Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Damage and Adaptation Strategies for Structures and Infrastructure from Storm Surge and Sea Level Rise for a Coastal Community in Rhode Island, United States
Next Article in Special Issue
Biofouling on Coated Carbon Steel in Cooling Water Cycles Using Brackish Seawater
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Morphological Modeling of Barrier Island Tidal Inlets
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 4
Issue 4
10.3390/jmse4040066
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Matching Forces Applied in Underwater Hull Cleaning with Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms

by
Dinis Oliveira
* and
Lena Granhag
Department of Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, SE 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4(4), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040066
Submission received: 30 August 2016 / Revised: 29 September 2016 / Accepted: 7 October 2016 / Published: 17 October 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the 18th International Congress on Marine Corrosion and Fouling)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biofouling is detrimental to the hydrodynamic performance of ships. In spite of advances in hull coating technology, a ship must usually undergo underwater hull cleaning to remove biofouling during her in-service time. However, some cleaning practices may also lead to decreased lifetime of the fouling-control coating. Therefore, cleaning forces should be minimized, according to the adhesion strength of marine organisms present on the hull. In this article, values of adhesion strength found in available literature are discussed in the light of current knowledge on hull cleaning technology. Finally, the following knowledge gaps are identified: (1) data on adhesion strength of naturally-occurring biofouling communities are practically absent; (2) shear forces imparted by current cleaning devices on low-form fouling (microfouling) and corresponding effects on hull coatings are largely unknown. This knowledge would be valuable for both developers and users of cleaning technology.

1. Introduction

Biofouling, the colonization of a surface by living organisms (Figure 1), is detrimental to the hydrodynamic performance of ships, through increased roughness of the hull and propeller, meaning higher fuel consumption or lower maximum speed [1]. Furthermore, it is associated with biosecurity concerns, as a mean of transport of non-native invasive species (NIS) [2]. Importantly, coating systems used for reducing or preventing biofouling are associated with high application and maintenance costs, and may cause water pollution through the release of toxic substances [1].
Increased roughness on the ship hull and propeller contributes to increased hull frictional resistance and decreased propeller efficiency, respectively, both translating into increased power consumption, or decreased speed [3]. It is estimated that a thin slime, “just detectable by touch” (microfouling), can lead to an increase in local skin friction of 25% compared to a clean hull [4]. Schultz et al. further compared the condition of a heavily slimed hull to that of a newly-painted hull and estimated an increase of ~9% in the fuel consumption for the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer [5]. In broader terms, 9%–12% of global emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) from shipping can be attributed to deterioration of hull and propeller performance, due to both mechanical damage and biofouling [6].
As a measure against biofouling, use of fouling-control coatings on the underwater hull can lead to significant operational gains (e.g., [7,8]). Recent estimates suggest that, if each vessel was to shift to its respective “best available” paint technology, the world fleet would benefit from an overall 7%–10% savings in fuel, with a corresponding decrease in air emissions [6]. The two main types of fouling-control coatings correspond to Anti-Fouling (AF) coatings—which rely on biocides for preventing settlement of marine organisms—and Foul-Release (FR) coatings—which rely on surface and bulk mechanical properties to decrease adhesion strength [1]. However, to reduce the impact on non-target marine organisms, the release of toxic substances into the environment should be minimized, at every step from paint application to hull blasting [9,10,11].
In spite of available fouling-control coatings, ships are still required to undergo underwater cleaning to remove biofouling [12], especially when it comes to algal fouling and microfouling (Figure 1b). Since dry docks have limited availability and dry-docking time represents a loss of revenue for commercial ship operators, underwater cleaning is performed during the typical five-year period between dry-dockings [13]. However, if the underwater cleaning is too aggressive, the fouling-control coating can be damaged, with negative consequences to its effectiveness and lifetime [14]. It is therefore important to know, on one side, the adhesion strength of marine organisms, and, on the other side, the forces imparted by cleaning tools, in order to match cleaning forces to the type and intensity of fouling.
This short review article aims at (1) giving an overview of current underwater cleaning technology; (2) analysing previously published adhesion strength values for different groups of marine organisms on different hull coatings and (3) identifying areas for future research on forces and frequency of underwater cleaning. The current focus is on minimizing cleaning forces for low impact on the fouling-control hull paint, i.e., without affecting its long-term efficacy, and also minimizing the release of toxic substances into the marine environment [11,15]. Other important topics related to underwater hull cleaning, such as the risk of inadvertent release of viable organisms and propagules to the marine environment, are reviewed elsewhere [16].

