Boiler Iron Control

Author: David A. Grattan, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Historical Perspective
Iron oxides present in boiler water have caused problems since the dawn of boilers. However, in
the beginning, iron deposits were not the major problem or root cause of most boiler tube
failures, as were hardness scale deposits. As the design of boilers evolved from low pressure
riveted drum-type boilers to today’s modern high pressure, high heat flux, thin-walled water tube
boilers, the requirement for higher purity boiler feedwater also occurred. The effective removal
of Ca and Mg from boiler feedwater by pretreatment techniques such as lime softening, sodium
zeolite softening, ion exchange demineralization and reverse osmosis has shifted the cause for
boiler tube failures to be predominately due to iron deposits on the heat transfer surface. These
deposits cause under-deposit corrosion problems and act as insulators, impairing heat transfer
which cause the boiler tube to overheat and ultimately rupture.

The energy crisis in the early 1970s, caused by the OPEC oil embargo, had a major impact on
industry and the Boiler Iron Story. The loss of cheap energy and the need to conserve energy led
industry to focus on returning more and more steam condensate as a source of boiler feedwater
because of its valuable Btu content and relative high purity. However, the consequence of
increasing the amount of returned condensate to the boiler was the increased amount of iron
oxide corrosion products entering the boiler. A majority of the corrosion products that deposit in
the boiler originate in the condensate system. Corrosion of the feedwater piping, economizer and
boiler, as well as the iron entering with the make-up water, are other sources contributing to the
boiler iron deposit problem.

Ondeo Nalco’s Boiler Iron Control Best Practices

Ondeo Nalco’s Boiler Iron Control Best Practices can be summed up in three words: prevention,
prevention, prevention. Prevent iron from entering the boiler. Why, because iron deposits in the
boiler can lead to:

 underdeposit corrosion problems;

 overheating problems resulting in boiler tube failures;
 unscheduled outages that result in lost production, lost profits;
 a higher frequency of boiler acid cleanings;
 an increase in capital expenditure;
 loss of job security;
 increase in attrition of Ondeo Nalco PAC-2 business!

However, since the late 1970s, with the introduction of synthetic polymeric dispersants and
especially with Ondeo Nalco’s introduction of the revolutionary all-polymer treatment program
Transport-Plus in 1982, the term “boiler iron control” has come to mean feeding polymeric
boiler iron dispersants. In general, we have lost focus on prevention and have adopted the single

Internal Use Only

prong approach or philosophy that one can cure the iron problem by feeding polymer to the
boiler and transporting the iron through the boiler. Whenever a customer states they have an iron
boiler deposit problem, the typical response is to feed more iron dispersant.

Over the past 20 years we have learned a lot about iron deposition and control in boilers through
extensive laboratory research, field trials, collaborative research studies with Argonne National
Laboratory and through published literature from EPRI and others. Iron transport studies
conducted in the field and in our laboratory’s experimental boilers (Ondeo Nalco’s and
Calgon’s) indicate that the majority of the iron entering the boiler remains in the boiler even
when dispersants are fed.

A major reason for the poor transport results is due to the fact that boilers are not designed to
effectively remove suspended materials. The boiler continuous blowdown line is designed to
efficiently remove soluble species and is not optimized to remove particulate matter. It will
remove some particulate but it is not isokinetically designed to remove two-phase material
(liquid + solids). This is why intermittent manual blowdown of the mud drum and water wall
headers is practiced. The other reason for poor transport is that iron reaching the steam
generating surfaces of the boiler will deposit there.

Does this mean that polymers don’t work and have no value? No, research work has shown that
polymers do affect the rate of iron deposition on the heat transfer surfaces of boilers and, thus,
are an important aspect of our overall boiler iron control strategy. Polymers can slow down the
rate of iron deposition and help keep the heat transfer surfaces cleaner longer than if they were
not used.

Although the polymers slow the deposition rate down, iron oxide deposition rate follows first-
order kinetics with respect to iron concentration. In addition, the higher the heat flux, the faster
the rate of deposition. These two findings, coupled with the fact that most of the iron doesn’t get
transported through the boiler, means that the primary method to control iron deposits in boilers
is to prevent iron from entering the boiler in the first place. This statement is strongly supported
by the cycle chemistry guidelines published by ASME, EPRI, VGB, Japanese Boiler
Manufacturers and the British Boiler Standards. These guidelines stress the importance of
keeping the feedwater iron concentration very low (ppb).

As a result of this collective knowledge, Ondeo Nalco’s boiler iron control best practices strategy
today concentrates on the “iron control triangle offense” of prevention.

Internal Use Only

 IRON
IRON CONTROL
CONTROL TRIANGLE
TRIANGLE OFFENSE
OFFENSE
CONDENSATE
CORROSION

iron
control

PRETREATMENT BOILER
OPTIMIZATION CORROSION

First, prevent iron contribution from the make-up water by optimizing make-up water
pretreatment iron removal. Secondly, minimize iron returned via the steam condensate system
by inhibiting condensate corrosion and maximizing the removal of any iron present in the
returned condensate through use of condensate polishers/filters and automatic dump systems.
The third leg of the triangle offense is to minimize corrosion from boiler feedwater and boiler
water.

Our “triangle offense” requires us to implement the engineering approach or MOC (mechanical,
operational and chemical) approach, not just a chemical treatment approach, to be successful.
For instance, it is critical to do iron profiling or fingerprinting of the make-up water pretreatment
system, the condensate system, at the deaerator, at the inlet and outlet of the economizer and the
boiler blowdown. It is necessary to determine where the iron is coming from, how much iron is
there, and to determine the form of the iron, (soluble (Fe+2 = FeII) vs. particulate) to identify if it
is a result of active corrosion or migration of old iron oxide corrosion products. Determining the
iron removal efficiency of plant equipment, such as condensate polishers, ion exchange units,
carbon or sand filters, magnetic filters, etc., and optimizing their performance is very important.
Determining if these units are back-washed properly and rinsed down long enough prior to
returning the units back into service mode is important because, if done improperly, it may lead
to slugs of particulate iron reaching the boiler. So, you can see that the Engineering Approach is
an integral part of our Boiler Iron Control Triangle Offense!

The iron prevention technologies available in our triangle offense are summarized below.

