Corrosion Monitoring Techniques

for Industrial Cooling Water

Reprint R-815
and Process Systems
By Tzu-Yu Chen, Rodney H. Banks, Jeffrey Breshears, Steven N. Nicolich
and Daniel M. Cicero, Nalco Company

Nalco Company 1601 West Diehl Road • Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198

SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES IN PRINCIPAL LOCATIONS AROUND THE WORLD

First presented at the International Water Conference, October 20-24, 2002

 ABSTRACT
Corrosion-related failures often result in expensive
system shutdowns and excessive maintenance costs.
Too often, corrosion-related problems are only
detected after a failure has occurred, after it is too
late to take action to prevent it.
Various monitoring techniques have been used in
industrial cooling water and process systems to
routinely measure and report corrosion rates. This
paper reviews a variety of corrosion monitoring
techniques - including wet chemistry, x-ray
radiography, ultrasonic scans, coupon weight loss
method, electrical resistance and electrochemical
measurements - points out the advantages and
disadvantages of each, and describes technological
trends that may point to new developments in this
area.
This paper also presents some data collected in the
laboratory and in field applications, and points out
obstacles to effective corrosion rate measurements,
including low conductivity waters, the challenges
found in once-through cooling water and the technical
limitations of the various corrosion measurement
techniques. A number of Best Practices for
monitoring corrosion rates in cooling water systems is
also included.
KEYWORDS: Cooling Water, Once-Through, Open
Recirculating, Corrosion Coupon, Corrosion
Monitoring, Linear Polarization Resistance, Solution
Resistance, Polarization Resistance, Electrical
Resistance Probe, Electrochemical Impedance
Spectroscopy, On-line Real-Time Corrosion
Monitoring, Corrosion Monitor, Corrosion Probe.
INTRODUCTION
Corrosion monitoring is an integral part of any
industrial water treatment program. It can be used to
determine the effectiveness of the chemical treatment
program and establish a correlation between
treatment level and corrosion control. It provides
information on equipment conditions and relates this
information to operational parameters, such as pH,
temperature, water quality, chemical treatment levels,
etc. Proper corrosion monitoring provides the
following benefits:
1. Increases equipment life
2. Reduces operating and maintenance costs
3. Predicts maintenance needs
4. Improves the finished product quality
2
Corrosion monitoring can be used as a diagnostic
tool to provide information for solving corrosion
problems. The data obtained can help plant
engineers identify system parameters affecting
corrosion and implement solutions to a specific water
treatment problem. A variety of monitoring techniques
has been employed for corrosion monitoring in
industrial cooling water and process systems. This
includes wet chemistry, x-ray radiography, ultrasonic
scans, coupon weight loss, electrical resistance
probes and various electrochemical techniques.
WET CHEMISTRY ANALYSES – This usually
involves collecting water samples to determine the
corrosivity or quality of the water. This method does
not provide information on the corrosion rates (mils
per year or mm per year) of metals present in the
system. Typically, the following parameters are
monitored: pH, alkalinity, conductivity, total dissolved
solids, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride,
sulfate, inhibitor dosages, total and dissolved metal
species, such as iron, copper and aluminum. A “well
check” analysis is recommended. This consists of a
complete water analysis when the plant is operating
properly and the system corrosion is under control.
The “well check” result can be used as the baseline
data. Analyses are then performed to determine the
causes when the corrosion rates are outside the
norm.
X-Ray RADIOGRAPHY & ULTRASONIC SCANS -
X-ray radiography can detect major flaws and severe
corrosion attacks by providing two-dimensional views
of a system component. But it is not accurate enough
to determine small changes in wall thickness to
determine corrosion rates. Ultrasonic scans typically
provide depth measurements from the external
surface of a pipe or vessel to the internal surface that
reflects sound waves. Unfortunately, the ultrasonic
depth measurements are very often interfered by
defects in the materials.
Both the x-ray radiography and ultrasonic scans are
employed almost exclusively for measurements
rather than for monitoring. They require special
