When corrosion rates (in mpy or mdd or other common corrosion units) obtained in laboratory tests are compared to those obtained in field equipment (even for a similar period of exposure), it is found that they only infrequently (and probably accidentally) fall in the same range. When field fluids are used in the laboratory, they must be reconstituted with the corrosive gas or gases (hydrogen sulfide or carbon dioxide) after they are received before tests can be run. Contamination of the test fluids with air is always a problem, not only because it is an active corrodent itself, but also because it generates polysulfides in sour fluids which cannot be eliminated by the usual deaeration techniques. When the minimum concentration of inhibitor required to maintain high protection in field fluids utilizing continuous feed of the inhibitor is compared to the minimum found in constant concentration lab tests, the discrepancy is even larger. When batch treatment protection factors and film lives are compared to film-life tests in the laboratory, neither the minimum corrosion rate (protection factor) nor the treatment life (film life) correlate well.

Subject
Hydrogen sulfide, Films, Test methods, Inhibitor performance, Corrosion rate, Metal surfaces, Coating lifecycle, Fluids, Inhibitor treatment, Corrosion inhibitors, Equipment, Corrosion protection, Deposit corrosion
© 1968 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).
1968
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.