Biofouling: It's Not Just Barnacles Anymore

(Released March 2004)

by Marianne Stanczak

Review Article
Every spring when the snow melts, there it is - rust. Unsightly, almost evil, rust plagues us.
That small reddish-brown speck is suddenly a massive crater, slowly sucking the mechanical
life out of your vehicle. Did a chunk of fender just fall off?
We know this rust is usually caused by road salt or elements in the air reacting with a vehicle's
metal surface, but where do other examples of rust originate? We also know that we could
prevent or at least stall an automobile's corrosion by rust proofing our cars, washing off excess
salt and dirt, and so on. Easy enough, right? But what would you do with a Navy warship or an
offshore drilling rig? Obviously more than bringing out the pail of soapy water on a Sunday
afternoon. In tropical waters, street salt is certainly not causing corrosion and deterioration of
ships' hulls, water-cooling systems or offshore structures. So what is? And how are these and
other industries, the livelihood of which depends on being corrosion-free, solving the problem?
Before a problem can be solved, it must first be defined.
Biofouling is simply the attachment of an organism or organisms to a surface in contact with
water for a period of time. That explanation sounds fairly straightforward, but there are several
organisms that cause biofouling, many different types of surfaces affected by it, and, due to
the work of scientists, engineers and others, scores of solutions to the problem. Even this
definition greatly simplifies what really occurs. This article examines the causes of biofouling
and the numerous, innovative solutions being derived from our evolving knowledge of these
causes.
Biofouling occurs worldwide in various industries, from offshore oil and gas industries in China
and the Indian Ocean, to fishing equipment in the Caspian Sea, to cooling systems in the
Chesapeake Bay. One of the most common biofouling sites is on the hulls of ships, where
barnacles are often found. The most obvious problem of growth on a ship is the eventual
corrosion of the hull, leading to the ship's deterioration. Even before corrosion occurs, if left
unattended, organic growth can increase the roughness of the hull, thereby decreasing its
maneuverability and increasing drag. 1 This domino effect continues when the ship's fuel
consumption increases, in some cases by 30%. 2This in turn has economic and environmental
consequences, as increased fuel consumption leads to increased output of greenhouse
gases.3 Economic losses are tremendous, as fuel accounts for up to 50% of marine
transportation costs.4
Biofouling is everywhere. Parts of a ship other than the hull are affected as well: heat
exchangers, water-cooling pipes, propellers, even the ballast water.5 Heating and cooling
systems biofouling might also be found in power stations or factories. Just like a clogged drain
in your kitchen or bathroom, buildup of matter inside cooling system pipes decreases
performance.6 Again, fouling causes a domino effect. Equipment must be cleaned frequently, at
times with harsh chemicals, and the obstruction of piping can lead to a shutdown of plants and
economic losses.7
Fishing and fish farming are also affected, with mesh cages and trawls harboring fouling
organisms. In Australia, biofouling accounts for about 80% of the pearling industry's
costs.8 Gold- and silicon-based components of microelectrochemical drug delivery devices are
susceptible to biofouling, as are machines in the papermaking and pulping industries and
underwater instrumentation.9 Yet another place biofouling organisms lurk is piping and
sprinkler system nozzles of fire protection systems. 10
The problem is more serious in tropical waters. Cold waters have a low prevalence of
biofouling, perhaps because of the physiology of the organisms responsible. 11 It is not only
barnacles that create difficulties, and as we've seen, it's not just on ships' hulls; moreover, the
old method of scraping barnacles is not the only solution.

