Amphiphilic Marine Antifouling Coatings Based on a Hydrophilic Polyvinylpyrrolidone and Hydrophobic Fluorine–Silicon-Containing Block Copolymer

Abstract

The development of environmentally friendly and highly efficient antifouling coatings is vastly desirable in the marine industry. Herein, we prepared a novel amphiphilic block copolymer that combined hydrophilic polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) with hydrophobic poly(1-(1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyloxy)-3-(3,6,9-trioxadecyloxy)-propan-2-yl acrylate) (PFA) and polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The amphiphilic copolymer (PVP−PFA−PDMS) was blended into a cross-linked PDMS matrix to form a set of controlled surface composition and surface-renewal coatings with efficient antifouling and fouling-release properties. These coatings incorporated the biofouling settlement resistance ability attributed to the hydrophilic PVP segments and the reduced adhesion strength attributed to the low surface energy of fluorine−siliconcontaining segments. As expected, the coatings showed an excellent antifouling performance against bacteria and marine unicellular Navicula parva diatoms (98.1 and 98.5% of reduction, respectively) and fouling-release performance against pseudobarnacle adhesion (84.3% of reduction) compared to the pristine PDMS coating. Moreover, a higher-content PVP-based coatings presented higher ability to resist biofouling adhesion. The nontoxic antifouling coating developed in this paper hold the potential to be applied in a variety of marine industrial facilities.

Amphiphilic Polyphosphonate Copolymers as New Additives for PDMS-Based Antifouling Coatings

“…Nevertheless, FR siloxane coatings require improvements to overcome some disadvantages, including the higher fouling accumulation during idle time [ 26 ] and the low fouling release efficacy towards some microalgae diatoms [ 27 ]. As a result, hydrophilic fouling-resistant polymers, including PEG and polyzwitterions, were extensively investigated for the hydrophilization of hydrophobic PDMS-based FR coatings [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. PEG, especially, is considered a “gold standard” in the field of anti-biofouling coatings, even though it was proved to undergo oxidative degradation generating some toxic compounds, including 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde [ 36 ].…”

Facile Fabrication of Povidone Iodine‐Embedded Polytetrafluoroethylene Superhydrophobic Films with Improved Antiadhesive and Bactericidal Properties in Bacterial Environments

“…And then, the polymer-coated wafers were immersed at 37°C in the as-prepared bacterial suspension. Samples were collected from the bacterial suspensions at various time points (1,4,8,16, and 24 h) and were rinsed three times with PBS gently. The taken samples at each point were put in 1 mL sterile PBS, shook for 1 min, sonicated for 15 min, and shook again for 1 min.…”

“…It has been reported that the air-bubble layer of the superhydrophobic film cannot maintain on the surface for a longer period of time, and bacteria can attach to the superhydrophobic surface with time. [12] (1,4,8,16, and 24 h) after exposure to a bacterial suspension in BHI. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).…”

“…[11,12] Some attempts at improving the bactericidal and antiadhesive properties of PTFE as superhydrophobic films have been made via adopting a strategy of combining superhydrophobic materials and antibacterial agents such as silver. [13][14][15][16] For example, Cho et al, used a ternary composite sputtering target composed of Ag, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and carbon nanotubes (CNT) to fabricate CNT-Ag-PTFE nanocomposite thin films, which exhibited superior antimicrobial properties via inhibiting the growth and proliferation of bacteria by up to 92.2%, as compared with the uncoated substrates. [13] Carvalho et al, fabricated antimicrobial PTFE thin films, whose surface was modified with silver deposition via radio-frequency magnetron sputtering to inhibit the adhesion of P. aeruginosa and to prevent the formation of biofilms in implanted PTFE biomaterials.…”

“…A) Optical images of S. aureus, E. coli, and MRSA adhered on PTFE/PVP films (60:1, 60:0, and 60:25), PTFE/PVP-I films (60:0:20, 60:1:20, and 60:25:20), and pristine PDMS substrate films (the blank control) after 24 h. B) Optical densities of bacterial attachment to PTFE/PVP films (60:1, 60:0, and 60:25) and PTFE/PVP-I (60:0:20, 60:1:20, and 60:25:20). C) WCA reduction of PTFE/PVP (60:1, 60:0, and 60:25) and PTFE/PVP-I films (60:0:20, 60:1:20, and 60:25:20) at different time points(1,4,8,16, and 24 h) after exposure to a bacterial suspension in BHI. Results are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).…”