Professional Documents
Culture Documents
based coating. Because of the synergy between proposed for evaluating the efficacy of new
mechanisms, it is important to study the AF activity environmentally benign AF surfaces.
under both laboratory and field environment
conditions, as polymers and surfaces often behave Laboratory bioassays
differently in static controlled environment as Laboratory bioassays are normally
compared to the dynamic conditions of the natural conducted in what may be described as the
marine environment14, 15. The assumption that direct Discovery Phase in the AF product R&D. At this
correlations should exist between laboratory and stage, short term tests are favored to rapidly identify
field tests is a misnomer 15 as each serves a different promising formulations for further work. The
purpose in understanding AF behavior. Testing of coating material may also be fragile and not ready
novel AF design under dynamic conditions (that is, to withstand physical deterioration in a field
under hydrodynamic shear in moving water), may environment i.e. weathering under sunlight and
reflect more closely natural physical conditions in seawater immersion. Hence, laboratory bioassays
the environment. are often introduced at this early development stage
The importance of appropriate selection of where only a preliminary examination of AF
experimental design, controls and benchmarks activity of the coating or surface interaction against
cannot be over-emphasized. For the novice, it may fouling organisms is desired. It is useful at this
seem that the variation in the fouling communities stage to also begin to investigate material
over time and space contributes some confusion in compatibility, fabrication techniques and cost
interpreting field tests. This would not be the case if issues.
the study was supported with robust laboratory Fouling organisms commonly used for
experiments that try to explain the AF mechanism. laboratory bioassays are classified into micro and
Given the constraints for a single laboratory to macrofoulers. The former consists mainly of
undertake field and laboratory tests, there is a need diatoms such as Amphora spp., Navicula spp. And
to develop more ways to evaluate AF activity in Nitzschia spp. and bacterial strains isolated from the
smaller scale experiments before the transition to marine environment. Macrofoulers include barnacle
large scale AF performance testing. The latter is cyprids of Amphibalanus amphitrite, bryozoans
often more effectively undertaken by industry as (Bugula neritina), mussel larvae (Mytilus spp.),
part of a larger holistic effort towards product tubeworms (Hydroides elegans) and zoospores of
development, which takes into account the green alga Ulva. Briand (2009) provides an
manufacturing practice and business models. overview of the common methods used for
During the early stages of coating formulation, the laboratory assays. Selecting an appropriate test
coating chemistry may not as yet have been organism (e.g. algae, macroinvertebrate larvae) may
optimized to endure long term weathering in natural also be important in the design of a laboratory
sea conditions. Moreover, materials used during bioassay. The choice of test organisms must take
experimental stages for novel formulations are often into account considerations such as the availability
expensive and/or difficult to produce in large of broodstock, selection of hardy species that can
amounts. Most research laboratories are also often survive in laboratory culture and ease of culture
not able to tackle health and safety issues associated maintenance. Ideally, the biology of the target
with preparation of large quantities of coatings species should be well studied. For example, larvae
needed for panel tests. of the tubeworm Hydroides elegans require a
Thus, it is prudent to separate the biofilm to settle 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; hence the design of
challenges associated with demonstrating bioassays would have to take into account the
antifouling activity versus antifouling performance. conditions for settlement of this species. It is also
The former seeks to demonstrate an AF effect while useful, at the earliest possible time, to select a test
the latter usually addresses longer term AF organism that is relevant to the target application.
performance in the natural environment. Increasingly, emerging new technologies
In this paper, we review the diversity of AF are focused on developing environmentally benign
testing methods available to practitioners new to the surfaces that confer AF properties through the
research and discuss some of the challenges in alteration of surface chemistry, such as surface
selecting the best methods for AF testing. Broadly, charges, surface energies, zwitterionic forces,
we have divided the R&D process into three phases: wettability22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,
Discovery, Proof-of-concept and Product microtopography34,35,36,37,38,39, enzymatic
Development. A solutions-based approach that coatings40,41 or multifunctional strategies such as the
combines laboratory and field assessment is slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces42(SLIPSs)
LIM et al.: LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING OF ANTIFOULING COATINGS 2069
that couples both texturing and chemistry. Often settlement, larvae metamorphosis, mortality and
these new technologies are prepared on planar exploratory behavior provide valuable clues to
surfaces and initially presented for assays in small understand mechanisms of action.