Biofouling is not as simple a process as it sounds. Organisms do not usually simply suck onto a
substrate like a suction cup. The complex process often begins with the production of
a biofilm.
A biofilm is a film made of bacteria, such as Thiobacilli or other microorganisms, that forms on
a material when conditions are right.12 Nutrient availability is an important factor; bacteria
require dissolved organic carbon, humic substances and uronic acid for optimum biofilm
growth.13 Biofilms do not have to contain living material; they may instead contain such once
living material as dead bacteria and/or secretions.14 Bacteria are not the only organisms that
can create this initial site of attachment (sometimes called the slime layer); diatoms, seaweed,
and their secretions are also culprits. Coral reef diatoms' attachment depends on pH, and as in
the Achnanthes and Stauronesisdiatoms, the molecular structure of the organism. 15 The study
of the biology of theAchnanthes longipes (Bacillariophyceae) diatom can determine which
temperatures produce maximum growth. 16
The growth of a biofilm can progress to a point where it provides a foundation for the growth
of seaweed, barnacles, and other organisms. In other words, microorganisms such as bacteria,
diatoms, and algae form the primary slime film to which themacroorganisms such as mollusks,
seasquirts, sponges, sea anemones, bryozoans, tube worms, polychaetes and barnacles
attach.17
This initial process does not occur in a random fashion. Conditions must be favorable, including
proper pH, humidity and nutrient availability.18 Organisms appear to be particular; for example,
bacteria creating biofilms on stainless and carbon steels and recirculating cooling systems are
similar physiologically and often the same species.19Biochemistry may determine if and where
biofilms attach, as in the case of Vibrio alginolyticus, a bacteria which produces organic
compounds sensitive to changes in temperatures and pH. 20 Chemistry and biology also
determine which organisms attach to the biofilm. A barnacles microbiology prevents or assists
it in settling on substrates.21
Barnacles (a type of marine crustacean), encrusting bryozoans, mollusks, tube worms, and
zebra mussels create a type of fouling known as calcareous (hard) fouling, while organisms
such as algae, slimes and hydroids make up non-calcareous (soft) fouling.22As mentioned
earlier, studying an organism's biology and chemistry may determine where it settles, what
prevents it from settling, and therefore, which technique or techniques to apply.
Many factors contribute to an organism's settlement on a substrate. Blue mussel attachment
has been studied with relation to different chemical elements, and the green mussel, Perna
viridis, and Great Lakes zebra mussels have been studied in relation to chlorine. 23 The effects of
water turbulence on spores of the bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis have been
studied.24 Composition of metal surfaces and even color of an organism have been examined.
The settlement of the biofilm created byPseudomonas fluorescens, another type of bacterium,
can be determined by flow of water; maximum development occurs around 1 m/sec. 25 Zebra
mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and water flow velocity have been studied - settlement of the
mussels does not occur at velocities greater than 2m/sec. 26 Barnacles will actually detach (from
a silicone surface, most often an antifouling coating) at 10-15 knots (~5.1 - 7.7 m/sec) but
most effectively detach at 30 knots (~15 m/sec). 27 Turbulence and speed also help to detach
seaweed and kelp from substrates.28 Where organisms reside and thrive - quiet waters, flowing
waters, or the tidal zone - is another important consideration.
One of the primary ways to prevent biofouling is to select the appropriate material out of which
to make a structure. This may be accomplished in coordination with the biological knowledge of
biofouling organisms. For example, zebra mussels find aluminum-bronze distasteful, so they
tend to avoid such structures.29 Cupronickels (copper-nickel alloys) have good biofouling and
corrosion resistance, and therefore are often used for surfaces or surface coatings. 30 Two of the
most popular materials used are 90/10 and 70/30 copper-nickel alloys (90%Cu-10%Ni and
70%Cu-30%Ni, respectively).31 This method may not be effective in every situation, especially
with ships that travel great distances through waters of different temperatures and salinity,
rendering a change in materials' resistances to biofouling.
One of the earliest methods of solving the problem was simply to scrape the hulls of ships. This
solution, although simple and relatively effective, poses one not so obvious major problem
spread of invasive species. This is illustrated best with the population explosion of zebra
mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes region. The mussels are picked up by
fishing equipment, ships and other vessels and transported to non-native waters where they

