Materials Performance

MAR 2017

Materials Performance is the world's most widely circulated magazine dedicated to corrosion prevention and control. MP provides information about the latest corrosion control technologies and practical applications for every industry and environment.

Issue link: http://mp.epubxp.com/i/792600

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 13 of 80

11 NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 56, NO. 3 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE MARCH 2017 THE BLOG Continued on page 13 More on Chlorine Dioxide Corrosion Editor: I am writing in regards to the Decem- ber 2016 MP article, "The Effect of Chlo- rine Dioxide on Corrosion in Seawater." Unfortunately, the article does not pro- vide enough detail for it to be useful. It should have addressed very relevant questions such as: 1. How was the chlorine dioxide (ClO 2 ) generated? Many methods produce some free Cl 2 , which create a much more corrosive environment than ClO 2 alone. 2. What was the mode of treatment? at is, were they feeding continu- ously or intermittently? is is very relevant. Research has shown that while low-level continuous treat- ment is better for chlorine, short- term, intermittent, higher dosage applications of ClO 2 (~1 ppm) is more effective at controlling biofilm. 3. e paper completely misses the mark on the graph shown. e graph is from a paper by Ingols and Ridenour in 1948. ey treated a river water in the Northeastern United States that was contami- nated with either ammonia or organic nitrogen. e plot shown for chlorine is characteristic of ammo- nia-contaminated water; it shows typical breakpoint behavior. is was not mentioned and the graph will be completely different for waters without either ammonia or organic nitrogen compound contamination. 4. Was the cooling loop once-through (which the paper seems to suggest) or was it an open recirculating cooling tower? If it was once- through, the chlorite level would only be in the ppm range, and so the corrosion rate for this concentration of chlorite would be expected to be very low. Again, insufficient information. 5. Finally, how was the ClO 2 tested for? Was chlorite tested for? How often? e article is not clear on either point. A graph of data points for measured ClO 2 and chlorite residu- als would provide a lot of informa- tion. Were there periods of time where ClO 2 was not fed? at is, could biofilm growth have occurred during the test? 6. Was bacterial testing done? What were these results? In short, there is not enough infor - mation in this article to allow a ClO 2 - knowledgeable person to make any kind of judgment as to what the real effect of adding ClO 2 to seawater has.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Materials Performance - MAR 2017