Review: ecotoxicity of organic and organo-metallic antifouling co-biocides and implications for environmental hazard and risk assessments in aquatic ecosystems

Abstract

Hazard assessments of Irgarol 1051, diuron, 2-(thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole (TCMTB), dichloro-octylisothiazolin (DCOIT), chlorothalonil, dichlofluanid, thiram, zinc pyrithione, copper pyrithione, triphenylborane pyridine (TPBP), capsaicin, nonivamide, tralopyril and medetomidine were performed to establish robust environmental quality standards (EQS), based on predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs). Microalgae, zooplankton, fish and amphibians were the most sensitive ecological groups to all the antifoulants evaluated, especially in the early life stages. No differences were identified between freshwater and seawater species. The use of toxicity tests with non-standard species is encouraged because they increase the datasets, allowing EQS to be derived from probabilistic-based PNECs whilst reducing uncertainties. The global ban of tributyltin (TBT) has been heralded as a major environmental success; however, substitute antifoulants may also pose risks to aquatic ecosystems. Environmental risk assessments (ERAs) have driven decision-makings for regulating antifouling products, but in many countries there is still a lack of regulation of antifouling biocides which should be addressed.

Ecotoxicological Assessment of Immersion Samples from Facade Render Containing Free or Encapsulated Biocides

“…For example, the European Union Water Framework Directive environmental quality standard for terbutryn is very low (65 ng/L for chronic effects and 340 ng/L for acute effects) and is much lower than the measured concentrations in the leachate samples (up to 1640 mg/L). The same is true for DCOIT, with measured concentrations up to 120 mg/L and a recently proposed environmental quality standard of 27 ng/L (Martins et al 2018). Consequently, any reduction in leaching emissions will contribute markedly to reducing possible risks to the relevant environmental compartments.…”

One Step Forward towards the Development of Eco-Friendly Antifouling Coatings: Immobilization of a Sulfated Marine-Inspired Compound

“…Although most of them are presented as non-persistent biocides, several occurrence studies have concluded that, in fact, booster biocides persist, owing to their high release in biocide-release-based AF coatings [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In addition, due to their low water solubility and hydrophobic behavior, booster biocides tend to bioaccumulate, causing environmental damage [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Fortunately, there is increasing concern about the influence of copper and booster biocides in the marine environment and the effort to find ecological alternatives has led many researchers to develop greener AF approaches in order to reduce biocide release and consequently their persistence in the ecosystem [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

A facile preparation of a novel non-leaching antimicrobial waterborne polyurethane leather coating functionalized by quaternary phosphonium salt

“…As for antibacterial polyurethane (PU) leather coating, the conventional strategy is to mix chemicals biocides such as chlorinated phenols, dimethylfumarate, 2-(thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole with the polymers [2]. Despite their excellent efficiency in killing microorganisms, those biocides are becoming unacceptable [3] and some of them have been restricted or even prohibited because of high toxicity and ecological hazards [4]. The easy leaching of the physically-incorporated biocides from the coating not only brings about adverse effects on environment and human health, but also compromises their long-term effectiveness [1].…”