Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Corrosion Communications
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/corcom

Review

A review on under-deposit corrosion of pipelines in oil and gas fields:

Testing methods, corrosion mechanisms and mitigation strategies
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang, Y.G. Zheng∗
CAS Key Laboratory of Nuclear Materials and Safety Assessment, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang 110016, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Under-deposit corrosion (UDC) due to the presence of deposits has become a major concern threatening the
Received 25 January 2022 safe service of pipelines in oil and gas fields, causing economic loss and even irreversible damage to life and
Received in revised form 28 March 2022 environment. Herein, we provide a critical review of UDC in terms of testing methods, corrosion mechanisms
Accepted 29 March 2022
and mitigation strategies, so as to better understand and prevent UDC. Two deposit simulation methods and
Available online 19 September 2022
three UDC testing systems are summarized. Two popular UDC mechanisms are discussed based on the coverage
Keywords: and protectiveness of deposits, and the galvanic couple caused by the uneven distribution of deposits is found
Under-deposit corrosion to be the root cause for the prevailed localized corrosion under deposits. The mitigation strategies for UDC are
Pipeline reviewed from the aspects of scale controlling and corrosion inhibition. In the last, the demands for developing
Deposit
accurate deposit simulation methods, effective UDC inhibitors and advanced on-site scale monitoring technologies
Corrosion mechanism
are proposed.
Scale controlling
Corrosion inhibitor © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of
Sciences.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction
Oil and gas are presently the major global energy sources, the pro-
duction of which relates directly to economic development. Pipelines
stretching across the globe are the safest and most economical mode
of transporting millions of barrels of petroleum products every day to
supply the ever-growing energy market [1,2]. Corrosion is one of the
threats causing pipeline failure, costing billions of dollars annually to
the global transmission pipeline industry, in addition to the irreversible
damage to life and the environment [3–5]. Among various corrosion
types, under-deposit corrosion (UDC) has been regarded to be respon-
sible for high corrosion rates and as one of the major reasons for the
perforation of oil and gas pipelines, and has also been considered as a
threat to the pipeline integrity [6].
In general, UDC refers to the facilitated uniform and especially the
localized corrosion occurring beneath or around deposits present on a
metal surface [6,7]. In the pipelines in service, many deposits can be
frequently found, which consist of silica sand, calcite, clays, alumina,
corrosion products, organics and so on [8]. In severe cases, perforation
of pipelines caused by UDC could occur unexpectedly, resulting in unac-
ceptable accidents. Due to the presence of deposits, the testing methods,
mechanisms and mitigation strategies for UDC are different from the
conventional ones for the corrosion of bare metals. UDC has even been
sometimes identified as a stand-alone corrosion mechanism, apart from
the well-known sweet corrosion, sour corrosion, microbiologically influ-
enced corrosion, crevice corrosion and erosion-corrosion [6]. Therefore,
considering the high demand for addressing the unique issue of UDC,
this paper critically reviews the UDC in terms of testing methods, cor-
rosion mechanisms and mitigation strategies, aiming at providing some
useful information for clarifying how to evaluate UDC, why UDC occurs
and what strategies can be employed to mitigate UDC.
2. Testing methods of UDC
As compared to the conventional corrosion of bare metals, evaluat-
ing UDC must consider the deposits that play significant roles in UDC.
How to simulate the features of deposits similar to those of practical
deposits as much as possible and how to evaluate the uniform and lo-
calized corrosion of metal under deposits are the two significant issues
for evaluating UDC.
2.1. Methods simulating deposits
There are mainly two methods to simulate deposits: one is in-situ
forming deposits/scales on the metal surface [9–13] and the other is

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ygzheng@imr.ac.cn (Y.G. Zheng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corcom.2022.03.007
2667-2669/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
artificially preparing deposit layers using available powders [7,14-18].
The first method is mainly used to simulate the deposits of corrosion
products. Pang et al. [13] pre-formed a corrosion product (iron oxides)
layer on the carbon steel surface by in-situ immersing the sample in the
test solution, so as to study the effects of local damage of this deposited
layer on UDC, while the corrosion products of iron carbonates and iron
sulfides can be also in-situ formed via immersion prior to evaluating the
UDC beneath them [9,11]. The second method has been employed to
simulate both the inert deposits and corrosion product deposits, as well
as their mixtures. The inert deposits found in the pipelines in oil and
gas fields include sand, clay and limescale (CaCO3 , MgCO3 , BaSO4 and
so on). Fig. 1 illustrates the simulation of deposits using CaCO3 or sand
powders [7]. The composition and porosity of simulated deposits can
be controlled by adjusting the ratio and height/mass of the powders, re-
spectively [7,17,19]. The permeable nylon membrane is used to prevent
the deposit powders from leaking to the solution. Moreover, the pow-
ders used in this method can be obtained from commercially available
chemicals (such as CaCO3 and sand) [7], laboratory synthesis (such as
iron sulfides) [16] or field-collected deposits [12]. However, it must be
mentioned that all the presently developed methods have difficulties in
completely simulating the complicated practical deposits in the fields,
which is still an unsolved tough and common issue for the UDC study.
2.2. Testing systems evaluating UDC
Up to now, three kinds of testing systems, regardless of their various
specific experimental set-up [6,20], have been developed to evaluate
the UDC behavior, which differ in the electrode number.
2.2.1. Single electrode
The single electrode was generally employed to study the UDC under
fully covered conditions [15,17,21-23]. Since many deposits, especially
sand, clay and limescale, are poorly conductive, it is difficult to evalu-
ate the localized corrosion under deposits by electrochemical methods.
In this situation, the single electrode is mainly used to assess uniform
corrosion under fully covered deposits. Meng et al. [10] improved the
single electrode by purposely in-situ forming deposits on part of the sur-
face via using a PCR plate thermal adhesive sealing film, as shown in
Fig. 2(a), and then characterized the localized behavior using the scan-
ning vibrating micro-electrode technique.
2.2.2. Double electrodes
Double electrodes were developed to investigate the localized corro-
sion behavior of deposit-covered and uncovered pipeline steels [11,22].
Fig. 2(c) presents a typical double-electrode testing system, in which the
localized corrosion can be evaluated by the galvanic corrosion testing
method. So far, researchers have clarified the effects of deposit types,
corrosion inhibitors and the area ratio between the deposit-covered and
bare electrodes on localized corrosion under sand or corrosion products
deposits, by using double electrodes.
Fig. 1. (a) Illustration of artificially preparing the deposits using the powders of (b) CaCO3 and (c) SiO2 (sand) [7].
71
Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81
2.2.3. Wire beam electrodes
In order to evaluate the UDC under either fully or partially covered
conditions more microscopically, many investigations have employed
the wire beam electrodes (WBE, or called as multiple electrodes) [19],
as displayed in Fig. 2(c). The WBE is composed of multiple wires (typ-
ically 100 wires) distributed in an XY array. The localized corrosion
can be judged based on the distribution of galvanic current density.
The measured galvanic current density of each wire is that between this
wire and the other connected wires. If one wire exhibits a higher anodic
galvanic current density, its corrosion is much severer than the other
wires; in other words, localized corrosion occurs on this site. The higher
the anodic galvanic current density, the severer the localized corrosion,
which has been verified by the observation of corrosion morphology
of WBE [24]. Based on this principle, Prof. Tan, who has focused on
the WBE for a long time, proposed the localized corrosion intensity in-
dex (LCII) calculated from the galvanic current density distribution map
[24–27]:
𝑖g ,max
LCII = (1)
𝑁a
∑
𝑖a
1
where ig,max is the maximum galvanic current density, ia is the anodic
galvanic current density, and Na is the number of wires with anodic
current density. This index can provide useful information on the occur-
rence and the degree of localized corrosion. If corrosion is highly uni-
form, a very small LCII (0.02) can be obtained, while localized corrosion
is identified if the LCII is larger than 0.1. Under the extreme condition
where a larger current density concentrates only on one anodic wire, it
can lead to an LCII of 1 corresponding to the severest localized corrosion.
With the aid of WBE, many UDC phenomena, which could not be easily
identified by other methods, have been revealed, such as DO-enhanced
localized corrosion under fully covered CaCO3 deposits [18], inhibitor-
induced acceleration of localized corrosion under partially covered sand
deposits [28] and the facilitated localized UDC caused by local damage
of fully covered corrosion products deposits [13].
3. Mechanisms and influencing factors of UDC
3.1. UDC mechanisms
There are mainly two mechanisms that have been employed to ex-
plain the uniform and localized UDC behavior under various conditions,
respectively.
(1) When a metal is fully covered by microscopically homogeneous de-
posits, there are generally no local cathodes and anodes distributed
on the metal surfaces under deposits. In this situation, if the deposits
are porous with poor protectiveness, the UDC tends to occur uni-
formly [13,14,18,29,30], as shown in Fig. 3(a). Some authors at-
tributed the observed uniform UDC of pipeline steels to the porous
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
Fig. 2. Generally employed testing systems evaluating under-deposit corrosion: (a) single electrode [10], (b) double electrodes [11] and (c) wire beam electrodes
[28].
and homogeneous features of the deposits of sands [30], corrosion
products [13] and CaCO3 [18].
(2) In practice, most UDC exhibits the feature of localized corrosion,
corresponding to the local perforation of pipelines. Extensive stud-
ies demonstrate that such localized UDC always follows the galvanic
corrosion mechanism, regardless of whether the pipeline is fully or
partially covered by deposits. The difference is just that the specific
local anodes depend on environments and the coverage and protec-
tiveness of deposits, which can be divided into three cases.
The first case is localized corrosion occurring under fully covered
conditions. If the composition or compactness inside deposits is micro-
scopically inhomogeneous, local cathodes and anodes will be generated
on the surfaces of metals under deposits. As a result of galvanic couples,
localized corrosion located at anodic regions occurs beneath the deposits
[10,17,31,32], as shown in Fig. 3(b). Wang and Melchers [17,31] be-
72
Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81
lieved that UDC of the pipeline immersed for a long time follows this
mechanism, resulting from the oxygen concentration cells caused by the
difference in hindering the diffusion of dissolved oxygen (DO) through
different regions inside the deposits. Pang et al. [18] also experimentally
confirmed that the increase in DO content can enhance the localized cor-
rosion occurring under fully covered CaCO3 deposits. By comparison,
Meng et al. [10] attributed the separation of local anodes and cathodes
under deposits to the heterogeneously porous structure of deposits.
The second case refers to the preferential corrosion occurring on par-
tially deposited regions [20,23,28,33], as shown in Fig. 3(c). The prac-
tical example is the unacceptable bottom corrosion of pipelines where
solids (such as sands) are only deposited at the 6 o’clock position [20].
There are mainly two reasons responsible for the preferential corro-
sion of deposited regions. One reason is the oxygen concentration cells
formed between deposited surface depleted in DO and the bare surface
rich in DO [28]. The other reason is related to the addition of corrosion
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