size coupons for reasons mentioned afore. Dynamic forces existing in the natural
Traditionally, anti-settlement assays were marine environment (e.g. from tidal streams and
designed on the basis of biocides dissolved in boat wakes) or those occurring over moving vessels
seawater with assays ran in static condition for 24 present challenges for marine organisms attempting
hours, in containment. Many new bioassays have to settle. Emerging non-toxic AF solutions that
been introduced to assess AF activity. An example incorporate modification of surface chemistries
is the droplet assay. In this assay, 20 - 40 barnacle and/or physical microtopography may interfere with
cyprids are suspended in a droplet (volume ranges a marine organism’s interaction and subsequent
from 400ul to 1.5ml depending on the size of the attachment with these new surfaces, potentially
material) and dispensed onto a test surface 43, 44, 30, 41 resulting in lower attachment numbers or lower
and incubated usually in the dark. Settlement adhesion strength if attachment occurred52,53,54,34.
success is enumerated after 24 hours. A variation External dynamic forces may therefore aid in the
of this test method is the apposing surface assay removal of attached organisms from surfaces. Thus,
developed by Petrone45, where two test surfaces trap there is an incentive to include dynamic flow
a droplet of cyprids solution in a specially designed elements into laboratory bioassays or field tests to
height-adjustable jack. This design is intended to understand marine organism behavior and fouling
reduce cyprids-air interaction, which may interfere community development under flow conditions.
with cyprids-surface interaction. In these tests, the Many novel dynamic tests have been introduced to
percentage of cyprids settlement on test surfaces, complement our understanding of a flow effect on
mortality of cyprids and metamorphosed but AF activity or performance on surfaces. Some
detached barnacle cyprids were investigated. A low examples of laboratory dynamic assay systems
settlement count with low natural mortality include surface-biofilm studies in microfluidic flow
indicates that the surface has an effect against channels55, 56, measurement of microfouling (e.g.
cyprids settlement. In many cases, the duration of algae) adhesion strength in turbulent flow channels
57,58
assays was extended to 48 hours to ensure sufficient and measurement of adhesion strength of
settlement in controls, some examples being tests macroinvertebrates like ascidians, barnacles and
involving PDMS34, 44, 36, Xerogel26, PEG43, 30and bryozoans59.
PEMA copolymer films41. These design
considerations should be taken into account when Field Tests
selecting an assay, for example if the materials
contain rapid biodegradable bioactive substances. Field immersion studies in natural seawater
Foul release surfaces such as those is often necessary to further investigate the AF
composed of silicone or fluoropolymers5 are activity as demonstrated in laboratory conditions
typically assessed for performance based on the given the diverse chemical, biological and physical
adhesion strength of settled macrofoulers such as environmental conditions that cannot be replicated
barnacles based on the46, 47presented a new assay in the laboratory60. Even in the absence of high
using laboratory-reared adult barnacles in a re- current velocities in most static field tests carried
attachment assay on foul-release surfaces, as a out in coastal or port waters, instantaneous
means to evaluate the critical removal stress of turbulence created by wind chops and boat wakes
barnacles re-attached on these surfaces. The assay may affect larval settlement61. Field testing
assists to overcome some limitations for barnacle therefore challenges novel surfaces in an
testing in the field environment, such as low environment subject to natural physical processes
settlement rate during poor weather conditions. A and a diverse fouling community.
computer controlled automated barnacle removal Short term field immersion tests are often
test modified from the force gauge removal test47 utilized in a Proof-of-Concept Phase in field
further enabled down-selection of foul-release exposures lasting less than a month. Such
coatings using a high-throughput screening experiment would be sufficient to 1) expose the
method48. Some new methods examining cyprids coating to fouling by diverse consortia of fouling
exploration behavior on modified surfaces have organisms in the field, and 2) examine the physical
been introduced to understand larval interactions integrity of the coating under short term weathering
with surfaces49, 50, 51. Experiments examining conditions. Small size coupons such as glass rods62
2070 INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL 43, NO.11 NOVEMBER 2014
and microscopic slides63 have been employed. against a control coating. It may also be useful to
These may be field tested with a large number of benchmark results against an equivalent commercial
replicates which present robust data for statistical product as an additional measure of coating
tests. performance. Good performing coatings may be
Like laboratory bioassays, short term field expected to remain foul-free for one to two years.
testing may be employed to assist in a ‘screening’ Inspection of biofouling coverage on surfaces is
process, with large arrays of coatings to gather often conducted following ASTM D6990 – 05.