wreak havoc on native environments. To counter the spread of invasive species, many areas
have established hull-cleaning laws that state that any material removed from a hull must be
collected and disposed of properly.32
When cleaning (or scraping) becomes time consuming or ineffective, industries turn to perhaps
the most widely accepted method of controlling and preventing biofouling - antifouling
coatings. One of the most popular of these is tin-based coatings, specifically triorganotin- or
organostannic- or simply, TBT-coatings. These are also considered self-polishing, as there is a
controlled hydrolysis (decomposition) of the surface, which releases the TBT in a slow, steady
fashion from the substrate. When a substrate (e.g. a ship's hull) is in motion, the water wears
the compound away, leaving behind particles. TBT-coatings are highly effective in
reducing/controlling biofouling; however, they are also highly toxic to marine organisms. You
may ask: isn't that what is desired? TBT-coatings are toxic to biofouling organisms, but also
to non-target organisms. TBT interferes with major biological processes such as growth,
reproduction and immunity, on a cellular level.33 Some antifouling paints have a leaching rate of
more than 4 micrograms of TBT per day. That may sound insignificant, but damage to an
organism can occur in low concentrations - as little as less than 1 ppb (1 part per billion) - and
the life of a TBT-coating can be as great as five years.34
Due to the toxicity of TBT, the United States Navy discontinued use of such paints at the
beginning of the decade, and others are following suit. 35 Plans are underway worldwide to
phase out TBT by late 2007 or 2008.36 An application ban begins with boats of less than 25m,
then all lengths, and by 2007/2008, even the presence of the chemical on hulls will be
prohibited, even on coatings applied before the ban.
With the solution of one problem, another arises: how to replace TBT coatings. Since copper is
a successful deterrent of biofouling for instance pipe made of copper kills E. coli in drinking
water it has been used as a coating.37 Many, however, worry about its effects on the
environment. In fact, along with the phase-out of TBT, some want to eliminate copper-based
coatings, claiming they are responsible for the same negative effects as TBT.38 A unique
example is the copper-based antifouling paint used to prevent the amoebic gill disease-causing
protozoan Neoparamoeba pemaquidensis from attaching to salmon nets; Paradoxically, in one
experiment, the use of copper paintincreased the presence of N. pemaquidensis.39 Because this
is an isolated study, more research is needed on the relationship between copper and the
protozoan. However, in the process, more biofouling prevention techniques may be discovered.
Some in the metals industry claim that there is no evidence proving adverse effects on
organisms by copper-based antifouling paints.40 To resolve these contradictory viewpoints that
could harm the copper industry and/or the natural environment, much more research needs to
be done and is being done. For example, it has been discovered that a copper-nickel alloy will
release copper ions much more slowly than pure copper.41 This information can be used to
develop new techniques, as well as reduce copper use.
In the event that copper-based coatings are banned, what are other methods of preventing
biofouling? There is currently a wealth of options, and more are surely on the horizon. We may
first reexamine the idea that prevention starts with selecting the right material. Titanium
alloys, such as UNSR50400, UNSR52400, and UNSR53400 (200206-35-1369), have been
shown to exhibit little or no toxicity in marine animals.42Titanium surfaces may be further
protected by maintaining a more than 2m/sec water velocity to which organisms cannot
attach. Titanium is also immune to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC), indicating that
only larger organisms such as mussels or barnacles are responsible for inducing corrosion. 43 For
those titanium surfaces that cannot maintain the 2m/sec velocity, or for stationary structures,
chlorination is an option. Chlorination has been used in the Great Lakes to inhibit biofouling of
the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha3 and, in other parts of the world to inhibit the green
mussel Perna viridis.44 However, some studies show that chlorination is unlikely to work against
mussels if they are the predominant foulers once again raising concerns that chlorine is toxic.
Due to concerns about polluting waters and poisoning organisms, many have pursued research
to create non-toxic coatings. One of these is known as a foul-release coating. 45 Usually made of
polymers (plastics), these coatings are non-toxic and are thought to have a natural resistance
to biofouling by creating a low surface tension and having a low glass transition
temperature.46 Polymers utilized in these coatings are silicones and fluoropolymers and ethyl
vinyl acetates. 47 Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, this past year created two types of antifouling
coatings - one hydrophilic (water-loving) and one hydrophobic (water-hating). These coatings
in essence make a ship self-cleaning, creating a slippery substrate resistant to organisms -