Fig. 3. (a) Uniform corrosion morphology of 1020 carbon steel with fully covered CaCO3 deposits in deoxygenated 3.5 wt.% NaCl solution [18], (b) counting of
maximum pit depth (localized corrosion) of API 5LB pipeline steel with fully covered deposits consisting of magnetite, calcium carbonate and sea sand after long-term
immersion in deoxygenated natural seawater [31], (c) 2-D scanning vibrating micro-electrode current density map of API X70 pipeline steel with partially covered
deposits in NS4 solution, indicating localized corrosion occurring on the deposit-covered surface (region A) [10], and (d) localized electrochemical impedance
spectroscopy maps of API X65 pipeline steel with partially covered deposits in 90 ◦ C CO2 -saturated formation water of an oilfield, indicating localized corrosion
occurring on the bare surface (central region) [11].

inhibitors which can only protect the bare surface but not the deposited
surface due to the hindering effects of deposits on the diffusion of in-
hibitors to the deposited metal surface [28,33], finally leading to the de-
posited regions acting as local anodes. Besides, once localized corrosion
occurs on the small surface covered by deposits, the formed Fe2+ cannot
diffuse easily to bulk solutions due to the presence of deposits. As a con-
sequence, acidification prevails under deposits owing to the hydrolysis
of Fe2+ , which has been experimentally verified in the previous work
[34]. It compels more Cl− in bulk solutions to penetrate through the
deposits, so as to neutralize the acidification-produced positive charges,
further facilitating the corrosion under deposits.
The third case of localized corrosion occurs on the bare regions act-
ing as local anodes [19,35,36], as shown in Fig. 3(d). The typical ex-
ample is the localized corrosion of pipeline steels caused by the local
damage of protective deposits, such as the FeCO3 scales formed at high
temperatures. Han et al. [35] reported that the corrosion rate of the
uncovered region where protective FeCO3 scales were damaged was or-
ders of magnitude larger than that of the surrounding deposited region.
It should be mentioned that the galvanic coupling relationship (polarity)
could change even in the same environments, leading to the preferen-
tial corrosion of bare regions. For instances, Wu et al. [37] reported a
phenomenon of polarity reversal (anode to cathode) for the bare region
with increasing immersion time and Tan et al. [28] found that adding
corrosion inhibitors can lead the originally cathodic region covered by
deposits to be the anode.
Apart from the three cases for localized UDC, a new mechanism has
been recently reported accounting for the enhanced localized corrosion
under deposits induced by the local damage of non-protective deposits
(iron oxides) [13]. When the pre-formed corrosion products film was
locally broken, the damaged region acted as the anode initially. Nev-
ertheless, the galvanic coupling relationship reversed with prolonging
the immersion time, and finally the regions surrounding the damaged
one became the anode, exhibiting severer corrosion. This phenomenon
was ascribed to the formation of relatively protective corrosion products
on the damaged surface increasing the corrosion potential and resulting
in intensive anodic polarisation effects on the surrounding undamaged
regions.
3.2. Factors influencing UDC
In this section, three types of widely studied factors influencing UDC
will be summarized, including deposit, environmental and material fac-
tors.
3.2.1. Deposit factors
It is undoubted that the deposited layer acts like a barrier chang-
ing the diffusion of corrosive species and chemical agents from bulk
solutions to metal surfaces, hence playing the most significant role in
affecting UDC. The effects of deposits on UDC mainly lie in their com-
positions, compactness (porosity) and coverage. It is worth noting that

73
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

the compositions, compactness and coverage of deposits are usually cor-
related, therefore their effects on UDC cannot be separated.
In general, the compositions of on-site found deposits in pipelines
can be classified into three types: inorganic deposits, organic deposits
and mixed deposits [6]. The inorganic deposits mainly include corro-
sion products, limescale and sands, and are widely studied in UDC in-
vestigations. The corrosion products of pipeline steels in oil and gas
fields consist of iron oxides, sulfides and carbonates, whose typical
morphologies are displayed in Fig. 4(a-c), respectively. Red lath/cube-
shaped Fe2 O3 , black ring-shaped Fe3 O4 (Fig. 4(a1)), bronzing Fe(OH)3 ,
orange flake-shaped 𝛾-FeOOH (lepidocrocite, Fig. 4(a3)), dark brown
powder-shaped 𝛼-FeOOH (goethite, Fig. 4(a4)), rod-shaped 𝛽-FeOOH
(akaganeite, Fig. 4(a5)) and their mixtures (Fig. 4(a2)) are the com-
mon iron oxides. Under most situations, iron oxides are relatively porous
and their partial coverage or local damage can lead to localized corro-
sion [13,38-41]. The common iron sulfides (Fig. 4(b)), which are semi-
conducting, formed on pipeline surfaces include mackinawite (FeS1- x ),
troilite (FeS), pyrrhotite (Fe1- x S) and pyrite (FeS2 ), depending on envi-
ronments and the corrosion stages [42–45]. It has been reported that
mackinawite and pyrrhotite are the main corrosion products at low and
high temperatures and H2 S partial pressure, respectively [42]. The in-
vestigations related to UDC under iron sulfides deposits are relatively
few, probably owing to the feature of semiconductivity bringing some
difficulties in performing UDC tests [16], albeit localized attack has been
observed in H2 S-containing environments [46]. The limited research re-
ported that mackinawite was relatively porous with inferior protective-

Fig. 4. Typical morphologies of deposits: (a) iron oxides such as (a1) Fe3 O4 , (a2) a mixture of Fe2 O3 and Fe(OH)3 , (a3) 𝛾-FeOOH, (a4) 𝛼-FeOOH and (a5) 𝛽-FeOOH
[65–67], (b) iron sulfides such as (b1) mackinawite, (b2) troilite and pyrrhotite and pyrite [42,45], (c) iron carbonates [50], (d) CaCO3 [68], (e) mixed deposits
[17].