Internal Use Only

Prevention Technologies
The “Triangle Offense” Chemistries:

 Caustic
 Phosphate Products (i.e., BT line)
 Organic and Inorganic Oxygen Scavengers
Sulfite
Erythorbic acid (Sur-Gard)
Carbohydrazide (Elimin-ox)
Diethylhydroxyl Amine (DEHA)
 Condensate Neutralizing Amine Products
 Filming Amines
 Non-amine Filmers (ACT)
 Ion Exchange Resin Cleaners (for iron & organic foulant removal)

Iron dispersants are categorized as iron control defensive chemistries. They are the second prong
of Ondeo Nalco’s overall boiler iron control best practice strategy. Ondeo Nalco sells three
different types of polymeric iron dispersants; polyacrylate (Transport-Plus,™ soft water),
polyacrylate styrene sulfonate copolymers (NexGuard™) and polymethacrylate (Transport-Plus,
demineralized water).

Preventing iron from entering the boiler is, by far, the best approach to eliminating boiler tube
failures caused by iron deposits. Feeding small doses of polymeric iron dispersants (sub-
stoichiometric to iron) is warranted because they can slow down the iron deposition rate. It is
also recommended that one not operate the boiler at excessively high boiler cycles because the
deposition rate is iron-concentration dependent. Best practices suggest operating at 2%
blowdown (50 cycles).

IRON

Why is Iron a Problem?

Both soluble and insoluble iron (particulate and colloidal) can be present in boiler feedwater and
boiler water. Boiler water iron will deposit on the steam generating surfaces of the boiler and
cause underdeposit corrosion problems and overheating problems. Iron deposits on the heat
transfer surfaces are typically hard, dense and porous. The porosity of the deposits allow wick
boiling to occur which provides a mechanism for concentrating up and trapping corrosive
chemistries such as caustic, acid phosphates, sulfates and chlorides inside the deposit. In
addition, the insulative property of the deposit impairs heat transfer and causes the temperature
of the boiler tube to increase.

As shown in Table I, iron oxide deposits are insulative with hematite deposits being more
insulative than magnetite. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the differences in metal temperature
between a clean boiler tube and one bearing a deposit of magnetite.

Internal Use Only

The dirty boiler tube metal temperature increased significantly (>360°F). To prevent
overheating and rupture of boiler tubes due to the continued build-up of iron deposits, boilers
must be acid cleaned periodically. The boiler acid cleaning guidelines are summarized in Table
II.
Table I

Figure 1

Internal Use Only

 Figure 2

Table II

How does iron deposit on the steam generating surface?

Steam generation in boilers generally occurs under nucleate boiling conditions where discrete
steam bubbles are formed and break away from the surface allowing fresh boiler water to reach
the surface to cool it and start the process all over again.

Soluble and suspended materials concentrate up at the vapor/liquid interface of the bubble
(meniscus of the steam bubble) as well as at the point of bubble attachment to the boiler tube.

Internal Use Only

Figure 3 is a simple illustration of the growth cycle of a single steam bubble. Deposits occur at
the wet/dry interface on the tube surface. The amount of deposit is equal to, or slightly more
than, what was contained in the liquid that was vaporized to steam. As the bubble breaks away,
fresh liquid sweeps the surface removing all or some of the solid. Any deposit left behind is
eventually baked onto the surface.

Figure 3

Conceptually, Figure 3 is all right and easy to understand. However, the deposition process is far
more complicated. A collaborative research project conducted in the mid-1990s by Ondeo Nalco
and Argonne National Laboratory, studied the mechanism of iron deposition under nucleate
boiling conditions. Factors affecting deposition of iron were found to include pressure,
temperature, heat flux, iron concentration, pH, surface roughness (macro and micro), time of
bubble attachment, flow rate and other impurities present in the water.

Our research showed that hematite particles tended to agglomerate during the formation, growth
and release of the steam bubble. Interestingly, it was found that the amount of iron deposited on
the surface was sixty times more than what is predicted from the simple evaporation to dryness
deposition model shown in Figure 3. This finding suggests that there is a complex particle-
bubble interaction. It is hypothesized that since the steam vapor inside the bubble is less polar
(more hydrophobic) than the boiler water, this causes the hematite particles in the surrounding
boiler water adjacent to the bubble to migrate toward and concentrate up in the steam bubble
meniscus. Then, through capillary and eddy current effects, the iron is drawn down to the
surface and deposited at the bubble attachment point.

Internal Use Only

Heat flux and iron concentration have a significant effect on the deposition rate. The higher the
heat flux, the more iron is deposited per unit time. The rate of iron oxide deposition was found
to follow first order kinetic with respect to iron in the boiler water.

Where Does the Iron Come From?

Iron entering the boiler originates from two main sources. The first source is the naturally
occurring iron present in the raw water and the second is from corrosion of the mild steel
components making up the boiler system. Raw water can contain soluble iron salts and
particulate/colloidal iron hydroxides and oxides. For instance, well water can contain high levels
of soluble iron and typically will need to be aerated to convert the iron to insoluble
oxides/hydroxides to enhance its removal during the pretreatment process. In the case of ground
water/surface water, iron is predominantly present as insoluble iron oxides/hydroxides because
the dissolved oxygen level in the water is sufficient to oxidize the iron and cause its
precipitation.

Corrosion of the mild steel components in the pretreatment and boiler system is the major source
of iron entering the boiler. There are a number of corrosion mechanisms, some of which this
paper will focus upon. For a more in-depth coverage of corrosion failures in boilers, refer to the
book “The Nalco Guide to Boiler Failure Analysis” authored by Robert D. Port and Harvey M.
Herro.

Factors affecting mild steel corrosion in boiler systems include pH, temperature, heat flux,
dissolved oxygen and CO2, flow, ionic strength, suspended solids, caustic, acids, and boiler
treatment chemicals such as chelants and polymers.

Mild steel is used in the construction of boiler systems because of its mechanical strength, high
thermal conductivity properties and low cost. In addition, mild steel at high temperature under
alkaline reducing conditions forms a protective thin adherent magnetite oxide (Fe3O4) layer on
the surface which is self limiting and protects the base metal from the corrosive aqueous
environment. This is why the recommended pH range for boiler water is 9 to 12.0. (see curve
below)

Internal Use Only

The mechanism of magnetite formation, the Schikorr reaction, proceeds through the following
steps:

Fe + 2 H2O  Fe + 2 OH- + H2
+2
(1)
Fe + 2 OH-  Fe(OH)
+2
2 (2)
3 Fe(OH)2  Fe3O4 + 2 H2O + H2 (3)

The formation of ferrous hydroxide (Equation 2) is the rate-limiting step to the overall
production of magnetite and it is slow below 200°C. The controlled corrosion process of
passivation is achieved as the metal surface goes from an actively corroding state (Equation 1) to
an inactive steady state (Equation 3). Since hydrogen is released as the metal becomes passive,
hydrogen evolution accompanies the formation of the magnetite film. It has been widely
recognized that monitoring hydrogen in the steam of a boiler is an indirect measure of the boiler
corrosion activity.

