The Art of Working Together – Piecing Together Corrosion Formulations

Chelsea Standish - Radical Polymers

ABSTRACT

Controlling mild steel corrosion is one of many fundamental concerns of any water
treater today. Corrosion control formulations have been a rising concern as well over
the past few years with current and looming restrictions on the use of inorganic
phosphorus in water treatment system formulations. There are various strategies one
can take when tackling the difficult matter of corrosion control formulations. Current
useful components of successful formulas include the use of metals such as tin and
zinc, the unique technology of phosphino-carboxylic acid (PCA), and all organic
treatments. A survey of phosphorus free corrosion inhibitors has been previously
presented which focused primarily on outlining current available products with their
strength and weaknesses. Continuing with previous research, this paper will narrow in
on four specific formulation approaches for the membership to use to reduce or
completely eliminate the use of inorganic phosphorus by evaluating formulations based
on zinc, tin, PCA, and all organic treatments. These formulations will be evaluated at
varying dosages and increasing LSI conditions that reflect situations that water treaters
frequently encounter in the field. This paper considers formulation topics with an overall
understanding that in corrosion control formulations, the corrosion inhibitor is only one
piece of the puzzle. The other formulation additives are also critical elements for having
a successful treatment program.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Formulating to prevent weakening of metal due to either electrochemical or

physical means is fundamental. Mild steel corrosion inhibition is one of the
greatest growing concerns of all water treaters in today’s water treatment
landscape. The use of corrosion inhibitors has become a growing concern
especially with the fear of strict discharge limitations on inorganic phosphorus in
water treatment systems in the near future.

There can be an overwhelming source of strategies a water treater can

consider when faced with the task of formulating corrosion inhibitors. In a previous
paper an examination of phosphorus free corrosion inhibitors was presented with a
key focus on individual component’s strengths and weaknesses [1]. Using the
previous survey, this paper aims to focus on four specific formulation approaches
for mild steel corrosion inhibition with proposed additional benefits of mineral scale
control, metal solubilization, surface cleaning, transition metal sequestration and
stabilization. Benefits of which significantly impact the efficacy of the corrosion
inhibitor in the formulation.

Current alternatives to phosphorus-based programs include metals and other

new green alternatives, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Metals,
such as tin and zinc, often are effective in various conditions but pose their own
environmental concerns and in many locations are discharge restricted. New
emerging green technologies for mild steel corrosion have been shown to reduce
corrosion rates to desired levels (<2.0 mils per year) but often require high
treatment levels and can have limitations on the efficacy [1]. By focusing on some
of the most common components of an effective corrosion inhibition formula (the
use of metals, the use of unique polymers, and all organic treatments with and
without phosphate) four formulations are explored and tested for mild steel
corrosion inhibition. Below, the four formulation approaches are discussed starting
with the individual components, followed by the benefits of the formulations as a
whole.

BACKGROUND

Zinc

Zinc salts have historically been utilized as corrosion inhibitors in cooling

systems and are highly effective cathodic inhibitors even at very low dosages in a
formulation. Zinc works as a precipitating inhibitor by forming a film of zinc
hydroxide or zinc hydroxycarbonate at the cathodic sites where the pH is high.
However, zinc alone is does not produced the desired reduced corrosion rates and

2
needs to be employed with other inhibitors [1]. Often, zinc salts have been used in
combination with phosphorous-based chemistries yielding desirable corrosion
inhibition at both the oxidation reaction site and the reduction reaction site,
providing anodic and cathodic protection, respectively. Like other corrosion
inhibitors, zinc does involve the use of stabilization to prevent bulk precipitation in
the process water. Care should be taken when formulating with zinc salts because
over-stabilization can prevent the formation of the required protective film.