preliminary fouling settlement results. Large arrays Field immersion studies carried out over different
can be screened quickly and the settlement data geographical locations can further yield valuable
used to select for the best coating performer. Unlike field performance data on coating efficacy 66.
laboratory bioassays, physical weathering issues in Commercially available foul-free or foul
short term field test may be explored at this stage release surfaces have been introduced as an
and are critical feedback to the early stage environmentally benign alternative to toxic coatings
development process, providing information on to prevent or reduce fouling settlement on surfaces.
coating stability and polymer compatibility issues. These surface coatings are mainly silicone or
Direct field exposure trials have also been used for fluorinated polymers and are believed to interfere
the preliminary examination of the natural AF effect with the adhesion strength or attachment of
of surface micro-topography in mollusk shells12 and organisms in contact with the surface5, although the
other macro-invertebrates like crabs (Cancer actual mechanism is not clear. There are now also
pagurus), brittle stars (Ophiura texturata) and new novel surfaces that combine micro-texture, bio-
bivalves (Mytilus edulis) 64. adhesive resistance, low energy and
After the initial evaluation of activity, the environmentally benign compounds that disrupt
next stage would involve a scale-up and application adhesives of problem foulers67. The barnacle
of promising coating onto large panel sizes adhesion test 47 is often used as a measure of the
consisting of thick multi-layered coatings that fouling-release properties 52, 53, 48. At optimal flow
conform to ASTM requirements65. Candidate velocities on a ship vessel, loosely attached
coatings entering the Product Development stage organisms are dislodged from these surfaces. These
are evaluated for field performance. Here, the surfaces also allow organisms to be removed easily
coating can be subjected to longer field immersion from a surface with minimal cleaning forces.
duration (which may last one to two years) to Barnacle adhesion tests in accordance with the
evaluate coating effectiveness and other scale-up ASTM standard, D5618-94 is normally done by
issues that may undermine coating durability. While using a force measuring device such as a force
coatings can be applied on a standard 10 by 12 gauge to push against the base of a barnacle until
inches panel using ASTM standards for coating detachment occurs. To obtain good quality adhesion
field evaluation, smaller 4 by 8 inches panels could data, firstly, a large number of suitably sized
also be adopted if size and cost is a constraint. barnacles must be available (usually 5 to 20 mm
However, edge effects as a result of encroachment diameter). This requires a large surface area for
of organisms from the substrata edges onto the barnacle settlement to occur and secondly, a
coating increase with decreasing panel or substrata reasonable duration for barnacle growth before
size. Selection of appropriate substrate dimension is adhesion tests can be carried out. Barnacle
therefore an important design criterion. Ideally, settlement may also be limited by seasonal changes
replication should be high but cost constraints often in barnacle recruitment. Moreover, the quality of
result in smaller sample numbers. the data is also dependent on the user to perform the
In the design and conduct of a field test, a removal test consistently and without damaging the
few considerations may be warranted. The actual barnacle. These factors may constraint the quality
duration of the field immersion tests may vary of the adhesion tests.
according to the fouling community and prevalent While a laboratory dynamic test carried out
fouling rates in the field, as fouling communities in early stage Discovery phase may involve a
vary in composition and density according to preliminary demonstration of the antifouling
seasonality. Urban freshwater runoffs and local activity of a surface, field dynamic test in the Proof-
changes in hydrology may also affect fouling rates. of-Concept or Product Development phase usually
These environmental conditions affect the design of take a longer time and involve more robust testing.
field tests and are important in interpreting the Hydrodynamic drag evaluation in foul release
results gathered from immersion tests. Thus, in any coatings 68 using a rotary disc system may be one
experiment, it is essential to benchmark the results way of investigating drag forces over surfaces in
LIM et al.: LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING OF ANTIFOULING COATINGS 2071
3. ASTM D4939 - 89(2013) Standard Test Method for 21. Huang, Y., Callahan, S. & Hadfield, M.G., Recruitment in
Subjecting Marine Antifouling Coating to Biofouling and the sea: bacterial genes required for inducing larval
Fluid Shear Forces in Natural Seawater settlement in a polychaete worm, Scientific Reports2
4. ASTM D6990 - 05(2011)Standard Practice for Evaluating (2012).
Biofouling Resistance and Physical Performance of 22. Finlay, J.A., Callow, M.E., Ista, L.K., Lopez, G.P. &
Marine Coating Systems Callow, J.A., The influence of surface wettability on the
5. Lejars, M., Margaillan, A., &Bressy C., Fouling release adhesion strength of settled spores of the green alga
coatings: a nontoxic alternative to biocidal antifouling Enteromorphaand the diatom Amphora, Integr. Comp.
coatings, Chem. Rev., 112 (2012): 4347−4390. Biol., 42 (2002): 1116–1122.