training and complicated equipment and may not be
suitable for on-line real-time corrosion monitoring.
COUPON WEIGHT LOSS - Coupon weight loss
measurement is commonly used for monitoring
corrosion in various industrial plants. The ASTM
recommended practices1-3 listed below should be
followed.
1. ASTM D2688-94, “Standard Test Methods for
Corrosivity of Water in the Absence of Heat
Transfer (Weight Loss Method).”
 2. ASTM G4-95, “Standard Guide for Conducting
Corrosion Coupon Tests in Field Applications.”
3. ASTM G1-90, “Standard Practice for Preparing,
Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test
Specimens.”
Metal specimens are typically installed in a corrosion
rack for a certain time period ranging from 30 to 180
days. They are then retrieved and examined to
determine the type and the extent of corrosion. The
weight loss data can be converted to a corrosion rate
in units of mm/year (millimeters per year) or mpy
(mils per year):4
mm/year = 13.6 W/(ρAt) or
mpy = 534W/(ρAt)
where W = the weight loss (mg), ρ = the density of
the specimen (g/cm3), A = the area of the specimen
(in2), and t = the exposure time (hour).
The metal coupons should be electrically isolated
from other metallic components to avoid galvanic
corrosion. Hydrodynamic effects should also be taken
into consideration in selecting the test location, for
example, elbows versus straight pipe.
Figure 1 shows the variation of corrosion rate with
time curve for metals immersed in typical industrial
cooling waters. The initial corrosion rate is usually
very high. The corrosion rate then decreases and
reaches a steady state value after certain exposure
times ranging from several hours to several days.
Corrosion coupons are highly susceptible to initial
9
Relative Corrosion Rates (mpy)
8
7
6 determine the change in the cross-sectional area and
5 the corrosion rate.13 The electrical resistance
4 technique can be used for corrosion rate
3 measurements in liquids or vapor phase. The liquid
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (Days)
Figure 1. Typical corrosion rate versus time
high corrosion because the metal surface is in an
“active” state due to the surface preparation prior to
immersion. For this reason, coupon corrosion rates
obtained with short exposure times can be
misleading. Normally, the longer the exposure period,
the lower the measured average corrosion rate, and
the more closely the coupon tests will approximate
the system conditions. Frequently, longer-term tests,
up to 180 days of immersion, are required. The
coupon weight loss measurements should follow the
empirically derived minimum exposure time
requirement:5,6
Minimum Exposure Time (Days) = 85/mpy (3)
(1) The coupon weight loss method is relatively simple
(2) and inexpensive. However, it only provides the
average corrosion rate over an extended period of
time. System upsets causing variations in corrosion
rates cannot be detected and corrective actions can
not be taken in a timely manner.
ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE (ER) PROBE - The
conventional electrical resistance probes for
corrosion rate measurements consist of a metal wire
element of known length and diameter embedded in
a water-resistant material. The value of the electrical
resistance, r, is related to the cross-sectional area of
the wire element:
r = s (L / A) (4)
where r = electrical resistance (ohm), s = resistivity of
metal (ohm/cm), L = length of wire element (cm), and
A = cross-sectional area of the wire element (cm2).
The electrical resistance is inversely proportional to
the cross-sectional area of the metal wire. As
corrosion proceeds, the cross-sectional area of the
metal wire element decreases. This will result in an
increase in the electrical resistance. By measuring
the change in the electrical resistance, ∆r, one can
does not have to be conductive or have a minimum
conductivity required by many electrochemical
techniques. The major disadvantage is that it does
1 00
not measure instantaneous corrosion rates. Usually,
it takes a long time to obtain a significant change in
the electrical resistance, especially in well-treated
cooling water systems. The ER method cannot detect
localized corrosion, such as pitting.
3
ELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNIQUES - Various dc
and ac electrochemical techniques have been
successfully employed for on-line, real-time corrosion
monitoring in industrial cooling water and process
systems. Most electrochemical methods for corrosion
rate measurements, such as linear polarization
resistance (LPR) technique and electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy (EIS), are based on the