Tin

A relatively newcomer to the field, stannous salts have been increasingly used
for mild steel corrosion inhibition over the past decade. The first use of tin in
recirculating water systems was in 1985 by S. Katayama, et al., with growing
interest in use for the water treatment industry [2]. The believed mechanism for
the use of stannous salt is that tin (II) is reduced to tin allowing plating of tin at the
metal surface creating a protective layer. Further, any tin (II) left close to the metal
surface acts to offer a reducing environment to expand protection of the metal. Tin
(II) is also thought to reduce iron (III) and iron (II) facilitating the removal of
corrosion deposits. Current patents involving stannous salts include the use of
stabilizing, reducing, and chelating agents due to tin (II) in the bulk water being
available to oxidize to tin (IV), precipitating out as stannic oxide [3] [4] [5] [6]. The
stabilizing, reducing, and chelating agents are used to keep the stannous ions
readily available to form the protective film on the metal surface.

Benzotriazole (BTA)

Today, BTA is readily used in water treatment for protection of copper and
brass in aqueous systems and aid in dispersing and sequestering stray metals.
Azoles work as general film-forming inhibitors by forming a self-limiting film over
the entire metal surface. Using both physical and chemical adsorption
mechanisms, the azole is able to attach to the metal surface. This allows for both
anodic and cathodic protection. The aromatic functionality of the BTA offers a
hydrophobic backbone that is adjacent to the azole group when attached directly to
the metal surface. There has been some evidence of azoles using a similar
mechanism for mild steel protection [7]. By sequestering free copper in the
system, BTA can help inhibit galvanic corrosion as well as lower the formation of
particulate in the system [8]. Increased dosage of BTA is needed for corrosion
inhibition efficacy in cooling water systems.

Enhanced Polymaleic Acid (ePMA)

3
 The used of ePMA for mild steel corrosion inhibition is a newer idea. In
previous research, ePMA alone was found to reduce mild steel corrosion
compared to an untreated sample [9]. However, ePMA alone is not a suitable
inhibitor but when used in tandem with other corrosion inhibitors a synergistic
relationship has been observed. The use of ePMA adds additional benefits by
solubilizing metals and azoles in a formulation due to its remarkably low pH.
Additionally, ePMA works to control bulk water mineral scale in systems. Using
ePMA in a formulation can provide a combined effort with other inhibitors with
scale control as an added functionality.

Selected Copolymers

Like ePMA, the significant benefit of the use of copolymers in mild steel
corrosion inhibition lies in the functionality of copolymers as a whole. Copolymers
provide organic chemistries working on the inhibition of deposition of mineral
scale in the system and subsequently aiding in the control of mild steel corrosion.
Again, like the ePMA, copolymers provide control of bulk water mineral scale with
the additional benefit of the sequestration and stabilization of transitional metals.
Another benefit of the use of copolymers is in providing surface cleanliness by
dispersing solids. All of these functionalities work to together, increasing mild
steel corrosion inhibition.

Optimized Phosphino-carboxylic Acid (oPCA)

Phosphino-carboxylic acid polymers have been reported to provide corrosion

inhibition properties. An oPCA containing a higher level of phosphino functional
groups increases its use as a dispersant with improved thermal stability allowing
for increased efficacy for calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate inhibition. The
increase phosphino functional groups also acts as a mild steel corrosion inhibitor.
Formulating with an oPCA increases efficacy for mild steel corrosion inhibition as
well as reducing phosphorus levels in a formulation.

Proprietary Phosphonate Blend

Phosphonates have been used as scale inhibitors as well as effective corrosion

inhibitors for decades in the water treatment industry, especially once the ban on
chromate as a corrosion inhibitor was established, often in conjunction with zinc.
Phosphonates work as precipitation cathodic inhibitors by precipitating with
calcium at the cathodic sites forming calcium phosphonate. Phosphonates can
degrade, forming ortho-phosphate, in the presence of oxidizing biocides. Often,
water treaters use this to their advantage by using the formed ortho-phosphate to
work as an anodic corrosion inhibitor. Phosphonates are most effective in waters

4
with a pH greater than 7.5 and calcium levels over 50 ppm; combining
phosphonates together in a formulation have been found to be more effective than
one phosphonate alone. Phosphonates are well known as effective corrosion
inhibitors and are often water treaters go to for mild steel corrosion control when
formulating. However, there are growing restrictions on inorganic phosphate in
water discharge from systems with a fear of stricter more wide spread limitations in
the near future.

