Regulation of Marine Antifouling in International and EC Law

Cheyne, Ilona

doi:10.1002/9781444315462.ch21

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The accumulation of fouling organisms on the surfaces of ships, heat exchangers, water intakes, oceanographic instruments, and aquaculture systems leads to serious economic and environmental penalties. Copper and organotin biocides have been effective in combating biofouling, but their uses are being limited or banned due to environmental concerns (Cheyne 2010, Thomas & Brooks 2010. Adhesion-resistant, fouling-release and contact-active coatings are some of the strategies that are used to replace biocidal materials, and to provide environmentally benign antifouling coatings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine biofouling has detrimental effects on the environment and economy, and current antifouling coatings research is aimed at environmentally benign, non-toxic materials. The possibility of using contact-active coatings is explored, by considering the antialgal activity of cationic poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes. The antialgal activity was investigated via zoospore settlement and sporeling growth assays of the marine algae Ulva linza and U. lactuca. The assay results for PDMAEMA brushes were compared to those for anionic and neutral surfaces. It was found that only PDMAEMA could disrupt zoospores that come into contact with it, and that it also inhibits the subsequent growth of normally settled spores. Based on the spore membrane properties, and characterization of the PDMAEMA brushes over a wide pH range, it is hypothesized that the algicidal mechanisms are similar to the bactericidal mechanisms of cationic polymers, and that further development could lead to successful contact-active antialgal coatings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 However, the use of copper and certain biocides has been restricted through legislation due to environmental concerns. 6 Recently, development of environmentally benign antifouling coatings has become an attractive and challenging issue in marine biofouling research. 7 Understanding how physicochemical properties of surfaces influence the attachment, adhesion and settlement of fouling organisms is essential for the development of new non-toxic antifouling technologies and in designing effective and environmentally benign antifouling coatings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydration and Chain Entanglement Determines the Optimum Thickness of Poly(HEMA-co-PEG₁₀MA) Brushes for Effective Resistance to Settlement and Adhesion of Marine Fouling Organisms

Yandi

Mieszkin

Martin‐Tanchereau

et al. 2014

ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how surface physicochemical properties influence the settlement and adhesion of marine fouling organisms is important for the development of effective and environmentally benign marine antifouling coatings. We demonstrate that the thickness of random poly(HEMA-co-PEG10MA) copolymer brushes affect antifouling behaviour.Films of thicknesses ranging from 50 to 1000 Å were prepared via surface-initiated atom-transfer radical polymerization, and characterized using infrared spectroscopy, ellipsometry, atomic force microscopy and contact angle measurements. The fouling resistance of these films was investigated by protein adsorption, attachment of the marine bacterium Cobetia marina, settlement and strength of attachment tests of zoospores of the marine alga Ulva linza, and static immersion field tests. These assays show that the polymer film thickness influenced the antifouling performance, in that there is an optimum thickness range, 200-400 Å, where fouling of all types, as well as algal spore adhesion, was lower. Field test results also showed lower fouling within the same thickness range after two weeks' immersion. Studies by quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D) and underwater captive bubble contact angle measurements show strong correlation between lower fouling and higher hydration, viscosity and surface energy of the poly(HEMA-co-PEG10MA) brushes at thicknesses around 200-400 Å. We hypothesize that the reduced antifouling performance is caused by a lower hydration capacity of the polymer for thinner films, and that entanglement and crowding in the film reduces the conformational freedom, hydration capacity, and fouling resistance for thicker films.3

show abstract

“…Treatment of wastewater contaminated with antifouling additives represents an emerging cost factor as the release of biocides is increasingly restricted and will cause more effort for removal -a problem which will come further into focus in Europe when new EU guidelines which limit the biocide content in effluents come into action (Flemming and Greenhalgh 2009;Cheyne 2010). What clearly makes more sense is putting more effort in prevention of biofouling by advanced strategies.…”

Section: The Costs Of Biofoulingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The problem with natural antifouling compounds is that (1) most of them are only scarcely available, (2) that they are difficult to apply on a constant basis on a surface, (3) they do not completely prevent biofilm formation on inanimate surfaces, (4) that they will select for organisms which can overcome the effect, and (5) they are inherently biodegradable and, thus, their effect can be short-lasting. Apart from that, they will have to undergo the EU biocide guideline procedure, which is assessed to cost about 5-10 million € per substance (see Flemming and Greenalgh 2009;Cheyne 2010). 3.…”

Section: Low-fouling Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial Biofouling: Unsolved Problems, Insufficient Approaches, and Possible Solutions

Flemming

2011

Springer Series on Biofilms

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial biofouling is a very costly problem, keeping busy a billion dollar industry providing biocides, cleaners, and antifouling materials worldwide. Basically, five general reasons can be identified, which continuously compromise the efficacy of antifouling strategies:1. Biofouling is detected by its effect on process performance or product quality and quantity. Early warning systems are very rare, although they could save costly countermeasures necessary for removing established fouling. 2. Usually, biofouling is diagnosed only indirectly, when other explanations fail.The common practice is to take water samples, which give no information about site and extent of biofouling deposits. 3. When finally the diagnosis "biofouling" is established, biocides are used which, in many cases, for the best kill microorganisms but do not really remove them. Killing, however, is not cleaning while frequently the presence of biomass and not its physiological activity is the problem. 4. Biofouling is a biofilm phenomenon and based on the fact that biofilms grow at the expense of nutrients; oxidizing biocides can make things even worse by breaking recalcitrant molecules down into biodegradable fragments. Nutrients have to be considered as potential biomass. 5. Efficacy control is performed again by process performance or product quality and not optimized by meaningful biofilm monitoring, verifying successful removal.Thus, further biofouling is predictable. To overcome this vicious circle, an integrated strategy is suggested, which does not rely on one type of countermeasure, and which acknowledges that antifouling effects are essentially time dependent: long-term claims have to meet different (and more difficult) goals than short-term ones. An appropriate strategy includes the selection of low-adhesion, easy-to-clean surfaces, good housekeeping, early warning systems, limitation of nutrients, improvement of cleaners, strategic cleaning and monitoring of deposits. The goal is: to learn how to live with biofilms and keep their effects below the level of interference in the most efficient way.

show abstract

Regulation of Marine Antifouling in International and EC Law

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

Hydration and Chain Entanglement Determines the Optimum Thickness of Poly(HEMA-co-PEG₁₀MA) Brushes for Effective Resistance to Settlement and Adhesion of Marine Fouling Organisms

Microbial Biofouling: Unsolved Problems, Insufficient Approaches, and Possible Solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Regulation of Marine Antifouling in International and EC Law

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

Antialgal activity of poly(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate) (PDMAEMA) brushes against the marine alga Ulva

Hydration and Chain Entanglement Determines the Optimum Thickness of Poly(HEMA-co-PEG10MA) Brushes for Effective Resistance to Settlement and Adhesion of Marine Fouling Organisms

Microbial Biofouling: Unsolved Problems, Insufficient Approaches, and Possible Solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Hydration and Chain Entanglement Determines the Optimum Thickness of Poly(HEMA-co-PEG₁₀MA) Brushes for Effective Resistance to Settlement and Adhesion of Marine Fouling Organisms