In addition, it should be noted that Fe+2, ferrous ions, are the first product of corrosion (Equation
1). Measuring the concentration of Fe+2 is an important method to identify active corrosion in
boiler systems. Quantifying Fe+2 is an important part of our iron control prevention strategy.
Any condition leading to the damage of the magnetite protective oxide film will cause an
increase in corrosion of the base metal. Things such as mechanical and thermal stresses can
fracture the oxide layer, creating micro-cracks which expose the base metal and allow the
corrosion reactions to proceed (i.e., corrosion fatigue cracking and stress corrosion cracking).

These stresses can eventually lead to exfoliation of portions of the oxide layer, which again
exposes the base metal to further corrosion and also allows the potential migration of particulate
iron to reach the boiler and deposit on the steam generating surfaces. For example, when a paper
machine comes back on line after being down because of a paper break or some other reason,
high levels of suspended iron are initially found in the return condensate. The longer the paper
machine is off line, the worse the situation (high iron content for longer period of time in the
condensate). The reason for the iron throw is that the mild steel components went through a
contraction and expansion cycle during the outage/startup period, causing the oxides to fracture
and exfoliate because they are less ductile than mild steel. Additionally, as the system cools
down, air is sucked in and oxygen corrosion attack occurs.

Chemical attack leading to dissolution of the magnetite protective layer will also increase the
corrosion of mild steel. For instance, high concentrations of caustic or acid can lead to severe
corrosion problems in boilers. In addition, chemical species, which interact or complex with the
ferrous ion, such as chelants, chlorides, sulfates, polymers and hydroxyl ions, may prevent the
formation of magnetite by limiting reactions shown in Equations 2 and 3. The net result of this
effect could be an increase in corrosion due to an increase in the rate of metal dissolution.

OXYGEN CORROSION IN BOILERS

Internal Use Only

Oxygen corrosion may be found throughout the boiler cycle from the deaerator to the final
condensate system. The basic chemical mechanism for oxygen corrosion is shown in the
following schematic.

Internal Use Only

Chemically, the reactions are as follows:

Anodic reaction:
+2
Fe° ==> Fe + 2e- (Oxidation) (1)

Cathodic reaction:
½ 02 + H20 + 2e- ==> 2(OH-) (Reduction) (2)

Metal loss occurs from the anodic part of the metal (anode). In this case, iron (Fe°) is lost to the
water solution and is oxidized to the Fe+2 ion. As a result of the formation of Fe+2, two electrons
are released to flow through the steel to the cathodic area (cathode) where oxygen is reduced to
hydroxide ions at the surface of the metal.

When dissolved oxygen is present in the feedwater, attack to the feedwater line, feedwater
heaters, and economizer can be expected. The severity of the problem depends on the
concentration of dissolved oxygen and the water temperature. One of the most serious aspects of
oxygen corrosion is that it generally occurs as pitting, so the attack is concentrated in a small
area of the total metal surface. With this type of corrosion, failures can occur even though only a
relatively small portion of the metal has been lost. The corrosion products can also migrate to
the boiler and cause iron deposition problems.

A poorly operating deaerator will admit oxygen to the boiler system. Oxygen corrosion can be
severe in the deaerator, especially along the water line, when scavenging chemicals are not being
fed to the storage section of the unit.

Feeding an oxygen scavenger has the dual purpose of scavenging oxygen and preventing the
generation and migration of iron into the boiler that is a direct result of the oxygen attack of mild
steel. This is why scavengers are listed as being a part of our triangle offense preventative
technologies.

Oxygen scavengers work by scavenging the dissolved oxygen and converting it into water. The
reaction with oxygen is temperature, pH and time dependent. The higher the pH and
temperature, the faster the scavenger reacts with oxygen. The presence of transition metals such
as copper and cobalt are known to catalyze these reactions. Some oxygen scavengers like
erythorbic acid, carbohydrazide, hydrazine and diethylhydroxyl amine are known to promote
mild steel passivation. The passivation mechanism is complex and not fully understood at this
time. However, the resulting benefit of a passivating-type oxygen scavenger is a reduction in
iron contamination of the boiler feedwater which translates into a reduction of iron entering the
boiler.

Oxygen entering the boiler will flash into the steam and travel into the steam/condensate system.
Where the steam condenses, oxygen will partition between the liquid/vapor phase and the
dissolved oxygen will cause corrosion to occur. This, in turn, creates two problems: a loss of
metal in the condensate system, and the return of that iron to the boiler where it will form
deposits, causing loss of heat transfer, and ultimately resulting in overheating of boiler tubes and
metal failure.

Internal Use Only

Oxygen pitting in the boiler itself is believed to occur during boiler lay-up when oxygen is
present. Following the recommended boiler wet lay-up or dry lay-up procedures are an
important aspect of our overall boiler iron control strategy.

Oxygenated Treatment (OT) (electric utility boilers)

Under very specific conditions, and very specific is stressed here, having dissolved oxygen
present in the feedwater can be an effective method of passivating a boiler system and
controlling iron entering the boiler. EPRI, (Electric Power Research Institute) has done
extensive research both in the United States and in Europe on this treatment approach. For the
industrial marketplace, this treatment practice does not apply, but it is important to know
because of its used in electrical utilities.

Oxygenated treatment involves the addition of oxygen to the boiler feedwater. Under OT
conditions, a mixed oxide matrix consisting of both magnetite (Fe3O4) and hematite (Fe2O3)
protects the mild steel surface.

The following stringent criteria are required for operating boilers on OT:

1. All ferrous feedwater system;

2. Full-flow condensate polishing (with proven capability to contain condenser leaks);
3. Feedwater and steam purity of better than 0.15 uS/cm cation conductivity;
4. Sampling point at downcomers (as well as at economizer inlet).

EPRI feedwater guidelines for drum boilers and once-through boilers are listed below to show
you how pure the feedwater needs to be in order to practice this program.

Boiler Feedwater on OT at Economizer

Inlet Parameters (all pressures)
pH at 25°C 9.0-9.6 (8.0-8.5)*
Ammonia, ppm consistent with pH
Cation Cond. < 0.15
(uS/cm) at 25°C
spec. Cond at 25°C consistent with pH
Fe, ppb <5
Oxygen, ppb 30–50 (30-150)*
*once-through units

Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC)

Originally, it was believed that FAC only occurred in a two-phase flow, i.e., water droplets in
steam or suspended particles in a liquid. But this is now known to be untrue. FAC does occur in
single-phase water systems. FAC is another mechanism where iron is generated in the feedwater
and condensate systems that can end up in the boiler. Thus it is important to cover this subject
under Boiler Iron Control Best Practices.