74
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
ness, hence inducing UDC [47]. In contrast, the UDC under pyrrhotite
or troilite deposits was found to be not severe due to their relatively
high compactness [47–49]. FeCO3 is the most typical iron carbonate
in oil and gas fields, which forms at higher temperatures in the pres-
ence of CO2 [32,50,51], as shown in Fig. 4(c). It has been accepted that
the effects of FeCO3 on UDC depend on its compactness and coverage.
Compact and fully covered FeCO3 deposits can inhibit UDC to some ex-
tent [11,19,51], while severe localized corrosion can be identified when
pipelines are partially covered by FeCO3 deposits or the FeCO3 deposits
are incompact under certain circumstances [15,19,52,53].
The limescale is formed by the precipitation of alkaline-earth metal
ions (Ca2+ , Mg2+ , Ba2+ and Sr2+ ) with carbonate and sulfate ions, among
which CaCO3 is often employed to simulate the deposits when conduct-
ing UDC tests [7,18,54,55]. The typical morphology of CaCO3 deposits
is shown in Fig. 4(d). The higher compactness of CaCO3 deposits can
also protect pipelines [54]. However, the effects of coverage of CaCO3
deposits have not yet been clarified. The sand originates from the oil
and gas reservoir and can be deposited on pipeline surfaces if the fluid
flow is low [56]. Similar to iron oxides deposits, sand deposits are also
porous and can not only promote uniform corrosion under fully cov-
ered conditions but also induce localized corrosion under partially cov-
ered conditions [20,22,28,29,57-60]. Nonetheless, some investigations
reported the protection effects of sand deposits on UDC [61–63]. The
organic deposits are mainly composed of wax and bitumen in crude oil
and schmoo is the typically mixed deposit, which is the mixture of in-
organic and organic deposits [17,64], as shown in Fig. 4(e). It is a pity
that seldom studies focused on the effects of these two deposits on UDC,
although the localized corrosion of pipelines under deposits has been
ascribed to them [64].
3.2.2. Environmental factors
Environmental factors can affect UDC by influencing the feature of
deposits, especially for CaCO3 [54], iron carbonates [19,28,53] and
iron sulfides [47–49] which are compact at higher pH, temperature
and gas (CO2 or H2 S) partial pressure. For the sand deposits, exten-
sive studies have found that the temperature and atmosphere have pro-
nounced impacts on localized corrosion under partially covered de-
posits: bare surfaces are corroded faster by acting as anodes at low
temperatures [19,28,69] while the introduction of O2 alters the gal-
vanic polarity enhancing the corrosion of sand deposited surfaces that
act as anodes [19,23,59]. The flow velocity has promotion effects on
localized UDC [6]: lower flow velocity is beneficial for the deposit-
ing of solid particles like sand and higher flow velocity can damage
the deposits, especially the protective deposits like FeCO3 , both of
which can induce localized corrosion by the second mechanism as men-
tioned in Section 3.1. Besides, the sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) in
solutions is also a non-negligible factor influencing UDC. Some failure
analyses reported that there were SRB in/under deposits causing se-
vere localized corrosion to pipelines in oil and gas fields [17,70-72].
Yang et al. [34] have experimentally confirmed that the presence of
SRB can enhance UDC significantly by accumulating in/under sand
deposits.
3.2.3. Material factors
The microstructure of pipeline steels has been found to affect UDC.
Some researchers claimed that ferrite and Fe3 C in the lamellar pearlite
can constitute much more corrosion microcells, promoting the corro-
sion process and leaving Fe3 C as the initial corrosion product [66,73].
Then, the gap/crevice between lamellar Fe3 C could hinder the diffusion
of ions and favor the concentrating of anodically produced Fe2+ and ca-
thodically produced OH− . As a result, it is easier for the corrosion prod-
ucts (such as FeCO3 ) and CaCO3 to precipitate at these sites forming
denser deposits to inhibit corrosion. However, some opposite opinions
can be also found that the galvanic effects between ferrite and Fe3 C in
the lamellar pearlite and the possible acidification in the gap/crevice be-
tween lamellar Fe3 C can promote corrosion of pipeline steels, especially
75
Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81
in the presence of deposits [74]. Therefore, the effects of microstructure
on UDC are still controversial.
4. Mitigation strategies of UDC
There is a general consensus that both scale controlling and corrosion
inhibition can mitigate UDC effectively [6].
4.1. Scale controlling
Since the presence of deposits/scales is the root cause for UDC, pre-
venting depositing (scale inhibition) and removing the deposits/scales
that have already existed on pipeline surfaces are undoubtedly two effec-
tive ways in mitigating UDC, which have been practically applied in oil
and gas fields [54]. The most widely employed method for scale inhibi-
tion is adding scale inhibitors to prevent the limescale from precipitating
on pipeline surfaces by the complexing mechanism [75]. Duccini et al.
[76] proposed that high performance oilfield scale inhibitors should ex-
hibit the characteristics of low dosage, good compatibility, slow release,
high thermostability, hypotoxicity, high biodegradability and low cost.
It has been found that some organic compounds, such as polyacrylic
acids, amino acid salts, sulfonated polymers and phosphonate, are high-
performed scale inhibitors [75].
Mechanical removal, physical descaling and chemical dissolution
are the three major methods of removing scales [54]. The most com-
mon mechanical methods for removing scales include wiping, brushing,
scraping, penning, and abrasion/erosion by using special-purpose de-
vices, and the physical methods remove scales via ultrasonic or elec-
tromagnetic waves. The removing method of chemical dissolution is
generally more suitable for carbonate scales because they can be eas-
ily dissolved by acids or chelating agents. Due to the concerns of po-
tential corrosion of pipeline steels when using acids to dissolve scales,
chelating agents have attracted more and more attention [54]. Ly et al.
[64] have developed a novel dispersant consisting of two chelating
agents (nonionic surfactants), which can remove schmoo based on field
tests.
4.2. Corrosion inhibition
Adding corrosion inhibitors is an effective method to control the cor-
rosion of pipelines in oil and gas fields [77–79]. In order to combat UDC,
many engineers and researchers have attempted to assess the DUC in-
hibition effectiveness of some corrosion inhibitors that have exhibited
good corrosion inhibition performance in the practical environments of
oil and gas fields [8,9,14,20,22,28,29,57,58,62,80-89]. The results indi-
cate that not all the inhibitors are effective for inhibiting UDC and some
of them can even promote UDC. Even so, mitigating UDC by adding
specially developed corrosion inhibitors is still promising owing to the
advantages of low cost, easy operation, high flexibility, and high effi-
ciency, which hence deserves more investigations. Table 1 summarizes
almost all the reported inhibition efficiencies (𝜂) of various inhibitors
on UDC of pipeline steels covered by different deposits, on the basis of
our previous work [7]. Table 1 leads to some interesting findings. First,
the mainly studied UDC inhibitors are organic compounds, probably due
to the disadvantages of high concentration and low efficiency of inor-
ganic corrosion inhibitors. Second, almost all organics containing N, O
and P heteroatoms, especially the widely employed imidazoline and its
derivatives, exhibit UDC inhibition efficiencies lower than 70%. It sug-
gests that the traditional experience for developing corrosion inhibitors
for bare steels is not so valid for UDC. Third, it is interesting that most of
the S-containing compounds show superior UDC inhibition performance
(𝜂>90%). These compounds could be taken as the candidates of UDC
inhibitors for practical application in oil and gas fields. However, the S-
containing compounds are not always good for inhibiting UDC, such as
the thiourea-based alkyl Imidazoline under mixed deposits [90]. More-
over, there are still also some N-containing compounds showing high
 Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
Table 1
Summary of inhibition efficiencies (𝜂) of different inhibitors on UDC of pipeline steels covered by different deposits [7,8,12,14,22,23,28,29,33,57,63,80,82-85,87,89-95].