Stern-Geary equation:7
icorr = (1/2.303) {(babc)/(ba+bc)} (1/Rp) (5)
where icorr = corrosion current density (mA/cm2),
ba = anodic Tafel slope (mV), bc = cathodic Tafel
slope (mV), and Rp = polarization resistance (ohm x
cm2). The corrosion current density, icorr, can further
be converted to corrosion rates in units of mm/year
(millimeters per year) and mpy (mils per year) based
on Faraday’s Law:
mm/year = 3.15x105 {M/(nFd)} x icorr
= 1.37x105 {M/(nFd)} x (B/Rp) (6)
mpy = 1.24x107 {M/(nFd)} x icorr
= 5.39x106 {M/(nFd)} x (B/Rp) (7)
where M = molecular weight of metal (g/mole), n =
number of electrons involved in the corrosion reaction
(mole), F = Faraday’s constant, d = density of metal
(g/cm3), and B = (babc)/(ba+bc) (mV).
Substituting the values of M, n, and d for iron (M =
55.85 g/mole Fe, n = 2 moles e-/mole Fe, d = 7.86
g/cm3), Faraday's constant (96,500 coulombs/mole of
e-), and assuming that ba = bc = 120 mV, Eq. (6) and
Eq. (7) become
mm/year = (3.03x102)/Rp (for iron/steel) (8)
mpy = (1.19x104)/Rp (for iron/steel) (9)
Similar equations can be derived for copper and
other metals.
Linear Polarization Resistance (LPR) Technique
The linear polarization resistance (LPR) technique
involves applying a small potential signal (for
example, ±10 mV) to the metal surface at a very slow
potential scan rate, typically 0.1 mV/second, to
measure (Rs+Rp) (sum of solution resistance, Rs, and
polarization resistance, Rp).8,9 In solutions of high
conductivities, such as seawater and cooling water
environments, the value of Rs is very small or
negligible. Therefore, (Rs+Rp) ≅ Rp and we can
determine the corrosion rates with LPR based on Eq.
(8) or (9). The LPR technique measures the
4
instantaneous corrosion rates since a complete scan
takes only a few minutes.
However, for high purity or low-conductivity waters,
such as once-through cooling water, soft cooling
water and boiler condensate, the value of the solution
resistance Rs is not negligible and LPR, which
measures (Rs+Rp), will underestimate the corrosion
rates. For this reason, many corrosion monitors
based on LPR technique without the capability of
compensating for the solution resistance are not
suitable for corrosion rate measurements in low-
conductivity solutions.
Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) -
In EIS measurements,10-12 a small ac potential
excitation of different frequencies is applied to the
electrode at the free corrosion potential to determine
Rs as the high frequency limit and (Rs+Rp) as the low
frequency limit. The polarization resistance, Rp, and
the corrosion rate can then be calculated. EIS
measurements can also provide some mechanistic
insights of the corrosion process, but data
interpretation often requires skill and experience. A
disadvantage of EIS is that the system being
measured has to be very stable to obtain meaningful
data due to the long measuring time. The instruments
involved in EIS are also very expensive and
complicated and may not be suitable for long-term
field corrosion monitoring.
Electrochemical Noise Measurement (ECN) - The
corrosion reaction on electrodes consists of a series
of discrete or stochastic steps on local anodes and
cathodes. This causes fluctuations, at frequencies
typically below 1 Hz, in the corrosion potential
(potential noise) and in the coupling current (current
noise) between electrodes. These fluctuations,
commonly known as electrochemical noise, have
been suggested to be due to (1) the difference in
charge consumption and generation between the
cathodic and anodic reactions present at any small
interval of time and (2) the transient changes in
cathodic or anodic areas.
The electrochemical current noise is typically
measured with a zero resistance ammeter (ZRA)
between two identical electrodes. The
electrochemical potential noise is usually measured
with a high input impedance voltmeter. Various time
domain or frequency domain techniques, including
visual, statistical, Fast Fourier Transform and
Maximum Entropy Spectral Analysis, have been used
for data analyses. It has been reported13, 14 that the
electrochemical noise can be employed to monitor
various types of localized corrosion, such as
pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion. But they are
usually qualitative and can only be used as
indications of the severity of localized attack. They do
not provide quantitative localized corrosion rates.
Electrochemical Harmonic Analysis (EHA) –
EHA15 can be viewed as an extension of EIS
technique. It measures the non-linear distortion,
