97377 performance of a new mill supply treatment p

Paper No.
377
coRRosioN97
PERFORMANCE OF A NEW MILL SUPPLY
TREATMENT PROGRAM
Stephen M. Kessler
BetzDearhorn Water Management Group
One QrrsfityWay
Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053-6783
Nhung T. Le
BetsDearborn Water Management Group
One QrraMyWay
Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053-6783
ABSTRACT
Cooling water treatments containing zinc are being more strictly regulated. Fines are being imposed in some
instances where zinc discharge concentrations are as low as 0.5 ppm (m@). With regulatory concerns looming,
many pkmts are deciding to eliminate zinc from their cooling loops, Laboratory work was conducted to identify
potential zinc replacement technology for use under mill supply conditions typical of those found in pulp and paper
applications. This industry segment is one of tbe largest users of once-through cooling water. ,kr organic
replacement able to provide zinc-like performance under mill supply conditions was identified. This paper
describes the laboratory protocols utilized to identify this organic material and further develop its use in once-
through cooling water applications. Case histories are also presented.
Kcywords : mill supply, once-through, corrosion inhibitor, deposit control, scale, sequestration, hydroxylated
carboxylic acid, pulp and paper.
Copyright
01997byNACEInternational:?ewestsforpermissiontoPubkhthisInanusC@ti. awfOrM,inPariorinwholem.stbemadeinwritingtoNACE
International,Conference%D,v,s,on,P.O.60.21EWI Houston,Texas7721s-S340.The materm presented and the views expressed in this
paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in the U.S.A.
Gustavo Jaime - Invoice 139387 downloaded on 1/16/2020 4:35:19 PM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited

INTRODUCTION
Once-through cnnlirrg water is prevalent throughout industry. These streams are known in the pulp and paper
industry as “mill supply waters,” as “service water” in the power industry, and also as “once-through waters” in the
chemical and hydrocarbon process industries. Large volumes of water are typicafly drawn from a nearby well,
river, or lake for most of these applications and then dkcharged dwectly to an aqueous stream. Because
evaporation in these systems is minimal, the influent water characteristics closely match the effluent (ie., uncycled
raw water). Outside of mechanical screening to remove large contaminants, only relatively low treatment
concentrations can be applied to these streams because of the costs associated with treating large volumes of water.
A mill supply treatment program typically consists of both corrosion and deposit control agents as well as some
type of microbiological (MB) control protncol. Threshold levels of inorganic phosphate, zinc, and/or polymer are
commonly utilized for corrosion and deposit control. Protection of carbon steel is the main aim of these programs
because it is the predominant metallurgy for most mill supply transfer piping. While copper-based alloys maybe a
minor component in these loops, it is cost prohibitive to incorporate azoles for protection of these alloys, Typically,
0.5 to 3 ppm (mg/L) inorganic phosphate, 0.1 to 1 ppm (mg/L) zinc, arrd/or 0.5 to 2 ppm (mg/I-) polymer are
applied to mill supply process waters. WhOeuntreated streams can yield carbon steel corrosion rates in excess of
50 mpy (1.27 mrdy), low level zinc treatments provide corrosion rates in the 5 to 10 mpy (0.127 to 0.254 rnrdy)
range, with minimal pitting corrosion. Zkrc-free programs typically provide carbon steel corrosion rates in the 10
to 15 mpy (0.254 to 0.381 nrdy) range, with moderate pitting. A small amount of zinc provides superior pitting
protection relative to the inorganic phosphates, even when these are used at elevated dosages. Therefore, there has
been ongoing concern with regard to legislation more strictly regulating zinc discharge to rivers and streamsl’2.
The most common corrosion mechanism found in mill supply applications can be depicted by the classic
corrosion cell as illustrated in Figure 1. Metal loss occurs at the anode with dissolution of the base metal as
electrons flow from anode to cathode. Besides the detrimental effect of general metaf loss, this process can also
lead to corrosion by-product (iron oxides and hydroxides) accumulation, leading to reduction in heat transfer and
flow, and resulting in higher operating costs3. Orthophosphate, pyrophosphate, arrdlor zinc are commonly utilized
for corrosion control in once-through systems. Their performance is based on minimizing the cathodic corrosion
reaction. The inorganic phosphates exhibit predominantly cathodic corrosion control behavior at low use
concentrations. Zhc also reduces the cathodic corrosion reaction4. Wldle orthophospbate is the most economical
inorganic phosphate, it does not possess the sequestering ability of pyrophosphate. Pyrophosphate is very effective
at minimizing tuberculation, sequestering both iron and manganese, and aiding in scale controls. This mechanism
of cation complexation is particularly critical to the pulp and paper industry where ineffective iron or manganese
stabilization can adversely affect paper brightness.
The control of general scale formation is critical in once-through cooling loops in order to ensure the efficient
operation of associated heat transfer equipment and also to minimize under-deposit corrosion. Scales typically
found in these systems contain mainly calcium carbonate and iron corrosion byproducts. Silt and organic
microbiological matter can also be present to a lesser extent. Table 1 depicts analytical results typical of deposits
found in a once-through cooling application. While water softening would alleviate hardness scale, this is not
economically feasible. Therefore, CaCO~ scale formation remains a concern, especially in hotter systems, due to its
inverse volubility. This problem can easily be controlled, however, with the use of deposit control agents such as
polyphosphates, organic phosphates, and polymers7. These materials prevent scale formation by either sequestering
specific scale-forming cations, or by mcdifying the crystal growth patterns of the inorganic salts. This allows them
to exist in a state of supersaturation rather than precipitating out in the bulk phase. Treatment levels ranging
between 0.5 and 2 ppm (m@) can effectively control most scales in once-through systems. Deposition of iron,
present as a result of corrosion or entering from wells or surface waters, is also of concern. In addhion, soluble
manganese can be present at concentrations of up to 1 ppm (mg/L), depending on the makeup source for the mitl
water. Once oxidized, manganese can also cause deposition leadhg to under-deposit corrosion and pitting. This
37712Gustavo Jaime - Invoice 139387 downloaded on 1/16/2020 4:35:19 PM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited

can be effectively controlled with the use of either pyrophosphate or hydroxyetbylidene dlphosphonic acid (HEDP).
Pyropbosphate’s sequestering ability is further enhanced when combined with certain polymers and copolymers.
Finally, silt and MB-related deposition have to be addressed. Polymeric materials can handle most solids
problems by altering the surface charge characteristics of the particles, keeping them suspended and flowing
through the systemg. Typical polymer dosages of between 0.5 and 1 ppm (m@L) are effective for suspended solids
control. MB problems are typically addressed by halogerrating (chlorine or bromine) the makeup source prior to
use. Halogen feed for effective MB control is very application-dependent and varies according to the nature of the
system and the water source.
This paper discusses tbe laboratory testing employed to identify and develop zinc replacement technology for
use in a mill SUPPIy treatment matrix and also the work performed in the field to vafidate this program’s
performance.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A literature search was initially conducted to identify organic carbon steel corrosion inhibitors which could
potentially replace zinc for use under Pulp and Paper industry (PPI) conditions. The task was to concentrate on
only those materials which already had Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, even if those makrials
were known to possess only slight corrosion inhibition. One class, in particular, proved to be especially effective,
based on a standard inhibitor screening protncol, and was also very effective during developmental testing under
dynamic conditions. These effective inhibitors can generally be categorized as bydroxylated carboxylic acids
(HCA’s). They not only offered zinc-like corrosion control performance under chlorinated mill supply conditions,
but they were also cost-effective, and had the appropriate regulatory approvals for use in the PPI.
The screening protocol quickly identified which HCA’S possessed adequate carbon steel corrosion control when
incorporated into a phosphate and polymer treatment matrix. Evahrations were conducted in the Beaker Corrosion
Test Apparatus (BCTA) using a synthetic water which contained 20 ppm (mgiL) calcium, 10 ppm (mgL)
magnesium, and 25 ppm (mg/L) M-alkalinity (all as CaC03) at a pH of 7.0 and a specific conductance of
approximately 250 microsiemendcm (micromhos/cm). A schematic of this screening equipment is shown in Fignre
2; the operating condhions are outlined in Table 2. The BCTA apparatus consists of a 1.9 L beaker which is
immersed in a water bath to control solution temperature. The test solution is constantly sparged with either air or
a combination of air and carbon dioxide (CO*)to control PH. Besides the sparger, two other holders are immersed
into the beaker one holdlng a small coupon for both visual observation and gravimetric weight loss analysis;
another supporting an electrochemical probe to obtain electrochemical measurements for the treatment nnder
evaluation. Corrosion data is obtained under computer control from pntentiodynamic polarization resistance
measurements. Scans are taken at fixed intervals over an 18-honr time period. Corrosion rates are then linearly
extrapolated to both zero time and to the actual test completion time. This data is integrated to obtain an average
electrochemical corrosion rate.
This modfled beaker test approach offers advantages over tmdtional screening techniques by eliminating pH
fluctuations within the test solution as metal corrosion occurs and afso offering continuous corrosion rate data aside
from the coupon corrosion results. Drawbacks to this method still remain and include the following:
1) The BCTA system is closed with no makeup or blowdown to the beaker. If significant corrosion uccurs
during an evaluation, corrosion products remain in the system. This can detrimentally alter performance
results relative to those obtained from an open system where fresh treatment is being constantly irrtreduced
and corrosion products removed.