2. Underwater Hull Cleaning and Hull Grooming

As mentioned above, keeping a ship hull relatively clean between dry-dockings sometimes means resorting to underwater cleaning, typically using aggressive methods such as abrasive pads and brushes. As an alternative to cleaning, “hull grooming” has been suggested, defined as a proactive, frequent and more gentle mechanical maintenance of the hull [5,17]. Except for special cases, in which abrasive conditioning of the coating is desirable (e.g., the so-called “surface treated composites” [18]), forces used during underwater cleaning event should remain as low as possible, in order to maximize the lifetime of the coating [19].
Most common technologies for removing biofouling rely on brushes or water jets [20,21]. Alternative methods that aim at preventing/killing biofouling without removing it are also in use, like for example heat treatment and encapsulation. However, while encapsulation is probably more adequate for recreational vessels and still requires standardisation [22,23], the efficacy of heat treatments on large areas of the hull is still lacking independent evaluation and no recent publications could be found since the last available review from 2010 [20].
Forces imparted by brush systems have been studied for specific types of brushes and reported shear forces are in order of 10 kPa [14,24]. However, these results correspond to specific barnacle geometries (instrumented studs are used, representing barnacles), and no data are yet available on actual forces imparted on other forms of fouling, i.e., macrofoulers other than barnacles, and microfouling. Information on the latter is of particular relevance, considering that proposed brush grooming tools are unable to remove tenacious biofilms (low-form, strongly adhered biofilms) that form under frequent grooming [25]. These biofilms can still have a significant impact on hull hydrodynamic performance, depending on intensity and coverage [26].
It is recognized that brush-systems can erode, or even damage, fouling-control coatings [20,24]. However, reporting on the effects of brushes on hull coatings (e.g., scratching and wear) is limited to a few cleaning devices [14,15,25,27]. In addition, imparted forces are dependent on several factors, such as the type of surface used for cleaning (i.e., carpet, scouring pad or brush), geometrical parameters (for brushes: bristle density, angle and stiffness), standoff distance and wearing of the cleaning surface, e.g., at the tip of bristles in cleaning brushes [24,28]. Comparatively easier to estimate, forces imparted by water jets on the coating are dependent on impact pressure, nozzle diameter and standoff distance [29]. However, the maximum shear force at the wall will still be dependent on the actual roughness of the surface to be cleaned [30], thus varying with surface geometry of the coating/biofouling. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no studies on forces imparted by water jets on fouled or coated surfaces.
Finally, the above comments apply to easily accessible and relatively flat surfaces of the hull. However, variability in cleaning forces might arise across the hull surface, depending on the cleaning method and the existence of “niche areas” (appendages and sheltered areas), where cleaning devices need to be tailored.

3. Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms

Adhesion strength can be defined as the force required for removing a marine organism from a given surface, expressed as force per unit area (N/m2 = Pa). Knowledge of such values is valuable not only for comparing the efficacy of different FR coatings, where low adhesion is targeted, but also as a reference for selecting minimal forces for underwater hull cleaning/grooming [14].
In this section, which is divided into macro- and microfouling, adhesion strength values available in the literature are reviewed, together with an overview of adhesion and failure mechanisms. Emphasis is given here on macroscopic methods of measuring adhesive strength, since we aim at directly translating these results into shear forces necessary for cleaning. Still, microscopic methods are also available, such as Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM), enabling topographical and mechanical characterization of cells and adhesives, for both macrofoulers [31] and microfoulers [32].

3.1. Macrofouling

Barnacles are the most comprehensively studied group of macrofoulers. However, several other relevant groups of macrofoulers must be considered, such as mussels, oysters, tubeworms (polychaetes) and macroalgae. Each group of organisms is associated with its particular adhesion mechanism. Thus, for instance, whereas barnacles, oysters, tubeworms and macroalgae adhere permanently to a surface in their adult stage, adult mussels are still able to move by breaking the byssus threads that keep them anchored to a given location and by growing new threads [33].
Barnacles have different phases of adhesion: temporary adhesion occurs firstly, as the cypris larva explores a surface; secondly, the larva produces a settlement cement; finally, the metamorphosed adult barnacle produces a stronger cement, leading to permanent settlement [33,34]. Adhesion strength is normally tested on adult barnacles using ASTM International Standard D5618-94 [35], which measures shear force necessary to remove barnacles from the surface, using a force gauge (a handheld probe, in most of the cases). Values of adhesion strength obtained using this method are presented in Figure 2. These are reported in the literature for different hull coatings and species of barnacles, as well for other groups of macrofoulers (oysters and tubeworms). Other methods and definitions of adhesion strength have been used, such as measuring pulling forces [31,33,36] and hydrodynamic tests on macrofoulers [37,38], though comparison to the standard shear force method is not always possible.
FR coatings are generally associated with lower adhesion strength compared to epoxy coatings, with values of adhesion strength for barnacles, oysters and tubeworms varying from 0.03 MPa, for a silicone FR coating, to more than 2 MPa, for an epoxy coating (Figure 2). Unfortunately, data are largely absent in the literature for adhesion strength on AF coatings, with only one average value found in available literature (“Ablative”, ablative copper AF coating) [14].
Considerable variation is observed within the same species of barnacles, which is mainly attributed to specific formulations of silicone FR coatings, with varying surface chemistry (see Supplementary Materials, Spreadsheet S1 for a more complete description of tested coatings). Other factors may include differences in test conditions, e.g., different growth conditions, different geographical locations and effects of predation (biotic disturbance). The latter are exemplified by the discrepancy between average values for Amphibalanus eburneus on Epoxy (Figure 2), where predation leads to higher adhesion strength [39]. In order to avoid biotic disturbances, most studies, from 1998 on, report growing barnacles under the protection of cages [40,41].
For relatively high adhesion strength (e.g., for epoxy coatings), it is not uncommon for cohesive failure to occur, which means that the shell of the organism is broken and measurements do not represent adhesion strength: thus, the force necessary to produce adhesive failure, i.e., complete removal of the shell, is larger than that required for breaking the shell. In the event of cohesive failure, a fraction of the shell remains attached to the surface. Different criteria have been used for dealing with such occurrence: in earlier studies, readings were corrected for the fraction of base plate detached [50,51]; Berglin et al. suggested to quantitatively use the transition from cohesive to adhesive failure as a performance indicator for FR coatings [36]; finally, as standard procedure in ASTM Standard D5618-94, readings are usually considered void if more than 10% of the organism’s adhered surface remains on the coating [35]. However, using the latter standard procedure, even if readings with extensive cohesive failure are considered void, the occurrence of cohesive failure may indicate that the actual adhesion strength for that population is underestimated, since cohesive strength sets an upper bound to the measurable adhesion strength. However, very few authors report the rejection percentage (e.g., [47,48]), important information that could indicate underestimation of adhesion strength. Additionally, cohesive failure is a challenge for underwater cleaning, since remaining baseplates contribute to hull/propeller roughness, while possibly decreasing the long-term effectiveness of the fouling-control paint, as discussed below in Section 4.
Finally, values of adhesion strength for oysters and tubeworms on silicone FR coatings are also given at the lower part of Figure 2. These do not seem to differ significantly from those of barnacles, although more data would be needed for a fair comparison. While adhesion mechanisms of barnacles and mussels are well studied, those of oysters and tubeworms have not received so much attention [52]. Again, the incidence of cohesive failure is unknown for available studies on the adhesion strength of oysters and tubeworms.