6. Fan, X., Lin, L., Dalsin, J.L. &Messersmith, P.B., 23. Schilp, S., Kueller, A., Rosenhahn, A., Grunze, M., Pettitt,
Biomimetic anchor for surface-initiated polymerization M.E., Callow, M.E. & Callow, J.A., Settlement and
from metal substrates, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(45)(2005): adhesion of algal cells to hexa (ethylene glycol)-
15843-7. containing self-assembled monolayers with systematically
7. Yang, W.J., Cai, Tao.,Neoh. K., Kang, E., Dickinson, G. changed wetting properties,Biointerphases, 2 (4) (2007):
H., Teo, L. &Rittschof, D., Biomimetic Anchors for 143-150.
Antifouling and Antibacterial Polymer Brushes on 24. Zhang, Z., Finlay, J.A., Wang, L., Gao, Y., Callow, J.A.,
Stainless Steel, Langmuir, 27(2011): 7065-7076. Callow, M.E. & Jiang, S., Polysulfobetaine-grafted
8. Kirschner, C.M. & Brennan, A.B., Bio-inspired surfaces as environmentally benign ultralow fouling
antifouling strategies, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.,42 (2012): marine coatings, Langmuir, 25 (23) (2009): 13516–13521.
8.1–8.19. 25. Aldred, N., Li, G., Gao, Y., Clare, A.S. & Jiang, S.,
9. Cowling, M.J., Hodgkiess, U.T., Parr, A.C.S., Smith, M.J. Modulation of barnacle (Balanusamphitrite Darwin)
&Marrs, S.J., An alternative approach to antifouling based cyprid settlement behavior by sulfobetaine and
on analogues of natural processes, The Science of the Total carboxybetaine methacrylate polymer coatings,
Environment,258 (2000): 129-137. Biofouling, 26 (6) (2010a): 673-683.
10. Rittschof, D., Lai, C.H., Kok, L.M. &Teo, S.L.M., 26. Finlay, J.A., Bennett, S.M., Brewer, L.H., Sokolova, A.,
Pharmaceuticals as antifoulants: concept and principles, Clay, G., Gunari, N., Meyer, A.E., Walker, G.C., Wendt,
Biofouling, 19 (2003): 207–212. D.E., Callow, M.E., Callow, J.A. &Detty, M.R., Barnacle
11. Andersson, M., Berntsson K., Jonsson, P. &Gatenholm, settlement and the adhesion of protein and diatom
P., Microtextured surfaces: towards macrofouling resistant microfouling to xerogel films with varying surface energy
coatings, Biofouling, 14 (2) (1999): 167-178. and water wettability, Biofouling, 26(6) (2010): 657-666.
12. Scardino A., de Nys, R., Ison O., O'Connor, W. & 27. Jiang, S. & Cao, Z., Ultralow-fouling, functionalizable,
Steinberg, P., Microtopography and antifouling properties and hydrolyzablezwitterionic materials and their
of the shell surface of the bivalve derivatives for biological applications, Adv. Mater., 22 (9)
molluscsmytilusgalloprovincialis and pinctada imbricate, (2010): 920-930.
Biofouling, 19 (2003): 221–230. 28. Petrone, L., Di Fino, A., Aldred, N., Sukkaew, P., Ederth,
13. Scardino, A.J., Guenther, J. & de Nys, R., Attachment T., Clare, A.S. &Liedberg, B., Effects of surface charge
point theory revisited: the fouling response to a and Gibbs surface energy on the settlement behaviour of
microtextured matrix, Biofouling, 24 (1) (2008): 45–53, barnacle cyprids (Balanusamphitrite), Biofouling, 27 (9)
14. Casse´ F. & Swain, G.W., The development of (2011): 1043-1055.
microfouling on four commercial antifouling coatings 29. Scardino, A.J. & de Nys, R., Mini review: Biomimetic
under static and dynamic immersion. Int. Biodeter. models and bioinspired surfaces for fouling control,
Biodegr., 57 (2006): 179–185. Biofouling, 27 (1) (2011): 73-86.