2) All evaluations are conducted using bulk water temperatures with no measurements being obtained
under high temperature, heat transfer conditions. WIdle mill supply treatments are essentially utilized for
bulk water corrosion control, mill waters can frequently contact heated surfaces. Inhibkor performance
under heat transfer conditions cannot be accurately quantified in thk apparatus.
3) Corrosion rates can be significantly affected by test solution turbidky arrdlor its deposition tendency.
The rates can be biased low if deposition has occurred on the metal surface. This is typicafly not a concern
for soft water evacuations, such as simulating a mifl supply condition, or if adequate deposit control agents
are incorporated into the treatment matrix.
4) Historical laboratory testing has indicated that electrochemical corrosion rates are not an accurate
measure oflocalized corrosion, i.e., pitting comosion. Lowaverage corrosion rates can be obtained during
an evacuation, even with moderate pitting of the test metallurgy.
After screening of thecarrdldate organic materials inthe BCTA, developmental testing was conducted under
dynamic conditions inthe Bench Top Units (BTU’s). Aschematic of the BTUtest equipment isshownin Flgure3.
llrisapparatu sconsist sofaa 11 fiter, stainless steel sump from wMchflow is&vefid tirough abypassrackmd
reintroduced totbe system. All test metallurgy is incorporated into tbis bypass rack. SystempH arrd temperature
are continuously monitored and controlled to test specifications. Corrosion rate readings are obtained under
computer control every thirty minutes.
While the BCTA apparatus is used solely to quantify bulk water treatment performance, a heat transfer probe is
utilized intbe BTU design in order to also observe the h@rtemperature corrosiorr/deposition control ability of the
treatments. ~ereisalso fresh solution m&eupto the B~sfrommsemoirtmks with blowdown maintairredby
overtlow from tbetixed system volume. Blowdown and solution makeup were maximized during the mill supply
development work tomomclosely simulate aonce-through process. Acompilation of theoperating parameters is
shown in Table 3.
RESULTS
The BCTA evaluations were conducted using a bulk water temperature of 120° F (48.9” C) and an inhibitor
dosage of 10 ppm (m@L) in combination with 1 ppm (m@L) pyrophosphate arrd0.5 ppm (mg/L) of an acrylic acid
copolymer, Wfde screening was conducted at hkglrertemperatures using elevated inhibitor dosages than would
typically be found under typical mill supply condhions, this was a general laboratory protocol used to identify
materials for potential use in low hardness application areas (i.e., mill supply, concast systems, closed cooling
Ioops, etc.). Matetids whlchprovided cmbonsteel comosion rates less thm6,5mpy (0.165tiy) using tMs test
regimen were deemed acceptable for fmthermifl supply development. The HCA’S fit this criteria with corrosion
rates inthe 4,0 -6.0 mpy (0.102-0.153 mm/y) mnge. As shown by a set of comparisons in F1gure4, one HCA
blend pmvidedcwbon steel comosion inhibition equivalent tozinc-continhg treatments. Tbisparticrrlar HCAwas
developed further in the BTU’s and performed exceptionablywell under dynamic conditions.
The BCTA control study (no treatment) provided a carbon steel corrosion rate of 18.5 mpy (0.470 mrnly) with
severe general corrosion and induced deposition of the test metallurgy. Results improved slightly using treatment
combinations of 1 ppm (mg/L) pyrophosphate and either 0.25 ppm (mg/L) zirrc or 0.5 ppm (mg/L) polymer. The
carbon steel comosion rates for these tests were 12.5 mpy (0.318 rnrdy) and 13 mpy (0.330 mrrrly), respectively.
General and pitting corrosion were also evident for both sets of test specimens. A traditional, three-component mill
supply program containing 1 ppm (mg/L) pyrophosphate, 0.25 ppm (m@) zinc, and 0.5 ppm (mg/L) polymer
provided good results with a carbon steel corrosion mte of 5.5 mpy (0.140 rrrrrrly). General corrosion and pitting of
the carbon steel coupons were also greatly reduced. FhraUy, a treatment consisting of the prefemed HCA in
combination with 1 ppm (m@) pyrophosphate and 0.5 ppm (mg/L) polymer, provided equivalent carbon steel