3.2. Microfouling

The groups of microfoulers that receive most attention in terms of adhesion strength include marine bacteria, benthic diatoms (microalgae) and spores/sporelings of macroalgae. Although the latter spores (i.e., propagules) and sporelings (i.e., young plants) correspond to early development stages of a macroalgae, they are usually considered as microfouling, due to size.
Bacteria and benthic diatoms rely on building up a layer of insoluble Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPS) in order to adhere to a surface, constituting a biofilm. EPS is mostly composed of carbohydrates [53], but proteins might also play an important role in adhesion, and treatment with proteases has been observed to reduce the adhesion strength of diatom Navicula perminuta [54]. After settlement, many benthic diatom species are reported to “glide” on the surface once adhesion takes place, leaving behind a trail of adhesive [53].
Adhesion mechanisms of early stages of macroalgae differ markedly from those of bacterial and diatom biofilms. Ulva is the most commonly occurring macroalgae on ship hulls [55]. It produces motile spores (zoospores) that swim by means of flagella and are capable of selective settlement. Thus, once the right environmental and surface cues are offered, a spore will permanently attach by means of secreted adhesive [56].
Values of adhesion strength for different microfouling species and stages of development are given in Figure 3 for more than 80% removal, and Figure 4 and Figure 5 for more than 50% removal and for diatoms and early stages of macroalgae, respectively. All the values correspond to silicone FR coatings.
Due to the reduced size of these organisms, hydrodynamic methods are routinely employed for measuring adhesion strength, replacing the mechanical shear test presented above for macrofoulers [56]. These hydrodynamic methods include the turbulent flow apparatus [57], calibrated water jet apparatus [29] and automated water jet apparatus [58]. The use of different methods may also contribute to some of the variability in the presented data.
Adhesion strength is given as an applied shear stress, which must be taken together with the corresponding percentage removal and treatment time (usually 5 min for the turbulent flow apparatus [57]). This creates an issue when comparing results from different studies, since at least two values are considered, i.e., the shear stress and percentage removal. As a criterion, shear stress values presented in Figure 3 have been selected for >80% removal, meaning that an initially 100%-fouled surface would have been cleaned by at least 80%. Here, we assume that removal is independent from the initial percentage cover, although it is possible that percentage cover affects removal, considering that it is known to affect wall shear forces [26].
From Figure 3, adhered diatom cells (Amphora coffeaeformis, Navicula incerta and Navicula perminuta), in contact with the surface for 2 h, could be removed by applying shear stresses of ~20 to 275 Pa, whereas a two-day-old biofilm of Navicula incerta would require an intermediate shear stress. Sporelings of macroalgae (Figure 3: Ulva linza, Ectocarpus crouaniorum, Ectocarpus sp. and Hincksia secunda) are usually tested after growing for six to 14 days, and their adhesion strength on silicone FR coatings varies from ~8 Pa to ~140 Pa. Overall, Figure 3 provides reference values of adhesion strength valuable for deciding on minimum cleaning forces for silicon FR coatings. However, it should be stressed that variability is introduced by differences in surface properties of each FR coating tested within each study (see Supplementary Materials).
Values of adhesion strength corresponding to >50% removal are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, for diatoms and early stages of macroalgae, respectively. Here, the minimum reported value corresponds to 5 Pa, for both 18-h-old biofilm of Cellulophaga lytica and seven-day-old sporelings of Ulva linza. For Navicula incerta (Figure 4), adhesion strength is apparently higher when a biofilm is allowed to form, as compared to isolated adhered cells. For macroalgae (Figure 5), it is noted that adhesion strength reaches its maximum values at around one week. As the algae grows, there is usually an increase in reported removal from FR coatings [66]. This is probably due to an increase in the length of the algae filaments (increased protrusion leads to increased drag) rather than lower adhesive properties of older sporelings, at least on FR coatings. This might not be true for all surfaces, since such positive relation between percentage removal and age could not be found on glass [66].
From the above results, at least two species stand out as having higher adhesion strength: these are Navicula perminuta and Ulva linza. The later is a widely spread macroalgae [56]. Differences between species can be partially attributed to the use of different hydrodynamic methods, for e.g., in Holland et al. [59], but at least one study (Evariste et al.) seems to indicate superior adhesion strength of Ulva linza, compared to other macroalgae species [62]. Besides the already mentioned variability in surface properties of different FR coatings, it is not entirely clear, from the literature, to what extent large differences between species (up to one order of magnitude) can be attributed to intrinsic properties of adhesives produced by different species [59] or to different exposure to hydrodynamic stress due to different geometry of cells/sporelings [66].
As noted before for macrofoulers, values of adhesion strength on coatings other than FR are largely missing in the literature. This is possibly due to the focus on the efficacy of FR coatings, rather than forces necessary for cleaning coatings currently in use on the majority of ship hulls. The number of species studied is also limited, whereas results obtained from single species are likely to differ from those obtained using natural communities (multi-species samples). On the latter aspect, a first step has been taken by Mieszkin et al., who studied variations in adhesion strength of Ulva linza and Navicula incerta on differently pre-conditioned coated surfaces (natural biofilm and Cobetia marina biofilm) [61]. Results from the latter study indicate complex relationships between algae and marine biofilms, suggesting that over-generalization should be avoided.