which is a function of the Tafel constants, at the
corrosion potential. EHA data is analyzed based on
digital signal analysis using a frequency response
analyzer or a spectrum analyzer to provide a
measure of the corrosion current and an estimation of
Tafel constants in the same measurement. This
technique can be used in low-conductivity waters.
The disadvantage of the technique is that the
instrument involved is very expensive and data
interpretation is very difficult. EHS measurements
also tend to become unstable when the system is
under localized corrosion attack.
GENERAL CORROSION MONITORS/PROBES
Most commercially available corrosion monitors and
probes for field applications are based on
electrochemical techniques.16-20 The simpler units
measure the general corrosion rates with the LPR
technique. Systems capable of measuring corrosion
rates of metals in low-conductivity solutions also
determine the solution resistance. Methods for
compensating the solution resistance vary among
these systems. This includes a high frequency EIS
measurement18, a current interrupt19 method and a
potential step/peak detector20 technology.
CORRATER® - The Corrator Model 9030+ made by
the Rohrback Cosasco Systems18 is one of the most
popular corrosion monitors today. It determines the
general corrosion rates based on the LPR technique
with a high frequency EIS measurement to
compensate for the solution resistance. It is powered
by AC and comes with a 4-20 mA output for external
data logging. Due to its size and weight, it is typically
used as a permanently installed unit for corrosion
monitoring at a certain location. There are other
portable corrosion monitors powered by dc batteries
available. But almost none of them have Rs
compensation and internal/external data storage
capability. The Corrater technology has some
drawbacks in the area of user-friendliness and
convenience of use. Before starting the tests, the
operator has to go through several menus to set
various parameters, such as measurement time and
the conversion factor for the specific probe
metallurgy. Replacement of the probe tips is not an
5
easy task. First, the small O-rings have to be
removed from the threaded rods on the probe. The
probe tips are then screwed onto the probe by hands.
Very often the electrodes are contaminated by
dirt/oils, causing erroneous mpy readings. The
crevice at the O-ring/electrode interface presents
another concern. Localized corrosion occurring
preferentially at the crevice area may cause
significant errors in the corrosion rate measurements.
NCM100 - Advancements have been made in LPR
technology. Newer units, such as the NCM100
developed by Ondeo Nalco Company, are smaller
and easier to use than previous devices. These units
can automatically identify the probe metallurgy,
making possible true “plug and play”, saving time and
avoiding human errors. The probes are disposable,
which eliminates the need for field installation of
replaceable tips/electrodes and O-rings. The
electrodes are embedded in an epoxy mounting
material to minimize crevice corrosion and improve
the accuracy of measurements. Using an ac
technique, NCM100 has the capability of
compensating for the solution resistance for corrosion
rate measurements in low-conductivity solutions,
such as once-through cooling water, soft water and
boiler condensate. The units have lower power
requirements, which translates into low maintenance,
battery-powered operation. NCLM100 couples data
logging capabilities with the ubiquity of hand-held
devices such as the Palm Pilot to allow easy retrieval
and analysis of corrosion data. These units are small,
portable and easy for the operators to carry around
the plant to determine corrosion rates at various
locations. It can also be used as a permanently
installed instrument for on-line, real-time corrosion
monitoring.
Laboratory Evaluations of NCM100 - The
performance of NCM100 was first evaluated in
simulated soft cooling water environments in the
laboratory. Figure 2 shows the variation of corrosion
rate with time curve obtained on a mild steel
corrosion probe measured with NCM100 and EIS
under different test conditions (Phase 1 to Phase 6).
A Gamry CMS100 system was employed for the EIS
measurements and for comparisons with NCM100. In
Phase 1, 100 ppm of a cooling water corrosion
inhibitor was fed to the system. Increasing the
inhibitor dosage from 100 ppm (Phase 1) to 200 ppm
(Phase 2) caused a decrease in the corrosion rate.
The pH was subsequently increased from 7.0 (Phase
2) to 8.0 (Phase 3) by adding a small amount of
NaHCO3. A reduction in corrosion rate
 7 .0
P hase 1 2 3 4 5 Phase 6