corrosion protection to the zinc blend. The carbon steel corrosion rate was afso 5.5 mpy (0.140 mrdy) with similar
corrosion patterns - reduced general and pitting corrosinn.
This HCA was subsequently evaluated in the BTU’s using a bulk water temperature of 80° F (26.7° C) and a
reduced inhibitor dosage of 1 ppm (mg/L) to more closely simulate a dynamic, mill supply application and
treatment dosage. Dynamic evaluations were again barcbrnarked against current zinc and non-zinc containing
phosphate and pnlymer treatments. These tests also utilized two metallurgies; carbon steel (0.08 to O.13% carbon,
0,3 to 0.6% manganese, 0.04% phosphorus, 0.05% sulfur, balance iron) and admimfty (71% copper, 27.96% zinc,
1,0% tin, 0,04% arsenic), Combinations, containing only 1 ppm (mg/L) pyrophosphate and 0.5 ppm (m@L)
polymer provided poor mill supply performance with an average carbon steel corrosion rate of 12,0 mpy (0.305
mm/y) and an admiralty rate of 3.3 mpy (0.084 rnrn/y). Corrosion of the carbon steel metallurgy was
predominantly in the form of moderate pitting and general corrosion. Blending 0.25 ppm (mg/L) zinc into this
treatment matrix lowered the carbon steel rate to 7.5 mpy (0.190 mrrr/y)and the admiralty corrosion rate to 2.1 mpy
(0,053 rrrrdy). The carbon steel metallurgy exhibited only slight general corrosion and minimal pitting during this
simulation. The HCA materialwas evaluatedin place nf zinc using the same pyrophosphate/poly mer combination.
Results with HCA were excellent with carbon steel and admiralty rates of 5.9 mpy (O.150 mmfy) and 1.2 mpy
(0.030 mrdy), respectively. Only minimal pitting of the carbon steel surfaces was observed. This performance
was equivalent to, if not slightly better than, that of the zinc blend. Program comparisons are shown graphical y in
Figure 5.
Further laboratory testing was conducted under chlorinated conditions using the bencbmark treatments as well
as the HCA blend. These evaluations were deemed especially criticaf, given that most mill streams undergo some
type of halogenation prior to use. The BTU’s were operated as before but with a dilute solution of sodhrn
hypnchlorite (0.35%) being fed to the sump in order to maintain a continuous free chlorine level of between 0.25
and 0.5 ppm (mgiL). This is considered to he a severe chlorination protwol relative to that conducted in the field,
given that the BTU system is relatively clean, using synthetic waters possessing minimal chlorine demand.
Benchmark treatment performance deteriorated dramatically using this protocol. The pyrophosphate and pnlymer
combination provided carbon steel and admiralty cnrrosion rates of 65.0 mpy (1.65 mmly) ad 3.9 mpy (O.100
mnr/y), respectively. While the zinc/pyrophosphate/polymer combination was only marginally more effective with a
carbon steel rate of 55.0 mpy (1.400 rndy) and an admiralty rate of 3.0 mpy (0.076 mm/y), severe general
corrosion of the carbon steel test specimens was observed with both t~atment blends.
The HCA program proved far superior to the benchmark treatments under these conditions. Performance
deteriorated only slightly with average carbon steel and admiralty rates of 8.2 mpy (0.208 nrniy) and 2.9 mpy
(0.074 mm/y), respectively. Carbon steel pitting was also no worse than that observed during the non-chlorinated
evaluations. Program comparisons are also shown graphically in Figure 5. The HCA program clearly
outperformed the zinc treatment under conditions of continuous chlorination. Field trials of the HCA blend were
subsequently conducted to validate this observation.
FIELD TRIALS
Since pulp and paper mill supply accounts are segmented between those using zinc blends and those not, two
sites were chosen for evaluation of this technology, ie., one account with a history of successful zinc utilization and
another which has been using a poorly performing, zinc-free blend because of dkcharge restrictions.
Case Study I
The first field trial was conducted at a southeastern paper mill where a zinc and phosphate treatment had been
performing well by providhg historical carbon steel corrosion rates under 5 mpy (O.127 MM/y). The treatment