Inhibitor Concentration Material Medium Test condition Deposit icorr (𝝁A/cm2 ) 𝜼 (%) Refs.

S-containing organic compounds

2-mercaptobenzimidazole 100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C SiO2 2.18 a 94.67 [7]
100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C CaCO3 0.59 a 98.17 [7]
2-mercaptopyrimidine 100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 1.23 a 95.02 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C Al2 O3 0.51 a 98.24 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C CaCO3 0.32 a 90.62 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 1.05 a 96.6 [80]
Thiourea oleic acid imidazoline quaternary ammonium salt 200 mg/L Q235 3.5 wt.% NaCl 25 ◦ C CaSiO3 + MgCO3 + CaSO4 + water 3.6 a 87.03 [91]
Thiourea oleic acid imidazoline 200 mg/L Q235 3.5 wt.% NaCl 25 ◦ C CaSiO3 + MgCO3 + CaSO4 + water 2.3 a 91.92 [91]
2-mercaptoethanol 200 mg/L X65 Brine solution (3.4 wt.%) CO2 -saturated, 70 ◦ C SiO2 0.26 c No inhibition [57]
45 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C SiO2 2.56 b 92 [22]
76

Thiourea-based alkyl Imidazoline 1000 mg/L X65 Brine solution CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C Sand + clay + FeCO3 + FeS + S 690.38 a −297 [90]
Thiobenzamide 100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 1.91 a 95.2 [80]
200 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 0.30 a 99.3 [89]
100 mg/L 1030 30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 0.51 b 98.33 [8]
100 mg/L 1030 30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C Al2 O3 0.51 b 99.30 [8]
100 mg/L 1030 30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C CaCO3 1.54 b 97.80 [8]
Sulfur organic compound - - 30 g/L NaCl + 100 mg/L NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C SiO2 < 8.54 b 84 [14]
Imidazoline and its derivatives
Oleic acid imidazoline 200 mg/L Q235 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C CaSiO3 + MgCO3 + CaSO4 + water 13.0 a 53.41 [91]
Imidazoline 25 mg/L X65 1 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C SiO2 9.40 b No inhibition [63]
50 mg/L X65 1 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C 1.71 b 20 [63]
Imidazoline 250 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl DO > 5.5 mg/L, 30 ◦ C SiO2 0.87 a 42.76 [33]
Imidazoline derivative 45 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C SiO2 30.77 b 4 [22]
Fatty acid imidazoline 300 mg/L X60 Brine solution CO2 -saturated, 48 ◦ C Sludge deposits 1196.58 b 53 [12]
(continued on next page)

Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

 Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
Table 1 (continued)

Inhibitor Concentration Material Medium Test condition Deposit icorr (𝝁A/cm2 ) 𝜼 (%) Refs.

Imidazoline derivative 25 mg/L - Brine solution CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C Sand 8.55 b 47.74 [87]
40 mg/L - Brine solution CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C Sand 5.98 b 62.44 [87]
Tall oil diethylenetriamine imidazoline 70 mg/L X65 1 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C Al2 O3 25.64 b 90 [92]
70 mg/L X65 1 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C SiO2 32.05 b 14.77 [92]
Imidazoline 10−30 mg/L 1035 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 21 ◦ C sand - -∗ [28]
Imidazoline-based inhibitor 500 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 20 ◦ C Silica sand - Little inhibition [85]
Imidazoline salt 30 mg/L X65 10 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 60 ◦ C Sand 42.74 b 29 [84]
Imidazoline salt - - 30 g/L NaCl + 100 mg/L NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C SiO2 68.38−85.47b −160 to −200 [14]
Oleic Imidazoline 40 mg/L X65 3 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 55 ◦ C BaSO4 5.12 b 76 ∗ [83]
77

Other organic compounds

2-hydroxybenzimidazole 100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C SiO2 22.55 a 44.78 [7]
100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C CaCO3 19.93 a 51.19 [7]
2-aminobenzimidazole 100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C SiO2 3.47 a 89.33 [7]
100 mg/L 1020 3.5 wt.% NaCl CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C CaCO3 2.46 a 92.45 [7]
2-Dodecylpiridinium chloride hydrate 100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 23.72 a 3.89 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C Al2 O3 27.92 a 3.66 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C CaCO3 3.10 a 38.42 [29]
100 mg/L 1030 3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3 CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C SiO2 14.91 a 52.7 [80]
Amino trimethylene phosphonic acid 250 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl DO > 6.0 mg/L, 26 ◦ C SiO2 2.47 a −174 ∗ [23]
250 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl DO > 6.0 mg/L, 26 ◦ C CaCO3 1.72 a −177 [23]
250 mg/L X65 3.5 wt.% NaCl DO > 5.5 mg/L, 30 ◦ C SiO2 9a −592 ∗ [23]
(continued on next page)

Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

 Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

UDC inhibition efficiencies. It implies that the factors dominating UDC

inhibition performance of an inhibitor are not unique. Fourth, the com-
Refs.

position of deposits has effects on UDC inhibition of inhibitors. For ex-

[93]
[22]
[12]
[87]
[87]
[92]
[80]

[82]
[82]
[82]
[94]
[83]
[83]

[92]
[84]

[95]
[95]
[95]
[95]
[22]
[92]
[8]
[8]
[8]
ample, for one inhibitor, sand (SiO2 ) deposits can decrease the UDC inhi-
bition efficiency drastically, as compared to Al2 O3 and CaCO3 deposits.
−21.8
29.44
59.39

36.04
23.17

84.01
𝜼 (%)

−125

−327
−189
57 ∗
73 ∗
9.1

Fifth, the addition of some inhibitors can promote UDC or even lead to
28
16
70

39
38
44
55

90

85
30
94
95
the occurrence of localized corrosion under deposits. All the above find-
icorr (𝝁A/cm2 )

ings demonstrate that whether an inhibitor is effective for mitigating

UDC depends on the nature of inhibitors and deposits, as well as their
769.23 b
26.92 b

11.97 b

30.68 b

10.26 b
38.42 a
6.84 b

0.45 b
0.53 b
0.63 b

5.93 b

5.98 b
8.55 b

9.40 b
8.55 b
2.96 a

interaction.
It has been accepted that the failure of organic compounds in in-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
hibiting UDC is mainly attributed to the adsorption of inhibitors on de-
Fe2 O3 + Fe3 O4 + Fe(OH)3

+Fe(OH)3
+Fe(OH)3
+Fe(OH)3
+Fe(OH)3
posits. This is supported by Table 1 in which most of the inhibitors that
failed to inhibit UDC were reported to be adsorbed a lot by deposits.
Furthermore, the work from Suarez et al. [29] implies that the penetra-
Sludge deposits

+ Fe2 O3
+ Fe2 O3
+ Fe2 O3
+ Fe2 O3
tion of an inhibitor through deposits could also play an important role
in determining whether and how many inhibitors can reach the metal
Deposit

CaCO3

BaSO4
BaSO4

Fe3 O4
Fe3 O4
Fe3 O4
Fe3 O4
Al2 O3

Silica
Silica
Silica

surface beneath deposits. Vera et al. [6] also proposed that both the
Sand
Sand

Sand
SiO2
SiO2

SiO2
SiO2
SiO2

SiO2

SiO2
SiO2
penetration and adsorption of inhibitors through/on deposits should ac-
count for the bad UDC inhibition performance [4]. Recently, Pang et al.
H2 S + CO2 + N2 balanced, 48 ◦ C

[7] have figured out the design strategy of an ideal UDC inhibitor, by
simultaneously considering the penetration and adsorption of inhibitors
icorr is obtained from potentiodynamic polarization curve a , linear polarization resistance b and mass loss c ; DO represents dissolved oxygen.
through/on deposits. They purposely selected three kinds of benzimida-
DO > 6.0 mg/L, 19 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C

CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 40 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 30 ◦ C

CO2 -saturated, 55 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 55 ◦ C

CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 60 ◦ C

CO2 -saturated, 50 ◦ C
CO2 -saturated, 25 ◦ C

zole derivatives with various heteroatoms as the UDC inhibitors and two
Room temperature
Test condition

types of mineral deposits with different porosity as the deposits, and fi-

nally verified that an effective UDC inhibitor must satisfy three require-
ments: (1) it possesses a certain inhibition performance for corrosion
80 ◦ C
80 ◦ C
80 ◦ C

25 ◦ C
25 ◦ C
25 ◦ C
25 ◦ C

of a bare metal, (2) it can penetrate easily through deposits to reach

the metal surface, and (3) it has a low tendency to be adsorbed on de-
3 wt.% NaCl + 0.01 wt.% NaHCO3

posits, as shown in Fig. 5. The first requirement guarantees the inhibitor

30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3
30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3
30 g/L NaCl + 0.1 g/L NaHCO3

to exhibit good corrosion inhibition performance once it can reach the

metal surface by penetrating through the deposits, while the latter two
requirements allow more inhibitors to reach the metal surface with less
adsorbed when penetrating through the deposits. Such a design strategy
0.25 mol/L NaCl
0.25 mol/L NaCl
0.25 mol/L NaCl
0.25 mol/L NaCl

could provide an avenue for developing good UDC inhibitors that can
0.2 mol/L NaCl
3.5 wt.% NaCl
3.5 wt.% NaCl

3.5 wt.% NaCl

Brine solution
Brine solution
Brine solution

Brine solution
Brine solution
Brine solution

10 wt.% NaCl
1 wt.% NaCl

3 wt.% NaCl
3 wt.% NaCl

1 wt.% NaCl

1 wt.% NaCl

be practically applied to mitigate UDC of pipelines in oil and gas fields.

Medium

Based on the previous work as shown in Table 1, S-containing micro-

molecular organics could satisfy the aforementioned three requirements.
However, more effort is still needed to guide the design of molecules,
such as establishing the structure-function relationship for UDC in-
Material

hibitors and clarifying how to avoid promoting UDC under some specific
1030
1030
1030
1030
1080
1080
1080
N80

N80
N80
N80
N80
X65
X65
X60

X65

X65
X65

X65
X65

X65
X65

conditions.
-
-
Concentration

0.0005 mol/L

4.3. Comparison of various UDC mitigation strategies

1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
300 mg/L

220 mg/L
100 mg/L
100 mg/L
100 mg/L
100 mg/L

430 mg/L
35 mg/L
45 mg/L

25 mg/L
40 mg/L

20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L

40 mg/L
40 mg/L

50 mg/L

45 mg/L
30 mg/L

Table 2 compares briefly the advantages and disadvantages of vari-

ous UDC mitigation strategies. It needs to be emphasized that mitigat-
ing UDC sometimes cannot count on one strategy even for the same
Tall oil diethylenetriamine imidazoline + sodium thiosulfate

pipeline, since the environments, such as water chemistry, fluid condi-

represents the occurrence of localized corrosion.

tions, temperature and pressure, change temporally and spatially. In this

situation, combining multiple strategies and adjusting strategies could
Tetradecylbenzyldimethyl ammonium chloride
Ethylene diamine tetra methy-lene phosphonic

Hexadecylbenzyldimethyl ammonium chloride

be more effective for inhibiting UDC. Adding mixtures of corrosion and

Dodecylbenzyldimethyl ammonium chloride
2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4 tricarboxylic acid

Alkyl benzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride

scale inhibitors or just one organic having both two functions in wa-
Benzyl coco dimethyl ammonium chloride

Imidazoline + betaine + amine ethoxylate

ter injection or formation pipelines of oil and gas fields, which can be
Cetylpyridinium chloride monohydrate

Generic phosphate ester in tridecanol

combined with regular pigging, is such the practical example.

Which strategies need to be combined and when to adjust strategies
Quaternary amine derivative

could be the practically concerned issues, so as to mitigate UDC more

Benzyl chloride quaternary

costly, effectively and efficiently. Keeping in mind that the presence of

Inorganic compounds

Cerium (III) chloride

deposits/scales is the root cause for UDC, on-site monitoring and de-
Table 1 (continued)

Sodium thiosulfate
Sodium thiosulfate
Sodium molybdate

tecting the position and number of deposits/scales is the key to solving

Sodium laurate

Sodium nitrite

Zinc sulphate

these issues. Yuan et al. [96] have summarized that the presently de-
Complexes
Inhibitor

veloped scale monitoring and detection methods can be categorized as

thermal and non-thermal methods. The thermal methods judge the scal-
ing degree by monitoring the difference in fluid temperature or thermal
∗

resistance of the pipe. Whilst the on-site employed non-thermal methods

mainly include pressure drop method via detecting the scaling-induced

78
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81

Fig. 5. Illustration of the under-deposit corrosion inhibition mechanism of 2-hydroxybenzimidazole (2-OH-BI), 2-aminobenzimidazole (2-NH2 -BI) and 2-
mercaptobenzimidazole (2-SH-BI) inhibitors under CaCO3 and SiO2 deposits in terms of three aspects: (a) adsorption on deposits, (b) penetration through deposits,
(c) adsorption on metal surface [7].

Table 2
Brief summary of advantages and disadvantages of various UDC mitigation strategies.

UDC mitigation strategy Advantage Disadvantage

Scale controlling Adding scale inhibitors ● High efficiency ● Mainly suitable for limescale
● Low cost ● Relatively low flexibility
● Easy operation
Mechanically removing scales ● Relatively easy operation ● Low efficiency
● No environment pollution ● Possible mechanical damage to
● Relatively low cost pipelines
● Mainly suitable for long and
straight pipelines
Physically removing scales ● No environment pollution ● Incomplete removal
● Relatively low cost ● Limited range of action
● Easy operation
Chemically dissolving scales ● High efficiency ● Risk of undesired corrosion
● Low cost ● Relatively low flexibility
● Environment pollution
Corrosion inhibition Adding UDC inhibitors ● High efficiency ● Risk of promoting UDC
● Low cost ● Rare practical applications at
● Easy operation present
● High flexibility

pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the pipe, ultrasonic
detection method and the infrared detection method. Achieving auto-
matic, fast and accurate monitoring of scaling in the presence of complex
interference factors on-site is the goal that engineers and researchers are
pursuing. It is believed that with the continuous development of related
technology, on-site scale monitoring and detecting can play more im-
portant roles in addressing the UDC issue of pipelines in oil and gas
fields.
5. Conclusions and outlook
Herein, the UDC of pipelines in oil and gas fields is critically reviewed
in terms of its testing methods, corrosion mechanisms and mitigation
strategies. The main conclusions can be drawn and related outlook is
proposed:
(1) Simulation of deposits is important for evaluating UDC. Two simu-
lation methods have been developed, including in-situ forming and
artificially preparing methods. However, a more accurate method
that can completely simulate the complicated practical deposits is
still demanded. Such the deposit simulation method could be de-
veloped by establishing the relationship of water chemistry-deposit
feature-UDC behavior of pipeline steels and clarifying the dominat-
ing deposit features such as composition and porosity affecting UDC
under different conditions via probably statistical analysis.
Three testing systems of single, double and wire beam electrodes can
be referred to when evaluating UDC. The single electrode is gener-
ally used to evaluate the uniform corrosion under deposits when the
metal is fully covered by deposits. The double and wire beam elec-
trodes can be used to assess both the uniform and localized corrosion
under either fully or partially covered deposits. Specially, the test-
ing system of wire beam electrodes seems to be a more advanced
method since it not only has the functions of the other two testing
systems but also can provide information on localized corrosion un-
der deposits in a more microscopic scale.