4. Matching Cleaning/Grooming Forces with Adhesion Strength

Thus far, we have discussed how cleaning/grooming is performed and how its forces are measured/estimated (Section 2). Furthermore, we reviewed published results of adhesion strength of marine organisms (Section 3). The remaining question is how well these forces can be matched.
For macrofouling, adhesion strength values of Figure 2 can be directly compared to cleaning forces measured on instrumented studs [14,24]. Thus, for example, the grooming tool suggested by Tribou et al. imparts a shear stress of approx. 0.01 MPa [14], and it would thus be unable to remove an average macrofouler from even a silicone FR coating, since the minimum value in Figure 2 corresponds to 0.03 MPa. However, it can still be effective against minimally adhered macrofoulers [14]. On the other hand, too high a cleaning shear stress means an increased risk of damaging the AF/FR coating, whereas, as pointed out by Bohlander, the amount of paint removal depends also on paint type and age [21]. For an ablative AF paint, Hearin et al. report an area extent of wear (or erosion) of 12% ± 10% of the topcoat after 12-month grooming on a weekly/bi-weekly basis (shear stress ~0.01 MPa), whereas ungroomed control surfaces suffered significantly higher wear, with a 31% ± 20% removal of the topcoat. This difference was attributed to higher forces used in hand-cleaning the ungroomed control surfaces prior to the photographic visual inspection. For an FR coating, Hearin et al. found no wear of the topcoat, but only localised damage, which was attributed to causes other than the grooming itself [27]. In addition, the coating system adheres to the hull with finite strength, which poses an upper limit to forces that can be used during cleaning. Although adhesion of the coating to the hull varies significantly with application quality and exposure conditions [69], the strength of ship hull coatings is normally 2.5–3 MPa [70], which is comparable to adhesion strength values mentioned above for macrofouling on epoxy coatings. Besides wear/damage to the AF/FR coating system, high cleaning shear stress will also increase the frequency of cohesive failure, i.e., shell breakage (Section 3.1), which means an imperfect result from the cleaning, thus contributing to the frictional drag of the vessel. Cohesive failure may also bring about negative consequences for the subsequent long-term effectiveness of the paint, since shell remains could intensify later recruitment by providing chemical cues for settlement [71]. All these factors support the use of hull grooming, targeting early stages of fouling.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to compare adhesion strength values of microfouling (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5) to cleaning forces measured on instrumented studs, since imparted forces strongly depend on the geometry of the surface to be cleaned. Although there are data on instrumented barnacles (e.g., [14]), to the best of our knowledge, data are not yet available on shear forces imparted by any brush/pad system on either microfouled surfaces or coated surfaces. Thus, in addition to estimations of shear forces for water jet systems on rough surfaces [30], a collection of values of shear stress from different types of brushes/pads as a function of fouling roughness would enable valid comparisons to be drawn. In turn, this would enable matching cleaning/grooming forces with adhesion strength of microfouling, which is considered the best target for a more coating-friendly underwater hull maintenance.
From the above, recommendations can be summarized as follows, for different stakeholders working with underwater hull cleaning:
  • for developers of cleaning technology: (1) shear forces should target microfouling or early stages of macrofouling; (2) forces should be easy to control by the user, with as few adjustable parameters as possible; (3) variability in shear force for each level of cleaning strength should be minimized; and (4) information should be compiled on effects on different types of coatings, microfouled samples and surface roughness;
  • for users (e.g., diving companies), ship owners and as tool for various decision makers: (1) underwater cleaning of hulls covered with macrofouling should be avoided, as a rule; (2) the cleaning strength level should be adjusted by taking into account information available from the manufacturer of the cleaning system, as to get a conservatively low first estimate of strength needed for the task, taking into consideration the type and age of coating.

5. Conclusions

In this short review, we discussed the issue of matching forces used in hull cleaning/grooming to the actual fouling condition of the hull, consisting of a multi-species combination of macro- and microfouling. It is apparent that more data will be necessary in order to accomplish this objective. On the one hand, data on adhesion strength of naturally occurring biofouling communities are needed; particularly, data are lacking for adhesion strength of biofouling occurring on AF coatings (biocide-containing coatings). On the other hand, better knowledge is needed on the shear forces imparted by current cleaning devices on low-form fouling (i.e., microfouling), as well as their effects on today’s fouling-control coatings. This information would be relevant in designing improved cleaning tools, as practical guidance for divers and ship owners, and as support for decision makers at environmental agencies.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/4/4/66/s1, Spreadsheet S1: Values of Adhesion Strength from Available Literature.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their appreciation for helpful and encouraging comments received from anonymous reviewers. The ongoing project on biofouling is funded by the Swedish Energy Agency (grant agreement 2014-004848). The costs for publishing in Open Access were covered by Chalmers Library, via Chalmers Fund for Open Access 2016. The authors would also like to acknowledge a travel grant awarded to a poster presentation of the present work at the 18th International Congress on Marine Corrosion and Fouling (ICMCF 2016), granted by the US Navy Office of Naval Research (ONR Award N62909-16-1-2026).

