Figure 10
The figure presents eight panels arranged in four rows and two columns, comparing surface morphology and elemental composition for four samples. The left column shows S E M images labeled (a), (b), (c), and (d), while the right column shows the corresponding E D S spectra labeled (a 1), (b 1), (c 1), and (d 1). Panels (a)–(d) are grayscale S E M micrographs, each with a scale bar of 10 micrometers at the lower right. Panel (a) shows a relatively smooth metallic surface with faint linear polishing marks and a few scattered small pits or defects. Panel (b) displays an even smoother and more uniform surface with minimal visible features. Panel (c) also shows a highly uniform surface with very subtle texture and no obvious pits. Panel (d) presents a similarly smooth and homogeneous surface, comparable to (b) and (c), with little visible roughness. Panels (a 1)–(d 1) show E D S energy spectra corresponding to each S E M image. In all four spectra, the horizontal axis is energy in kiloelectron volts, ranging from 0 to 15 with an interval of 5, and the vertical axis is labeled “c p s per electron volt”, ranging from 0 to 200 for a 1–c 1 and from 0 to 100 for d 1 with an interval of 50. Each spectrum is dominated by strong F e peaks of above 200 at 0.7 kiloelectron volts, indicating iron as the primary element. Smaller peaks labeled M n, C r, V, S i, O, and C u are also present in each case. In (a 1), strong F e peaks appear near low energy and around 6.5 kiloelectron volts, with additional smaller peaks for M n, C r, V, S i, O, and C u. In (b 1), F e again dominates, while M n, C r, V, S i, O, and C u are detected at lower intensities. In (c 1), the elemental distribution is similar, with prominent F e peaks and minor contributions from M n, C r, V, S i, O, and C u. In (d 1), Fe remains the strongest signal, accompanied by comparable minor peaks from M n, C r, V, S i, O, and C u. Across all four samples, the E D S results indicate consistent elemental compositions dominated by iron with small amounts of alloying or impurity elements, while the S E M images show smooth, compact surfaces with only subtle differences in texture. Note: All the numerical data values are approximated.SEM images of Q235 steel specimens at 298 K under different concentrations of neutral cleaning agents (a–d): (a) 5% cleaning agent, (b) 10% cleaning agent, (c) 15% cleaning agent,(d) 20% cleaning agent; EDS quantitative analysis (a1-d1), (a1) 5% cleaning agent, (b1) 10% cleaning agent, (c1) 15% cleaning agent, (d1) 20% cleaning agent. Source(s): Authors’ own work