15. Briand, J.F., Marine antifouling laboratory bioassays: an 30. Wang,Y., Betts, D.E., Finlay, J.A., Brewer, L., Callow,
overview of their diversity, Biofouling,25 (4) (2009): 297– M.E., Callow, J.A., Wendt, D.E. &DeSimone, J.M.,
311. Photocurableamphiphilicperfluoropolyether /poly(ethylene
16. Hadfield, M.G., Biofilms and Marine Invertebrate Larvae: glycol) networks for fouling-release coatings,
What Bacteria Produce That Larvae Use to Choose Macromolecules, 44 (2011): 878–885.
Settlement Sites, Annual Review of Marine Science, 3 31. Bodkhe, R.B., Stafslien, S.J., Cilz, N., Daniels, J.,
(2011) 453-470. Thompson, S.E.M., Callow, M.E., Callow, J.A. &
17. Lau, S.C.K. & Qian, P.Y., Phlorotannins and related Webster, D.C., Polyurethanes with amphiphilic surfaces
compounds as larval settlement inhibitors of a tube- made using telechelic functional PDMS having orthogonal
building polychaete Hydroideselegans(Haswell), Mar. acid functional groups, Prog. Org. Coat., 75 (2012): 38–
Ecol-Prog. Ser., 159 (1997): 219–227. 48.
18. Qian, P.Y., Lau, S.C.K., Dahms, H.U., Dobretsov, S. & 32. Evariste, E., Gatley, C.M., Detty, M.R., Callow, M.E. &
Harder, T., Marine biofilms as mediators of colonization Callow, J.A., The performance of
by marine macroorganisms: Implications for antifouling aminoalkyl/fluorocarbon/hydrocarbon-modified xerogel
and aquaculture, Mar. Biotechnol., 9 (2007): 399-410. coatings against the marine alga Ectocarpuscrouaniorum:
19. Hung, O.S., Lee, O.O., Thiyagarajan, V., He, H.P., Xu, Y., relative roles of surface energy and charge, Biofouling, 29
Chung, H.C., Qiu, J.W. & Qian, P.Y., Characterization of (2) (2013): 171-184.
cues from natural multi-species biofilms that induce larval 33. Di Fino, A., Petrone, L., Aldred, N., Ederth, T., Liedberg,
attachment of the polychaete Hydroides elegans., Aquat. B. & Clare, A.S., Correlation between surface chemistry
Biol.,4(2009): 253-262. and settlement behaviour in barnacle cyprids
20. Hadfield, M.G., Unabia, C.C., Smith C.M. & Michael, (Balanusimprovisus), Biofouling,30 (2) (2014): 143-152.
T.M., Settlement preferences of the ubiquitous fouler 34. Schumacher, J.F., Aldred, N., Callow, M.E., Finlay, J.A.,
Hydroides elegans. Recent Developments in Biofouling Callow, J.A., Clare, A.S. & Brennan, A.B., Species-
Control, (1994) 65-75. specific engineered antifouling topographies: correlations
between the settlement of algal zoospores and barnacle
LIM et al.: LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING OF ANTIFOULING COATINGS 2073
cyprids, Biofouling, 23 (5) (2007): 307-317. 50. Chaw K.C., Dickinson G.H., Ang K.Y., Deng J. & Birch
35. Efimenko, K., Finlay, J.A., Callow, M.E., Callow, J.A. W.R., Surface exploration of
&Genze, J., Development and testing of hierarchically Amphibalanusamphitritecyprids on microtextured
wrinkled coatings for marine antifouling, Applied surfaces, Biofouling,27 (4) (2011): 413–422.