Author Contributions

Dinis Oliveira collected the data on adhesion strength from available literature (Spreadsheet S1); Dinis Oliveira and Lena Granhag wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Dürr, S.; Thomason, J.C. Biofouling; Dürr, S., Thomason, J.C., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Drake, J.M.; Lodge, D.M. Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. Invasions 2007, 2, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Townsin, R.L. The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty. Biofouling 2003, 19, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lewthwaite, J.C.; Molland, A.F.; Thomas, K.W. An Investigation into the Variation of Ship Skin Frictional Resistance with Fouling. In RINA Transactions; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 1984; pp. 269–284. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schultz, M.P.; Bendick, J.A.; Holm, E.R.; Hertel, W.M. Economic Impact of Biofouling on a Naval Surface Ship. Biofouling 2011, 27, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. International Maritime Organization (IMO). A Transparent and Reliable Hull and Propeller Performance Standard; MEPC 63/4/8; IMO: London, UK, 2011; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanco-Davis, E.; del Castillo, F.; Zhou, P. Fouling Release Coating Application as an Environmentally Efficient Retrofit: A Case Study of a Ferry-Type Ship. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1705–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Champ, M.A. A Review of Organotin Regulatory Strategies, Pending Actions, Related Costs and Benefits. Sci. Total Environ. 2000, 258, 21–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schulz, S.; Pastuch, J. How One Shipyard Is Making Paint Removal Cleaner and Greener. JPCL 2003, 20, 50–54. [Google Scholar]
  10. Song, Y.C.; Woo, J.H.; Park, S.H.; Kim, I.S. A Study on the Treatment of Antifouling Paint Waste from Shipyard. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2005, 51, 1048–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Earley, P.J.; Swope, B.L.; Barbeau, K.; Bundy, R.; McDonald, J.; Rivera-Duarte, I. Life Cycle Contributions of Copper from Vessel Painting and Maintenance Activities. Biofouling 2014, 30, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2011 Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species; MEPC 62/24/Add.1; IMO: London, UK, 2011; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  13. Takata, L.; Falkner, M.; Gilmore, S. Commercial Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations to Reduce Nonidegenous Species Release from the Non-Ballast Water Vector; California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2006.
  14. Tribou, M.; Swain, G.W. Grooming Using Rotating Brushes as a Proactive Method to Control Ship Hull Fouling. Biofouling 2015, 31, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schottle, R.; Brown, P. Copper Loading Assessment from in-Water Hull Cleaning Following Natural Fouling, Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego Bay, San Diego, California. In Proceedings of the 11th Triennial International Conference on Ports, San Diego, CA, USA, 25–28 March 2007; pp. 1–10.
  16. Floerl, O.; Norton, N.; Inglis, G.J.; Hayden, B.; Middleton, C.; Smith, M.; Alcock, N.; Fitridge, I. Efficacy of Hull Cleaning Operations in Containing Biological Material—I. Risk Assessment; MAF Biosecurity: Wellington, New Zealand, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tribou, M.; Swain, G.W. The Use of Proactive in-Water Grooming to Improve the Performance of Ship Hull Antifouling Coatings. Biofouling 2010, 26, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Van Rompay, B. Is the Much Sought-After, Better Alternative Underwater Hull Coating System Already Here? In Proceedings of the RINA, Royal Institution of Naval Architects—International Conference on Marine Coatings, London, UK, 18 April 2013; pp. 38–43.
  19. NSTM. Chapter 081—Water-Borne Underwater Hull Cleaning of Navy Ships; Direction Of Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  20. Floerl, O.; Peacock, L.; Seaward, K.; Inglis, G. Review of Biosecurity and Contaminant Risks Associated with in-Water Cleaning; Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2010.
  21. Bohlander, J. Review of Options for in-Water Cleaning of Ships; MAF Biosecurity: Wellington, New Zealand, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roche, R.C.; Monnington, J.M.; Newstead, R.G.; Sambrook, K.; Griffith, K.; Holt, R.H.F.; Jenkins, S.R. Recreational Vessels as a Vector for Marine Non-Natives: Developing Biosecurity Measures and Managing Risk through an in-Water Encapsulation System. Hydrobiologia 2015, 750, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Atalah, J.; Brook, R.; Cahill, P.; Fletcher, L.M.; Hopkins, G.A. It’s a Wrap: Encapsulation as a Management Tool for Marine Biofouling. Biofouling 2016, 32, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Holm, E.R.; Haslbeck, E.G.; Horinek, A. Evaluation of Brushes for Removal of Fouling from Fouling-Release Surfaces, Using a Hydraulic Cleaning Device. Biofouling 2003, 19, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hearin, J.; Hunsucker, K.Z.; Swain, G.; Gardner, H.; Stephens, A.; Lieberman, K. Analysis of Mechanical Grooming at Various Frequencies on a Large Scale Test Panel Coated with a Fouling-Release Coating. Biofouling 2016, 32, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Schultz, M.P.; Walker, J.M.; Steppe, C.N.; Flack, K.A. Impact of Diatomaceous Biofilms on the Frictional Drag of Fouling-Release Coatings. Biofouling 2015, 31, 759–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hearin, J.; Hunsucker, K.Z.; Swain, G.; Stephens, A.; Gardner, H.; Lieberman, K.; Harper, M. Analysis of Long-Term Mechanical Grooming on Large-Scale Test Panels Coated with an Antifouling and a Fouling-Release Coating. Biofouling 2015, 31, 625–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Useche, L.V.V.; Wahab, M.M.A.; Parker, G.A. Brush Dynamics: Models and Characteristics. In Proceedings of the ASME 8th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, Volume 3: Dynamic Systems and Controls, Symposium on Design and Analysis of Advanced Structures, and Tribology, Torino, Italy, 4–7 July 2006; pp. 441–450.
