3. Marine Antifouling Strategies
Several strategies have been used to mitigate the effects of marine biofouling. These approaches can prevent and/or delay biofilm development and the attachment of macrofoulers, comprising antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and antifouling surfaces
[41], or control already established biofilms and fouling communities (
Figure 3,
Table 1). Control methodologies involve using bacteriophages, enzymes, QS inhibitors, disinfectants, additional treatment methods, and cleaning technologies
[38][42][43][44][45] (
Figure 3). A range of criteria should be evaluated to select the most suitable marine antifouling strategy, including effectiveness, safety, biosecurity, compatibility with the materials of devices/equipment, and feasibility. First, effectiveness implies evaluating the activity, concentration, or intensity spectrum of antifouling activity and required exposure time. The antifouling strategy must be safe for the environment (ecotoxicological safety) and operators, as well as not exacerbate the biosecurity risk of releasing and establishing non-indigenous species. Moreover, the antifouling strategy should be compatible with the equipment itself to avoid damaging systems or other components of the devices/equipment. It should also be cost-effective and fulfill infrastructure requirements
[38].
Figure 3. Preventive and control methodologies to mitigate marine biofouling effects.
Antifouling paints containing arsenic, zinc, tin, and mercury were commonly used as the initial strategy to deal with marine biofouling
[46][47] until their toxicity on the surrounding marine environment was demonstrated
[48][49][50]. Indeed, in the 1960s, coatings incorporating a tributyl tin (TBT)-based biocide were the first to present robust effectiveness with a relatively low production cost. However, several findings indicated the negative impacts of TBT-based compounds related to their persistence and toxicity, showing adverse effects on non-target marine organisms. Several governments restricted its use, and the International Maritime Organization decided to ban the use of this type of biocide in the manufacturing of antifouling paints in 2003 and the presence of these paints on ship surfaces from 2008
[17].
Therefore, further biofouling treatments have been applied, including thermal stress, osmotic shock, deoxygenation, UV and laser radiation, and hydrodynamic and acoustic cavitation
[38][44][45][51]. The most commonly available cleaning technologies are brushing, scraping, pressure cleaning with water/air jetting, or mechanical cleaning using wipers
[33][38][44][45][51][52]. These mitigation strategies vary in their effectiveness in removing biofouling organisms and in their suitability for use on different marine surfaces. For instance, although the intensity of cavitation erosion of submerged surfaces depends on the material properties of the surface, liquid temperature, and the distance from the edge of the working tool to the fouling which should be removed, cavitation technology allows lower surface damage compared to brush-based technologies
[53]. Moreover, nowadays, the cleaning of boats, ships, and additional moveable marine equipment such as cages and nets can be performed in a dry-dock or by in-water cleaning technologies
[44][53]. Although in-water biofouling approaches can be cheaper than onshore activities, they may present higher chemical contamination and biosecurity risks, e.g., the application of underwater technology may increase the recolonization of surrounding surfaces
[54].
Enzymes have also been proposed as an alternative to traditional antifouling compounds since they can act on the breakdown of adhesive components and the catalytic production of repellent compounds
in situ [42]. A broad spectrum of aquatic disinfectants, such as Triple7 Enviroscale Plus
® (citric acid: 30–60%; lactic acid: 30–60%), Descalex
® (sulfamic acid: 60–100%), NALCO
® 79125 Safe Acid (sulfamic acid: 60–100%), and Rydlyme
® (hydrogen chloride: <10%), has been demonstrated to effectively control biofouling, being one of the most widespread treatments for cleaning and disinfecting marine equipment and devices
[43][55][56]. They can be applied through the immersion of equipment into disinfectant solutions or spray applications since these disinfectants are available in powder and/or tablet form. TermoRens
® Liquid 104 cleansing fluid (5–15% citric acid and <10% phosphoric acid) was formulated to remove mussels, barnacles, and additional marine organisms and is marketed as environmentally friendly. Likewise, Barnacle Buster
® (85% phosphoric acid) is promoted as a safe, non-toxic, and biodegradable marine growth removal agent
[38]. In the peroxygen family, Virkon
® Aquatic is 99.9% biodegradable and breaks down to water and oxygen
[57]. It is one of the very few U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered disinfectants labeled specifically for use in aquaculture facilities against aquatic bacterial, fungal, and viral pathogens, and is available through aquaculture suppliers such as Syndel in North America
[58][59]. In turn, in the European Community, Antec International Limited indicates that the compound is registered as a disinfectant only for professional use. Due to the restrictive legislation, which requires several risk studies before registration and marketing authorization, the global costs of the development of new biocides or new antifouling coatings incorporating biocides have increased
[17]. These costs reactivated the development of non-toxic approaches, including novel antifouling surfaces in which some natural compounds can be incorporated. Although the choice of the correct strategy depends on the cost and application possibilities, antifouling coatings are probably the most cost-effective method for boats and other submerged devices and equipment
[60][61].
Table 1. Currently employed marine biofouling strategies, their advantages, and limitations.
To date, there is no available universal strategy that is effective against marine biofouling. Compared to chemical treatment agents, fewer toxicological and environmental risks are often associated with non-chemical treatment agents. The improvement of environmentally friendly marine coatings is crucial for improved antifouling strategies. In the progress of novel antifouling coatings, factors related to production, application, maintenance, and service life should be considered. Novel promising marine coatings should be non-toxic, effective in a wide range of applications, require low maintenance, have reduced cost, and maintain high performance over long periods. Overall, investing in the research and development of innovative technology that can provide practical and feasible tools to control biofouling while protecting the marine environment from harmful chemical and/or biological waste is essential. Therefore, economic factors and biosecurity risk-management decisions should be taken into consideration to contemplate the practicality, feasibility, and environmental impact of biofouling management options.