## 3 Results and Discussion  
The results of measuring \(E_{\text{corr}}\) of a brass electrode in a neutral chloride solution in the presence of mercaptoalkyl derivatives of 5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee are given in Table 2. In the presence of 3-mercapopropy1-5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee (inhibitor A) with the concentration of \(C_{\text{inh}}\) = 0.01 mM the corrosion potential of the electrode decreases slightly. As the concentration of the inhibitor increases up to 0.10-1.00 mM, \(E_{\text{corr}}\) shifts noticeably to the anodic region. When 3-mercapobutyl-5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee (inhibitor B) is used with the concentration of 0.01 mM, the corrosion potential remains stable. When \(C_{\text{inh}}\) \(\geq\) 0.10 mM, the potential increases at least by 0.1 V. 3-mercaptoethanol(3-methylbutyl)-5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee (inhibitor C) added to the chloride solution also results in \(E_{\text{corr}}\) shifting to the anodic region, with the shift increasing at higher concentrations of the inhibitor. Thus, the analysis of \(E_{\text{corr}}\) demonstrates that the derivatives of 5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee can be classified as anodic inhibitors. The polarization curves of brass in neutral chloride solutions, with the inhibitors under consideration, are given in Figure 1a-c. We can see that when the anodic polarization is low, the current density for all mercaptoalkyl derivatives is lower than in the solution without the inhibitors independent of their concentration. When the concentration of the additive is 0.01 mM (Figure 1a, curve 2), an increase in polarization results in the anodic maximum, while when \(C_{\text{inh}}\) \(\geq\) 0.10 mM, the polarization curve has no peaks and the anodic current density does not exceed 1 mA\(\cdot\)cm\({}^{-2}\). In such solutions, the brass electrode remains passive up to the potential of local activation by chlorides. The potential is much higher than in solutions without the organic additive, and increases at higher concentrations of the inhibitor. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Inhibitor** & \(\mathbf{C_{inh}}\)**, \(\mathbf{mM}\)** & \(\mathbf{E_{corr}}\)**, \(\mathbf{V}\)** & \(\mathbf{R_{p}}\)**, \(\mathbf{k\Omega\cdot cm^{2}}\)** & \(\mathbf{i_{corr}}\)**\(\mathbf{\mu A\cdot cm^{-2}}\)** & \(\mathbf{Z_{i}}\)**, \%** \\ \hline - & - & 0.111 & 1.51 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 26 \(\pm\) 4 & - \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{A} & 0.01 & 0.100 & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 38 \(\pm\) 5 & -46.2 \\  & 0.10 & 0.200 & 382 \(\pm\) 24 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 99.8 \\  & 1.00 & 0.200 & 244 \(\pm\) 18 & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 99.6 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{B} & 0.01 & 0.110 & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 13 \(\pm\) 3 & 50.0 \\  & 0.10 & 0.200 & 195 \(\pm\) 13 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 99.5 \\  & 1.00 & 0.250 & 170 \(\pm\) 15 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 99.3 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{C} & 0.01 & 0.120 & 20.9 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 84.6 \\  & 0.10 & 0.150 & 143 \(\pm\) 18 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 99.2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1.00 & 0.180 & 281 \(\pm\) 24 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 99.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Open circuit potential \(E_{\text{corr}}\), polarization resistance \(R_{p}\), corrosion current density \(i_{\text{corr}}\), and degree of protection of brass \(Z_{i}\), in 10 mM NaCl solutions with various 3-mercaptoethanolyl derivatives of 5-amino-1\(H\)-1,2,4-triazolee. The difference between cathodic curves of brasses in solutions with, and without, inhibitors becomes noticeable only when \(C_{\text{inh}}\geq 0.10\) mM. In fact, cathodic curves obtained without any inhibitors and when their concentration was 0.01 mM are almost identical (Figure 1a-c, curves 1\({}^{\prime}\) and 2\({}^{\prime}\)). The higher the concentration of the inhibitor, the lower the current density (Figure 1a-c, curves 3\({}^{\prime}\) and 4\({}^{\prime}\)). This means that the cathodic process is slowing down. The region of the rapid growth of the cathodic current density is shifted towards negative values by at least 0.3 V as compared to that of the chloride solution without inhibitors.