  29. Finlay, J.A.; Callow, M.; Schultz, M.P.; Swain, G.W.; Callow, J.A. Adhesion Strength of Settled Spores of the Green Alga Enteromorpha. Biofouling 2002, 18, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rajaratnam, N.; Mazurek, K.A. Impingement of Circular Turbulent Jets on Rough Boundaries. J. Hydraul. Res. 2005, 43, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, S.; Khoo, B.C.; Teo, S.L.M.; Zhong, S.; Lim, C.T.; Lee, H.P. Effect of ultrasound on cyprid footprint and juvenile barnacle adhesion on a fouling release material. Colloid Surface B 2014, 115, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Callow, J.A.; Crawford, S.A.; Higgins, M.J.; Mulvaney, P.; Wetherbee, R. The application of atomic force microscopy to topographical studies and force measurements on the secreted adhesive of the green alga Enteromorpha. Planta 2000, 211, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Crisp, D.J.; Walker, G.; Young, G.A.; Yule, A.B. Adhesion and substrate choice in mussels and barnacles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1985, 104, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kamino, K. Barnacle Underwater Attachment. In Biological Adhesives; Smith, A.M., Callow, J.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 145–166. [Google Scholar]
  35. ASTM International. Measurement of Barnacle Adhesion Strength in Shear (Reapproved 2000); ASTM Standard D5618; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  36. Berglin, M.; Larsson, A.; Jonsson, P.R.; Gatenholm, P. The adhesion of the barnacle Balanus improvisus, to poly(dimethylsiloxane) fouling-release coatings and poly(methyl methacrylate) panels: The effect of barnacle size on strength and failure mode. J. Adhes Sci. Technol. 2001, 15, 1485–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Larsson, A.I.; Mattsson-Thorngren, L.; Granhag, L.M.; Berglin, M. Fouling-Release of Barnacles from a Boat Hull with Comparison to Laboratory Data of Attachment Strength. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2010, 392, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ackerman, J.D.; Ethier, C.R.; Allen, D.G.; Spelt, J.K. Investigation of Zebra Mussel Adhesion Strength Using Rotating Disks. J. Environ. Eng. 1992, 118, 708–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Swain, G.W.; Nelson, W.G.; Preedeekanit, S. The Influence of Biofouling Adhesion and Biotic Disturbance on the Development of Fouling Communities on Non-toxic Surfaces. Biofouling 1998, 12, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zargiel, K.; Swain, G.W. Static vs. Dynamic Settlement and Adhesion of Diatoms to Ship Hull Coatings. Biofouling 2014, 30, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Cassé, F.; Swain, G.W. The Development of Microfouling on Four Commercial Antifouling Coatings under Static and Dynamic Immersion. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2006, 57, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Swain, G.W.; Schultz, M.P. The Testing and Evaluation of Non-Toxic Antifouling Coatings. Biofouling 1996, 10, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Swain, G.; Anil, A.C.; Baier, R.E.; Chia, F.; Conte, E.; Cook, A.; Hadfield, M.; Haslbeck, E.; Holm, E.; Kavanagh, C.; et al. Biofouling and Barnacle Adhesion Data for Fouling-release Coatings Subjected to Static Immersion at Seven Marine Sites. Biofouling 2000, 16, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wood, C.D.; Truby, K.; Stein, J.; Wiebe, D.; Holm, E.; Wendt, D.; Smith, C.; Kavanagh, C.; Montemarano, J.; Swain, G.; Meyer, A. Temporal and Spatial Variations in Macrofouling of Silicone Fouling-Release Coatings. Biofouling 2000, 16, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sommer, S.; Ekin, A.; Webster, D.C.; Stafslien, S.J.; Daniels, J.; VanderWal, L.J.; Thompson, S.E.M.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. A Preliminary Study on the Properties and Fouling-Release Performance of Siloxane-Polyurethane Coatings Prepared from Poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) Macromers. Biofouling 2010, 26, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Majumdar, P.; Stafslien, S.; Daniels, J.; Webster, D.C. High Throughput Combinatorial Characterization of Thermosetting Siloxane–urethane Coatings Having Spontaneously Formed Microtopographical Surfaces. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2007, 4, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, Z.; Chisholm, B.; Kim, J.; Stafslien, S.; Wagner, R.; Patel, S.; Daniels, J.; Vander Wal, L.; Li, J.; Ward, K.; et al. UV-Curable, Oxetane-Toughened Epoxy-Siloxane Coatings for Marine Fouling-Release Coating Applications. Polym. Int. 2008, 57, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Webster, D.C.; Pieper, R.J.; Nasrullah, M.J. Zwitterionic/Amphiphilic Pentablock Copolymers and Coatings Therefrom. U.S. Patent WO 2010/042804 A2, 15 April 2010. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, Y.; Betts, D.E.; Finlay, J.A.; Brewer, L.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A.; Wendt, D.E.; Desimone, J.M. Photocurable Amphiphilic Perfluoropolyether/poly(ethylene Glycol) Networks for Fouling-Release Coatings. Macromolecules 2011, 44, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Becka, A.; Loeb, G. Ease of Removal of Barnacles from Various Polymeric Materials. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1984, 26, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Becker, K. Attachment Strength and Colonization Patterns of Two Macrofouling Species on Substrata with Different Surface Tension (in Situ Studies). Mar. Biol. 1993, 117, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kavanagh, C.J.; Schultz, M.P.; Swain, G.W.; Stein, J.; Truby, K.; Wood, C.D. Variation in Adhesion Strength of Balanus eburneus, Crassostrea virginica and Hydroides dianthus to Fouling-Release Coatings. Biofouling 2001, 17, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chiovitti, A.; Dugdale, T.M.; Wetherbee, R. Diatom Adhesives: Molecular and Mechanical Properties. In Biological Adhesives; Smith, A.M., Callow, J.