Internal Use Only

Single-phase flow accelerated corrosion has been known to exist for many years (at least since
1986). Piping failures have occurred in systems containing nuclear plant condensate piping,
high-pressure fossil-fired utility feedwater, and paper mill feedwater trains. In these three cases,
fatalities have occurred. This failure mechanism presents a significant personnel safety hazard,
since this piping is generally external to the boiler setting.

FAC is a process whereby the normally protective oxide surface dissolves into a moving fluid.
Metal loss occurs by the interaction of electrochemical (corrosion) and physical effects. In the
case of carbon steels, this occurs under very specific, well-defined conditions. Figure 4 shows
the effect temperature and pH have on the solubility of magnetite.

Figure 4
Effect of Temperature and pH on Magnetite Solubility

Note the marked increase in the solubility of magnetite at 300°F (150°C). This explains why
carbon steel piping, carrying water at greater than 8-10 ft/s, at a temperature of 300°F +/- 50°F
and pH below 9.2, is a primary candidate for FAC. This is why it is important to have
feedwater pH above 9.2 to minimize FAC. The presence of complexing agents such as
chelants and polymers can exasperate the severity of FAC attack because of their ability to
solubilize magnetite. EPRI reports that FAC may be worse in the presence of an oxygen
scavenger.

Some components that have experienced FAC include feedwater control valve by-pass lines,
feedwater heater tube sheets and tube-inlet ends, feedwater piping (especially areas in and

Internal Use Only

around bends, valves, tees), feedwater heaters, economizer inlet tubes, pumps, and condensate
piping.

Due to the extremely localized nature of FAC and the lack of appropriate sample points, it is
rarely possible to identify individual (local) points of FAC damage in a feedwater system by
performing the Fe+2 test or dissolved H2 testing. It was, however, possible to detect an
appreciable Fe+2 pick-up across an economizer of a system known to be experiencing FAC-type
feedwater piping failures. Apparently, the FAC characteristics of the feedwater, together with
the entrance/exit turbulence conditions, led to additional FAC activity in this economizer.
Feedwater chemistry (i.e., pH and ORP) can be optimized based on this measurement.

Regions experiencing FAC can tend to be overlooked in routine maintenance programs.

Consequently, it is recommended that a qualified Non-Destructive Testing contractor be hired to
perform an ultrasonic thickness evaluation of suspected components, including follow-up
evaluations, frequency based on measured metal loss rate, and tracking of this data.

There is an engineering solution to this problem. It has been shown that increasing the chrome
and molybdenum concentrations of the carbon steel can drastically reduce FAC rates. It is,
therefore, recommended that carbon steel in susceptible regions be changed-out. New alloys
should have greater than 1% Cr as an alloying addition (>5% Cr + Mo is even better, but more
expensive and, therefore, often not practical). When component thinning is detected,
replacement of the affected component with a higher alloy (1-2% Chromium) such as T-22, T-
11, P-22 or P-11 should be considered.

Chelant and Polymer Corrosion

Chelants, and to a lesser extent polymers, used to control hardness scale in boilers, can also be
corrosive to pre-boiler components and boiler internals. Perforation of economizer tubes and
corrosion of steam separating equipment are the most common failures associated with these
chemistries. The iron generated from the corrosion process increases boiler water iron levels
which can increase the amount of iron deposited in critical areas of the boiler. The corrosion
mechanism of chelating agents is outlined below.

Internal Use Only

Our research studies have shown that EDTA is significantly more corrosive than polymers. For
example, in one boiler study, EDTA produced 50 times the Fe+2 concentration compared to our
polymethacrylate product, N-7205, when dosed to treat the same theoretical amount of hardness.
Under these same conditions, polyacrylate produced three times the amount of Fe+2 as
polymethacrylate, indicating polymethacrylate is a less corrosive polymer than acrylate. Even
when the EDTA dosage was cut by a factor of four, the Fe+2 generation was greater than the
polymers (see Graph 1). Laboratory and field studies have also been conducted to determine the
corrosiveness of all-polymer vs. polymer/chelant treatment programs. Graphs 2 and 3
summarize the results from those studies. It is clear from these graphs that feeding the
combination of a chelant and polymer to boiler systems is very dangerous with respect to
corrosion (especially FAC) and boiler iron deposition problems.

Graph 1

Graph 2

Internal Use Only

 Graph 3

Internal Use Only

Graph 4 illustrates the difference in corrosiveness between polyacrylate and polymethacrylate.
Polymethacrylate is less corrosive than polyacrylate. For this reason, polymethacrylate is the
recommended polymer for boiler systems operating with demineralized feedwater quality
(Hardness <50 ppb). Molecular weight of the polymer can influence the corrosiveness of a
polymer. Our studies indicate that low molecular weight anionic polymers are more aggressive
to mild steel under boiler system conditions.

Graph 4

Since chelants and polymers can be corrosive, it is very important from the iron prevention,
triangle offense perspective, to do iron profile measurements throughout the feedwater system,
downstream of the treatment feed point and in the boiler blowdown. Monitoring the soluble
(Fe+2) and total iron picked up across the economizer vs. treatment dosage will provide the
following information:

a. How much iron is being moved out of the economizer into the boiler?
b. How much of that iron is due to active corrosion (may indicate FAC attack)?
c. Can the product dosage be increased or must it be reduced to avoid corrosion and iron
deposition problems?
d. Does the product feedpoint have to be relocated downstream of the economizer?
e. Similar information can be gathered by monitoring the amount and the form of iron present
in the blowdown.