Organic Acid Corrosion Inhibitor

Water treaters have been pushed to get creative in finding phosphorus-free

corrosion inhibitors, organic acid corrosion inhibitors have been found to be an
effective possible alternative. Some of these organic acids have been used as
corrosion inhibitors in various industrial applications for many years, with their
functionality in the water treatment world being examined recently. Organic acids
can also function for metal surface cleaning and calcium sequestration in the
system because of their strong chelating properties. Predominately an anodic
inhibitor, organic acid corrosion inhibitors are thought to bind with the Fe2+ ions that
are released from the metal surface where, over time, a protective film is formed.
Limitations have been in the environment in which they work, as well as dosage
concerns. Previous work has shown effective dosages of organic acids alone are
50 ppm as product or higher. Recent work has indicated that when used in
conjunction with other inhibitors, like ePMA, both dosage demand and corrosion
rates are lowered [1].

FORMULATIONS

Stabilized Zinc Formulation

To utilize the known effective corrosion inhibition properties of zinc, a stabilized

formulation can be made using zinc salts at an environmentally reasonable dose
(0.5%, 0.5 ppm when fed at 100 ppm as product). To move away from the
historical zinc/phosphonate use, phosphonates were excluded from the
formulation. Adding BTA to the formulation at a slightly increased level (2.0%)
adds additional corrosion inhibition while the use of ePMA increases the solubility
of both the BTA and zinc during formulation. With zinc, BTA and ePMA in the
formulation, there is a solid foundation for an effective corrosion inhibition base as
well as mineral scale control in the bulk water from ePMA. Adding selected
copolymers to the formulation add increased control of mineral scale,
sequestration, and stabilization of transitional metals in the system water. An
exceptional benefit of using selected copolymers in the formulation is dispersion of

5
solids and surface cleanliness. The above-mentioned components also provide
the needed additional inhibitors zinc requires to perform as an effective corrosion
inhibitor. Safe scale LSI limits for this stabilized zinc formulation would be 0.0 –
2.0 where a corrosion LSI range is >1.0. When fed at 100 ppm, the total actives of
this formulation are 12.1 ppm and contains zero phosphorus.

Stabilized Tin Formulation

An alternative metal formulation for mild steel corrosion inhibition can be made
using stannous salts. Again, an environmentally reasonable quantity of tin (0.5%,
0.5 ppm when fed at 100 ppm as product) along with BTA (2.0%) provides a
desired corrosion inhibitor base. Using the ePMA to solubilize both the BTA and
tin in the formulation is essential when formulating with the added benefit of
mineral scale control. By adding the selected copolymers to the formulation there
is the added benefit of mineral scale control in the formulation as well and surface
cleanliness within the system. This formula provides both mild steel corrosion
control as well as scale control in the bulk water. An ideal scale LSI limit for this
stabilized tin formulation would be 0.0 – 2.0 with a corrosion LSI range > 1.0. Total
actives for this formulation are 12.1 ppm when fed at 100 ppm and contains zero
phosphorus.

All Organic – P Formulation

By utilizing the well-known corrosion inhibition properties of phosphonates, an

all organic formulation can be made with the addition of BTA at an increased
dosage (3.0%). Formulating with a proprietary phosphonate blend builds on the
knowledge that combining phosphonates together works better than using one
phosphonate by itself. The phosphonates not only provide corrosion inhibition but
calcium carbonate control. In an all organic – P formulation the addition of ePMA
provides potential added corrosion inhibition properties as well as increased
mineral scale control in the bulk water. An oPCA can also be utilized in the
formulation with the optimized phosphino functional groups providing compounded
mild steel corrosion inhibition, as well as exceptional calcium carbonate and
calcium sulfate inhibition with the dispersion of solids. The use of selected
copolymers allows for scale control in the bulk water to control the formation of
calcium phosphate. An increased scale LSI limit for the all organic – P formulation
would range from 0.0 – 2.5 and a corrosion LSI range of > 1.0. The total actives
for this formulation are 20.5 ppm when fed at a rate of 100 ppm.