from bacteria to barnacles - as it moves through the water.48

Other man-made solutions are abundant. A technique commonly used against diatoms is called
pulse laser irradiation - the longer the duration of each pulse, the greater the mortality of
organisms.49 Unfortunately, this radiation is not species-specific and can harm non-target
organisms. Plasma pulse technology does not use chemicals or heat; it transmits energy
directly into the water, which may cause harmful shockwaves or steam
bubbles.50 Pulsed electric fields, frequently used in pipes, create acoustic waves. Unlike plasma
pulse technology, this process does not create shockwaves that could affect cooling/heating
systems. In addition, electric fields do not kill, but stun organisms, clearly lowering mortality of
non-target organisms. 51
Another unique method for decreasing biofouling starts not with coatings, not with materials
selection, but with where the materials (in this case, boats) are housed when not in use.
Enclosed marinas are much more likely to contain biofouling organisms than unenclosed
marinas. Tides and currents assist in the flushing and renewal of water in a marina. Harbors
can be designed to ensure maximum flushing capacity, because marinas with breakwaters
retain more water than marinas without, leaving a greater build-up of fouling species. 52
There may be no greater way to fight nature than with nature itself; it is important to study
fouling organisms' biology in order to help prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Nemertine
pyridyl alkaloids (chemical compounds from worms) may be used for the inhibition of Balanus
amphitrite (barnacle) larvae.53 Studies in Caribbean sponges have shown that purified,
extracted compounds from them deter bacterial attachment. Since bacterial attachment is
often the initial step of the biofouling process, these sponges and their chemistry may help to
prevent the succession to larger organisms.54
A member of the ascidian group, Distaplia nathensis, is also showing promise - used in an
extract, it inhibits byssal production in the mussel Perna indica. A byssus is a mass of filaments
which the mussel uses to attach itself to a surface. 55 Dark brown bacteria provide the best
attachment for oyster larvae, but there are other bacteria which produce polysaccharides that
are toxic to oysters; in other words, they may be used to prevent biofouling by
oysters. 56 Immunoglobulins provide a natural biocide for planktonic (floating) and sessile
(attached) bacteria.57 Some species of bacteria can be used against other biofouling
organisms. Pseudoalteromonas spp., marine bacteria, produces bioactive compounds with an
inhibitory effect and can be used to prevent biofouling by algae like Ulva lactuca and by
barnacles like Hydroides elegans and Balanus amphitrite.58 Research is still needed to
determine the exact method of applying this knowledge.
These solutions are, of course, the tip of the iceberg. Many organisms are responsible for
fouling, and much information is still to be learned so that more environmentally friendly
prevention methods may be used. Not all organisms that cause biofouling and its subsequent
damage, are evil - Dreissena bugensis and the infamous zebra mussel,Dreissena
polymorpha are known as biofoulers, but their productivity and filtration capacity are important
for maintaining water quality.59
Using natural methods may be more cost effective than specialized coatings, materials, or
techniques. It is obvious that something needs to be done because of the economic impacts
that biofouling has on so many industries. These industries' research might serve to overcome
the still-common misconception that businesses cannot remain profitable without harming the
environment. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved, CSA
1.

Rolland, JP; DeSimone, JM. 2003. Synthesis and characterization of perfluoropolyether graft terpolymers for biofouling
applications. Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering. vol. 88, pp. 606-607

2.

Younqlood, JP; Andruzzi, L; Senaratne, W; Ober, CK; Callow, JA; Finlay, JA; Callow, ME. 2003. New materials for marine biofouling
resistance and release: semi-fluorinated and pegylated block copolymer bilayer coatings. Polymeric Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 608-609

3.

4.

Anderson, C. 2002. TBT-Free Anti-Fouling Coatings IN 2003 For Better Or For Worse?Corrosion Management vol. 40, pp. 21-24

http://journals.eecs.qub.ac.uk/RIA/ProcBI/1998/PB98I1/B98106a.html
Royal Irish Academy, 19 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland

5.

