For a long time, there was a 101 gap in corrosion rates between MIC (microbiologically influenced corrosion) lab tests and fast field cases. However, this gap is effectively closed when using Desulfovibrio ferrophilus (IS5 strain), as sulfate-reducing bacterium (SRB) for MIC testing. Using D. ferrophilus, weight loss as high as 36.6 mg/cm2 for one week (equivalent to uniform corrosion rate of 2.0 mm/year) on a carbon steel and pitting rate of 1.9 cm/year on 420 stainless steel, which is widely used against CO2 corrosion in pipelines, have been observed with negligible abiotic corrosion contribution. This SRB also has a much larger sessile cell count than Desulfovibrio vulgaris, a popular SRB strain widely tested in MIC studies. The highly-corrosive D. ferrophilus provides more reliable weight loss far above experimental error in short-term lab tests. This makes some previously unreliable studies feasible, including MIC variations for different pipeline clock positions and, MIC variations for different roughness values. This work provides some examples of lab testing using this SRB in lab tests. The experimental data in this work demonstrates that D. ferrophilus provided sufficient corrosion parameter differences to study pipeline clock position impact and corrosion surface roughness impact on SRB MIC of carbon steel.

Subject
Pits, Steel surfaces, Electrochemical cells, Uniform corrosion rate, Passive films, Pipelines, Incubation, Weight loss, Pitting, Carbon steel, Corrosion coupons, Steel grit, Microbiologically influenced corrosion
Keywords:
Desulfovibrio ferrophilus, Biofilm, MIC, Corrosion, Pitting
© 2023 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
2023
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.