Internal Use Only

Caustic and Acid Phosphate Corrosion, Phosphate Hideout
Maintaining the boiler water pH in the range of 9.0 to 12.0 is done to minimize mild steel
corrosion in the boiler. However, as the operating pressures of boilers increase, resulting in the
need to use higher purity feedwater (feedwater which contains essentially no buffering capacity),
boilers begin to experience tube failures as a result of caustic corrosion. Caustic corrosion
occurs at liquid/dry interfaces in the boiler where it concentrates up to high enough levels that it
attacks and solubilizes the protective magnetite layer and base metal (see Figures 5-7). Areas in
the boiler where steam blanketing conditions exist is one area where caustic corrosion can occur.
Examples of areas where steam blanketing occurs are elbows of roof tubes, carry-under
conditions in down-comers and down-comers acting as risers caused by boiler water circulation
problems. Wick boiling in porous deposits can also cause underdeposit caustic gauging.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Internal Use Only

 Figure 7

The most frequently used chemical treatment approach for combating caustic corrosion in high
purity, high-pressure steam boilers/generators, is based on phosphate pH buffer chemistry. A
prerequisite for this treatment approach is that the feedwater must contain no hardness. This type
of chemical treatment utilizes the equilibriums established between the three ortho-phosphate
species found in boiler water in order to provide the necessary pH buffering of the water:

PO4 -3 HPO4-2 H2PO4 -1

As the hydrogen ions are replaced with sodium, the phosphate basicity increases, i.e.,
monosodium phosphate which has a sodium to phosphate molar ration of 1.0 is more acidic then
tri-sodium phosphate, Na3PO4 (3.0 Na:PO4 molar ratio).

There are four basic types of phosphate/pH control chemistries utilized in the treatment of
industrial high-pressure boiler systems:

1. Coordinated phosphate control

2. Congruent sodium phosphate control
3. Equilibrium phosphate control (EPT)
4. Phosphate + low level free hydroxide control (PT, Phosphate Treatment)

Coordinated and Congruent Phosphate Control

Coordinated phosphate control was introduced back in the 1940’s as a method to prevent caustic
corrosion. It is based on establishing a boiler pH equivalent to the pH vs. phosphate curve
produced by Na3PO4 (TSP) shown in Graph 5. Each mole of TSP added theoretically produces
one mole of caustic, thus raising the pH. The caustic produced is considered captive rather than

Internal Use Only

free, because if the solution were evaporated to dryness, the reaction would be driven back to the
left, leaving a dry residue containing only TSP and no caustic.

Graph 5

Unfortunately, this treatment program did not totally eliminate caustic corrosion problems in
boilers due to problems caused by phosphate hideout. Dirty boilers and boilers that experience
steam load swings are primary candidates for phosphate hideout. What happens during
phosphate hideout? The boiler water pH increases with a corresponding decrease in the boiler
water phosphate concentration. Under these conditions, boiler operators would feed di-sodium
or mono-sodium phosphate to the boiler in an attempt to keep the boiler water in their operating
control ranges for pH and PO4. When the boiler steaming load returns to normal or the boiler is
taken off-line, the boiler water pH would drop and the PO4 concentration increase. The drop in
boiler pH can be significant, with boiler water reaching a pH of 7.0 or below. As a result,
hideout can cause significant boiler corrosion and iron deposition problems. The practice of
chasing phosphate hideout by feeding an acid phosphate is dangerous because it can cause
localized acid phosphate attack.

The hideout problem was originally thought to be due to the hydrolysis products of tri-sodium
phosphate having different solubilities, resulting in incongruent precipitation of ortho-
phosphates. As boiler water is evaporated and solids concentrate locally (e.g., beneath a porous
deposit in a water wall tube), the dibasic phosphate (Na2HPO4) reaches its solubility limit first
and begins to precipitate. The remaining solution becomes rich in free caustic soda with the
potential to produce localized corrosion. When the steaming load drops, the precipitated acid

Internal Use Only

phosphate re-solubilizes and causes the pH of the boiler water to drop. Original studies indicated
that the incongruent point occurred at a Na:PO4 molar ratio above 2.85.

Subsequent studies by Westinghouse and others showed that, at higher temperatures, the
incongruent point could be at an Na:PO4 ratio as low as 2.6. This information led to the
development of Congruent Phosphate Control for high-pressure boilers operating on
demineralized feedwater. Congruent control programs typically operate between Na:PO4 molar
ratios of 2.3 and 2.6 as shown in Graph 5. Control is based entirely on the relationships of boiler
water pH and PO4 readings. Direct measurements of boiler water sodium are not used in
congruent control. If sodium were directly measured, misleading Na:PO4 ratios might be
obtained due to the presence of neutral sodium salts.

Equilibrium Phosphate Control (EPT)

Coordinated phosphate and congruent phosphate programs can be difficult to control because of
phosphate hideout. Equilibrium phosphate control confronts this problem and has, therefore,
gained acceptance with electric utility drum boiler operators.

Recent work by EPRI and CEA (Canadian Electric Association) found the primary mechanism
for phosphate hideout was the chemical reaction between sodium phosphate (mono and di) and
magnetite to form the iron sodium phosphate compound called marcite. This led to the
development of EPT. As phosphate concentrates and reacts or precipitates locally, phosphate is
removed from the bulk boiler water down to very low remaining equilibrium levels. Thus, boiler
water PO4 might drop from a normal 5 ppm down to 1 ppm or less during hideout. Attempts to
maintain original boiler water PO4 levels by adding phosphate during hideout are usually futile
because the ongoing reaction or precipitation simply continues to remove boiler water PO4 down
to the equilibrium level. Adding phosphate just adds to the fouling of tube surfaces at the
localized precipitation sites and may actually initiate corrosion by contributing to the generation
of free caustic or acid phosphate.

Equilibrium phosphate control (EPT), therefore, makes no attempt to carry boiler water PO4
above its hideout equilibrium level, how ever low that may be. Equilibrium PO4 levels vary
from boiler to boiler, depending on the severity of hideout conditions. The EPRI guideline for
EPT control is shown in Graph 6.

Only tri-sodium phosphate and (when needed) caustic are recommended for equilibrium
phosphate treatment. Monosodium, di-sodium, or polyphosphates are not recommended.

Internal Use Only

 Graph 6

Phosphate + Low Level Caustic (PT)

Another approach to treating high-pressure boilers is to feed phosphate plus carry a low level of
free caustic in the boiler water. Graph 6 shows the EPRI guideline for this type of treatment
control (PT). EPRI recommends controlling the program by feeding tri-sodium phosphate + 1
ppm NaOH. This treatment approach does increase the potential of caustic corrosion.
Therefore, it is not recommended for use in dirty boilers, or boilers that are known to be prone to
caustic corrosion problems, or boilers with rolled tube joints.

Effect of Contamination on Phosphate Control

Preventing contamination of the boiler feedwater is critical in operating high-pressure boilers on
phosphate treatments. High sodium leakage from a demineralizer system or condensate polisher
will result in an elevated boiler water pH. A condenser leak can result in an elevated boiler
water pH if the cooling water alkalinity pH is very high. Normally, however, the magnesium in
the cooling water will precipitate the “captive” hydroxide alkalinity, thus depressing the pH of
the boiler water. A significant condenser leak can quickly depress the pH to about 4.5 pH units
or near free mineral acidity. Thus, changes in pH and PO4 concentrations in the boiler water are
not only a result of phosphate hideout; process leaks can cause the boiler water to go acid, as
well. Consequently, it is important to troubleshoot the system when such changes occur to
determine the root cause of the problem and take the appropriate corrective action.