Brizzolara, RA. 2002. Adsorption of alginic acid to titanium investigated using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and atomic force
microscopy. Surface and Interface Analysis33, no. 4, pp. 351-360

6.

http://journals.eecs.qub.ac.uk/RIA/ProcBI/1998/PB98I1/B98106a.html
http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/1999/biofouling4.html (Naval Surface Warfare Center, Communications Division,
Bldg 1 Rm 200M, 9500 MacArthur Boulevard, West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700)

7.

De Rincon, OT; Morris, E; De Romero, M; Andrade, S. 2001. Effect of 'pelo de oso' (Garveia franciscana) on different materials in
Lake Maracaibo. NACE International, Corrosion/2001 pp. 15

8.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s24268.htm
(Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC Ultimo Centre, 700 Harris Street, Ultimo 2007, GPO Box 9994, Sydney NSW 2001
Australia)

9.

Anderson, J M; Cima, M J; Langer, R; Shawgo, R S; Shive, M S; von Recum, H; Voskerician, G. 2003. Biocompatibility and
biofouling of MEMS drug delivery devices. Biomaterials 24 (11), p.1959-67; Kolari, M. 2003. Attachment mechanisms and
properties of bacterial biofilms on non-living surfaces. Dissertationes Biocentri Viikki Universitatis Helsingiensis 12, 129 pp

10.

Lewis, D P; Piontkowski, J M; Straney, R W; Knowlton, J J. 1997. Use of potassium for treatment and control of zebra mussel
infestation in industrial fire protection water systems. Fire Technology 33 (4), p.356-71

11.

Panchal, CB; et al. 1984. Biofouling and Corrosion Studies at the Seacoast Test Facility in Hawaii, DE84-014643; CONF-840930-1,
6 pp

12.

Gehrke, T; Sand, W. 2003. Interactions between microorganisms and physicochemical factors cause mic of steel pilings in
harbours. NACE International, Corrosion/2003 pp. 8

13.

Griebe, T; Flemming, HC. 2000. Biocide free antifouling strategy to protect RO-membrane from biofouling (abstract only). Invest.
Tec. Pap. vol. 37, no. 146, pp 676-677

14.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/default.htm
(Level 8, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia)

15.

Greenberg, T; Itzhak, D. 2002. Marine biofouling of titanium alloys in the coral reef environment. Corrosion/2002; Denver, CO;
USA; 7-11, 7 pp. 2002; Brown, Malcom, Jr. 1999. Atomic and Molecular Imaging of Adhesive Molecules. NASA no. 19990027847

16.

Lewis, RJ; Johnson, LM; Hoagland, KD. 2002. Effects of cell density, temperature, and light intensity on growth and stalk
production in the biofouling diatom Achnanthes longipes (Bacillariophyceae). Journal of Psychology Vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1125-1131

17.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/default.htm
(Level 8, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia)

18.

Gomez de Saravia, SG; Guiamet, PS; Videla, HA. 2001. Preventing biocorrosion without damaging the environment. Four
innovative strategies. Institute of Corrosion, Corrosion Odyssey pp. 9

19.

Dobrevsky, I; Tsvetanova, Z; Varbanov, P; Dimitrov, D; Savcheva, G. 2000. A method of biofilm monitoring in the recirculating
cooling water system of a petroleum refinery plant. European Federation of Corrosion Publications (UK), vol. 29, pp. 202-212;
Dobrevsky, I; Tsvetanova, Z; Varbanov, P; Dimitrov, D; Savcheva, G. Study of the biofouling problems in the recirculating cooling
water system of a petroleum refinery plant. European Federation of Corrosion Publications vol. 29, pp. 263-273

20.

Muralidharan, J; Jayachandran, S. 2003. Physicochemical analyses of the exopolysaccharides produced by a marine biofouling
bacterium, Vibrio alginolyticus.Process Biochemistry Vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 841-847

21.

Jelvestam, M; Edrud, S; Petronis, S; Gatenholm, P. 2003. Biomimetic materials with tailored surface micro-architecture for
prevention of marine biofouling. Surface and Interface Analysis vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 168-173

22.