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 79–103. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pettitt, M.E.; Henry, S.L.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A.; Clare, A.S. Activity of Commercial Enzymes on Settlement and Adhesion of Cypris Larvae of the Barnacle Balanus amphitrite, Spores of the Green Alga Ulva linza, and the Diatom Navicula perminuta. Biofouling 2004, 20, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ekin, A.; Webster, D.C.; Daniels, J.W.; Stafslien, S.J.; Cassé, F.; Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E. Synthesis, Formulation, and Characterization of Siloxane-Polyurethane Coatings for Underwater Marine Applications Using Combinatorial High-Throughput Experimentation. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2007, 4, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E. The Ulva Spore Adhesive System. In Biological Adhesives; Smith, A.M., Callow, J.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schultz, M.P.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. A Turbulent Channel Flow Apparatus for the Determination of the Adhesion Strength of Microfouling Organisms. Biofouling 2000, 15, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cassé, F.; Ribeiro, E.; Ekin, A.; Webster, D.C.; Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E. Laboratory Screening of Coating Libraries for Algal Adhesion. Biofouling 2007, 23, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Holland, R.; Dugdale, T.M.; Wetherbee, R.; Brennan, A.B.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E. Adhesion and Motility of Fouling Diatoms on a Silicone Elastomer. Biofouling 2004, 20, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Cassé, F.; Stafslien, S.J.; Bahr, J.A.; Daniels, J.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E. Combinatorial materials research applied to the development of new surface coatings V. Application of a spinning water-jet for the semi-high throughput assessment of the attachment strength of marine fouling algae. Biofouling 2007, 23, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mieszkin, S.; Martin-Tanchereau, P.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. Effect of Bacterial Biofilms Formed on Fouling-Release Coatings from Natural Seawater and Cobetia marina, on the Adhesion of Two Marine Algae. Biofouling 2012, 28, 953–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Evariste, E.; Gachon, C.M.M.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. Development and Characteristics of an Adhesion Bioassay for Ectocarpoid Algae. Biofouling 2012, 28, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Chaudhury, M.K.; Finlay, J.A.; Chung, J.Y.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. The Influence of Elastic Modulus and Thickness on the Release of the Soft-Fouling Green Alga Ulva linza (Syn. Enteromorpha linza) from Poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) Model Networks. Biofouling 2005, 21, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Beigbeder, A.; Degee, P.; Conlan, S.L.; Mutton, R.J.; Clare, A.S.; Pettitt, M.E.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A.; Dubois, P. Preparation and Characterisation of Silicone-Based Coatings Filled with Carbon Nanotubes and Natural Sepiolite and Their Application as Marine Fouling-Release Coatings. Biofouling 2008, 24, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hoipkemeier-Wilson, L.; Schumacher, J.F.; Carman, M.L.; Gibson, A.L.; Feinberg, A.W.; Callow, M.E.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, J.A.; Brennan, A.B. Antifouling Potential of Lubricious, Micro-Engineered, PDMS Elastomers against Zoospores of the Green Fouling Alga Ulva (Enteromorpha). Biofouling 2004, 20, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Schultz, M.P.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, M.E.; Callow, J.A. Three Models to Relate Detachment of Low Form Fouling at Laboratory and Ship Scale. Biofouling 2003, 19 (Suppl. S1), 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gudipati, C.S.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, J.A.; Callow, M.E.; Wooley, K.L. The Antifouling and Fouling-Release Perfomance of Hyperbranched Fluoropolymer (HBFP)-Poly(ethylene Glycol) (PEG) Composite Coatings Evaluated by Adsorption of Biomacromolecules and the Green Fouling Alga Ulva. Langmuir 2005, 21, 3044–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yarbrough, J.C.; Rolland, J.P.; DeSimone, J.M.; Callow, M.E.; Finlay, J.A.; Callow, J.A. Contact Angle Analysis, Surface Dynamics, and Biofouling Characteristics of Cross-Linkable, Random Perfluoropolyether-Based Graft Terpolymers. Macromolecules 2006, 39, 2521–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Woods Hole Oceanografic Institute. Marine Fouling and Its Prevention; Chapter 18; George Banta Publishing Co.: Menasha, WI, USA, 1952; p. 313. [Google Scholar]
  70. Balashov, V.S.; Gromov, B.A.; Ermolov, I.L.; Roskilly, A.P. Cleaning by means of the HISMAR autonomous robot. Russ. Eng. Res. 2011, 31, 589–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Anil, A.C.; Khandeparker, L.; Desai, D.V.; Baragi, L.V.; Gaonkar, C.A. Larval development, sensory mechanisms and physiological adaptations in acorn barnacles with special reference to Balanus amphitrite. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 2010, 392, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 04 00066 g001 550
Figure 1. Biofouling on a ship hull—in spite of fouling-control coatings, underwater hull cleaning is still required: (a) hard macrofouling at the stern, consisting of mostly barnacles; (b) soft algal fouling and microfouling on the ship’s side. Photographs courtesy of Marinvest Shipping AB (Gothenburg, Sweden; reproduced with permission).