Materials and Interfaces, 1(5) (2009): 1031-1040. 51. Maleschlijski, S., Sendra, G. H., Di Fino, A., Leal-Taixe´
36. Aldred, N., Scardino, A., Cavaco, A., de Nys, R. & Clare, L.,Thome, I., Terfort, A., Aldred, N., Grunze, M., Clare,
A.S., Attachment strength is a key factor in the selection A.S.,Rosenhahn, B. &Rosenhahn, A., Three Dimensional
of surfaces by barnacle cyprids (Balanusamphitrite) Tracking of Exploratory Behavior of Barnacle Cyprids
during settlement, Biofouling26 (3) (2010b): 287-299. Using Stereoscopy, Biointerphases, (2012) 7:50
37. Magin, C.M., Long, C.J., Cooper, S.P., Ista, L.K., G.P. & 52. Kavanagh, C.J., Swain, G.W., Kovach, B.S., Stein, J.,
Brennan, A.B., Engineered antifouling microtopographies: Darkangelo-Wood, C., Truby, K., Holm, E.,
the role of Reynolds number in a model that predicts Montemarano, J., Meyer, A. &Wiebe, D., The effects of
attachment of zoospores of Ulva and cells of Cobetia silicone fluid additives and silicone elastomer matrices on
marina, Biofouling, 26 (6) (2010): 719-727. barnacle adhesion strength, Biofouling,19 (2003): 381-
38. Sundaram, H.S., Cho, Y., Dimitriou, M.D., Weinman, 390.
C.J., Finlay, J.A., Cone, G., Callow, M.E., Callow, J.A., 53. Sun, Y., Guo, S., Walker, G.C., Kavanagh, C.J. & Swain,
Kramer, E.J. &Ober, C.K., Fluorine-free mixed G.W., Surface elastic modulus of barnacle adhesive and
amphiphilic polymers based on PDMS and PEG side release characteristics from silicone surfaces, Biofouling,
chains for fouling release applications, Biofouling, 27 (6) 20 (6) (2004): 279 – 289.
(2011): 589-602. 54. Meyer, A., Baier, R., Wood, C.D., Stein, J., Truby, K.,
39. Vucko, M.J., Poole, A.J., Carl, C., Sexton, B.A., Glenn, Holm, E.,Montemarano, J., Kavanagh, C., Nedved, B.,
F.L., Whalan, S. & de Nys, R., Using textured PDMS to Smith, C., Swain, G. &Wiebe, D. Contact angle anomalies
prevent settlement and enhance release of marine fouling indicate that surface-active eluates from silicone coatings
organisms, Biofouling, 30 (1) (2014): 1-16. inhibit the adhesive mechanisms of fouling organisms,
40. Olsen, S. M., Pedersen, L.T., Laursen, M.H., Kiil, S. & Biofouling, 22 (6) (2006): 411 – 423.
Dam-Johansen, K., Enzyme-based antifouling coatings: a 55. Busscher H.J. & van der Mei H.C., Microbial Adhesion in
review, Biofouling, 23 (5) (2007): 369 – 38. Flow Displacement Systems. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.,
41. Tasso, M., Conlan, S. L., Clare, A.S. & Werner, C., Active (2006): 127–141.
Enzyme Nanocoatings Affect Settlementof 56. Finlay, J.A., Schultz, M.P., Cone, G., Callow, M.E. &
BalanusamphitriteBarnacle Cyprids, Adv. Funct. Mater., Callow, J.A., A novel biofilm channel for evaluating the
22 (2012) 39–47. adhesion of diatoms to non-biocidal coatings,
42. Xiao, L., Li, J., Mieszkin, S., Di Fino, A., Clare, A.S., Biofouling29 (4) (2013): 401–411.
Callow, M.E., Callow, J.A., Grunze, M., Rosenhahn, A. 57. Schultz, M.P., Finlay, J.A., Callow, M.E. & Callow, J.A.,
&Levkin, P.A., Slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces A turbulent channel flow apparatus for the determination
showing marine antibiofouling properties, ACS Applied of the adhesion strength of microfouling organisms,
Material Interfaces, 5(2013): 10074−10080. Biofouling, 15 (4) (2000): 243-251,
43. Weinman, C.J., Krishnan, S., Park, D., Paik, M.Y., Wong, 58. Hoipkemeier-Wilson, L., Schumacher, J.F., Carman, M.L.,
K., Fischer, D.A., Handlin, D.L., Kowalke, G.L., Wendt, Gibson, A.L., Feinberg, A.W., Callow, M.E., Finlay, J.A.,
D.E., Sohn, K.E., Kramer, E.J. &Ober, C.K., Antifouling Callow, J.A. & Brennan, A.B., Antifouling Potential of
block copolymer surfaces that resist settlement of barnacle Lubricious, Micro-engineered, PDMS Elastomers against
larvae, ACS Division of Polymeric Materials Science and Zoospores of the Green Fouling Alga Ulva
Engineering, 96(2007): 597-598. (Enteromorpha), Biofouling, 20 (1) (2004): 53 – 63.