79
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
(2) Two popular mechanisms have been proposed to explain the UDC
behavior depending on the nature of deposits, with one for uniform
and the other for localized corrosion. If the metal is fully covered
by homogeneously porous deposits, uniform UDC can be identified,
while when the fully covered deposits are heterogeneous or the metal
is partially covered by deposits, localized corrosion can occur by the
galvanic corrosion mechanism. For the latter case, the specific local
anodes, on either deposited or bare surfaces, depend on environ-
ments and the coverage and protectiveness of deposits. In a word,
the galvanic couple formed due to either the uneven structure or
coverage of deposits is the main mechanism responsible for local-
ized UDC.
(3) Scale controlling and corrosion inhibition are the main two strategies
for mitigating UDC. Scale controlling can be fulfilled by adding scale
inhibitors to prevent depositing and by mechanically/physically re-
moving or chemically dissolving deposits. Specially developing new
UDC inhibitors is required to mitigate UDC via corrosion inhibi-
tion, since many practically applied corrosion inhibitors fail to in-
hibit, even promote UDC. Three requirements of good intrinsic corro-
sion inhibition performance, easy penetration through deposits and
low tendency to be adsorbed on deposits have been proposed for
designing effective UDC inhibitors, which could be satisfied by S-
containing micromolecular organics. Future work could focus on es-
tablishing the structure-function relationship for UDC inhibitors and
avoiding the possible promotion of UDC, so as to further guide the
design of molecules. Besides, more and more complicated service
conditions for pipelines in oil and gas fields in the future require the
combination and adjustment of various strategies to mitigate UDC
at a lower cost, more effectively, and more efficiently, which could
be fulfilled with the aid of developing advanced on-site scale moni-
toring and detecting technologies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was financially supported by the Opening Project of Mate-
rial Corrosion and Protection Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province (No.
2017CL18).
References
[1] L. Kraidi, R. Shah, W. Matipa, F. Borthwick, An investigation of mitigating the safety
and security risks allied with oil and gas pipeline projects, J. Pipeline Sci. Eng. 1
(2021) 349–359.
[2] F. Khan, R. Yarveisy, R. Abbassi, Risk-based pipeline integrity management: a road
map for the resilient pipelines, J. Pipeline Sci. Eng. 1 (2021) 74–87.
[3] G.H. Koch, M.P.H. Brongers, N.G. Thompson, Y.P. Virmani, J.H. Payer, Corrosion
costs and preventive strategies in the united states, Report by CC Technologies Lab-
oratories, Inc. to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development, Report FHWA-RD-01-156, September, 2001.
[4] C. Wan, A. Mita, Recognition of potential danger to buried pipelines based on sounds,
Struct. Control Hlth. 17 (2010) 317–337.
[5] Z.B. Wang, Y.G. Zheng, Critical flow velocity phenomenon in erosion-corrosion of
pipelines: determination methods, mechanisms and applications, J. Pipeline Sci.
Eng. 1 (2021) 63–73.
[6] J.R. Vera, D. Daniels, M.H. Achour, Under deposit corrosion (UDC) in the oil
and gas industry: a review of mechanisms, testing and mitigation, in: Proceed-
ings of the Corrosion 2012 NACE International, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2012,
pp. C2012–0001379.
[7] L. Pang, Z.B. Wang, M.H. Lu, Y. Lu, X. Liu, Y.G. Zheng, Inhibition performance of
benzimidazole derivatives with different heteroatoms on the under-deposit corrosion
of carbon steel in CO2 -saturated solution, Corros. Sci. 192 (2021) 109841.
[8] V. Pandarinathan, K. Lepková, S.I. Bailey, R. Gubner, Impact of mineral deposits on
CO2 corrosion of carbon steel, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2013 NACE Interna-
tional, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2013 Paper No. 2579.
[9] M. Achour, J. Kolts, P. Humble, R. Hudgins, Experimental evaluation of corrosion
inhibitor performance in presence of iron sulfide in CO2 /H2 S environment, in: Pro-
80
Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81
ceedings of the Corrosion 2008 NACE International, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
2008 Paper No. 08344.
[10] G.Z. Meng, C. Zhang, Y.F. Cheng, Effects of corrosion product deposit on the sub-
sequent cathodic and anodic reactions of X-70 steel in near-neutral pH solution,
Corros. Sci. 50 (2008) 3116–3122.
[11] G.A. Zhang, Y.F. Cheng, Localized corrosion of carbon steel in a CO2 -saturated oil-
field formation water, Electrochim. Acta 56 (2011) 1676–1685.
[12] N.M. Alanazi, A.M. El-Sherik, A.H. Rasheed, S.H. Amar, M.R. Dossary, M.N. Al-
neemai, Corrosion of pipeline steel X-60 under field-collected sludge deposit in a
simulated sour environment, Corrosion 71 (2015) 305–315.
[13] L. Pang, Z.B. Wang, Y.G. Zheng, X.M. Lai, X. Han, On the localised corrosion of
carbon steel induced by the in-situ local damage of porous corrosion products, J.
Mater. Sci. Technol. 54 (2020) 95–104.
[14] W. Durnie, M. Gough, H. De Reus, Development of corrosion inhibitors to address
under deposit corrosion in oil and gas production systems, in: Proceedings of the
Corrosion 2005 NACE International, Houston, Texas, USA, 2005 Paper No. 05290.
[15] Y.N. Zhang, T.L. Wang, X. Han, Z.M. Wang, J. Zhang, Corrosion of artificial rock
layer covered steel electrodes in a CO2 environment: the influence of permeability,
Corros. Sci. 105 (2016) 190–201.
[16] Y. Zhang, J. Moloney, Electrochemical corrosion rate measurement under iron sul-
fide deposit, Corrosion 72 (2016) 704–715.
[17] X. Wang, R.E. Melchers, Corrosion of carbon steel in presence of mixed deposits
under stagnant seawater conditions, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 45 (2017) 29–42.
[18] L. Pang, Z.B. Wang, W. Emori, Y.G. Zheng, Under-deposit corrosion of carbon steel
beneath full coverage of CaCO3 deposit layer under different atmospheres, J. Mater.
Eng. Perform. 30 (2021) 7552–7563.
[19] G.A. Zhang, N. Yu, L.Y. Yang, X.P. Guo, Galvanic corrosion behavior of deposit-cov-
ered and uncovered carbon steel, Corros. Sci. 86 (2014) 202–212.
[20] H. De Reus, L. Hendriksen, M. Wilms, Y.N. Al-Habsi, W. Durnie, M. Gough, Test
methodologies and field verification of corrosion inhibitors to address under deposit
corrosion in oil and gas production systems, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2005
NACE International, Houston, Texas, USA, 2005 Paper No. 05288.
[21] Z.H. Dong, W. Shi, H.M. Ruan, G.A. Zhang, Heterogeneous corrosion of mild steel
under SRB-biofilm characterised by electrochemical mapping technique, Corros. Sci.
53 (2011) 2978–2987.
[22] R. Barker, B. Pickles, A. Nevill, General corrosion of X65 steel under silica sand
deposits in CO2 -saturated environments in the presence of corrosion inhibitor com-
ponents, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2014 NACE International, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 2014 Paper No. 4215.
[23] Y.Z. Xu, Y. Huang, L.H. He, F. Yang, X.N. Wang, Experimental study on under-deposit
corrosion and its inhibition using electrochemical methods and electronic coupon
technique, Anti-Corros. Methods Mater. 64 (2017) 148–161.
[24] Y.J. Tan, Experimental methods designed for measuring corrosion in highly resistive
and inhomogeneous media, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011) 1145–1155.
[25] Y.J. Tan, N.N. Aung, Quantifying the efficiency and understanding the mechanism
