You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Materials Proceedings
  • Proceeding Paper
  • Open Access

30 October 2021

Current Alternatives for In-Can Preservation of Aqueous Paints: A Review †

,
and
SIRRIS Smart Coating Application Lab, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 2nd International Online Conference on Polymer Science—Polymers and Nanotechnology for Industry 4.0, 1–15 November 2021; Available online: https://iocps2021.sciforum.net/.
This article belongs to the Proceedings The 2nd International Online Conference on Polymer Science—Polymers and Nanotechnology for Industry 4.0

Abstract

With the transition towards more sustainable paint formulations that are waterborne, the susceptibility to microbial contamination has to be better controlled to increase shelf life and functional lifetime. However, recent restrictions in European regulations on the use of biocides have put limitations on the concentrations for traditional systems providing either in-can or dry-film preservation. The commercial technologies for in-can preservation that are currently available are based on isothiazolines, such as 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MIT), 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT) and 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (CMIT). At present, however, only a limited number of alternatives can be used and are reviewed in this presentation. Examples of non-sensitizing biocidal components for coatings include quaternary/cationic nitrogen amines, silver ions and zinc complexes. However, the use of the latter is not without risk to human health. Therefore, it is believed that disruptive methods will need to be implemented in parallel with more innovative bio-inspired solutions. In particular, the antimicrobial polymers, amino-acid-based systems and peptides have similar functions in nature and can offer antimicrobial activities. Additionally, cross-border solutions currently applied in food or cosmetics industries should be considered as examples that need to be further adapted for paint formulations. However, incorporation in paint formulations remains a challenge in view of the stabilization and rheology control needed for paint. This work’s overview aims to provide different strategies and best evidence for future trends.

1. Introduction

Waterborne paint formulations have been introduced in response to demands for more eco-friendly solutions with fewer or no chemical solvents and lower VOC emissions. In parallel, however, such aqueous environments are beneficial for the growth and survival of micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi and yeast. They can get into paint via the raw materials or various contamination sources in the processing plant. In a particular study, microbial contamination of the paint with Pseudomonas as the predominant genus mainly occurred as a result of biofilm formation in the production equipment [1]. In another study, sufficient screening and appropriate selection of the raw materials was advised in order to reduce contamination [2]. The degradation of paints in the presence of micro-organisms can be noticed by a change in color, a penetrating odor, gas formation, reduced stability, a pH variation and a viscosity reduction. The quality loss of tainted paint finally results in product spoilage and time delay. Although the presence of bacteria can be controlled through better material selection and plant hygiene, they cannot be fully avoided. Therefore, in-can preservation (PT-6) is required to ensure a long in-pot lifetime, which is industrially expected to be at least 3 years.
The use of biocides for in-can preservation (PT-6), which are inherently toxic and potentially affect human health, has been subjected to more stringent legislation in recent years, following the Biocidal Products Regulation (updated March 2020). In the early years, organo-mercury compounds and formaldehyde biocides were banned because of carcinogenic effects. Following risk assessment studies, the diverse range and different potential of formaldehyde-condensate compounds in regard to formaldehyde gas were recognized and taken into account for preservatives. While some standards for paints and coatings (Green Seal GS-11) prohibit the release of free formaldehyde, others have restricted the emission of free formaldehyde at below 100 ppm. Isothiazolinone derivatives were introduced as formaldehyde-free alternatives for both in-can and dry-film preservation, including 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT), 2-methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one (MIT), 2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (OIT), 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (CMIT) and 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone (DCOIT) (Figure 1) [3]. Nevertheless, the observations of allergic skin reactions towards one specific type of isothiazoline, i.e., MIT, lead to its classification as skin sensitizer and a reduction in its allowable concentration below 15 ppm according to the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). In view of a harmonized classification, concerns rose on the use of other isothiazolines at low dosages (<15 ppm) that are insufficient in-can preservation. In parallel, the present options for alternative preservatives are limited through the Article 95 List, on which 52 active ingredients are listed and only 15 are compatible with paints and coatings [4]. Therefore, the availability of biocides for in-can preservation is restricted and puts high pressure on industrial applications.
Figure 1. Isothiazolinones presently used in the industry for in-can preservation of paint: (a) BIT (CAS 2634-33-5), (b) MIT (CAS 2682-20-4), (c) OIT (CAS 26530-20-1), (d) CMIT (CAS 26172-55-4), (e) DCOIT (CAS 64359-81-5).
Present solutions for the short-term are limited, and long-term developments should take into account novel preservation systems, as reviewed in this contribution. This overview focusses on compositional aspects of waterborne paints or latex (e.g., acrylates) and does not detail additional measures that can be taken to enhance paint preservation, such as raw material screening, pasteurization, thermal treatments, plant hygiene and anti-septic packaging. Additionally, alternative systems such as high-pH paints and dispersible powder paints are not further discussed.