44. Marabotti, I., Morelli, A., Orsini, L. M., Martinelli, E., 59. Zardus, J.D., Nedved, B.T., Huang, Y., Tran C. &
Galli, G., Chiellini, E., Lien, E. M., Pettitt, M.E., Callow, Hadfield, M.G., Microbial biofilms facilitate adhesion in
M.E., Callow, J.A., Conlan, S.L., Mutton, R.J., Clare, biofouling invertebrates, Biol. Bull. 214(2008): 91–98.
A.S., Kocijan, A.C., Donik, C. &Jenko, M., 60. Henrikson, A.A. &Pawlik, J.R., A new antifouling assay
Fluorinated/siloxane copolymer blends for fouling release: method: results from field experiments using extracts of
chemical characterisation and biological evaluation with four marine organisms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.,
algae and barnacles, Biofouling, 25(6) (2009): 481-493. 194(1995): 157-165.
45. Petrone, L., Lee, S.S., Teo, S.L. & Birch, W.R.,A novel 61. Koehl, M.A.R., Mini review: hydrodynamics of larval
geometry for a laboratory-based larval settlement assay, settlement into fouling communities, Biofouling,23 (5)
Biofouling, 29 (2) (2013): 213-21. (2007): 357 – 368.
46. Rittschof, D., Orihuela, B., Stafslien, S., Daniels, J., 62. Rittschof, D., Clare, A.S., Gerhart, D.J., Bonaventura, J.,
Christianson, D., Chisholm, B. & Holm, E., Barnacle Smith, C. & Hadfield, M., Rapid field assessment of
reattachment: a tool for studying barnacle adhesion, antifouling and foul-release coatings, Biofouling,6
Biofouling,24 (1) (2008): 1–9. (1992):181-192.
47. ASTM D5618 - 94(2011) Standard Test Method for 63. Cassé F., Stafslien, S.J., Bahr, J.A., J. Daniels, Finlay J.A.,
Measurement of Barnacle Adhesion Strength in Shear Callow J.A. & M.E. Callow, Combinatorial materials
48. Conlan S.L., Mutton, R.J., Aldred, N. & Clare, A.S., research applied to the development of new surface
Evaluation of a fully automated method to measure the coatings V. Application of a spinning water-jet for the
critical removal stress of adult barnacles, Biofouling,24 (6) semi-high throughput assessment of the attachment
(2008): 471–481. strength of marine fouling algae, Biofouling, 23 (2)(2007):
49. Chaw K.C. & Birch W.R., Quantifying the exploratory 121 – 130.
behaviour of Amphibalanusamphitritecyprids. 64. Bers, A.V. & Wahl, M., The influence of natural surface
Biofouling,25 (7) (2009): 611–619. microtopographies on fouling, Biofouling, 20 (1) (2004):
43 – 51.
2074 INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL 43, NO.11 NOVEMBER 2014
65. ASTM D3623 - 78a(2012) Standard Test Method for S. & Thomason, J. (Wiley-Blackwell, New York) 2010,
Testing Antifouling Panels in Shallow Submergence pp. 396-409.
66. Swain, G.W., Anil, A.C., Baier, R.E., Chia, F., Conte, E., 68. Holm, E., Schultz, M., Haslbeck, E., Talbott W. & Field,
Cook, A., Hadfield, M., Haslbeck, E., Holm, E., A., Evaluation of hydrodynamic drag on experimental
Kavanagh, C., Kohrs, D., Kovach, B., Lee C., Mazzella, fouling-release surfaces, using rotating disks, Biofouling ,
L., Meyer, A.E., Qian, P-Y., Sawant, S.S., Schultz, M., 20 (4/5) (2004): 219 – 226.
Sigurdsson, J., Smith, C., Soo, L., Terlizzi, A., Wagh, A., 69. ASTM D4938 - 89(2013) Standard Test Method for
Zimmerman, R. &Zupo, V., Biofouling and barnacle Erosion Testing of Antifouling Paints Using High
adhesion data for fouling-release coatings subjected to Velocity Water
static immersion at seven marine sites, Biofouling, 16 (2- 70. Tribou, M. & Swain G. The use of proactive in-
4) (2000): 331-344. water grooming to improve the performance of ship
67. Rittschof, D., Research on practical environmentally hull antifouling coatings, Biofouling, 26 (1) (2010):
benign antifouling coatings, in: Biofouling, edited by Dürr, 47-56.