Metal industries and, particularly, the steel industry are plagued with the 
problem of corrosion, e.g., rusting of metal products, especially sheet 
products. With the more refined methods of producing higher grade steel 
sheets for use in automobiles, appliances, and allied industries, the 
problem of rusting during the manufacturing process, storage, and shipment 
has become a significant one. 
Prior art inhibitors for protecting metals rely on the use of inhibitors 
which are in a hydrocarbon oil base. These products are effective to some 
extent; however, the presence of oils can cause problems in subsequent 
cleaning operations. Also, such products tend to run off the metal 
surfaces and cause housekeeping and safety problems. Further, if these 
coated surfaces are exposed to elevated temperatures, the oils tend to 
oxidize or burn and produce noxious odors. 
One proposal for avoiding oil-based inhibitors is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 
4,233,176. This patent shows inhibitor composition comprising water, 
benzoic acid, and amine salts, fatty acids, and a small amount of a 
petroleum oil lubricant. These products are effective under certain types 
of corrosive conditions but are not entirely satisfactory insofar as 
providing complete protection and providing lubricity to the treated 
surface. 
The Compositions of the Invention 
The compositions of the invention are set forth below in General Formula. 
General Formula 
______________________________________ 
% By Weight 
Ingredients General Preferred 
______________________________________ 
Water 75-90 80-90 
C.sub.10 -C.sub.22 Aliphatic 
Carboxylic Acid 2-8 3-6 
C.sub.6 -C.sub.12 Dibasic Acid 
1-10 3-8 
Amine Blend, comprising a 
1:2 to 2:1 ratio of a cy- 
clic amine from the group 
consisting of cyclohexyl 
amine and morpholine and 
an C.sub.2 -C.sub.4 alkanol amine. 
3-8 4-8 
Water-soluble alkali 
metal base. .5-3 .5-2 
______________________________________ 
The Dibasic Acids 
These acids may be selected from dibasic acids containing between 6-12 
carbon atoms. Illustrative are such acids as adipic, pimelic, suberic, 
azelaic and sebacic. Of these acids, azelaic acid is preferred. 
The Amine Blend 
The amine blend used to prepare the compositions is a 2:1 to 1:2 blend of 
the cyclic amines, morpholine or cyclohexyl amine with a lower C.sub.2 
-C.sub.4 alkanol amine. 
Morpholine is the preferred cyclic amine. 
The lower alkanol amines may be selected from any number of such compounds. 
Typical are the mono, di, and triethanolamine. Preferred is 
monoethanolamine. 
The Alkali Metal Base 
This compound may be either the alkali metal hydroxide, carbonate or other 
basic alkali metal material capable of forming a salt with a carboxylic 
acid. 
Optional Ingredients 
The General Formula shows the basic components of the composition of the 
invention. It should be noted, however, that other ingredients may be 
added to enhance the performance and characteristics of products falling 
within the scope of the invention. Thus, it has been found beneficial to 
add to formulas of the types shown above small quantities of caprylic acid 
to provide clarity and viscosity control. The amount added may range 
between 0.3-1%. by weight. 
Another optional ingredient is a fatty substituted sarcosine..sup.1 Such a 
product is sold under the trade name of Sarkosyl-O and is oleyl sarcosine. 
Sarcosine is N-methylglycine. 
FNT .sup.1 Corrosion inhibitor and is used at 0.1-1% by weight. 
Another optional ingredient that may be incorporated into the formulas of 
the inventions are the well-known mixed Ucon lubricant anti-foams which 
are random copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. They are 
described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,575,276. 
When used, the dosage may range between 0.01-1% by weight. 