of localised corrosion inhibition using the wire beam electrode, Mater. Corros. 65
(2014) 457–465.
[26] Y. Tan, T. Liu, Characterising localised corrosion inhibition by means of parameters
measured by an electrochemically integrated multielectrode array, Corros. Eng. Sci.
Technol. 49 (2014) 23–31.
[27] Y.J. Tan, N.N. Aung, T. Liu, Evaluating localised corrosion intensity using the wire
beam electrode, Corros. Sci. 63 (2012) 379–386.
[28] Y.J. Tan, Y. Fwu, K. Bhardwaj, Electrochemical evaluation of under-deposit corro-
sion and its inhibition using the wire beam electrode method, Corros. Sci. 53 (2011)
1254–1261.
[29] E.M. Suarez, L.L. Machuca, B. Kinsella, K. Lepkova, CO2 corrosion inhibitors per-
formance at deposit-covered carbon steel and their adsorption on different deposits,
Corrosion 75 (2019) 1118–1127.
[30] W. Liu, J.J. Dou, S.L. Lu, P. Zhang, Q.H. Zhao, Effect of silty sand in formation
water on CO2 corrosion behavior of carbon steel, Appl. Surf. Sci. 367 (2016) 438–
448.
[31] X. Wang, R.E. Melchers, Long-term under-deposit pitting corrosion of carbon steel
pipes, Ocean Eng. 133 (2017) 231–243.
[32] S. Nesic, Key issues related to modelling of internal corrosion of oil and gas pipelines
- a review, Corros. Sci. 49 (2007) 4308–4338.
[33] Y. Huang, Y. Xu, B. Li, L. Ying, F. Yang, X. Wang, Novel electrical resistance method
to measure underdeposit corrosion and its inhibition in pipeline steels, Corros. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 51 (2016) 211–222.
[34] J. Yang, Z.B. Wang, Y.X. Qiao, Y.G. Zheng, Synergistic effects of deposits and sul-
fate reducing bacteria on the corrosion of carbon steel, Corros. Sci. 199 (2022)
110210.
[35] J. Han, Y. Yang, S. Nesic, B.N. Brown, Roles of passivation and galvanic effects in
localized CO2 corrosion of mild steel, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2008 NACE
International, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2008 Paper No. 08332.
[36] D. Han, R.J. Jiang, Y.F. Cheng, Mechanism of electrochemical corrosion of car-
bon steel under deoxygenated water drop and sand deposit, Electrochim. Acta 114
(2013) 403–408.
[37] Y.L. Wu, D.P. Zhang, G.Y. Cai, X.X. Zhang, Z.H. Dong, Effects of temperature on
polarity reversal of under deposit corrosion of mild steel in oilfield produced water,
Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 55 (2020) 708–720.
[38] P. Guo, E.C. La Plante, B. Wang, X. Chen, M. Balonis, M. Bauchy, G. Sant, Direct
observation of pitting corrosion evolutions on carbon steel surfaces at the nano–
to-micro-scales, Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 7990.
[39] X. Jiang, Y.G. Zheng, D.R. Qu, W. Ke, Effect of calcium ions on pitting corrosion
and inhibition performance in CO2 corrosion of N80 steel, Corros. Sci. 48 (2006)
3091–3108.
Z.B. Wang, L. Pang and Y.G. Zheng
[40] D.A. Lopez, W.H. Schreiner, S.R. de Sanchez, S.N. Simison, The influence of carbon
steel microstructure on corrosion layers - an XPS and SEM characterization, Appl.
Surf. Sci. 207 (2003) 69–85.
[41] F. Xue, X. Wei, J.H. Dong, C.G. Wang, W. Ke, Effect of chloride ion on corrosion
behavior of low carbon steel in 0.1 M NaHCO3 solution with different dissolved
oxygen concentrations, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35 (2019) 596–603.
[42] F.X. Shi, L. Zhang, J.W. Yang, M.X. Lu, J.H. Ding, H. Li, Polymorphous FeS corro-
sion products of pipeline steel under highly sour conditions, Corros. Sci. 102 (2016)
103–113.
[43] J. Kvarekvål, J. Moloney, Sour corrosion, in: A.M. El-Sherik (Ed.), Trends in Oil
and Gas Corrosion Research and Technologies, Woodhead Publishing, Boston, 2017,
pp. 113–147.
[44] Q. Sun, C.F. Chen, X. Zhao, H. Chi, Y. He, Y.C. Li, Y.M. Qi, H.B. Yu, Ion-selectivity
of iron sulfides and their effect on H2 S corrosion, Corros. Sci. 158 (2019) 108085.
[45] M. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ke, E.-H. Han, Corrosion behavior of X52 anti-H2 S pipeline
steel exposed to high H2 S concentration solutions at 90 ◦ C, J. Mater. Sci. Technol.
30 (2014) 504–510.
[46] J. Kvarekval, A. Dugstad, Corrosion mitigation with pH stabilization in slightly sour
gas/condensate pipelines, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2006 NACE International,
San Diego, California, USA, 2006 Paper No. 06646.
[47] W.F. Brickell, E.C. Greco, J.B. Sardisco, Corrosion of iron in an H2 S-CO2 -H2 O system:
influence of (single iron) crystal orientation on hydrogen penetration rate, Corrosion
20 (1964) 235t–236t.
[48] S.N. Smith, B. Brown, W. Sun, Corrosion at higher H2 S concentrations and moderate
temperatures, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2011 NACE International, Houston,
Texas, USA, 2011 Paper No. 11081.
[49] H.Y. Ma, X.L. Cheng, G.Q. Li, S.H. Chen, Z.L. Quan, S.Y. Zhao, L. Niu, The influence
of hydrogen sulfide on corrosion of iron under different conditions, Corros. Sci. 42
(2000) 1669–1683.
[50] A. Shamsa, R. Barker, Y. Hua, E. Barmatov, T.L. Hughes, A. Neville, The role of Ca2+
ions on Ca/Fe carbonate products on X65 carbon steel in CO2 corrosion environ-
ments at 80 and 150 degrees C, Corros. Sci. 156 (2019) 58–70.
[51] R. Barker, D. Burkle, T. Charpentier, H. Thompson, A. Neville, A review of iron
carbonate (FeCO3 ) formation in the oil and gas industry, Corros. Sci. 142 (2018)
312–341.
[52] D.H. Davies, G.T. Burstein, The effects of bicarbonate on the corrosion and passiva-
tion of iron, Corrosion 36 (1980) 416–422.
[53] C. Sun, J.B. Sun, Y. Wang, P.F. Sui, X.Q. Lin, H.F. Liu, X.K. Cheng, M.N. Zhou, Ef-
fect of impurity interaction on the corrosion film characteristics and corrosion mor-
phology evolution of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO2 system, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 65 (2017) 117–127.
[54] P. Zhang, A.T. Kan, M.B. Tomson, Oil field mineral scale control, in: Z. Amjad,
K.D. Demadis (Eds.), Mineral Scales and Deposits, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2015,
pp. 603–617.
[55] L. Pang, Y.G. Zheng, M. Chang, Z.B. Wang, The role of carbon steel corrosion process
on CaCO3 scaling in deoxidized oilfield injection water, ChemistrySelect 5 (2020)
12039–12044.
[56] B. Brown, J. Moloney, Under-deposit corrosion, in: A.M. El-Sherik (Ed.), Trends in
Oil and Gas Corrosion Research and Technologies, Woodhead Publishing, Boston,
2017, pp. 363–383.
[57] B. Brown, A. Saleh, J. Moloney, Comparison of mono- to diphosphate ester ratio
in inhibitor formulations for mitigation of under deposit corrosion, Corrosion 71
(2015) 1500–1510.
[58] W. Cui, D.D. Han, X.H. Zhang, L. Zhang, M.X. Lu, W. Zhong, CO2 corrosion and the
inhibitor effectiveness under sand deposits in offshore pipeline, in: Proceedings of
the Corrosion 2014 NACE International, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2014 Paper No.
4183.
[59] L.M. He, Y.Z. Xu, X.N. Wang, Y. Huang, Understanding the propagation of nonuni-
form corrosion on a steel surface covered by marine sand, Corrosion 75 (2019)
1487–1501.
[60] H.W. Liu, Zhong X.K, H.F. Liu, F.Y. Cheng, Microbiologically-enhanced galvanic cor-
rosion of the steel beneath a deposit in simulated oilfield-produced water containing
Desulfotomaculum nigrificans, Electrochem. Commun. 90 (2018) 1–5.
[61] G. Hinds, A. Turnbull, Novel multi-electrode test method for evaluating inhibi-
tion of underdeposit corrosion-Part 1: sweet conditions, Corrosion 66 (2010)
046001.
[62] J. Huang, B. Brown, X. Jiang, B. Kinsella, S. Nesic, Internal CO2 corrosion of mild
steel pipelines under inert solid deposits, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2010
NACE International, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2010 Paper No. 10379.
[63] M. Karim, M.C. Ismail, M. Karim, Performance of corrosion inhibitor with sand de-
posit in CO2 environment, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 11 (2016) 12103–12107.
[64] K.T. Ly, D.J. Blumer, W.M. Bohon, A. Chan, Novel chemical dispersant for removal
of organic/inorganic "schmoo" scale in produced water injection systems, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Corrosion 98 NACE International, San Diego, California, USA, 1998
Paper No. 98073.
[65] X. Liu, X.M. Pan, M.H. Lu, Y. Sun, Z.B. Wang, Y.G. Zheng, Nicotinic acid derivatives
as corrosion inhibitors for mild steel in hydrochloric acid solutions: an experimental
and computational chemistry study, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 35 (2021) 63–80.
[66] J. Alcantara, B. Chico, J. Simancas, I. Diaz, D. de la Fuente, M. Morcillo, An attempt
to classify the morphologies presented by different rust phases formed during the
exposure of carbon steel to marine atmospheres, Mater. Charact. 118 (2016) 65–78.
[67] S.D.B. Trauassos, M.B. de Almeida, C. Catuogno, H.G. de Melo, Non-destructive
thickness measurement as a tool to evaluate the evolution of patina layer formed
on weathering steel exposed to the atmosphere, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020)
687–699.
81
Corrosion Communications 7 (2022) 70–81
[68] T.Z. Zhu, L.D. Wang, W. Sun, M. Wang, J.S. Tian, Z.Q. Yang, S.L. Wang, L. Xia,
S.H. He, Y.Z. Zhou, G.C. Liu, The role of corrosion inhibition in the mitigation of
CaCO3 scaling on steel surface, Corros. Sci. 140 (2018) 182–195.
[69] S.L. Lu, W. Liu, S.A. Zhang, X.L. Qi, X.G. Li, X.M. Wang, Corrosion performance of
carbon steel in CO2 aqueous environment containing silty sand with different sizes,
Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 30 (2017) 1055–1066.
[70] S. Paisse, J.F. Ghiglione, F. Marty, B. Abbas, H. Gueune, J.M.S. Amaya, G. Muyzer,
L. Quillet, Sulfate-reducing bacteria inhabiting natural corrosion deposits from ma-
rine steel structures, Appl. Microbiol. Biot. 97 (2013) 7493–7504.
[71] L.L. Machuca, K. Lepkova, A. Petroski, Corrosion of carbon steel in the presence of
oilfield deposit and thiosulphate-reducing bacteria in CO2 environment, Corros. Sci.
129 (2017) 16–25.
[72] P. Kannan, S.S. Su, M.S. Mannan, H. Castaneda, S. Vaddiraju, A review of char-
acterization and quantification tools for microbiologically influenced corrosion in
the oil and gas industry: current and future trends, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018)
13895–13922.
[73] C.A. Palacios, J.R. Shadley, Characteristics of corrosion scales on steels in a
CO2 -saturated NaCl brine, Corrosion 47 (1991) 122–127.
[74] D. Clover, B. Kinsella, B. Pejcic, R. De Marco, The influence of microstructure on the
corrosion rate of various carbon steels, J. Appl. Electrochem. 35 (2005) 139–149.
[75] J.K. Fink, Scale Inhibitors, in: J.K. Fink (Ed.), Petroleum Engineer’s Guide to Oil Field
Chemicals and Fluids, Gulf Professional Publishing, Boston, 2012, pp. 253-274.
[76] Y. Duccini, A. Dufour, W.M. Harm, T.W. Sanders, B. Weinstein, High performance
oilfield scale inhibitor, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 97 NACE International, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1997 Paper No. 97169.
[77] M. Finsgar, J. Jackson, Application of corrosion inhibitors for steels in acidic media
for the oil and gas industry: a review, Corros. Sci. 86 (2014) 17–41.
[78] A.A. Olajire, Corrosion inhibition of offshore oil and gas production facilities using
organic compound inhibitors - a review, J. Mol. Liq. 248 (2017) 775–808.
[79] M. Askari, M. Aliofkhazraei, S. Ghaffari, A. Hajizadeh, Film former corrosion in-
hibitors for oil and gas pipelines - a technical review, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 58 (2018)
92–114.
[80] V. Pandarinathan, K. Lepkova, S.I. Bailey, R. Gubner, Evaluation of corrosion inhi-
bition at sand-deposited carbon steel in CO2 -saturated brine, Corros. Sci. 72 (2013)
108–117.
[81] M. Foss, E. Gulbrandsen, J. Sjoeblom, Effect of corrosion inhibitors and oil on car-
bon dioxide corrosion and wetting of carbon steel with ferrous carbonate deposits,
Corrosion 65 (2009) 3–14.
[82] D.I. Horsup, J.C. Clark, B.P. Binks, P.D.I. Fletcher, J.T. Hicks, The fate
of oilfield corrosion inhibitors in multiphase systems, Corrosion 66 (2010)
036001.
[83] J.W. Palmer, J. Marsh, R.C. Newman, Evaluation of inhibitor performance for pro-
tection against localized corrosion, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2002 NACE
International, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2002 Paper No. 02288.
[84] A. Pedersen, K. Bilkova, E. Gulbrandsen, J. Kvarekvål, CO2 corrosion inhibitor per-
formance in the presence of solids: test method development, in: Proceedings of the
Corrosion 2008 NACE International, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2008 Paper No.
08632.
[85] K. Lepkova, R. Gubner, Development of standard test method for investigation of
under-deposit corrosion in carbon dioxide environment and its application in oil
and gas industry, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2010 NACE International, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 2010 Paper No. 10331.
[86] V. Pandarinathan, K. Lepková, R. Gubner, Inhibition of CO2 corrosion of 1030 carbon
steel beneath sand-deposits, in: Proceedings of the Corrosion 2011 NACE Interna-
tional, Houston, Texas, USA, 2011 Paper No. 11261.
[87] A. Jenkins, D. MacDougall, Mitigation of under-deposit and weldment corrosion
with an environmentally acceptable corrosion inhibitor, in: Proceedings of Corro-
sion 2013 NACE International, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2013 Paper No. 2508.
[88] Y. Zhang, J. Moloney, S. Mancuso, Understanding factors affecting corrosion in-
hibitor performance in under-deposit testing with sand, in: Proceedings of Corrosion
2013 NACE International, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2013 Paper No. 2575.
[89] V. Pandarinathan, K. Lepkova, S.I. Bailey, R. Gubner, Inhibition of under-de-
posit corrosion of carbon steel by thiobenzamide, J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 (2013)
C432–C440.
[90] N. Yu, The Corrosion Mechanism of Oild and Gas Carbon Steel Pipelines Under De-
posits Ph.D. Thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2014.
[91] Z.W. Tie, W.W. Song, J.M. Zhao, Diffusion behaviours of three thioureido imidazo-
line corrosion inhibitors in a simulated sediment layer, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 13
(2018) 5497–5512.
[92] J. Huang, Study of Under Deposit Corrosion of Mild Steel in Aqueous Carbon Dioxide
Solution Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio University, 2013.
[93] Y.Z. Xu, L.J. Yang, L.M. He, Y. Huang, X.N. Wang, The monitoring of galvanic cor-
rosion behaviour caused by mineral deposit in pipeline working conditions using
ring form electronic resistance sensor system, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 51 (2016)
606–620.
[94] Y.L. Zhu, X.P. Guo, Y.B. Qiu, Inhibition mechanism of sodium laurate to under-
deposit corrosion of carbon steels in NaCl solutions, Corros. Eng. Sci. Technol. 45
(2010) 442–448.
[95] Q.Y. Ye, Study on The Mechanism of Inhibitor in Under-Deposit Corrosion of Carbon
Steel Ph.D. Thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2018.
[96] J. Yuan, L.M. Sun, J. Tian, Z.H. Dong, Review on monitoring- and prediction-tech-
nology for scaling process of gathering pipes of oilfields, Corros. Sci. Prot. Technol.
30 (2018) 534–542.