6
 All Organic – Zero P Formulation

An all organic formulation without the use of any phosphate can be made by
using BTA at an increased dosage (3.0%) for corrosion inhibition as well as ePMA
for additional corrosion control, solubility of the BTA, and mineral scale control in
the bulk water. For effective mild steel corrosion inhibition without phosphorus the
utilization of organic acid corrosion inhibitor would be required. The organic acid
corrosion inhibitors provide the desired corrosion inhibition with the additional
benefit of known sequestration and stabilization of metals. The scale LSI limit is
increasing high at 0.0 – 3.0 with a corrosion LSI range at > 1.0. In this formulation
the total active solids is at a reasonable level of 28.2 ppm when fed at 100 ppm,
containing zero phosphorus. Much lower than the stand-alone required dosage for
the organic acid corrosion inhibitor.

METHOD

To effectively evaluate the four formulations discussed above for mild steel
corrosion inhibition in the laboratory setting, laboratory electrochemical research
grade equipment was utilized. Below, the water chemistries for each experiment is
discussed. Next, experimental design of the electrochemical cells used is
described. Lastly, the method by which the data was collected is explained.

To simulate typical cooling water in which to conduct the laboratory corrosion

experiments, two synthetic waters were used (Table 1). Synthetic Water A (SWA)
had a ratio of 1:1 calcium: alkalinity while Synthetic Water C (SWC) had an
increased ratio of calcium: alkalinity at 3:1. Both synthetic waters had 57.9 ppm of
Na+1, 13.2 ppm Mg+2, 25 ppm SO4-2, and 100 ppm HCO3-2 (as CaCO3). Synthetic
Water A had 109 ppm Cl⁻ while Synthetic Water C had increased chloride levels at
250 ppm Cl⁻. The increase in hardness in SWC can reduce the corrosivity of the
water. [10] However, the increase in chlorides in SWC can counteract the efficacy
of the treatment.

Table 1: Synthetic Water Make Up for Laboratory Corrosion Experiments

Synthetic Water A (SWA) Synthetic Water C (SWC)

57.9 ppm Na¹⁺ 57.9 ppm Na¹⁺
13.2 ppm Mg²⁺ 13.2 ppm Mg²⁺
100 ppm Ca²⁺ (as CaCO₃) 300 ppm Ca²⁺ (as CaCO₃)
109 ppm Cl⁻ 250 ppm Cl⁻
25 ppm SO₄²⁻ 25 ppm SO₄²⁻
100 ppm HCO₃²⁻ (as CaCO₃) 100 ppm HCO₃²⁻ (as CaCO₃)
8.50 -8.75 pH 8.50 -8.75 pH
367 ppm TDS 589 ppm TDS
1.00 LSI 1.50 LSI

7
 For each cell, 2L of synthetic water was made. When making the synthetic
waters, a 2L flask was filled 25% with DI water. The salts were added to the flask,
filled with another 25% of DI water. The treatment to be tested in the experiment
was then added at the appropriate dosage followed by another 25% DI water
addition. The metals were then added, and the flask filled to final volume using DI
water. This approach was used to prevent any unwanted precipitation prior to the
start of the experiment.

Each experiment was conducted in a 1-liter glass jacketed cell that was heated
using a recirculating hot water bath to 40 °C (104 °F). In the 1 L cell, a liter of
desired synthetic water was added and heated to appropriate temperature. Once
the cell reached temperature, an aeration stone was added to the cell followed by
a graphite counter electrode, a glass bridge tube filled with 3 M KCl reference
solution holding the reference electrode, and the working electrode made of C1010
mild steel (Figure 1). The ratio of solution volume to specimen area was 0.34
mL/mm2 (221 mL/in2), falling in an acceptable range so to prevent the exhaustion
of treatment or the formation of corrosion products that might inhibit corrosion
control [11]. Before adding the working mild steel electrode, the reference
electrode was placed in the 1 L cell to stabilize for 1 hour. Also prior to addition, the
working electrode was rinsed using pure acetone and allowed to air dry. Once the
working electrode was added, the cell then was stirred at a rate of 400 RPM and
an open circuit potential ran for 1 hour to allow the working electrode to reach
equilibrium with the synthetic water.

Graphite
Counter
Electrode

Hot Water
Out

Air Stone Reference

Electrode
Mild Steel
Working
Hot Water
In Electrode

Figure 1: 1 L jacketed glass cell configuration.

8
 Once the experiment was started, a continuous feed of fresh synthetic water
and treatment was set up using peristaltic pumps at a rate of 0.69 mL/min to allow
for a fresh turnover of treated synthetic water during the 24-hour testing period.
Each experiment ran for 24 hours where the corrosion rate was calculated via
Gamry Framework software. The Gamry Framework software was used utilizing a
Rp/Ec method that performs linear polarization resistance (LPR) on the working
electrode. The slope of the LPR data gathered by the software is then used to
calculate the corrosion rate of the mild steel electrode at that time. This was
performed on the electrode every 10 minutes, for 24 hours.

DATA

Using the methods discussed above, data was gathered on the four formulas
discussed in the introduction: stabilized zinc formulation, stabilized tin formulation,
all organic – P formulation, and all organic – zero P formulation (Table 2). The
data collected for this paper is summarized in Table 3. Here, the data is presented,
compared, and discussed for each of the four formulations using both Synthetic
Water A and Synthetic Water C at 100 ppm and 120 ppm dosage.

Table 2: Formulation Compositions

Stabilized Zinc Stabilized Tin All Organic - P All Organic - Zero
Formulation Formulation Formulation P Formulation
Zn ●

Sn ●

BZA ● ● ● ●

Enhanced PMA ● ● ● ●
Selected
● ● ●
Copolymer(s)
Optimized PCA ●
Proprietary
●
Phosphonate Blend
Organic Acid
●
Corrosion Inhibitor
Total Actives (ppm) 12.1 12.1 20.5 28.2

9
Table 3: Average Corrosion Rates for Each Formulation at 100 ppm and 120 ppm in Synthetic
Water A and Synthetic Water C During 24 Hours.
Stabilized Zinc Stabilized Tin All Organic - P All Organic - Zero P
Formulation Formulation Formulation Formulation

Synthetic Water A

100 ppm 2.37 mpy 2.66 mpy 0.62 mpy 1.06 mpy

120 ppm 0.21 mpy 2.30 mpy 0.98 mpy 0.89 mpy

Synthetic Water C

100 ppm 1.79 mpy 3.80 mpy 1.85 mpy 0.89 mpy

120 ppm 0.68 mpy 3.76 mpy 1.25 mpy 1.49 mpy

100 ppm Treatment (As Product) -Synthetic Water A Data

Under Synthetic Water A conditions when the formulations were fed at 100 ppm
as product, the all organic – P formulation performed best with an average
corrosion rate of 0.62 mils per year (mpy) over 24 hours with a max corrosion rate
< 1 mpy (Graph 1). The all organic – zero P formulation had an average corrosion
rate of 1.06 mpy with a max corrosion rate of 1.75 mpy. The stabilized metal
formulation had higher corrosion rates where the stabilized zinc formulation
average was 2.37 mpy (0.5 ppm zinc) with a minimum corrosion of 1.16 mpy and a
max at 3.58 mpy. The stabilized tin formulation had the highest corrosion rate with
an average of 2.66 mpy (0.5 ppm tin), minimum of 1.40 mpy, and a max of 5.63
mpy.

10
 6

5
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Hours)
Stabilized Zinc Formulation Stabilized Tin Formulation
All Organic - P Formulation All Organic - Zero P Formulation

Graph 1: 100 ppm Treatment - Synthetic Water A - Mild Steel Corrosion Inhibition

100 ppm Treatment (As Product) - Synthetic Water C Data

At 100 ppm as product in Synthetic Water C, the all organic – zero P

formulation had the lowest corrosion rate with an average of 0.89 mpy during a 24
hour period (Graph 2). Max corrosion rates for the all organic – zero P formulation
were 2.05 mpy where the minimum was at 0.09 mpy. The stabilized zinc
formulation had an average of 1.79 mpy, with a max corrosion rate of 2.47 mpy
and a minimum of 1.20 mpy. The all organic – P formulation had an average of
1.85 mpy, maximum of 2.78 mpy, and a minimum of 1.13 mpy. The stabilized tin
formulation did not perform as well with an average corrosion rate of 3.80 mpy, a
max of 5.22 mpy, and a minimum of 2.85 mpy.