Stein, J; Truby, K; Wood, CD; Wiebe, D; Montemarano, J; Holm, E; Wendt, D; Smith, C; Meyer, A; Swain, G. 2001. Silicone
biofouling release coatings: correlation of compositional variables with macrofouling attachment strength. Polymer Preprints vol.
42, no. 1, pp. 236-237

23.

Klassen, RD; Roberge, PR; Porter, J; Pelletier, G; Zwicker, B. 2001. On-board hypochlorite generation for biofouling control. NACE

International, Corrosion/2001 pp. 11, Mar. 2001

24.

Faille, C; Dennin, L; Bellon-Fontaine, MN; Benezech, T. 1999. Cleanability of stainless steel surfaces soiled by Bacillus thuringiensis
spores under various flow conditions.Biofouling vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 143-151

25.

Bott, TR; Miller, PC. 1983. Mechanisms of Biofilm Formation on Aluminum Tubes. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 33B, (3), 177-184

26.

Dobrevsky, I; Tsvetanova, Z; Varbanov, P; Dimitrov, D; Savcheva, G. 2000. A method of biofilm monitoring in the recirculating
cooling water system of a petroleum refinery plant. European Federation of Corrosion Publications (UK), vol. 29, pp. 202-212

27.

Younqlood, JP; Andruzzi, L; Senaratne, W; Ober, CK; Callow, JA; Finlay, JA; Callow, ME. 2003. New materials for marine biofouling
resistance and release: semi-fluorinated and pegylated block copolymer bilayer coatings. Polymeric Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 608-609

28.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article1341.html
(Science Blog)

29.

1997. Chain for Nation's Largest Roller Gate Dam Meets Materials' Requirements. Mater Performance Vol 36; No 3; pp 57-58

30.

Mathiyarasu, J; Palaniswamy, N; Muralidharan, VS. 2002. Cyclic Voltammetric Studies On The Electrochemical Behaviour Of
Cupronickel In Sodium Chloride Solution. Bulletin of Electrochemistry vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 489-495

31.

Powell, CA; Michels, HT. 2000. Copper-nickel alloys for seawater corrosion resistance and antifouling - a state of the art
review. NACE International, Corrosion 2000 pp. 00627.1-00627.17

32.

http://www.fish.govt.nz/sustainability/biosecurity/hull-cleaning/consultation.htm
(Ministry of Fisheries, Head Office, ASB Bank House, 101 - 103 The Terrace, P O Box 1020, Wellington New Zealand)

33.

URL
http://vortex.weather.brockport.edu/students/joek/introduction.htm (Department of Earth Sciences, SUNY Brockport, 350 New
Campus Drive, Brockport, NY 14420)

34.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/default.htm
(Level 8, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia)

35.

Stein, J; Wood, CD; Harblin, O; Resue, J. 2001. Nontoxic, Self-Cleaning Silicone Fouling Release Coatings. General Electric
Corporate Research and Development

36.

Murugan, A; Ramasamy, MS. 2003 Biofouling deterrent activity of the natural product from ascidian, Distaplia nathensis. Indian
journal of marine sciences, Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 162-164

37.

2000. Copper pipe kills E. coli in drinking water. Advanced Materials & Processes vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 16

38.

http://www.poseidonsciences.com/antifouling.html
The Chanin Building, Suite 2805, 122 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, USA 10168

39.

Douglas-Helders, GM; Tan, C; Carson, J; Nowak, BF. 2003. Effects of copper-based antifouling treatment on the presence of
Neoparamoeba pemaquidensis Page, 1987 on nets and gills of reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture Vol. 221, no. 1-4,
pp. 13-22

40.

2002. The copper controversy. Marine Engineers Review pp. 12-13, 15

41.

http://marine.copper.org/1-biofouling.html
(Copper Development Association Inc., 260 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016)

42.

Greenberg, T; Itzhak, D. 2002. Marine biofouling of titanium alloys in the coral reef environment. Corrosion/2002; Denver, CO;
USA; 7-11, 7 pp. 2002

43.

http://www.timet.com/cor-p09.htm
(Titanium Metals Corporation, 1999 Broadway, Suite 4300, Denver CO 80202)

44.