6 .0 P hase 1
T = 9 5 F ; p H 7 .0
1 0 0 p p m I n h ib it o r

5 .0
P hase 2 T = 122F
T = 9 5 F ; p H 7 .0
Corrosion Rate (mpy)

2 0 0 p p m I n h ib it o r
4 .0 P hase 6
T = 77F T = 1 2 2 F ; p H 8 .0
P hase 3: T = 95F 2 0 0 p p m In h ib ito r
2 0 0 p p m I n h ib it o r A d d 3 . 4 p p m B i o c id e
3 .0
p H 8 .0 (a d d

NCM M S m py
2 .0
G a m ry M S m p y

1 .0

0 .0
0 6 /3 0 /0 1 0 7 /0 1 /0 1 0 7 /0 2 /0 1 0 7 /0 3 /0 1 0 7 /0 4 /0 1 0 7 /0 5 /0 1 0 7 /0 6 /0 1 0 7 /0 7 /0 1 0 7 /0 8 /0 1 0 7 /0 9 /0 1 0 7 /1 0 /0 1
D a te /T im e

Field Evaluations of NCM100 – The performance of

Figure 2. Corrosion rates measured by NCM100. NCM100 was further evaluated in a field trial
conducted at a Midwestern hospital. Figure 3
5 .0 5 .0 compares the mild steel corrosion rates measured by
NCM100 with that measured by Corrater 9030+. The
Mild Steel Corrosion Rate (mpy)

4 .5 4 .5

4 .0 4 .0
cooling water system consists of an 18,000 gallon 3
3 .5 • - NCM100 3 .5
cell tower. Water is pumped and recirculated to two
3 .0 3 .0
LiBr adsorption chillers. The corrosion monitors and
2 .5 2 .5
mild steel corrosion probes were installed in a
2 .0 2 .0

1 .5 1 .5
corrosion rack in a side stream. As shown in Figure
1 .0 1 .0
3, good agreement was observed between NCM100
∆ - Corrater
TM
0 .5
9030+ 0 .5
and Corrater 9030+ for measuring the mild steel
0 .0 0 .0 corrosion rates.
7/2/2001 11:00

7/2/2001 19:30

7/3/2001 4:00

7/3/2001 12:30

7/3/2001 21:00

7/4/2001 5:30

7/4/2001 14:00

7/4/2001 22:30

7/5/2001 7:00

7/5/2001 16:00

7/6/2001 0:30

7/6/2001 9:00

7/6/2001 17:30

7/7/2001 2:00

7/7/2001 10:30

7/7/2001 19:00

7/8/2001 3:30

7/8/2001 12:00

7/8/2001 20:30

7/9/2001 5:00

7/9/2001 13:30

7/9/2001 22:00

7/10/2001 6:30

7/11/2001 1:00

7/11/2001 9:30
7/10/2001 16:30

Another field trial was conducted at the utility plant in

D a te /T im e a Midwestern institute. Pond water was circulated
through heat exchangers for cooling. Due to an
Figure 3. Comparisons in mild steel corrosion rates environmental concern, the water was not treated for
between NCM100 and Corrater 9030+. corrosion control. NCM100 and Corrater 9030+ with
copper corrosion probes were installed in a corrosion
was observed due to the increase in pH. In Phase 4, rack for corrosion monitoring. Figure 4 compares the
the test water temperature was lowered from 95°F copper corrosion rates measured by NCM100 with
(Phase 3) to 77°F (Phase 4) and a decrease in that measured by Corrater 9030+. The corrosion
corrosion rate was recorded as expected. The test rates measured by NCM100 are in general accord
water temperature was then increased to 122°F in with that measured by Corrater 9030+. The slight
Phase 5 and the corrosion rate of mild steel differences in the measured corrosion rates between
increased accordingly. Finally in Phase 6, a biocide NCM100 and Corrater 9030+ are believed to be due
(3.4 ppm) was added to the test water. This resulted to the difference in the degree of turbulence at the
in a dramatic increase in corrosion rate. As shown, test sections. The NCM100 probe was inserted in a
the NCM100 was capable of detecting the changes in 1” PVC tee while the Corrater probe was inserted in a
mild steel corrosion rate as a result of changes in 2” PVC tee. The 2” PVC was subsequently replaced
inhibitor dosage, pH, temperature and biocide feed. with a 1” tee. Good agreement was found between
EIS measurements were carried out at various time NCM100 and Corrater 9030+ in measuring the
intervals during each phase of the experiment. The copper corrosion rates when 1” PVC tees were used
results obtained by EIS are included in Figure 2 for for NCM100 probe and Corrater probe.
comparisons. Good agreement was found between
EIS and NCM100 in measuring the mild steel
corrosion rates under various simulated soft water
conditions demonstrating performance of NCM100.

6
 4 .0 4 .0

3 .5 3 .5
The Corrater 9030+ measures the imbalance current
Copper Corrosion Rate (mpy)

and provides a “Pitting Index” as an indication of the

• - NCM100
3 .0 3 .0
Same size severity of localized corrosion. This is essentially a
2 .5 PVC tee 2 .5 form of electrochemical noise measurement. The
2 .0 2 .0
imbalance current is determined by measuring the
galvanic current flowing between two short-circuited
1 .5 1 .5
electrodes with a zero resistance ammeter. This
1 .0 1 .0 reading is then converted to a “Pitting Index” based
on an arbitrary scale of 0.5µA/cm2 per pitting index
0 .5 ∆ - Corrater TM
9030+ 0 .5
unit. It was suggested that when the imbalance
0 .0 0 .0
current exceeds the general corrosion current, pitting
5/ 001 0

5/ 001 0

1 0
30

5/ 001 0

0
30

/2 1:30

5/ 001 0

5/ 001 0

0
/2 1:30
/ 2 0: 30

/ 2 3: 30

5/ 200 0

5/ 001 0

/ 2 0: 30

30

5/ 200 30

5/ 001 0

30

/ 2 3: 30

30
:3

/2 15:3

/2 18:3

/2 12:3

/2 15:3

:3

/2 15:3

/2 18:3
3

3
19 21:

8:
6:

9:

3:

6:

9:

0:

6:
12

12

corrosion may be a major problem. Another

19 1 1

5/ 01 2

5/ 01 2
5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

5/ 001

1
5/ 001

00
00

00

0
/2

/2

/2
/2

/2

/2

/2

/2

/2
/

/
19

19

19

20

20

20

20

21

21

21
18

18

18

18

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
5/

technology, SmartCETTM, measures the “Pitting

5/

5/

D a te /T im e
Figure 4. Comparisons in copper corrosion rates
between NCM100 and Corrater 9030+.
LOCALIZED CORROSION MONITORING
At present, most commercially available corrosion
monitors only measure general corrosion rates.
Localized corrosion, such as pitting, crevice corrosion
and underdeposit attack, is a more serious concern
because it is very difficult to control and predict. Many
system upsets, such as changes in pH, an increase
in chloride concentration, a raise in the temperature
and a decrease in the inhibitor level, can initiate
localized corrosion. Because of its autocatalytic
nature, localized corrosion will propagate or grow
very rapidly once it’s initiated. Without proper
monitoring tools, localized corrosion often results in
unexpected failures, plant shutdowns, loss of
production and, sometimes, environmental pollution.
There is currently no industrial standard or test
method for monitoring localized corrosion in cooling
water and process systems. Turnbull22 et al. reviewed
and evaluated various techniques for monitoring the
growth or propagation of localized corrosion in
simulated cooling water environments. This included
differential flow method23, galvanostatic pre-pitting24,
pencil type artificial pit25, occluded cell26, 27,
artificial/sandwich crevice22, and artificial/slot
crevice28. Most of the techniques involve the
measurements of the galvanic current flowing
between a cathode and an anode. However, they can
only be used as indications of the severity of
localized corrosion. They do not provide direct
measurements of localized corrosion rates. In
addition, as reported by Turnbull22 et al., many of
these techniques have reproducibility problems due
to (1) interference caused by the unintentional
crevice corrosion occurring on the electrodes and/or
(2) difficulties in controlling the geometry/dimension,
number and distribution of pits/crevice.
Factor” to indicate the risk of local attack on metal
surface29. The “Pitting Factor” is a factor between 0
and 1 calculated based on electrochemical noise
data. When the pitting factor is greater than or equal
to 0.1, then pitting may occur on the metal surface.
Both the “Pitting Index” and the “Pitting Factor” are
qualitative measurements; a large uncertainty
associated with the readings’ interpretation has
limited its application. It is often observed in practice
that the localized attack can still be quite severe even
with a small imbalance current or pitting index
reading.
CONCLUSIONS
Corrosion monitoring tools are often employed to
evaluate and ensure the performance of various
industrial water treatment programs. A good chemical
treatment program should be one that also provides
good monitoring instrumentation. This is essential to
optimizing the dosage of the chemicals to obtain the
best performance. The particular corrosion
monitoring technique selected depends on its
applicability to the system and the type of information
being sought. Some techniques provide
measurements of average corrosion rates over a
certain period of time. Others provide instantaneous
corrosion rate information and are more effective.
Most corrosion monitoring techniques are best suited
for situations where the corrosion is of a general or
uniform nature, but some techniques provide at least
some information on the degree or severity of
localized attack, such as pitting and underdeposit
corrosion. More than one monitoring technique may
be needed to obtain the necessary information to
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment program.
There is a need to develop a corrosion monitor or
sensor for quantitative localized corrosion rate
measurements in industrial cooling water and
process systems.