11
 6

5
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Hours)
Stabilized Zinc Formulation Stabilized Tin Formulation
All Organic - P Formulation All Organic - Zero P Formulation

Graph 2: 100 ppm Treatment - Synthetic Water C - Mild Steel Corrosion Inhibition

120 ppm Treatment (As Product) - Synthetic Water A Data

The stabilized zinc formulation performed best of the four formulations when
feed at 120 ppm (0.6 ppm zinc) as product in Synthetic Water A with an average
corrosion rate of 0.21 mpy and max corrosion rate <0.5 mpy during a 24 hour
period (Graph 3). The all organic – zero P formulation had an average corrosion
rate of 0.89 mpy with a max corrosion rate of 2.36 mpy and a minimum of 0.15
mpy. The all organic – P formulation had an average of 0.98 mpy, a max corrosion
rate of 1.34 mpy, and a minimum of 0.27 mpy. The stabilized tin formulation at this
dosage (0.6 ppm tin) in Synthetic Water A had an average corrosion rate of 2.30
mpy, max of 4.73 mpy, and a minimum of 0.75 mpy.

12
 6

5
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Hours)
Stabilized Zinc Formulation Stabilized Tin Formulation
All Organic - P Formulation All Organic - Zero P Formulation

Graph 3: 120 ppm Treatment - Synthetic Water A - Mild Steel Corrosion Inhibition

120 ppm Treatment (As Product) - Synthetic Water C Data

At 120 ppm as product in Synthetic Water C during a 24 hour period, the

stabilized zinc formulation had the lowest corrosion rate with an average of 0.68
mpy and a max corrosion rate < 0.5 mpy (Graph 4). The all organic – P
formulation had an average of 1.25 mpy, a max corrosion rate of 1.49 mpy, and a
minimum of 0.27 mpy. The all organic – zero P formulation also performed well
with an average of 1.49 mpy, maximum corrosion rate of 3.23 mpy, and a minimum
of 0.41 mpy. Under these conditions the stabilized tin formulation did not perform
as well with an average corrosion rate of 3.76 mpy, a max of 4.50 mpy, and a
minimum of 0.75 mpy.

13
 6

5
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Hours)
120 ppm Stabilized Zinc Formulation 120 ppm Stabilized Tin Formulation
120 ppm All Organic - P Formulation 120 ppm All Organic - Zero P Formulation

Graph 4: 120 ppm Treatment - Synthetic Water C - Mild Steel Corrosion Inhibition

When looking at all four formulations at both dosages and in both water
conditions, the all organic – zero P formulation had the lowest overall average
corrosion rate of 1.08 mpy while the all organic – P formulation had the lowest
average max corrosion rate of 1.65 mpy followed by the stabilized zinc formulation
with an average max corrosion rate of 1.85 mpy. The overall average of the
stabilized zinc and all organic – P formulations were desirable at 1.18 mpy and
1.26 mpy, respectively. The overall average corrosion rate for the stabilized tin
formulation was 3.13 mpy with none of the averages under either of the dosages or
water conditions falling below 2.0 mpy.

For each formulation, a tafel polarization was performed (Graph 5). All
formulations showed evidence of anodic control with increasing shifts upwards on
the y – axis. The stabilized zinc formulation had the most significant shift up on the
y – axis and to the left on the x – axis, this indicates higher anodic control and
overall corrosion inhibition. The all organic – P formulation had the second
greatest shift, followed by the all organic – zero P formulation.

14
 -0.10

-0.20

-0.30
E (V)

-0.40

-0.50

-0.60

-0.70

-0.80
5.0E-09 5.0E-08 5.0E-07 5.0E-06 5.0E-05 5.0E-04 5.0E-03
Absolute Current (A)
120 ppm Stabilized Zinc Formulation 120 ppm Stabilized Tin Formulation
120 ppm All Organic - P Formulation 120 ppm All Organic - Zero P Formulation
Blank
Graph 5: Tafel Polarization Graph for Each Formulation at 120 ppm in Synthetic Water A.