Evaluation of the Invention 
In order to evaluate the invention, several field tests were run using a 
typical composition of the invention. This composition is set forth below: 
______________________________________ 
Composition A 
Ingredients % By Weight 
______________________________________ 
Water - Deionized 84.8% 
Morpholine, Anhydrous 2.0% 
Azelaic Acid 4.0% 
Caprylic Acid 0.8% 
Oleyl Sarcosine 0.5% 
Monoethanolamine, 99 o/o 
3.0% 
Linseed Fatty Acid 4.0% 
______________________________________ 
A trial of Composition A above and several other water-based rust 
preventitives was held at a Temper Mill located in a midwest area of the 
United States. In addition to the water-based products, two oil-based, 
rust preventatives were evaluated. All coils were wet-temper rolled, using 
a 5% solution of a commercial rolling lubricant. A single coil was divided 
into 10 equal parts, each weighing about 400 to 500 pounds. Each product 
would coat two coils. 
The oil based products were sprayed first and no significant differences 
were seen. The spray system was then flushed with a chlorinated solvent, 
followed by water which was followed by a water-based competitive product 
hereinafter referred to as Competitive Product B. 
The Competitive Product B sprayed well and seemed to wet well; however, it 
foamed heavily as it was sprayed. A second competitive product, 
hereinafter referred to as Competitive Product A, was a milky solution 
having a viscosity about the same as water. The Competitive Product A did 
not foam extensively; however, it did not seem to wet the strip well. The 
Composition A was sprayed last. Wetability of the strip was excellent. 
The coils were immediately recoiled and samples were taken. The Competitive 
Product A material, as suspected, did not wet well. The Composition A 
wetability was judged the best by all observing. 
The Competitive Product A dried the fastest; the outer lap was dry in less 
than 15 minutes. The Competitive Product B and Composition A dried at 
about the same rate; the outer laps being dry in 30 to 45 minutes. All 
coils were kept in the coil storage area, covered by paper, for two (2) 
months. They were then evaluated for rust by recoiling. 
At the end of two (2) months, both coils of Competitive Product B had the 
same appearance; heavy stain and rust. The stain ran in from the edges, 
sometimes reaching the center of the sheet and continuing through the 
entire coil. A heavy black band of oxidation, 12 inches in from one side, 
ran the length of the coil. 
The Competitive Product A coils had less stain and it was less severe. The 
stain ran in patches 10 inches in from one edge and was yellow in color. 
The stain ran through the entire coil. When the stain was removed, the 
surface was found to be etched. Mill personnel said both products were 
definitely unacceptable. 
The Composition A coils appeared bright with no evidence of rust or stain. 
The Competitive Product A coils had a dull oxidized finish. Both coils had 
the same appearance. Mill personnel were very impressed with the coils. 
All coils were saved in the finished coil warehouse. 
In addition to the rust preventive testing, the Temper Mill tested the 
Composition A at a 3% dilution. The lubricity and rollability was 
excellent and no problems were encountered. 
In addition to the above field test, the Composition A was subjected to a 
so-called Stack test and the Cleveland Condensing Cabinet test. These 
tests are described below:

Stack Test 
Standard 4".times.6" "Q"-panels are cleaned by dipping in isopropanol and 
allowed to drain dry. The panels are then coated with the rust preventive 
by dipping. The panels are allowed to drain for two hours, then placed 
into a pack and secured with four "C" clamps. The pack is placed into a 
standard humidity cabinet (100.degree. F.-100% RH) and evaluated every 
seven days. The amount of rust or stain after three weeks is noted. If no 
rust is found, the test is continued for five weeks. 
Cleveland Condensing Cabinet 
"Q"-panels are cleaned with isopropanol and allowed to drain dry. The 
panels are coated with a draw bar giving five mils wet film thickness of 
rust preventive. The panels are allowed to dry for two hours and then 
placed in the cabinet. The Cleveland test cabinet is maintained at maximum 
temperature for the wet and dry cycles and is operated on a four-hour 
cycle. The panels are evaluated after 24 hours and the amount of rust is 
noted. 
Additionally, Composition A was subjected to hydrochloric acid fumes for 
four hours. The results of these tests are as follows: 
In the Cleveland cabinet test, Composition A prevented rust for 48 hours. 
In the Stack stain test, the specimen will be free from stain after two 
weeks. 
In the hydrochloric acid fume test, after four hours only 10% of rust will 
have become evident.