1 Supplementary Material 1

3 1. Parameter optimization for the ANN, SVR and RF models

4 To adjust each parameter (i.e. the number of CART models and the minimum number
5 of samples in each node for RF model, the maximum iteration number and error
6 tolerance for ANN model, and the width of RBF and the penalty coefficient for SVR
7 model), 90% of the data samples (i.e. 43,782 samples) were randomly selected as the
8 training samples, and the other 10% (i.e. 4,865 samples) were selected as the testing
9 samples. The general basis for the judgment of an optimized parameter is that the R 2
10 values for the training samples and the prediction samples are located at the same
11 level, avoiding the phenomenon of underfitting or overfitting. The higher R2 values of
12 both training part and prediction part, the better the model performance. When the R2
13 value of the training part is higher than that of the prediction part, an overfitting
14 problem occurs. Fig. S1 shows the R2 values both for training and prediction samples
15 when the parameters were adjusted in each model. By observing the fitting results in
16 Fig. S1, for the RF algorithm, the number of CART models was set as 100, and the
17 maximum of samples in each leaf node was set as the integral number of training
18 samples divided by 500. For the ANN algorithm, the penalty coefficient, also known
19 as error tolerance, was set as 1×10-4, and the maximum iteration number was 100. For
20 the SVR algorithm, the penalty coefficient was set as 300 and the width of RBF was
21 1.
22
23
24
25 Fig. S1 The R2 values of the fitting results for RF, ANN and SVR models when
26 parameters are adjusted.
27 2. Corrosion kinetics on the ACM sensor

28
29 Fig. S2 The variation of average current of ACM sensor during the one-month
30 exposure test at the Qingdao site.
31
32 3. Chlorides deposition on steel surface in Qingdao
33 Figs. S3-S4 shows the cross sections of the carbon steel coupon after being
34 exposed in Qingdao for 1, 6 and 12 months and the corresponding surface analyses by
35 energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS) and micro-Raman spectroscopy. The exposure
36 test of the coupons started at the same time and location as those of the sensors. After
37 one month of exposure, the surface of the steel presented minimal chloride deposition
38 (Fig. S3a) and the corrosion product mainly consisted of ferrihydrite (Fe 5HO8·4H2O),
39 goethite (α-FeOOH) and lepidocrocite (γ-FeOOH) (Fig. S4a). After 6 and 12 months,
40 chlorides were found enriched in the inner rust layer (Fig. S3b-c) and had provoked
41 the formation of akageneite (β-FeOOH) (Fig. S4b-c), which is known to be less
42 protective due to its porosity and strong reducing capacity [1-3].

43
44 Fig. S3 SEM morphology and EDS analysis of the cross sections of the rust layers on
45 the carbon steel coupons after 1, 6 and 12 month exposure in Qingdao.
46
47 Fig. S4 SEM morphology and Raman spectroscopic analysis of the cross sections of
48 the rust layer on the carbon steel coupons after 1, 6 and 12 month exposure in
49 Qingdao.
50
51 Table S1. The ranges of temperature and RH during the test period.
Environmental factors Minimum value Maximum value
Temperature 20.3 ℃ 39.7 ℃
RH 26.4% 100%
52
53
54 References
55 [1] Y. Ma, Y. Li, F. Wang, Corrosion of low carbon steel in atmospheric environments of
56 different chloride content, Corros. Sci. 51 (2009) 997-1006.
57 [2] J. Alcántara, B. Chico, I. Díaz, D. De la Fuente, M. Morcillo, Airborne chloride
58 deposit and its effect on marine atmospheric corrosion of mild steel, Corros. Sci. 97
59 (2015) 74-88.
60 [3] Q. X. Li, Z. Y. Wang, W. Han, E. H. Han, Characterization of the rust formed on
61 weathering steel exposed to Qinghai salt lake atmosphere, Corros. Sci. 50 (2008)
62 365-371.