| Literature DB >> 30970713 |
Marion Loriot1, Isabelle Linossier2, Karine Vallée-Réhel3, Fabienne Faÿ4.
Abstract
The development of new antifouling paints requires understanding the parameters involved in antifouling activity and to develop new analytical tools for their evaluation. A series of biodegradable poly(ε-caprolactone-co-δ-valerolactone) copolymers varying by molecular weight and composition were synthesized, characterized and formulated as antifouling paints. The physico-chemical properties such as hydration, degradation, erosion and lixiviation of paints were studied. Microfouling (bacteria and microalgae) was observed by microscopic observations in a short delay, whereas macrofouling colonization was observed by visual inspection during one year. The antifouling activity of paints was modified by varying the composition and molecular weight of copolymer. The crystallinity appears to play a major role in antifouling activity, however the involvement of other properties such as hydration, degradation or erosion remains difficult to understand. Confocal laser scanning and scanning electron microscopes were used for the evaluation of antifouling paints. Results show that microalgae seem to be a pertinent indicator of antifouling activity.Entities:
Keywords: antifouling paint; bacteria; biofilms; degradation; diatoms; erosion; hydration
Year: 2017 PMID: 30970713 PMCID: PMC6432446 DOI: 10.3390/polym9020036
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Composition of paints (wt %).
| Composition | Paint without biocide | P(CL-VL) paints |
|---|---|---|
| Polyacrylic | 21 | - |
| P(CL-VL) | - | 21 |
| Xylene | 32.4 | 32.4 |
| Zinc pyritione | - | 6 |
| Copper thiocyanate | - | 23 |
| Additives 1 | 46.6 | 17.6 |
plasticizer, fillers, rheological agents.
Type of marine macrofouling organisms settled on substrates immersed in seawater. Ranking of the intensity and severity factors.
| Surface covered by fouling (%) | Rank for intensity factor ( | Type of fouling | Rank for severity factor ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| No fouling | 0 | Biofilm | 1 |
| Up to 10% | 1 | Algae | 3 |
| From 10% to 20% | 2 | Non-encrousting species | 4 |
| From 20% to 40% | 3 | Encrouting species | 6 |
| From 40% to 60% | 4 | ||
| From 60% to 100% | 5 |
The data of antifouling performance were ranked from the best to the poorest, and the significance test was conducted using one-way ANOVA method.
Scheme 1Copolymerization of α-caprolactone (CL) and δ-valerolactone (VL).
Copolymerization of ε-caprolactone with δ-valerolactone using Sn(Oct)2 in bulk at 140 °C for 6 h.
| Polymer | (CL/VL) 1 | PDI | Yield (%) | ∆ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22/78L | 22/78 | 10,300 | 1.7 | 95 | 44 | 30 |
| 69/31L | 69/31 | 13,200 | 1.6 | 62 | 36 | 31 |
| 82/18L | 82/18 | 12,000 | 1.7 | 95 | 60 | 33 |
| 82/18M | 82/18 | 25,000 | 1.7 | 90 | 71 | 36 |
| 82/18H | 82/18 | 40,000 | 1.5 | 89 | 81 | 38 |
Molar composition determined by 1H NMR; 2 Molecular weight determined by GPC, direct calibration with polystyrene standards (THF solvent); 3 Determined by DSC (standard deviation: 1 °C).
Hydration, degradation and erosion of copolymers in paints during immersion.
| Copolymer | Hydration (%) 1 | Degradation (%) 2 | Erosion 3 | Zinc pyrithione release (μg/cm2/day) 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 days | 8 months | 8 months | 8 months | to 10 days | from 10 to 45 days | |
| 22/78L | 7.8 ± 0.5 | 9.7 ± 0.6 | 26 | + | 8 | 4 |
| 69/31L | 20.6 ± 0.4 | 21.1 ± 1.0 | 12 | ++ | 6 | 4 |
| 82/18L | 9 ± 0.5 | 16.4 ± 0.5 | <1 | ++ | 6 | 3 |
| 82/18M | 4.9 ± 0.3 | 12.9 ± 1.0 | <1 | + | 6 | 2 |
| 82/18H | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 14.2 ± 0.6 | <1 | − | 7 | 2 |
Determined by Karl Fisher titration; 2 Determined by GPC analysis; 3 Determined by touching method (−: not erodible enough, +: correct erosion: ++: too erodible); 4 Determined by AAS.
Figure 1Microfouling development onto paints immersed in Ocean Atlanti.
Figure 2Release of zinc pyrithione from P(CL-VL) paints.
Figure 3Quantification of: (A) bacteria; and (B) microalgae in biofilms on paints after six weeks and three months of immersion.
Marine biofilm on paints after immersion in seawater.
| Paint ref. | 22/78L | 69/31L | 82/18L | 82/18M | 82/18H | Negative paint | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria Biomass (μm3/μm2) | 6 weeks | 0.160 ± 0.030 | 0.040 ± 0.020 | 0.004± 0.004 | 0.080 ± 0.080 | 0.110 ± 0.015 | 0.002 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.008 |
| 3 months | 2.070 ± 0.230 | 0.330 ± 0.110 | 0.230 ± 0.020 | 0.790 ± 0.190 | 0.310 ± 0.015 | 0.005 ± 0.004 | n.d. | |
| Bacteria average Thickness (μm3/μm2) | 6 weeks | 0.270 ± 0.090 | 0.060 ± 0.040 | 0.0002 ± 0.002 | 0.150 ± 0.180 | 0.210 ± 0.033 | 0.001 ± 0.001 | 0.010 ± 0.010 |
| 3 months | 3.700 ± 0.360 | 0.410 ± 0.140 | 0.030 ± 0.040 | 1.790 ± 1.210 | 0.050 ± 0.020 | 0.003 ± 0.002 | n.d. | |
| Diatom Biomass (μm3/μm2) | 6 weeks | 2.200 ± 0.200 | 7.890 ± 2.920 | 0.092 ± 0.080 | 0.240 ± 0.090 | 1.500 ± 0.200 | 0.540 ± 0.260 | 35.400 ± 1.600 |
| 3 months | 6.420 ± 2.350 | 6.480 ± 0.790 | 1.190 ± 0.270 | 0.820 ± 0.200 | 1.060 ± 0.150 | 0.340 ± 0.400 | n.d. | |
| Diatom average Thickness (μm3/μm2) | 6 weeks | 4.200 ± 1.200 | 11.830 ± 4.680 | 0.130 ± 0.130 | 0.440 ± 0.250 | 2.800 ± 0.500 | 0.330 ± 0.180 | 86.700 ± 13.500 |
| 3 months | 7.240 ± 2.700 | 9.460 ± 0.440 | 2.000 ± 0.010 | 2.300 ± 1.260 | 1.820 ± 0.850 | 0.160 ± 0.010 | n.d. | |
| Maximum Thickness (μm) | 6 weeks | 14.300 ± 3.900 | 57.490 ± 10.800 | 9.490 ± 6.540 | 28.500 ± 1.010 | 34.100± 4.600 | 15.630 ± 3.900 | 163.4 ± 1.000 |
| 3 months | 20.350 ± 0.500 | 13.740 ± 0.730 | 14.170 ± 3.450 | 12.700 ± 0.500 | 19.330 ± 7.190 | 11.330 ± 1.620 | n.d. |
n.d. not determined.
Figure 4Visual inspection of paints after three and eight months of immersion.
Figure 5Values of the AF efficiency N for P(CL-VL) based paints immersed for 3, 8 and 12 months in Atlantic Ocean. Commercial paint was used as positive controls.