program consistedof 0.64 ppm (mg/L) orthophosphateand 0.15 ppm (mg/L) zinc. If the plant were to operate
without zinc at this phosphate level, carbon steel corrosion rates would be unacceptable, i.e., exceeding 5 mpy
(0.0127 mrdy) with increased pitting. The typical trial water composition is reported in Table 4, The mill water is
rdso chlorinated continuously to maintain a free chlorine residual between 0.1 and 0.2 ppm (mg/L).
An evaluation was conducted for a month prior to the HCA triaf, utilizing a bypass rack to expose carbon steel
coupons. This test was used to quantify current performance at this account. An average carbon steel corrosion
rate of 3.9 mpy (O.100 mnr/y) was observed during that period. The carbon steel test metallurgy also exhibited only
slight general corrosion with minimal pitting. The first HCA treatment to be evaluated was a 2:1 phosphate to
HCA blend using pyrophosphate at the same inorganic phosphate level as traditionally utilized (0.64 ppm or mg/L).
As shown in Figure 6, corrosion results were nem equivalent to the zinc-based program with an average carbon
steel rate of 4.0 mpy (0,102 rndy). The metallurgy also exhibited similar corrosion patterns (slight general
corrosion with minimal pitting).
Subsequent testing evaluated a lower concentration of HCA using a 3.2:1 blend (0.64 ppm or m@L pyre, 0.2
ppm or mg/L HCA), Although results were not as good as the 2:1 blend, they were still under the acceptable 5.0
mpy (O.127 rndy) limit the plant requires. The average carbon steel corrosion rate was 4,7 mpy (o.119 mdY),
with no significant increase in pitting of the test metallurgy.
Case Study 11
A second field evaluation was conducted at another southeastern paper facility where discharge restrictions
dictated the use of a phosphate/polymer blend without zinc for their mill supply applications, The program, which
contained 0.8 ppm (mg/L) pyrophosphate and 0.2 ppm (m@) polymer, performed poorly, with corrosion rates
typically in excess of 10mpy (0.254 mm/y). The main reason for tlds severe condition is the halogenation program
utilized by the plant. The plant routinely operates this cooling loop with a continuous free chlorine residual
between 1.0 and 1.5 ppm (mg/L), Therefore, because of this corrosive environment, even when zinc blends were
permitted, cwbon steel corrosion rates were seldom under 10 mpy (0.254 mrdy) at this site.
While Case Study I died on treatment evaluations conducted in series (one following the other), this facility
utilizes two separate mill supply lines to treat simiIar sister operations. This aflowexlfor running side-by-side
comparisons of the HCA-containing program to the current pyrdpolymer blend utilizing identical mifl water
makeup, temperatures, mill operating protocols, etc. Also, two bypass racks were utilized in each mill loop. One
was placed at the beginning of each application (where ambient bulk temperatures are common) and the other
witbin each mill coming off the hot water system. The hot water lines typicafly operate with bulk temperatures in
excess of 110°F (43.3° C). The mill water composition is shown in Table 5.
The current treatment at the mill was evahrated, as well as an HCA blend which contained 0.6 ppm (m@L)
HCA, 0.6 ppm (mg/L) pyrophosphate, and 0.3 ppm (m@) polymer. This treatment concentration was chosen
because of program cost limits imposed by mill personnel. The evaluation was of a 30-day duration with results
indicating a significant reduction in carbon steel corrosion with the HCA blend (seeF@re 7). This was observed
for both the ambient loops, where the average bulk temperature was 87°F (30,6”C), and the hot water loops, which
experienced an average water temperature of 120° F (48.9° C). Corrosion rates were 35 mpy (0.889 mrdy) with
the pyrophosphate/poly mer treatment and 14 mpy (0.356 rnrn/y) with the HCA combination under the lower
temperature conditions. This performance with HCA was approachingthe performancepreviouslyattained when
the plant was allowed to use zinc-containing treatments. Corrosion rates for the hot loop averaged 48.0 mpy (1.220
mru/y) with the baxeline treatment and 29.0 mpy (0.737 mrdy) with the HCA/pyrophosphate/poly mer program.
Whalecorrosion rates were high in the hot mill loop, corrosion results were still 40% lower than that obtained with
the current program. Given the severe operating conditions in thk loop, i.e., high temperature and high
chlorination, these corrosion rates are not surprising. This particular field trial validated the chlorination results
37716