Burton, Dennis T; Fisher, Daniel J. 2001. Chlorine Dioxide - The State of Science, Regulatory, Environmental Issues, and Case

Histories. Report Number AD-A403858; Gunasingh Masilamoni, J; Jesudoss, KS; Nandakumar, K; Satapathy, KK; Azariah, J; Nair,
KVK 2002. Lethal and sub-lethal effects of chlorination on green mussel Perna viridis in the context of biofouling control in a power
plant cooling water system. Marine Environmental ResearchVol. 53, no. 1, pp. 65-76

45.

Brady, RF Jr. 2003. Antifouling coatings without organotin. Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 33,34,37

46.

Stein, J; Truby, K; Wood, CD; Takemori, M; Vallance, M; Swain, G; Kavanagh, C; Kovach, B; Schultz, M; Wiebe, D. 2003.
Structure--property relationships of silicone biofouling-release coatings: effect of silicone network architecture on pseudobarnacle
attachment strengths. Biofouling 19, (2), 87-94

47.

Blidberg, DR. 1997. Solar-Powered Autonomous Undersea Vehicles. Sea Technology vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 45-51 Stein, J; Truby, K;
Wood, CD; Takemori, M; Vallance, M; Swain, G; Kavanagh, C; Kovach, B; Schultz, M; Wiebe, D. 2003. Structure--property
relationships of silicone biofouling-release coatings: effect of silicone network architecture on pseudobarnacle attachment
strengths. Biofouling 19, (2), 87-94

48.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article1341.html
(Science Blog)

49.

Nandakumar, K; Obika, H; Shinozaki, T; Ooie, T; Utsumi, A; Yano, T. 2003. Pulsed laser irradiation impact on two marine diatoms
Skeletonema costatum and Chaetoceros gracilis. Water Research Vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 2311-2316

50.

Mackie, GL; Lowery, P; Cooper, C. 2000. Plasma Pulse Technology to Control Zebra Mussel Biofouling. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Engineer Research and Development Center, Report: ERDC-TN-ZMR-2-22

51.

Walch, M; Mazzola, M; Grothaus, M. 2000. Feasibility Demonstration of a Pulsed Acoustic Device for Inhibition of Biofouling in
Seawater Piping. Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Div., Bethesda, MD, Report: NSWCCD-TR-2000/04
http://sgnis.org/publicat/ab97_43.htm
(Old Dominion University, Center for Advanced Ship Repair and Maintenance)

52.

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/explore/feat53.html
(The Cooperative Research Centre for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, PO Box 772, Townsville 4810, Queensland
Australia)

53.

Kem, WR; Soti, F; Rittschof, DAF. 2003. Inhibition of barnacle larval settlement and crustacean toxicity of some hoplonemertine
pyridyl alkaloids. Biomolecular EngineeringVol. 20, no. 4-6, pp. 355-361

54.

Kelly, SR; Jensen, PR; Henkel, TP; Fenical, W; Pawlik, JR. 2003. Effects of Caribbean sponge extracts on bacterial
attachment. Aquatic Microbial Ecology Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 175-182

55.

Murugan, A; Ramasamy, MS. 2003 Biofouling deterrent activity of the natural product from ascidian, Distaplia nathensis. Indian
journal of marine sciences, Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 162-164

56.

http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/1999/biofouling4.html
(Naval Surface Warfare Center, Communications Division, Bldg 1 Rm 200M, 9500 MacArthur Boulevard, West Bethesda, MD 208175700)

57.

Gomez de Saravia, SG; Guiamet, PS; Videla, HA. 2001. Preventing biocorrosion without damaging the environment. Four
innovative strategies. Institute of Corrosion, Corrosion Odyssey pp. 9

58.

Holmstroem, C; Egan, S; Franks, A; McCloy, S; Kjelleberg, S. 2002. Antifouling activities expressed by marine surface associated
Pseudoalteromonas species. FEMS Microbiology Ecology Vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 47-58

59.

Diggins, TP; Baier, RE; Meyer, AE; Forsberg, RL. 2002. Potential for Selective, Controlled Biofouling by Dreissena Species to
Intercept Pollutants from Industrial Effluents.Biofouling vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 29-36