4. Conclusions

In view of more strict regulations on biocides, the preservation of waterborne paint formulations is a huge challenge for coating and paint industries. Present solutions at the industrial scale focus on decreasing minimum inhibitory concentrations for isothiazolines through blending. Opportunities for disruptive and innovative technologies are offered by bio-inspired materials but will certainly need more development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S. and P.C.; methodology, P.S.; formal analysis, P.S., J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.; writing—review and editing, P.S., J.B. and P.C.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by VLAIO, grant number HBC.2019.2493.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lorenzen, J.; Poulsen, S. Eco-Friendly Production of Waterborne Paint; The Danish Environmental Protection Agency: Odense, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kharadi, N.; Mistry, R. Economic Impact of Losing Effective In-Can Preservatives; International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Silva, V.; Silva, C.; Soares, P.; Garrido, E.M.; Borges, F.; Garrido, J. Isothiazolinone biocides: Chemistry, biological and toxicity profiles. Molecules 2020, 5, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Müller, A.; Schmal, V.; Gschrei, S. Survey on Alternatives for In-Can Preservation for Varnishes, Paints and Adhesives; Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Paulus, W. Relationship between chemical structure and activity or mode of action of microbiocides. In Directory of Microbiocides for the Protection of Materials; Paulus, W., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 9–22. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gillatt, J.; Julian, K.; Brett, K.; Goldbach, M.; Grohmann, J.; Heer, B.; Nichols, K.; Roden, K.; Rook, T.; Schubert, T.; et al. The microbial resistance of polymer dispersions and the efficacy of polymer dispersion biocides—A statistically validated method. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 104, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wales, A.D.; Davies, R.H. Co-selection of resistance to antibiotics, biocides and heavy metals, and its relevance to foodborne pathogens. Antibiotics 2015, 4, 567–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kim, M.J.; Lim, K.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Kwack, S.J.; Kwon, Y.C.; Kang, J.S.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, B.M. Risk assessment of 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazol-3(2h)-one/2-methylisothiazol-3(2h)-one (cmit/mit) used as a preservative in cosmetics. Toxicol. Res. 2019, 35, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Betancur, J.; Browne, B.A. Innovating in-can preservatives depends on finding and testing the perfect blend. Paint Coat. Ind. 2021, 17, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rees, R. Guidance on the Use of Globally-Relevant Modern Biocides; Technical Papers; The Pressure Sensitive Tape Council: Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 2013; Volume 38, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  11. BASF. Industrial Product Preservation; BASF: Ludwigshafen, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, S.A. Past, present, and future options for preservative in coatings. Coat. World 2017, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chervenak, M.C.; Konst, G.B.; Schwingel, W. Non-traditional use of the biocide DBNPA in coatings manufacture. JCT Coat. Technol. 2005, 2, 38–42. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bellotti, N.; Romagnoli, R.; Quintero, C.; Dominguez-Wong, C.; Ruiz, F.; Deya, C. Nanoparticles as antifungal additives for indoor water borne paints. Prog. Org. Coat. 2015, 86, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dankova, M.; Kalendova, A.; Machotova, J. Waterborne coatings based on acrylic latex containing nanostructured ZnO as an active additive. J. Coat. Technol. Res. 2020, 17, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fiori, J.J.; Silva, L.L.; Picolli, K.C.; Ternus, R.; Ilha, J.; Decalton, F.; Mello, J.M.M.; Riella, H.G.; Fiori, M.A. Zinc oxide nanoparticles as antimicrobial additive for acrylic paint. Mater. Sci. Forum 2017, 899, 148–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kamal, H.B.; Antoniuos, M.S.; Mekewi, M.A.; Badawi, A.M.; Gabr, A.M.; El Bagdady, K. Nano ZnO/amine composites antimicrobial additives to acrylic paints. Egypt J. Petrol. 2015, 24, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Steinerova, D.; Kalendova, A.; Machotova, J.; Pejchalova, M. Environmentally friendly water-based self-crosslinking acrylate dispersion containing magnesium nanoparticles and their films exhibiting antimicrobial properties. Coatings 2020, 10, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Dileep, P.; Jacob, S.; Narayanankutty, S.K. Functionalized nanosilica as an antimicrobial additive for waterborne paints. Prog. Org. Coat. 2020, 142, 105574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hendessi, S.; Sevinins, E.B.; Unal, S.; Cebeci, F.C.; Menceloglu, Y.Z.; Unal, H. Antibacterial sustained-release coatings from halloysite nanotubes/waterborne polyurethanes. Prog. Org. Coat. 2015, 101, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stanojevick-Nikolic, S.; Dimic, G.; Mojovic, L.; Pejin, J.; Djukic-Vukovic, A.; Kocic-Tanackov, S. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid against pathogen and spoilage microorganisms. J. Food Proc. Pres. 2015, 40, 990–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pasricha, A.; Bhalla, P.; Sharma, K.B. Evaluation of lactic acid as an antibacterial agent. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 1979, 45, 159–161. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Amrouche, T.; Noll, K.S.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Chikindas, M.L. Antibacterial activity of subtilosin alone and combined with curcumin, poly-lysine and zinc lactate against listeria monocytogenes strains. Probiotics Antimicrob. Prot. 2010, 2, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gómez-García, M.; Sol, C.; de Nova, P.J.; Puyalto, M.; Mesas, L.; Puente, H.; Mencía-Ares, Ó.; Miranda, R.; Argüello, H.; Rubio, P.; et al. Antimicrobial activity of a selection of organic acids, their salts and essential oils against swine enteropathogenic bacteria. Porc. Heatlh Manag. 2019, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Ribeiro, A.M.; Carrasco, L.D. Cationic antimicrobial polymers and their assemblies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 9905–9946. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kamaruzzaman, N.F.; Tan, L.P.; Hamdan, R.H.; Choong, S.S.; Woing, W.K.; Gibson, A.J.; Chivu, A.; Pina, M. Antimicrobial polymers: The potential replacement of existing antibiotics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Wang, Y.; Chen, R.; Li, T.; Ma, P.; Zhang, H.; Du, M.; Chen, M.; Dong, W. Antimicrobial waterborne polyurethanes based on quaternary ammonium compounds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 458–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhao, P.; Mecozzi, F.; Wessel, S.; Fieten, B.; Driesse, M.; Woudstra, W.; Busscher, H.J.; Mei, H.C.; Loontjens, T.J.A. Preparation and evaluation of antimicrobial hyperbranched emulsifiers for waterborne coatings. Langmuir 2019, 35, 5779–5786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Wu, Y.; Gan, J.; Yang, F.; Zhang, H.; Wang, W. Preparation and antibacterial properties of waterborne UV cured coating modified by quaternary ammonium compounds. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2021, 138, 50426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wada, T.; Uragami, T.; Matoba, Y. Chitosan-hybridized acrylic resins prepared in emulsion polymerizations and their application as interior finishing coatings. JCT Res. 2005, 2, 577–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wada, T.; Yasuda, M.; Yako, H.; Matoba, Y.; Uragami, T. Preparation and characterization of hybrid quaternized chitosan/acrylic resin emulsions and their films. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2007, 292, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rihayat, T.; Satriananda, S.; Nurhanifa, R. Influence of coating polyurethane with mixture of bentonite and chitosan nanocomposites. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2049, 020020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Abolude, O.I. Modification of Emulsion Paint Using Chitosan-Grafted Acrylic Acid. Master’s Thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hodges, T.W.; Kemp, L.K.; McInnes, B.M.; Wilhelm, K.L.; Hurt, J.D.; McDaniel, S.; Rawlins, J.W. Proteins and Peptides as Replacements for Traditional Organic Preservatives. Coat. Technol. 2018, 15, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  35. McDaniel, S.; McInnis, B.M.; Hurt, J.D.; Kemp, L.K. Biotechnology meets coatings preservation. Coat. World 2019, 12, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kluge, M.; Veigel, S.; Pinkl, S.; Henniges, U.; Zollfrank, C.; Rössler, A.; Gindl-Altmutter, W. Nanocellulosic fillers for waterborne wood coatings: Reinforcement effect on free-standing coating films. Wood Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 601–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Aguilar-Sanchez, A.; Jalvo, B.; Mautner, A.; Nameer, S.; Pöhler, T.; Tammelin, T.; Mathew, A.J. aterborne nanocellulose coatings for improving the antifouling and antibacterial proper-ties of polyethersulfone membranes. J. Membrane Sci. 2021, 620, 118842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Norrahim, M.; Nurazzi, N.M.; Jenol, M.A.; Farid, M.A.; Janudin, N.; Ujang, F.A.; Yasim-Anuar, T.A.; Najmuddine, S.U.; Ilyasf, R.A. Emerging development of nanocellulose as an antimicrobial material: An overview. Mater. Adv. 2021, 2, 3538–3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Li, J.; Yu, H. Homogeneous dispersion of cellulose nanofibers in waterborne acrylic coatings with improved properties and unreduced transparency. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 3766–3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hassan, M.L.; Fadel, S.M.; Hassan, E.A. Acrylate/nanofibrillated cellulose nanocomposites and their use for paper coating. J. Nanomater. 2018, 2018, 4963834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.