obtained under laboratory conditions: the HCA blends are superior to standard till supply treatments in the
presenceof a continuousfreechlorineresiduaf.
CONCLUSIONS
1, Effwtive mill supply treatment can reachieved byusing acombination ofapmiculw hydroxylated cmboxylic
acid (HCA), inorganic phosphate, and an acrylic acid copolymer.
2. The HCApro~mprovides equivalent cwbonsteel comosion contiolpefiommce tocumentzinc-conttining
treatments but can also be utilized wherever discharge restrictions limit the use of zinc.
3. Supetior cwbonsteel mdadmirdty comosioncontrolisacMeved with HCA-conttining treatmentsrelativeto
currentzinc technology under continuous y chlorinated conditions.
REFERENCES
(1) D. Hartwick, V. Jovancicevic, “Approaches for Reducing Phosphorus in Coofing Water Programs”,
Corrosion/96, Paper No. 605, 1996
(2) E. J.hvi, ``NewDevelopments in Basics of Cmling Water Treatment' ', Chemical En~timring, Vo1. 119, June
1974, pp. 88-92
(3) B. Bacon, T. Pace, R. Post, “On-Lire Removal and Control of Corrosion Products and Silt in a 400,000 GPM
Once-Tbrougb Cooling System”, EPRI Seminar on Service Water Cleaning Technology, 1990
(4) L. L. Rozenfeld, Corrosion Inhibitors, McGraw Hill Inc., 1981, pp. 94-96, 175-181
(5) ~ , Ninth Edition, 1991, pp. 216-217
(6) Smook, Handbook for Pukr and Paper Technologists, TAPPI Press, 1982, p. 338
(7) Cooling Water Treatment Manual, TPC Publication, No. 1, 1971, NACE, p. 5
(8) S, M. Kessler, US, Patent #4941979, “Method of’Stabilizing Manganese in Aqueous Systems”, July 17, 1990
(9) Fair, Geyer, Okun, Elements of Water Sntmlv and Wastewater Disposal, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Second
Edition, 1971, pp. 464-466
3?717

TABLE 1
Sample Analysis of Mill Scales
Q/oL?i!@#ositi?n. ~“
Scala Sampla A B c D
Calcium (as CaO)
Magnaaium ( as MgO )
Iron as ( FezOa)
Aluminum (as AlzOS)
Carbonate ( aa C02 )
Sulfate ( aa S04 )
Silicate (as Si02 )
Organic & Combined Water
47.2
2.1
3.1
1.5
34.2
0.9
4,9
6.1
34.4
1.7
22.7
4.2
22.9
0.1
9.8
4.2
43.5
0.6
10.7
0.9
34.0
1.4
2.1
6.8
52.3
4.1
3.0
0.2
35.2
0.3
1.1
3.8
S7718

TABLE 2
BCTATeet Conditions
WATER CHEMISTRY: m ppm (mg/L) Ca as CaC03
10 ppm (mg/L) Mg as CaC03
25 pp+m(mg/L) M-alkalinity as CaC03
TREATMENT cHEMISTRY: 10ppm (mg/L) Test Inhibbr
1 ppm (mg/L) Pyrcphosphate
0.5 ppm (mg/L) Pciymer
BCTA OPERATING PARAMETERS:
System Volume 0.S3 G (1.9 L)
Bulk Temperature SO.l°F (26.7C)
Water Velceity 3.5 fusec (1 .07 mfs)
Test Duration 18 hours
pH 7.0 +/- 0.1 w/ C02 SParging
Metallurgy 1 Carbon Steel Coupon
1 Catin Steel Corrosbn Rate Probe
TABLE 3
BTUTest Conditions
wATER CHEMISTRY :
TREATMENT MATRIX:
BTU OPERATING PARAMETERS:
System Volume
Bulk Temperature
Skin Tem~rature
Heat Flux
Water Vekcity
Test Ouration
pH
Metallurgy
Same as in Table II
1 ppm (mg/L) Pyrophcsphate
0.5 ppm (mg/L) Polymer
with or without either 0.15 ppm (mg/L)Zn or 1 ppin (mg/L) HCA
2.9 G(11 L)
M“F (26.T’C)
1ZU”F(4B.9”C)
8,CWJIBTU/ftZih (25,216 W/m2)
1.1 W* (o.340m/s)
3 days
7.0 +/- 0.05 w/ C02 Sparging
4 Cafimn Steel Coupons
4 Admirathj Srass Coupons
Carbon Steal Heat Transfer Tube
Carbon Steel Corrosion Rate Probe
377/9Gustavo Jaime - Invoice 139387 downloaded on 1/16/2020 4:35:19 PM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited

.W
Y
>
0
TABLE 4
SmtheastsmPaperMM# 1
b
WATERCHEMISTRY:
TREATMENT CHEMISTRY:
WEM nffi PARAMETERS’
Mtll Water Utilization
Bulk Tempetiure
Halo.Jwation
8 PVI (@L) ~ = ~~3
6 PPM (m#L) W = -3
@mm OWL) M+l~linW as C-3
92 micrcfnhdcm (mkm-%mensfcm)
PH 6.6
Treatnwd A Tr6atmenl B Treatmanl C
0.S4 Ppfn(mg/L) Dtl@wsphate 0.S4 ppm (t@L) Pym@osphate 0.64 WX!I (r@L) Pyrc$.hosme
0.! 5 pprn (mg/L) Zn 0.32 ppm (mg/L)HCA 0.2 PLW!(msJL) HCA
6D,WD,WD GPD (94S2.5 m’ihr)
6t.t”F to 64.#F (2S.PC to ‘294”C)
0,1 -0.2 Wm (mg/L) Free Chlcdne
Continwsiy
TABLE 5
6outheastsrnPaperMIU# 2
u
wATER CiiE6tlSTRY:
TREA7MENTCHEMISTRY:
wm.a W PARAMETERS:
Mill waterUtilkatbn
Bulk T6nlP0ratur0
Halc@natim
41 w (rw/L) Ca as CaCD3
11 PPm(mu/L)Was CaC03
22 wm (n@L) M-dkaliniW as CaC03
1S0 micromiw.skm (mkscSiiendcm)
PH 6.6
Treatment A Tmamemt B
0.6 ppm (m@L) Fymphnsphate 0.8 ppm (nw/L) Pymf4wphate
0.2 ppm (mg/L) Polymer 0.6 ppm (m#L) HCA
0.3 ppm (mg/L) Polymer
55,DY3,CJY2GPD (66T4.O m’lhr)
6?F (3J3.6”C) 120”F (46.#C)
1.0- +.5 ppm (mg/L) Frea Chlorine
Cc+tinuoudy

Water (Electrolyte)
Al RtC02 SPARGER ~
FIGURE 1: Cbssic Corrosion Ceil
I
WATER BATH
(TEMPERATURE
CONTROL)
COUPON —
STIR MAGNET_
(REGULATED RPM)
.
—-— .— --
.,..+..
. ~ ,,.,,
(, + - “:1
,,.’
.% --=’
ELECTROCHEMICAL
PROBE
~ 2 LITER BEAKER
(1.9 L FLUID VOLUME)
FIGURE 2: Beaker Corrosion Test Apparatus
3TTII 1Gustavo Jaime - Invoice 139387 downloaded on 1/16/2020 4:35:19 PM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited

,1+
I
1r
III
I
I
I
I
o?
h
tlwwMo14
377112

0.5
No Treatment P@PO&lI?er PywZinc PyrORindPdynwr
TreabnmlBlend
P@HCAJPdynw
FIGURE 4: BCTA Blend ComparisonsGustavo Jaime - Invoice 139387 downloaded on 1/16/2020 4:35:19 PM Single-user licence only, copying/networking prohibited

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
u PyrO/P&ymerBlem.l
Fi PyrO/POtynwrIZn Blend
E PyrdPdymer/HCA Bknd
0.6
0.,
0;
(
Unchlorinatd System
ChWinakd SpteM
FIGURE 5: BTU Carbon Steel Corrosion Results

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
377115

I

97377 performance of a new mill supply treatment p

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 97377 performance of a new mill supply treatment p

Similar to 97377 performance of a new mill supply treatment p (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

97377 performance of a new mill supply treatment p