15
 CONCLUSION

In the above experiments, edges of effectiveness for each formulation can be

seen. While all formulations did reduce corrosion rates as desired, some
performed better than others and some worked in one set of conditions but not the
other. In general, the all organic – P and all organic – zero P formulations
performed the best in both synthetic waters. The stabilized zinc formulation
performed well in the 3:1 calcium: alkalinity water with increasing success as
dosage increased.
The stabilized tin formulation did not perform as well as the other formulations
in either water condition or at an increased dose. Corrosion rates in the 1:1
calcium: alkalinity water was better for the stabilized tin formulation compared to
the 3:1 water. This might be due to the increase in chloride levels in the 3:1 water,
showing a possible limitation of this formulation.
Understanding how complete corrosion control formulas actually act in the
water toward mild steel is important. Sometimes a composed formulation that has
all the right pieces, does not fit and work together as nicely as assumed. There
can be other factors that play in to the puzzle as well, such as dosage and varying
water conditions. It is important to have a guideline for where each piece fits, as
shown with this paper.
One of the goals of this paper was to present possible effective corrosion
inhibition formulations and guidelines for the AWT membership to consider. The
other goal was to further explore phosphorus free alternatives for mild steel
corrosion control. The data provided in this paper shows great potential in the all
organic – zero P formulation which utilizes the functionality of BTA, ePMA, and an
organic acid corrosion inhibitor. Under both water conditions, the unique all
organic – zero P formulation performed well. Future testing of the formulation
under expanded conditions is needed. By looking at temperature, with the change
in water temperature impacting the likelihood of corrosion, and oxidation stability,
an even better picture on where the formulation fits into the corrosion inhibition
puzzle could be determined.
Like with all things in water treatment, there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle
when it comes to putting together effective formulations. Formulating for corrosion
control is no different. The corrosion inhibitor is not the only piece in the
formulation and often there are multiple corrosion inhibitors that will fit and work
together within the formulation. Fitting with one another but also with the other
components formulated for mineral scale control and surface cleaning. By taking
into consideration the component factors that greatly impact corrosion rates, the
effectiveness of corrosion inhibitors, and formulating other products alongside the
corrosion inhibitor, the desired results can be achieved. Effective products can be
formulated to meet the ever changing and complex world of mild steel corrosion
inhibition in water treatment.

16
WORKS CITED

[1] R. D. Davies, "Factors Influencing the Formulation of Treatments for Use in Heating and
Cooling Systems," in Chemical Inhibitors for Corrosion Control, The Royal Society of
Chemistry, 1988, pp. 57-71.

[2] S. Katayama, T. Asano, K. Marugame, S. Kanada and Y. Kawasaki, "Corrosion Inhibitor".

United States of America Patent 4,512,552, 23 April 1985.

[3] D. Weller, "The Theory Behind Stannous Chloride as a Corrosion Inhibitor," [Online].
Available: http://www.asi-corrosioncontrol.com/theory1.htm. [Accessed May 2019].

[4] W. Stapp and G. Westlund, "Corrosion Inhibition Compositions and Methods for Using the
Same". United States of America Patent 7910024B2, 22 March 2011.

[5] J. Richardson, R. Tribble and S. Hopkins, "Methods and Compositions for Inhibiting Metal
Corrosion in Heated Aqueous Solution". United States of America Patent 9115432B2, 25
August 2015.

[6] D. Erickson, R. Johnson, M. LaBrosse and P. Young, "Corrosion Inhibition Methods".

United States of America Patent 9290850B2, 22 March 2016.

[7] W. Zhang, R. Ma, S. Li, Y. Liu and L. Niu, "Electrochemical and Quantum Chemical
Studies of Azoles as Corrosion Inhibitors for Mild Steel in Hydrochloric Acid," Chemical
Research in Chinese Universities, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 827-837, 7 September 2016.

[8] R. Cavano, "Developing Cooling Water Treatments - Part II," AWT Analyst, vol. 15, no. 2,
pp. 31 - 37.

[9] M. Standish, C. Standish, E. Ward and R. Ferguson, A Survey of Phosphorus - Free

Corrosion Inhibitors, 2018.

[10] S. Ray, "Carbon Steel Corrosion Control in the Past Twenty Years and in the New
Millennium," in AWT, 2000.

[11] "Standard Practice for Laboratory Immersion Corrosion Testing of Metals," 1999.

17