7
 REFERENCES
1. “Standard Test Methods for Corrosivity of Water
in the Absence of Heat Transfer (Weight Loss
Method),” ASTM D2688-94 (West
Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, 1996).
2. “Standard Guide for Conducting Corrosion
Coupon Tests in Field Applications,” ASTM G4-
95 (West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, 1996).
3. “Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and
Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens,” ASTM
G1-90 (West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, 1996).
4. G. Fontana and N. D. Greene, “Corrosion
Engineering,” 2nd Edition, (New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978), p. 9.
5. G. Fontana and N. D. Greene, “Corrosion
Engineering,” 2nd Edition, (New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978), p. 125.
6. H. M. Herro and R. D. Port, “The Nalco Guide to
Cooling Water System Failure Analysis,” (New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1993), p.
99.
7. Stern and A. L. Geary, J. Electrochemical Soc.,
104 (1957): p. 56.
8. G. Fontana and N. D. Greene, “Corrosion
Engineering,” 2nd Edition, (New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978), p. 344.
9. “Standard Guide for On-Line Monitoring of
Corrosion in Plant Equipment (Electrical and
Electrochemical Methods),” ASTM G96-90, (West
Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, 1996).
10. “Identification of Electrochemical Processes by
Frequency Response Analysis,” Technical Report
No. 004/83, C. Gabrielli, (Hampshire, England:
Solartron Instrument, 1984).
11. Mansfield, Corrosion, 36 (1981): p. 301.
12. Mansfield, M. W. Kendig and S. Tsai, Corrosion,
38 (1982): p. 570.
13. D. A. Eden, A. N. Rothwell and J. L. Dawson,
NACE Corrosion 91, Paper No. 223, 1992.
14. M. A. Winters, P. S. N. Stokes, P. O. Zinika and
D. J. Schlottenmier, NACE Corrosion 93, Paper
No. 392, 1993.
15. R. W. Bosch, J. Hubrecht, W. F. Bogaerts and B.
C. Syrett, Corrosion, 57, 60-70 (2001).
16. Metal Samples Corp., Munford, Alabama.
17. Cortest Instrument Systems Inc., Laporte, Texas.
18. Rohrback Cosasco Systems, Inc., Santa Fe
Springs, California.
19. RPX1 Corrosion Rate Transmitter, Gamry
Instruments, Inc., Warminster, Pennsylvania.
20. T.-Y. Chen, CORROSION/96, Paper No. 341,
(Houston, Texas: NACE International, 1996).
21. NCM 100, Nalco Corrosion Monitor, Nalco
Company, Naperville, IL 60563-1198.
22. A. Turnbull, D. Coleman and A. J. Griffiths, British
Corrosion J., 36 210-214 (2001).
23. B. Yang, Corrosion, 51 153-165 (1995).
24. S. Zhou and A. Turnbull, Br. Corrosion, J. 35 120
(2000).
25. H. S. Issacs and R. C. Newman, P. 120, Proc.
Corrosion and Corrosion Protection, The
Electrochemical Society, Pennington, NJ, USA
(1981).
26. S.-H. Shim and D. A. Johnson, Paper No. 247,
NACE Corrosion/1988, NACE International,
Houston, Texas (1988).
27. A. Limura and K. Takahashi, Paper No. 343,
NACE Corrosion/1996, NACE International,
Houston, Texas (1996).
28. A. S. Krisher, Paper No. 153, NACE
Corrosion/1981, NACE International, Houston,
Texas (1981).
29. InterCorr International, Houston, Texas.