## 3 Results and Discussion
### Corrosion Protection Evaluation
#### 3.2.3 Electrochemical Studies
More specifically, it included the resistance of the solution (\(R_{\text{sol}}\)), the pore resistance and the CPE of the inhibitor layer (\(R_{\text{inh}}\)-\(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)) in parallel connection that are attributed to the response of the electrolyte inside the pores of the layer, and finally, the charge transfer resistance and the double layer CPE (\(R_{\text{ct}}\)-\(\text{CPE}_{\text{dl}}\)) that are due to the presence of corrosion process. Taking into account the aforementioned Equation (2), the \(C_{\text{inh}}\) and \(C_{\text{dl}}\) parameters were determined (Table 5). In principle, the \(C_{\text{dl}}\) value is influenced by the roughness of metal surface [8; 12]. However, considering the \(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-P value (\(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-P represents the \(n\), which is the CPE exponent in Equations (1) and (2)) calculated for the sample Mild Steel-3.5%NaCl-ATT (00.48632) after subjection in corrosive environment for 24 h, it may be remarked that this element cannot be associated to a nonideal capacitor [26]. Nonetheless, it should be pointed that a Warburg impedance component introduction did not improve the numerical fitting of the EIS results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**24 h into 3.5 wt.\%NaCl** & **Mild Steel-3.5\%NaCl** & **Mild Steel-3.5\%NaCl-ATT** \\ \hline \(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-T (μF cm\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-n}\)) & - & 26.333 \\ \(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-P & - & 0.73644 \\ \(R_{\text{inh}}\)(kohm cm\({}^{2}\)) & - & 46.019 \\ \(\text{C}_{\text{inh}}\) (mF cm\({}^{-2}\)) & - & 0.33420 \\ \(\text{CPE}_{\text{dl}}\)-T (mF cm\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-n}\)) & 12.358 & 0.13117 \\ \(\text{CP}_{\text{dl}}\)-P & 0.78496 & 0.48632 \\ \(R_{\text{ct}}\)(kohm cm\({}^{2}\)) & 0.184 & 82.241 \\ \(C_{\text{dl}}\) (mF cm\({}^{-2}\)) & 15.476 & 1.6175 \\ \(\eta\)\% & - & 99.77 \\ \hline
**144 h into 3.5 wt.\%NaCl** & **Mild Steel-3.5\%NaCl** & **Mild Steel-3.5\%NaCl-ATT** \\ \hline \(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-T (μF cm\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-n}\)) & - & 94.663 \\ \(\text{CPE}_{\text{inh}}\)-P & - & 0.71006 \\ \(R_{\text{inh}}\)(kohm cm\({}^{2}\)) & - & 52.700 \\ \(\text{C}_{\text{inh}}\) (mF cm\({}^{-2}\)) & - & 3.0632 \\ \(\text{CPE}_{\text{dl}}\)-T (mF cm\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-n}\)) & 10.619 & 0.73004 \\ \(\text{CPE}_{\text{dl}}\)-P & 0.74194 & 0.99998 \\ \(R_{\text{ct}}\)(kohm cm\({}^{2}\)) & 0.154 & 14.845 \\ \(C_{\text{dl}}\) (mF cm\({}^{-2}\)) & 12.600 & 0.73007 \\ \(\eta\)\% & - & 98.96 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Fitting parameters according to equivalent circuits of Figure 10 obtained for the mild steel subjected in corrosive environment. Figure 10: Equivalent circuits used for numerical simulation of the EIS data: (**A**) equivalent circuit with 3 elements, (**B**) equivalent circuit with 5 elements. Analyzing the determined values of Table 5, it is important to notice that the introduction of Ce\({}_{x}\)Ti\({}_{y}\)O\({}_{z}\) nanocontainers loaded with ATT into the electrolytic solution results in an enhancement of \(R_{\text{ct}}\) values for both the exposure time intervals. It is highlighted that high \(R_{\text{ct}}\) values denote enhanced resistance to the corrosion process [56]. On the contrary, the lower \(C_{\text{dI}}\) values that were obtained in the presence of Ce\({}_{x}\)Ti\({}_{y}\)O\({}_{z}\) nanocontainers loaded with ATT into the corrosive environment revealed a low corrosion reaction area [56]. The reduction in the area is assigned to the water molecule replacement by the corrosion inhibitor molecules due to their adsorption on the metal surface resulting in the increase in the electrical double layer thickness [57]. In sum, according to the aforementioned results, it can be assumed that the inhibitor ATT provides effective corrosion protection to mild steel.