BT Products

Internal Use Only

Ondeo Nalco’s high-pressure boiler BT phosphate product line is an important part of our iron
control triangle offense. It is designed to provide a choice of Na:PO4 ratio products, with and
without TRASAR or polymers, to fit the needs of the high-pressure boiler market. The BT
family of products provides the ability, if necessary, to feed two different Na:PO4 ratio products
(low and high ratio, say) to obtain the target Na:PO4 ratio and eliminate the need to feed free
caustic.

Feeding BT products with TRASAR technology differentiates us from our competitors and those
feeding commodity phosphates. It allows us to automate the chemical feed of the product,
determine boiler cycles and control boiler cycles, and it gives us a tremendous advantage in
troubleshooting boiler water changes. For instance, if boiler water pH increases and goes out of
the pH vs. the PO4 control box, is it due to hideout? Having TRASAR gives us the ability to
quickly answer that question. If the boiler water PO4 concentration equals that predicated by the
TRASAR reading, the pH change is not due to hideout. It is also not due to a cooling water leak
since hardness contamination would have caused the boiler PO4 to precipitate, resulting in lower
than TRASAR-predicted levels. Consequently, in this example, the pH change is most likely
due to Na leakage from the demineralizer and/or condensate polisher, or some type of process
contaminant.

CONDENSATE CORROSION
A majority of the corrosion products that deposit in the boiler originate in the condensate system.
Preventing condensate iron corrosion and the migration of the iron hydroxides and oxides,
produced by the corrosion process, to the boiler feedwater is critical to our iron control
strategy! The major cause of iron corrosion in steam condensate systems is dissolved CO2
(forms carbonic acid) and dissolved oxygen. The CO2 comes from the breakdown of organics,
carbonates and bicarbonates present in the boiler feedwater. Since condensate is extremely pure,
even small quantities of carbon dioxide can significantly lower condensate pH and increase its
corrosivity. Air in-leakage to the boiler system is also a route in which CO2 contamination can
enter, in addition to oxygen. The CO2 corrosion reactions are shown below.

Internal Use Only

Experience has shown that when oxygen is present along with carbon dioxide in the condensate,
corrosion rates are greatly accelerated. Oxygen concentrations greater than 50 ppb is typical of
systems with air in-leakage. The prime areas for air to enter a system are vented receiver tanks,
packing glands of vacuum pumps, poorly maintained valves, units which operate under vacuum
or units which operate intermittently and pull a vacuum as the equipment cools.

Carbon dioxide in the steam can be decreased by removal of bicarbonate and carbonate alkalinity
in the feedwater. This can be accomplished by a well-controlled lime softening program, or by
dealkalization, demineralization, or degasification processes. (A small amount may also be lost
by deaeration, depending on make-up water pH.) Although alkalinity in the feedwater can be
reduced, a certain amount is typically retained to maintain proper boiler water alkalinity. Thus,
some CO2 will always be present in the steam.

Internal Use Only

Condensate Treatment Approaches
Neutralizing amines are fed to neutralize the carbonic acid and raise condensate pH. For mild
steel systems, pH of the condensate should be above 9.2 and for systems containing both mild
steel and copper alloys, the pH should be kept between 8.5 and 9.0 (see curve below).
Measuring the iron and copper concentration in the condensate should be done to determine
optimum system pH. Filming amines can also be fed to form a protective film on metal surfaces.
In addition, Ondeo Nalco’s ACT program provides a patented non-amine, non-nitrogen-based
filming corrosion inhibitor approach to minimize carbonic acid corrosion. and oxygen attack.

When oxygen is present in condensate systems, the source should be located and corrected.
Filming inhibitors like Ondeo Nalco’s ACT (non-nitrogen) or filming amines are used to form a
protective film on the metal surfaces. Volatile oxygen scavengers/metal passivators can also be
used. For large complex steam condensate systems, satellite feeding additional condensate
corrosion inhibitors to troubled areas is often practiced.

The above treatment programs are a part of our preventative iron control triangle offense
strategy! For a more detailed discussion on condensate treatment, refer to Boiler Best Practices
Chapter 7 and the WWTS Document Library.

Ammonia
Ammonia is present in some raw waters. Another source is chemical breakdown of boiler water
additives such as hydrazine or hydrazine alternatives (ELIMIN-OX, DEHA (diethyl
hydroxylamine), MEKOR (Drew’s methylethylketoxime), some polymers (e.g., acrylamide-
based TRANSPORT-PLUS for soft water systems) and amines. Ondeo Nalco’s ACT and
NexGuard programs provide no ammonia to the boiler system. You should be familiar with the
ammonia contributions from these chemicals.

Ammonia has a high volatility and will distribute unevenly across a condensate system, raising
the condensate pH only at certain areas of the system (typically, the final condensation
locations). This can give a false sense of corrosion protection for the entire system if an
inadequate number of sample points are monitored.

Internal Use Only

Ammonia can actually reduce the corrosion of ferrous metals by raising the pH of the condensate
and neutralizing carbonic acid. Above a pH of 9.2, however, ammonia is corrosive to copper and
copper alloys. The combination of ammonia and oxygen is extremely aggressive to these
metallurgies.

The main source(s) of ammonia present in a condensate system should be located and reduced or
eliminated whenever possible. In systems with mixed metallurgy and/or insufficient sample
points, the Ondeo Nalco proprietary filming echnology will provide protection against ammonia
if the proper application pH range is maintained.

Condensate Iron Monitoring

Iron that’s found in the return condensate can be soluble and/or insoluble. It is important to run
total iron, soluble iron and Millipore filtration on condensate samples. FAC corrosion conditions
can exist in steam condensate systems and it is important to determine where these conditions are
located and monitor them using the above techniques coupled with non-destructive ultrasonic
pipe thickness testing.

Good corrosion control in the condensate system requires a thorough and accurate understanding
of the condensate system. The identification of system components where phase changes take
place (flashing, condensing and venting) are critical to understanding a system’s treatment
requirements. A complete system profile of pH, iron, silica, hardness and conductivity is a great
starting point for benchmarking performance. Properly cooled sample points need to be
strategically located throughout the system to do this profiling.

Some condensate systems have condensate polishers, carbon filters, or magnetic filters to remove
iron from the returned condensate. It is important to monitor and optimize the performance of
these units with respect to iron removal. Using iron resin cleaners to maintain the cation resin
integrity is important. Installation of automatic condensate dump systems, based on
conductivity, turbidity or particle monitoring, is an important method of insuring only good
quality condensate is being returned back to the boiler. Tracking the frequency of dumping can
help identify problem sections in the condensate system and can provide guidance on where to
focus problem-solving efforts.

THE ROLE POLYMERS PLAY IN IRON CONTROL

Polymers do play a role in our iron control best practices strategy. We look at them as our last
defense. Polymers have the ability to inhibit agglomeration of iron particles, keeping them
dispersed in the boiler water, and to reduce the rate of iron oxide deposition on the heat transfer
surfaces. The three types of polymers we use are polyacrylate, polymethacrylate, and
copolymers of acrylate/styrene sulfonate. These anionic polymers absorb onto the negatively
charged iron particles and prevent the particles from agglomerating through charge-charge
repulsion and by steric hindrance.

Figure 8 illustrates the polymer iron particle interaction. Molecular weight and pH can affect the
dispersant properties of anionic polymers. In general, as the pH goes up, the dispersant activity

Internal Use Only

does too. Lower molecular weight anionic polymers are more effective than high molecular
weight anionic polymers.
Figure 8

It doesn’t take much polymer to effectively disperse the iron. Sub-stoichiometeric amounts are
effective. Graph 7 illustrates this point. These results are from experiments run in our laboratory
boilers. Boilers were operated for two hours at a heat flux of 140,000 Btu/ft2/hr and the amount
of iron deposited during that time period was determined.

At the start of each experiment, the boiler water suspended iron was 11 ppm. The polymers were
dosed on a ppm active polymer basis. Both polymers were effective in reducing the rate of iron
deposition, with polymethacrylate being slightly better.

Graph 7

Internal Use Only

In addition to their dispersant properties, anionic polymers are known to complex iron and
solubilize iron in a similar fashion as chelants, although their complexing strength is less than
that of chelants. Figure 9 illustrates how polymers complex iron.

Internal Use Only

 Figure 9

Consequently, these polymers can cause feedwater and boiler water corrosion problems. It is
important to monitor the generation of soluble iron (Fe+2 = Fe II, ferrous) and total iron (Fe+2 +
Fe+3) in the feedwater and blowdown when feeding polymers to determine what should be the
optimum product dosage. Total iron testing alone of the feedwater and blowdown cannot
differentiate between iron oxide particulate and active corrosion. Graph 8 shows iron
concentration in the blowdown of a paper mill boiler.

Graph 8

As the dosage of the polymer treatment increases, the concentration of particulate iron, Fe(III),
increases in the blowdown, then plateaus and remains constant regardless of increases in
dispersant dosage. The initial increase represented the improvement in iron oxide particle
dispersion caused by the polymer. As the polymer dosage was increased further, ferrous iron,
[Fe(II) or Fe+2] concentration began to rise in the blowdown, until a near linear relationship
between increased dosage and increased Fe(II) was established. This data showed that

Internal Use Only

increasing the polymer dosage above a certain level does not increase the dispersion of iron
oxide particles and their removal, but only leads to increased levels of corrosion.

Another rule of thumb is that the boiler water Fe+2 concentration should never be greater than the
feedwater Fe+2 concentration times cycles. And feedwater Fe+2 should be low (2-5 ppb) in a
well-protected system.

Molecular weight, flow, temperature, pH and polymer concentration affect the corrosivity of
anionic polymers toward mild steel. Low molecular weight anionic polymers were found to be
more corrosive than high molecular weight polymers. Designing a polymeric iron dispersant for
boiler applications requires optimizing chemical structure and molecular weight.

Competitive Polymers
All of our competitors have the ability to use polyacrylate-, polymethacrylate- and
polyacrylamide-based polymers since we do not have a unique patent position covering these
polymers. Some competitors use maleic anhydride polymers and copolymers; however, our
studies indicate that maleic anhydride polymers are not thermally stable and cannot be used in
high pressure boilers.

Even though our competitors can sell polymers similar to ours, it doesn’t necessarily mean
that they are equal to our polymers, especially with respect to their potential corrosivity.
This is why it is important to do iron profile studies of any competitively held account that is
feeding a polymer (or chelant). We need to ascertain whether their polymer (chelant) is eating
up the feedwater system, economizer and/or the boiler. If it is generating more iron in the boiler,
it is also increasing the potential of iron deposition on the critical heat transfer surfaces!
Furthermore, we have the advantage since the competition doesn’t believe in testing for Fe(II).
They focus only on total iron analysis. As a result, we could point out a problem to the
customer, of which the competition is unaware, and possibly obtain the business.

GE Betz came out in the early-/mid-1990s with two new polymer products: Ultrasperse (a
copolymer of acrylate and an allyl polyether) is for use in boilers operating on soft water as an
all-polymer treatment and HPT-2 (polyisopropenyl phosphonic acid) is marketed as an iron
dispersant for medium to high pressure boilers. HTP-2’s structure is shown in Figure 10. GE
Betz also holds a patent for methacrylate styrene sulfonate copolymers as iron dispersants but, to
our knowledge, they are not practicing this expensive technology.

Internal Use Only

 Figure10

The corrosiveness of polyacrylate vs HTP-2 was determined using our experimental boilers. The
boiler test results are shown in Graph 9. Under these test conditions HTP-2 was found to be
seven times more corrosive then our polyacrylate.

Graph 9

Ultrasperse was tested as an all-polymer boiler internal treatment in our experimental boilers and
its performance was compared to TRANSPORT-PLUS. The tests showed that Ultrasperse gave
poor calcium and magnesium transport results. Iron deposition studies also showed that the
Ultrasperse product was not as good as our polymethacrylate product N-7205 (see Graph 10).

Internal Use Only

 Graph 10

The Helamin boiler products, sold by Filtro S. A., Switzerland, represent a line of
multifunctional products that contain one or more of the following components: polyacrylate,
neutralizing amines, organic oxygen scavengers and the filming amine Duomeen OL. The
Helamin literature claims that the products can improve boiler iron transport, cleanliness and
corrosion protection. However, with the exception of the particular filming amine, all other
components have been used as boiler treatments for a long time. As a result, one would expect
the products to provide a degree of good performance because they are using currently practiced
boiler technology. The question is whether their filming amine provides exceptional boiler iron
control performance with respect to iron deposition and corrosion inhibition compared to our
technology.

As a result, research work was conducted to determine the mild steel corrosion inhibition and
iron dispersion properties of Duomeen OL. Its performance was benchmarked against Ondeo
Nalco’s filming amine and polymer technology. Structures of the two filming amines are shown
below. One can see that they are very similar in structure.

C18

Ondeo Nalco’s filming amine (N,N’,N’–tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-tallow-1,3 diaminopropane)

C18
Internal Use Only
 Helamin filming amine (Duomeen OL or N-oleyl-1,3-propanediamine)

Boiler iron control test results indicate that both amines agglomerate and plate out iron on the
steaming surface (heat transfer surface), as well as on other boiler surfaces, and are poor iron
dispersants. Duomeen OL was slightly less agglomerating than our filmer was.
Polymethacrylate (N-7205) was found to be a much more effective iron dispersant than either
amine (see Graphs 11 and 12). Since Helamin products are multifunction, the combination of
Duomeen OL plus polymethacrylate was evaluated to determine if this improves the iron
deposition control properties.

Graph 11

Internal Use Only

 Graph 12

Graph 13 shows that combining the filmer with polymethacrylate is less effective than
polymethacrylate alone. Results from the electrochemical and condensate simulation corrosion
studies indicate that the inhibitor performance of Duomeen OL does not exceed that of our amine
filmer and may be slightly less effective. The overall conclusion from our investigation is
that the Helamin filmer did not provide any significant improvement in iron control for
boilers and that our technology was better.

Graph 13

Internal Use Only

Monitoring
As mentioned earlier in the paper, Ondeo Nalco’s Boiler Iron Control Best Practices requires us
to implement the Engineering Approach to be successful. Monitoring the level, type and source
of iron throughout the boiler system is critical. Installing the appropriate number of sample
points across the boiler system from pretreatment equipment to DA, the economizer, the boiler
and the condensate system is required to profile iron pick-up and iron generation. In Ondeo
Nalco’s Boiler Best Practices Manual, there are diagrams that outline sample point location, grab
sample and on-line sampling monitoring protocol for your assistance.

Careful sampling is necessary to ensure that the sample is representative and does not become
contaminated. For a detailed explanation of proper sampling techniques, please refer to Ondeo
Nalco Technifax® 141. However, a brief description of sampling follows.

Samples should be continuously running. Stainless steel sample lines (¼ to ⅜-inch) must be
installed to ensure that corrosion products (iron oxide and copper oxide) are not contributing to
the sample by the sample line. Sample line lengths should be minimized to minimize the time
lag and the potential of contaminates adhering to the piping and coming out of the sample
stream. The sample should be cooled to below 90°F (32°C) to prevent flashing of the volatile
components (i.e., NH3, CO2, amines) that would cause a change in sample characteristics. The
sample line should flow on a continuous basis at a rate of 2-6 feet/second (preferably 4-6
feet/second) to prevent the accumulation of deposits or non-representative conditions that would
interfere with the test results. The correct way to sample for particulate iron is to install an
isokinetic sample nozzle and follow proper isokinetic sampling flow rates. Most industrial
systems are not set up to do isokinetic sampling of feedwater, blowdown or condensate, thus it is
important to have a good continuous sample flow rate.

The main parameters one should measure in profiling iron are:

 pH
 soluble iron
 total iron
 dissolved oxygen
 suspended iron (0.45 micron Millipore filtration)
 treatment chemical

Other parameters of importance include:

 Na leakage from demineralizers and polishers

 Alkalinity (CO2 source) and TOC
 Cation and Specific Conductivity of feedwater, condensate and steam
 NH3 and dissolved CO2
 Silica
 Hardness
 Na and hydrogen in the steam

Internal Use Only

 Flow rates, temperatures and pressures

Iron measurements can be run using the following test methods

Soluble Iron Total Iron

AP-022 Low Level Fe(II) Range AP-023 Low Level Total Iron Range
3 to 150 ppb DR/2000 & 2010 4 to 160 ppb DR/2000 & 2010
10 to 150 ppb DR/890 11 to 160 ppb DR/890

AP-103 Low Level Fe(II) Extended Range AP-088Low Level Total

Range Iron Extended
3 to 1400 ppb DR/2000 & 2010 Range
10 to 1400 ppb DR/890 4 to 1400 ppb DR/2000 & 2010
11 to 1400 ppb DR/890

AP-016 High Level Total Iron

Range
0.1 ppm to 3.0 ppm DR2000, 2010, & DR/890

In addition, grab samples can be sent to Customer Analytical for ICP or AA analysis. For
information on selecting the right container, test code and other important information on
submitting samples to Analytical refer to the Ondeo Nalco booklet “Shipping Samples Safely” to
the Naperville Technical Center.

Millipore filtration is an easy method to semi-quantify the amount of suspended iron in

feedwater, blowdown and condensate samples. Babcock and Wilcox Co. have published
Membrane Filter Comparison Charts. The chart is based on filtering one liter of sample through
a 0.45 micron filter. An example of how Millipore filters can be useful in monitoring particulate
iron and the performance of our programs is illustrated in the picture below.

Internal Use Only

Installing corrosion coupons and electrochemical corrosion monitors are other ways of
measuring the corrosion in boiler systems. Installing Analex cartridges on feedwater and
condensate sample points can be an effective method of quantifying the average amount of
soluble iron returned from those points over a specific time period. It is very important to
monitor and control flow through the cartridge since the total volume passed through the
cartridge is used to calculate the average amount of soluble iron.

There are integrated corrosion product samplers available from companies such as Sentry
Equipment Corporation. These units have a membrane filter followed by an ion exchange resin
filter, in series, to collect particulate iron and soluble iron. The units have flow indicator/control
valves and a flow totalizer to accurately quantify the amount of flow the unit has seen over time
so accurate iron averages can be calculated. The units are costly, but if iron transport studies are
being done, this is the best way to collect the iron.

In closing, remember the three words for Boiler Iron Control: Prevention, Prevention,
Prevention! Use the Boiler Iron Control Triangle Offense and, the Engineering Approach as
your comprehensive primary strategy. Feeding polymer dispersant is secondary but still a
necessary part of the whole strategy!

Acknowledgements:
The author would like to express his sincere appreciation and thanks to the following individuals
for their valuable input, suggestions and editing of the many drafts to create this important
document.

Roger Fowee, Anton Banweg, George Totura, Anne Wilson Burt, Peter Hicks, Martin Godfrey,
John Diambri, Barbara Davis and Rhonda Consalvo.

Internal Use Only