reduced to a carbon containing layer with a thickness of 1·3 nm by the plasma treatment. Solely by a plasma treatment, the hydrocarbon layer seems not to be removed completely. However, as industrial processes never reach a complete degreasing, the main advantage of the plasma treatment remains the strong decrease in time and energy consumption of the cleaning process compared to conventional heating. One producer of manufacturing machines for the foil industry has already planned to integrate the plasma degreasing process in special foil separators.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) research project (reference no. 0327449C) and the Lower Saxony Innovation Network for Plasma Technology (NIP), EFRE project no. WA3 80029388.

References

Weber R: ‘Webers taschenlexikon aluminium’, 1st edn, 74–76; 2008, Düsseldorf, Gesamtverband der Aluminiumindustrie (GDA) e.V.
Avramidis G, Wolkenhauer A, Nothnick E, Militz H, Viöl W: ‘Holzoberflächenmodifikation mittels atmosphärendruckplasma’, Vak. Forsch. Prax., 2010, 22, 25–29.
Wandke D, Schulze M, Klingner S, Helmke A, Viöl W: ‘“3-in-1” plasma wire system’, Surf. Coat. Technol., 2005, 200, 700–703.
Bellmann M, Gerhardt C, Haese C, Wieneke S, Viöl W: ‘DBD plasma improved spot repair of automotive polymer surfaces’, Surf. Eng., 2012, 28, 754–758.
Zhang CM, Fang KJ: ‘Influence of penetration depth of atmospheric pressure plasma processing into multiple layers of polyester fabrics on inkjet printing’, Surf. Eng., 2011, 27, 139–144.
Awakowicz P, Bibinov N, Born M, Busse B, Gesche R, Helmke A, Kaemling A, Kolb-Bachofen V, Kovacs R, Kuehn S, Liebmann J, Mertens N, Niemann U, Opländer C, Porteanu H.-E, Scherer J, Suschek C, Viöl W, Wandke D: ‘Biological stimulation of the human skin applying health-promoting light and plasma sources’, Contrib. Plasma Phys., 2009, 49, 641–647.
Aal AA, Voigts F, Chakarov D, Endres F: ‘Electrodeposition of selenium from 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium trifluoromethylsulfonate’, Electrochim. Acta, 2012, 59, 228–236.
Scofield JH: ‘Hartree–Slater subshell photoionization cross-sections at 1254 and 1487 eV’, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom., 1976, 8, 129–137.
Seah MP, Dench WA: ‘Quantitative electron spectroscopy of surfaces: a standard data base for electron inelastic mean free paths in solids’, Surf. Interface Anal., 1979, 1, 2–11.
Powell CJ, Jablonski A: ‘NIST electron inelastic-mean-free-path database’, version 1·2; 2010, Gaithersburg, SRD 71 (National Institute of Standards and Technology).
Hesse R, Streubel P, Szargan R: ‘Improved accuracy of quantitative XPS analysis using predetermined spectrometer transmission functions with UNIFIT 2004’, Surf. Interface Anal., 2005, 37, 589–607.
Wegewitz L, Dahle S, Höfft O, Voigts F, Viöl W, Endres F, Maus-Friedrichs W: ‘Plasma-oxidation of Ge(100) surfaces using dielectric barrier discharge investigated by metastable induced electron spectroscopy, ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy, and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy’, J. Appl. Phys., 2011, 110, 033302.
Falkenstein Z, Coogan JJ: ‘Microdischarge behaviour in the silent discharge of nitrogen–oxygen and water–air mixtures’, J. Phys. D, 1997, 30D, 817–825.
Dahle S, Marschewski M, Wegewitz L, Viöl W, Maus-Friedrichs W: ‘Silver nano particle formation on Ar plasma-treated cinnamyl alcohol’, J. Appl. Phys., 2012, 11, 034902.
Munkert H, Voigts F, Wegewitz L, Palkowski H, Maus-Friedrichs W: ‘The interaction of epoxy adhesives with steel surfaces’, Materialwiss. Werkstofftech., 2013, 44, 36–43.
Frerichs M, Voigts F, Maus-Friedrichs W: ‘Fundamental processes of aluminium corrosion studied under ultra high vacuum conditions’, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2006, 253, 950–958.
Strohmeier BR: ‘An ESCA method for determining the oxide thickness on aluminum alloys’, Surf. Interface Anal., 1990, 15, 51–56.
Helmke A, Hoffmeister D, Mertens N, Emmert S, Schütte J, Viöl W: ‘The acidification of lipid film surfaces by non-thermal DBD at atmospheric pressure in air’, New J. Phys., 2009, 11, 115025.
Kundu S, Xia W, Busser W, Becker M, Schmidt DA, Havenith M, Muhler M: ‘The formation of nitrogen-containing functional groups on carbon nanotube surfaces: a quantitative XPS and TPD study’, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010, 12, 4351–4359.
Rosenberger L, Baird R, McCullen E, Auner G, Shreve G: ‘XPS analysis of aluminum nitride films deposited by plasma source molecular beam epitaxy’, Surf. Interface Anal., 2008, 40, 1254–1261.
Baltrusaitis J, Jayaweera PM, Grassian VH: ‘XPS study of nitrogen dioxide adsorption on metal oxide particle surfaces under different environmental conditions’, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2009, 11, 8295–8305.
Mantel M, Wightman J: ‘Influence of the surface chemistry on the wettability of stainless steel’, Surf. Interface Anal., 1994, 21, 595–605.
McCafferty E, Wightman JP: ‘Determination of the concentration of surface hydroxyl groups on metal oxide films by a quantitative XPS method’, Surf. Interface Anal., 1998, 26, 549–564.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: March 1, 2013
Issue published: June 2013

Keywords

  1. XPS
  2. DBD
  3. Aluminium
  4. Hydrocarbon
  5. Atmospheric
  6. Plasma
  7. Degrease

Rights and permissions

© 2013 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute.
Request permissions for this article.

History

Manuscript received: December 13, 2012
Manuscript accepted: February 11, 2013
Published online: March 1, 2013
Issue published: June 2013

Authors

Affiliations

S Klingner
Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaft und Kunst, Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften und Technik, Von-Ossietzky-Straße 99, Göttingen 37085, Germany
Institut für Energieforschung und Physikalische Technologien, Technische Universität Clausthal, Leibnizstrasse 4, Clausthal-Zellerfeld 38678, Germany
F Voigts
Institut für Mechanische Verfahrenstechnik, Technische Universität Clausthal, Arnold-Sommerfeld-Str. 6, Clausthal-Zellerfeld 38678, Germany
W Viöl
Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaft und Kunst, Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften und Technik, Von-Ossietzky-Straße 99, Göttingen 37085, Germany
W Maus-Friedrichs
Institut für Energieforschung und Physikalische Technologien, Technische Universität Clausthal, Leibnizstrasse 4, Clausthal-Zellerfeld 38678, Germany

Notes

*
Corresponding author, email [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Surface Engineering.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 13

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.