Figure 1. Biofouling on a ship hull—in spite of fouling-control coatings, underwater hull cleaning is still required: (a) hard macrofouling at the stern, consisting of mostly barnacles; (b) soft algal fouling and microfouling on the ship’s side. Photographs courtesy of Marinvest Shipping AB (Gothenburg, Sweden; reproduced with permission).
Jmse 04 00066 g001
Jmse 04 00066 g002 550
Figure 2. Adhesion strength values for macrofoulers on different types of hull coatings. Legend: “Ablative”: biocide-containing anti-fouling coating; “Epoxy”: corrosion protection coating; “Silicone FR”: silicone Foul-Release coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials). All the tests were reported as using methods based on ASTM International Standard D5618-94 [35]. Error bars correspond to standard deviation of individual measurements obtained using force gauges. Cited articles: Tribou and Swain [14], Swain and Schultz [42], Swain et al. [39], Swain et al. [43], Wood et al. [44], Sommer et al. [45], Majumdar et al. [46], Chen et al. [47], Webster et al. [48] and Wang et al. [49].
Figure 2. Adhesion strength values for macrofoulers on different types of hull coatings. Legend: “Ablative”: biocide-containing anti-fouling coating; “Epoxy”: corrosion protection coating; “Silicone FR”: silicone Foul-Release coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials). All the tests were reported as using methods based on ASTM International Standard D5618-94 [35]. Error bars correspond to standard deviation of individual measurements obtained using force gauges. Cited articles: Tribou and Swain [14], Swain and Schultz [42], Swain et al. [39], Swain et al. [43], Wood et al. [44], Sommer et al. [45], Majumdar et al. [46], Chen et al. [47], Webster et al. [48] and Wang et al. [49].
Jmse 04 00066 g002
Jmse 04 00066 g003 550
Figure 3. Adhesion strength values for microfoulers (diatoms and early stages of development of macroalgae) on different formulations of silicone Foul-Release (FR) coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >80% removal. Error bars correspond to the uncertainty estimated by individual studies (when available) or, where more than one study is cited, to standard deviation between different studies. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Holland et al. [59], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Evariste et al. [62], Ekin et al. [55], Cassé et al. [58], and Chaudhury et al. [63].
Figure 3. Adhesion strength values for microfoulers (diatoms and early stages of development of macroalgae) on different formulations of silicone Foul-Release (FR) coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >80% removal. Error bars correspond to the uncertainty estimated by individual studies (when available) or, where more than one study is cited, to standard deviation between different studies. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Holland et al. [59], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Evariste et al. [62], Ekin et al. [55], Cassé et al. [58], and Chaudhury et al. [63].
Jmse 04 00066 g003
Jmse 04 00066 g004 550
Figure 4. Adhesion strength values for diatoms on different formulations of silicone Foul-Release (FR) coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >50% removal. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Holland et al. [59], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Webster et al. [48] and Ekin et al. [55].
Figure 4. Adhesion strength values for diatoms on different formulations of silicone Foul-Release (FR) coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >50% removal. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Holland et al. [59], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Webster et al. [48] and Ekin et al. [55].
Jmse 04 00066 g004
Jmse 04 00066 g005 550
Figure 5. Adhesion strength values for macroalgae (early stages of development) on different formulations of silicone FR coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >50% removal. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Beigbeder et al. [64], Hoipkemeier-Wilson [65], Chaudhury et al. [63], Cassé et al. [58], Evariste et al. [62], Ekin et al. [55], Schultz et al. [66], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Gudipati et al. [67] and Yarbrough et al. [68].
Figure 5. Adhesion strength values for macroalgae (early stages of development) on different formulations of silicone FR coatings (full data in Supplementary Materials), given as shear stress required for >50% removal. For studies using water jet systems [45,55,59,60], originally reported jet impact pressures were converted to maximum shear stress using the same formula as in [29]. Cited articles: Beigbeder et al. [64], Hoipkemeier-Wilson [65], Chaudhury et al. [63], Cassé et al. [58], Evariste et al. [62], Ekin et al. [55], Schultz et al. [66], Sommer et al. [45], Mieszkin et al. [61], Gudipati et al. [67] and Yarbrough et al. [68].
Jmse 04 00066 g005

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira, D.; Granhag, L. Matching Forces Applied in Underwater Hull Cleaning with Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040066

AMA Style

Oliveira D, Granhag L. Matching Forces Applied in Underwater Hull Cleaning with Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2016; 4(4):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira, Dinis, and Lena Granhag. 2016. "Matching Forces Applied in Underwater Hull Cleaning with Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 4, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040066

APA Style

Oliveira, D., & Granhag, L. (2016). Matching Forces Applied in Underwater Hull Cleaning with Adhesion Strength of Marine Organisms. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 4(4), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse4040066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop