Release Rate of Biocides from Antifouling Paints

  • Kazunobu Takahashi

In October 2001, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) diplomatic conference adopted the draft convention prepared by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO for the “Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships” (IMO-AFS2001). This international convention banned the application of organotin based antifouling paints by 1 January 2003, with a total ban on the presence of organotin by 1 January 2008. The convention was developed to immediately ban the use of organotin compounds such as tributyltin (TBT) and triphenyltin (TPT) globally in antifouling paints to protect the marine environment. The ban on TBT came about because TBT has extensive detrimental effects on non-target marine organisms. IMO-AFS2001 not only banned organotin, but also encouraged development of the alternative tin-free antifouling systems (i.e. environmentally friendly antifouling systems) (IMO 1999; 2001).

Additionally, the ban to use TBT-antifouling paints has resulted in increased research interest in developing alternative tin-free antifouling paints containing biocides that must be effective to control growth of organisms on submerged ship's hull (Vallee-Rehel et al. 1998; The Japan Shipbuilding Research Association 1993; Omae 2003) The environmental fate and aquatic toxicological profile of these tin-free booster biocides in the marine environment have been studied by many researchers (Okamura et al. 2002; Turley et al. 2000; Callow and Willingham 1996; HSE 2005; Harino 2004; Harino et al. 2005; Konstantinou and Albanis 2004). Here, the term ‘booster biocides’ means a group of compounds normally used in addition to copper compounds such as cuprous oxide (Cu2O) and cuprous thiocyanate (CuSCN) in antifouling paint formulations. Moreover, the ideal biocides should have the following characteristics (IMO 1999):
  1. 1.

    Broad spectrum activity

  2. 2.

    Low mammalian toxicity

  3. 3.

    Low seawater solubility

  4. 4.

    Low bioaccumulation in the food chain

  5. 5.

    Not persistent in the environment

  6. 6.

    Compatible with paint raw materials

  7. 7.

    Favourable price/performance

As typical candidates of the tin-free booster biocide, Sea-Nine 211 (DCOIT), Irgarol 1051 (CDMTD), Zineb, Ziram (PZ), Preventol A6 (Diuron), Chlorothalonil, Preventol A4-S (Dichlofluanid), Preventol A5-S (Tolylfluanid), Copper Omadine (CuPT), Zinc Omadine (ZnPT) and PK (pyridine-triphenylborane) have been used widely in the commercial TBT-free antifouling paints and copper-free antifouling paints in recent years (Okamura and Mieno 2006).


Release Rate International Maritime Organization Antifouling Paint Predicted Environmental Concentration Average Release Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atherton D, Verborgt J, Winkeler M A M (1979) New developments in anti-fouling: a review of the present state of the art. J Coat Technol 51: 88–91Google Scholar
  2. Bowner C T, Ferrari G (1989) A new approach to the development and testing of antifouling paints. J Oil Colour Chem Assoc 72: 391–396Google Scholar
  3. Callow M E, Willingham G L (1996) Degradation of antifouling biocides. Biofouling 10: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CEPE Antifouling WG (1999) Utilization of more environmentally friendly antifouling products-EC project No96/559/3040/DEB/E2,
  5. European Commission (2002) Assessment of Antifouling Agents in Coastal Environments (ACE),
  6. Finnie A A (2006) Improved estimates of environmental copper release rates from antifouling products. Biofouling 22: 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HSE (2005) Advisory Committee on Pesticides No223, Evaluation on Copper Pyrithione as a New Active Ingredient in Professional Antifouling Products, p.75Google Scholar
  8. Harino H (2004) Occurrence and degradation of representative TBT free-antifouling biocides in aquatic environment. Coast Mar Sci 29: 28–39Google Scholar
  9. Harino H, Mori Y, Yamaguchi Y et al. (2005) Monitoring of antifouling booster biocides in water and sediment from the port of Osaka, Japan. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48: 303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haslbeck E, Ellor J A (2005) Investigating tests for antifoulants: variation between laboratory and in-situ methods for determining copper release rates from navy-approved coatings. J Protective Coating Linings, August, 34–44Google Scholar
  11. Hunter J E (2004) Regulation and registration of anti-fouling coatings in the European Union, in “Proceeding of International Symposium on Antifouling Paint and Marine Environment”, p.11, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  12. IMO (1999) Focus on IMO. Anti-Fouling Systems, IMO LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. IMO (2001) Anti-Fouling Systems, International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, IMO LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO-15181-1 (2000) Determination of release rate of biocides from antifouling paints – Part 1: general method for extraction of biocidesGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO/TC35/SC9/WG27 Japan WG (1997) ISO ring test for copper biocide release rate determination, p.1–18Google Scholar
  16. Konstantinou I K, Albanis T A (2004) Worldwide occurrence and effects of antifouling paint booster biocides in the aquatic environment: a review. Environ Int 30: 235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ketchum B H (1952) “Marine Fouling and Its Prevention”, p.338, US. Naval Institute Press, MDGoogle Scholar
  18. Omae I (2003) General aspects of tin-free antifouling paints. Chem Rev 103: 3431–3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okamura H, Mieno H (2006) Present status of antifouling systems in Japan: tributyltin substitutes in Japan. “Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Antifouling Paint Biocides.” Vo l 5, Part O, p.201, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  20. Okamura H, Watanabe T, Aoyama I et al. (2002) Toxicity evaluation of new antifouling compounds using suspension-cultured fish cells. Chemosphere 46: 945–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2005) Series on emission scenario documents No.13, emission scenario document on antifouling products,
  22. Samui A B, Hande V R, Deb P C (1997) Synthesis and characterization of copoly(MMA-MA)-Cu complex and study on its leaching behavior. J Coat Technol 69: 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seligman P A, Neumeister J W (1983) In-Situ. Leach Rate Measuring System. US Patent 4375451Google Scholar
  24. Takahashi K (1991) Measurement of the leaching rates of tributyltin and triphenyltin compounds from antifouling paint by gas chromatography. J Oil Colour Chem Assoc 74: 331–338Google Scholar
  25. Takahashi K, Ikuta H (1989) Comparison of ASTM/EPA and bubbling methods for the determination of tributyltin leaching rate. J Jpn Soc Colour Mater 62: 466–473 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  26. Takahashi K, Ohyagi Y (1988) The leaching behaviors of copper and tributyltin from self-polishing type antifouling paints. J Jpn Soc Colour Mater 61: 208–214 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  27. Takahashi K, Ebara M, Mabuchi K et al. (2002) Determination of leaching rate of sea-nine 211 active ingredient, 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (RH-287) from antifouling paints by gas chromatography. J Jpn Soc Colour Mater 75: 365–370Google Scholar
  28. Takahashi K, Yoshikawa E, Akiyama M et al. (2005) Determination of release rate of pyridine-triphenyborane (PTPB) from copper-free antifouling paints. J Jpn Soc Colour Mater 72: 50–57Google Scholar
  29. The Japan Shipbuilding Research Association. SR-209 meeting (1993) “Technical report of investigation and research for new antifoulants” (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  30. The Japan Paint Manufacturers Association (2005) IMO antifouling system registration list, voluntary control in compliance with IMO AFS Convention, imo/index.html
  31. Thouvenin M, Peron J J, Charreteur C et al. (2002) A study of the biocide release from antifouling paints. Prog Org Coat 44: 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turley P A, Fenn R J, Ritter J C (2000) Pyrithiones as antifoulants, environmental chemistry and preliminary risk assessment. Biofouling 15: 175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. US EPA (1987) “Tributyltin Technical Support Document Position Document 2/3”, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Vallee-Rehel K, Mariette B, Hoarau P A et al. (1998) A new approach in the development and testing of antifouling paints without organotin derivatives. J Coat Technol 70: 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valkirs A O, Seligman P F, Haslbeck E et al. (2003) Measurement of copper release rates from antifouling paint under laboratory and in situ conditions: implications for loading estimation to marine water bodies. Mar Pollut Bull 46: 763–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Hattum B, Baart A, Boon J (2006) Emission estimation and chemical fate modeling of anti-foulants. “Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Antifouling Paint Biocides.” Vo l 5, part O, p.101, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. Watermam B, Daehne B, Michaelis H et al. (2003) “Performance of biocide free antifouling paints – Trials on deep-sea going vessels” Vo l 1–3, mp2–publications–af.htm
  38. WHO (1990) “Environmental Health Criteria 116, Tributyltin compounds”, p.40, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (1952) “Marine Fouling and Its Prevention”, p.287, US Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazunobu Takahashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Marine Antifouling and Environment Consultant (MAEC):Jyoto-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations