Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for · PDF fileStaying Afloat with...

Staying Afloat withNontoxic AntifoulingStrategies for Boats

Staying Afloat withNontoxic AntifoulingStrategies for Boats

© University of California, November 2004California Sea Grant College Program Report No. T-054© University of California, November 2004California Sea Grant College Program Report No. T-054

Authors:Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor Jamie Anne Gonzalez, Program RepresentativeSea Grant Extension Program UC Cooperative Extension County of San Diego MS-O18 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123(858) 694-2845

Authors:Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor Jamie Anne Gonzalez, Program RepresentativeSea Grant Extension Program UC Cooperative Extension County of San Diego MS-O18 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123(858) 694-2845

Kristof Adam, Subsea Industries, Antwerp, BelgiumDennis & Laura Allen, Armored Hull Marine Products, San Diego, CAJohn Blocker, County Department of Agriculture, Weight & Measures, San

Diego, CARobin Briggs, Bottom Liner, Long Beach, CARichard Carson, University of California, San Diego Economics Department, La

Jolla, CAAndy Chan, AirBerth, Queensland, AustraliaKen Draper, American Marine Coatings, Seattle, WATom Driscoll, Driscoll Boatworks, San Diego, CABill Dysart, Dysart & Dubick, San Diego, CAJim Fawcett, USC Sea Grant, Los Angeles, CAJim Gibson, Adsil Corporation, Palm Coast, FLMarco Gonzalez, Coast Law Group LLP, Encinitas, CAJeff Grovhoug, US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CASandra Harrell, US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CASarah Higgins, Freecom Inc., Big Spring, TXFaisal Huda, CSL Silicones Inc., Ontario, CanadaBarth Hudiburgh, Proline Paint Company, San Diego, CA Dr. John Kelly, International Paint, Houston, TXPaul & Terry Jordan, Miracle Cover, Inc., Huntington Beach, CAKeith Kent, Kiss-Cote Inc., Tampa, FLRichard Kittar, Aurora Marine Industries, Ontario, CanadaTerry Koehler, Koehler Kraft, San Diego, CAMick Kronman, Santa Barbara Harbor Operations, Santa Barbara, CATim Leathers, Cabrillo Isle Marina, San Diego, CABill Lewis, Silver Gate Yacht Club, San Diego, CANora Lynn, Senator Alpert’s Capitol Office, Sacramento, CAAl Martin, Convair Sailing Club, San Diego, CARon Martin, HydroHoist International Inc., Claremore, OKShaun McMahon, Shelter Cove Marina, San Diego, CA

Vikki McMillan, Southwestern Yacht Club, San Diego, CARachel Miller, Oceanside Yacht Club, Oceanside, CABill Milne, Alex Milne Associates Ltd., Ontario, Canada Tom Nielsen, Nielsen Beaumont Marine, San Diego, CADuncan Norris, BoatScrubber Marine Ltd, Portsmouth, United KingdomSuzanne Paisley, UC ANR Communication Services, Davis, CANick Patenaude, Eccotech Inc., Mechanicville, NYPat Patterson, International Paint, San Pedro, CADeborah Pennell, Shelter Island Marina, San Diego, CANancy Pierson, Sound Specialty Coatings, Burton, WAMargaret Podlich, Boat US Foundation, Annapolis, MDRon Presley, Presley Precision Diving Inc., San Diego, CASandy Purdon, Shelter Cove Marina, San Diego, CABill Raschick, Alpha One Diving, San Diego, CADr. Dan Rittschof, Duke University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NCKen Schiff, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CAGuy Seabrook, Magellan Companies Inc., Mt. Pleasant, SCBruce Sifton, 21st Century Coatings, British Columbia, CanadaNan Singhasemanon, State Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CARick Smith, Galva-Foam Marine Industries, Lodi, CAErnie Soeterik, Proline Paint Company, San Diego, CAGabriel Solmer, San Diego BayKeeper, San Diego, CADr. Geoffrey Swain, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FLFrank Szafranski, US Paint Corporation, St Louis, MOBoud Van Rompay, Subsea Industries, Antwerp, BelgiumNora Varner, City of San Diego Environmental Services Dept., San Diego, CAGeorge Vehanen, Knight & Carver YachtCenter, National City, CADr. Dean Wendt, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CADr. Neil Willits, UC Davis Statistics Laboratory, Davis, CANeil Wilson, Driscoll Boatworks, San Diego, CARichard Xavier, International Paint Company, San Diego, CA

Funding for this program has been provided in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pursuant to assistance Agreement No. C9-989697-00-0 and anyamendments thereto which has been awarded to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the implementation of California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Thecontents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the USEPA or the SWRCB, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsementor recommendation for use.

Funding for this program has been provided in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration under NOAA Grant #NA06RG0142, project number A/EA-1, through the California Sea Grant College Program and in part by the California State Resources Agency, theCalifornia Department of Boating and Waterways, the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and Center for Pest, Management, Research and Extension, the RenewableResources Extension Act, and the County of San Diego. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of these organizations.

The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth,and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexualorientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who servedon active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized) in any of its programs or activities.

University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed tothe Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3550, (510) 987-0096.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the following people who have been instrumental in our nontoxic antifouling strategies project since its inception in1999. Our efforts to assist California boaters and boating businesses to improve coastal water quality and protect marine life while sustaining boating, itself,would not have been possible without their vision, cooperation and support!

John Robertus, Peter Michael, Deborah Jayne, Julie Chan, Lesley Dobalian and Christina Arias of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,San Diego Region, as well as Janie Mitsuhashi and John Richards of the California State Water Resources Control Board;

Raynor Tsuneyoshi (Director), Dave Johnson, Steve Watanabe, Dr. Reinhart (Ron) Flick, Megan Standard and Holly Celico-Lee of California Departmentof Boating and Waterways;

Russ Moll, Dolores Wesson, Marsha Gear and Joanne Furse of California Sea Grant College Program;Diane Wallace, Terry Salmon, Refugio (Cuco) Gonzalez, Carol Berman and their staff at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources and

Cooperative Extension;Bill Roberts and Wayne Morrison of Shelter Island Boat Yard, Marlan Hoffman and Simo Orlich of California Marine Services, Bill Rocco of Aquarius

Yacht Services, Bruce McLeod of Omni Precision Diving Services, Mike Simmons of Barnacle Buzz;Wes Bachman and other members of Convair Sailing Club, Daniel Brown, Dick Cloward, Dennis Pennell, Carl Smith and Todd Schwede;John Witherspoon and Joan Kelly-Longhauser of Coronado Yacht Club, Bill Kraus of San Diego Yacht Club, Cleve Hardaker and Robert Dicus of

Silvergate Yacht Club, Jim Wachtler, Jim Lonergan and Jeff Wheeler of Southwestern Yacht Club, Ann Miller of Bay Club/Half Moon Marina, Mike Sukel andDoug Asher of Chula Vista Marina, Eric Leslie of Harbor Island West Marina, Mary Kuhn of San Diego Marriott Marina, Scott MacLaggan of Sunroad ResortMarina, Frank Quan of Oceanside Harbor District, David Merk and Paul Brown of San Diego Unified Port District;

Ted Warburton (Brisbane Marina) of the California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains, Mariann Timms of Marina Recreation Association,and Brad Oliver (San Diego Yacht Club) of San Diego Dockmasters Group, Dick Cloward and Sharon Cloward of San Diego Port Tenants Association;

Peter Seligman of US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center; and Laura Hunter and Albert Huang of Environmental Health Coalition.

Special thanks to Carol Anderson for her talented support of our website, publications and programs!

We also wish to thank the following people for their advice, review, assistance and encouragement:

This report does not necessarily reflect the views of persons acknowledged.

New Solutions to an Old Problem

More boaters are considering switching to

nontoxic antifouling strategies as they

learn about the harmful effects of copper-based

antifouling paints. Boat repair yards and hull

cleaners are gaining experience with nontoxic

coatings and their performance capabilities.

Different vessels require different antifouling

strategies, depending on their type and on where

and how they are used and stored. The University

of California Cooperative Extension – Sea Grant

Extension Program has produced this report to

provide boaters, boating and coating businesses,

government, environmental organizations and

others with the best available information on

nontoxic antifouling strategies.

New Solutions to an Old Problem

More boaters are considering switching to

nontoxic antifouling strategies as they

learn about the harmful effects of copper-based

antifouling paints. Boat repair yards and hull

cleaners are gaining experience with nontoxic

coatings and their performance capabilities.

Different vessels require different antifouling

strategies, depending on their type and on where

and how they are used and stored. The University

of California Cooperative Extension – Sea Grant

Extension Program has produced this report to

provide boaters, boating and coating businesses,

government, environmental organizations and

others with the best available information on

nontoxic antifouling strategies.

Why Control Fouling Growth?Every sailor knows that algae, barnacles and otherfouling growth love to hitch a ride on boat bottoms.These fellow travelers create enough friction, or “drag,”to slow sailboats and increase fuel consumption by powerboats, in some cases by 30% (Younqlood et al. 2003).Reducing drag is so important that, during the Age ofExploration, mariners careened their ships on distantshores to expose the hull. This dangerous processenabled them to scrape away fouling growth and performother maintenance.

Why Control Fouling Growth?Every sailor knows that algae, barnacles and otherfouling growth love to hitch a ride on boat bottoms.These fellow travelers create enough friction, or “drag,”to slow sailboats and increase fuel consumption by powerboats, in some cases by 30% (Younqlood et al. 2003).Reducing drag is so important that, during the Age ofExploration, mariners careened their ships on distantshores to expose the hull. This dangerous processenabled them to scrape away fouling growth and performother maintenance.

Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 1Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 1

Careening a sailboat Caution: Don’t try this yourself! Go to a boat repair yard, instead.

Careening a sailboat Caution: Don’t try this yourself! Go to a boat repair yard, instead.

(Rep

rinte

d w

ith p

erm

issi

on fr

om L

es &

Dia

ne @

SailN

et.c

om)

What’s the Problem with Recent Fouling Control Methods?In modern times antifouling paints with heavy metals,such as tin and copper, have been used widely. Althoughthey slow fouling growth, they do not prevent it. Thesemetals leach out of antifouling paints and accumulate inthe water of crowded and poorly flushed boat basins tolevels that scientific research has shown to harm marinelife. As a result, the International Maritime Organizationhas begun a phased ban on tributyl tin-based, antifoulingpaints that will be completed by 2008. Now, regulatoryagencies are investigating copper levels in the water ofsouthern California boat basins. Restrictions on copper-based, antifouling paints have been proposed for theShelter Island Yacht Basin of northern San Diego Bay.

How Else Can You Control Fouling Growth?Recreational boaters will still need to control foulinggrowth if copper-based antifouling paints are restricted orbanned. With the goal of educating boat owners andboating businesses on cost effective options for controllingfouling growth and protecting marine life, the Universityof California Cooperative Extension – Sea GrantExtension Program (UCSGEP) has been investigatingnontoxic antifouling strategies and sharing their findingssince 1999.

This booklet, Staying Afloat with NontoxicAntifouling Strategies for Boats, is the third in ourseries. It includes:

How fouling growth colonizes a boat’s hull;How copper from antifouling paints affects marinelife;Antifouling policy developments in the UnitedStates and Europe;Introduction to nontoxic antifouling strategies;Highlights of our 2002 economic study;

Results of our field demonstration of three,nontoxic boat bottom coatings;Outreach and impacts report;A view to the future; and More resources that you can find at:http://seagrant.ucdavis.edu;Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Sampler updatedfor 2004.

How Does Fouling Grow?Many factors influence where fouling growth chooses tosettle. These include the availability of nutrients, thetexture of the surface, the chemical reactions takingplace on it, and the movement of surrounding currents(Crisp 1974; Hudon et al. 1983; Rittschof et al. 1984;Clare et al. 1992; Rittschof 1993). The fouling on a boatbottom sometimes proceeds by stages beginning with theattachment of bacteria (Clare et al. 1992). Immediatelyfollowing this stage, a slimy “biofilm” of bacteria,protozoans, and microscopic algae attaches to the hull(Characklis & Cooksey 1983). Various scientists havefound that this slime layer has varying effects on thenext generation of fouling organisms (Mimh et al. 1981;Maki et al. 1988)! In fact, some scientists have foundthat “whatever gets there first is what attaches first”(Rittschof 2004, pers. comm.).

In addition to microscopic organisms, such asbacteria, diatoms, and algae, fouling growth includeslarger organisms such as mollusks, sea squirts, sponges,sea anemones, tube worms, polychaetes and barnacles.Other factors influencing fouling growth include salinity,temperature range, sunlight, and water movement.Although species vary widely in their settlement seasons,most fouling organisms spawn in spring and summerwhen sea water temperature rises. (Parliament ofVictoria 1996; Keough 1983)

If left unattended, fouling growth can increase theroughness of the hull, thereby decreasing the vessel’smaneuverability and increasing drag. Eventually, foulinggrowth leads to damage of the hull and to the vessel’sdeterioration (Rolland & DeSimone 2003). Because ofthis, San Diego area hull cleaners recommend that boathulls be cleaned regularly to prevent damage to thecoating and potential damage to the hull by foulingorganisms. Thus, besides hampering the efficiency of avessel’s performance, accumulated fouling can eventuallypenetrate the coating itself, causing paint loss andrequiring more aggressive cleaning. Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) recommended by professional hullcleaners include cleaning frequently and using the leastabrasive cleaning methods. (CPDA 2003)

What Are Antifouling Paints?Antifouling paints contain materials that slow thedevelopment of fouling growth. Tributyl tin is a very

2 � Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Fouling Growth on Boat Bottom

toxic antifoulant that has been banned for pleasure craftfor many years. The International MaritimeOrganization has begun a phased ban of this chemicalfor all vessels making international voyages; the ban willbe completed in 2008. (IMO 2004; CDPR 2004)

Today, bottom paints with cuprous oxide are the mostpopular antifouling agents for recreational boats. Althoughthey retard fouling growth, they do not prevent italtogether. They are designed to continuously leach smallamounts of copper into the water. These paints typicallycontain 67% – 76% cuprous oxide. Paints with 20% – 45%cuprous oxide are available, but more coats are needed orthey must be reapplied more often to deter fouling growth(pers. comms.: Hall 2002; Soeterik 2002; Nicely 2002;Storfer 2002). Thus, copper tends to accumulate in thewater of crowded and poorly flushed boat basins.

Why Are High Dissolved Copper Levels a Problem?Reflecting the latest scientific knowledge, the CaliforniaToxics Rule (CTR) (USEPA 2000) defines levels ofpollution that are low enough to protect marine life.These standards are based on many scientific studies andthey are designed to protect marine life.

The CTR concentration levels for dissolved copperare the same as those in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) National RecommendedWater Quality Criteria (USEPA 1999). The federal andstate standard for total dissolved copper in marine watersis 3.1 parts per billion (ppb); the USEPA is consideringchanging the standard to 1.9 ppb (USEPA 2004).

When the level of dissolved copper in the waterexceeds this standard, it is harmful to marine life such asmussels, oysters, scallops, sea urchins and crustaceans. Italso changes the types of phytoplankton that are able tothrive in boat basins. (Calabrese et al.1984; Coglianese& Martin 1981; Gould et al. 1988; Katz 1998; KrettLane 1980; Krishnakumar et al. 1990; Lee & Xu 1984;Lussier et al.1985; MacDonald et al. 1988; Martin et al.1981; Redpath 1985; Redpath & Davenport 1988;Stromgren & Nielsen 1991; VanderWeele 1996)

There is much debate about the extent to which organicmatter in the water can bind copper and protect marinelife. That debate is beyond the scope of this booklet.

What’s in the Policy Pipeline? Copper-based boat bottom paints are legally registeredpesticides (CDPR 2004) that are likely to face newrestrictions. For example Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) regulatory studies have been completed inShelter Island Yacht Basin of San Diego Bay and inNewport Bay (CRWQCB, SDR 2003; USEPA 2002). ATMDL study is underway in Marina Del Rey. OceansideHarbor and various parts of San Diego Bay have elevatedlevels of dissolved copper (CSWRCB 2003). Dry-dock

Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats � 3

Crowded Boat Basin

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Marine Life Protected By California Toxics Rule(S

uzan

ne P

aisl

ey, U

C AN

R Co

mm

unic

atio

n Se

rvic

es)

discharges in Santa Barbara Harbor are under scrutiny(Kronman 2004, pers. comm.).

The TMDL studies found copper levels as high as 8.0ppb in San Diego Bay and as high as 29.0 ppb inNewport Bay (CRWQCB, SDR 2003; USEPA 2002).Another study found that as much as 90% of the copperin the boat basins comes from bottom paints (Schiff etal. 2003). As a result of these studies, restrictions oncopper-based bottom paints have already been proposedfor Shelter Island Yacht Basin in north San Diego Bay.

Dissolved copper exceeds levels allowed by state lawsin marinas and harbors of the Chesapeake Bay inMaryland, of Port Canaveral and Indian River Lagoon inFlorida, and in areas of Washington (Hall et al. 1988;Sheffield Engineering 1998; Trocine and Trefry 1996;Washington State Department of Ecology 1999).

Under the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC)implemented in March 2000, the European Commissionis reviewing all biocides used in antifouling paints sold inthe European Union (EU). Products containing“unacceptable” biocides will be removed from the EU


What Costs and Other Factors Should You Consider in Deciding Whether to Try a Nontoxic Coating?New coatings and companion strategies have differentcost profiles than copper-based paints. The following is ageneral comparison of copper-based and nontoxiccoatings resulting from research that we conducted inSan Diego Bay with the University of California, SanDiego Department of Economics (Carson et al. 2002).

When deciding whether to switch to a nontoxiccoating, boat owners should consider:

Whether a nontoxic coating is required where theboat is kept;Whether the copper-based coating needs to bestripped before the nontoxic coating is applied; Cost to buy and apply the nontoxic coating;The most cost-effective timing for making theswitch (when the boat is new and unpainted orwhen the copper-based paint needs to be stripped);The cost of maintaining the nontoxic coating;The boat’s remaining useful life and where it will be stored;Where, how and how often the boat will beoperated;Whether a ban on copper-based paints is likely tobe imposed in the area where the boat is kept; and The environmental benefits of reducing copper pollution.

For more information and a worksheet for calculatingcosts of using nontoxic versus copper-based boat bottompaints, see our publication Making Dollars and Sense ofNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats that isdescribed at the end of this report.

Copper-based Nontoxic epoxy Nontoxic siliconebottom paints bottom paints bottom paints

Initially less Initially more Initially moreexpensive to apply expensive to apply expensive to apply

Do not need to be Need to be cleaned Most fouling can becleaned as often more often removed by vessel

use (at 20 knots)

Need to be Do not need to be Need to be re-appliedreapplied more reapplied very often more often foroften best performance

Hydro-Washing at Boat Repair Yard

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Before choosing a product, boat owners should consider

how they use their boat, carefully evaluate manufacturers’

statements and ask for referrals to boat owners, boat repair

yards and hull cleaning companies that have experience

with each product in the local area or one with similar

water temperatures, species of fouling growth, tidal

flushing in the marina, and other conditions.

market. Several European countries are monitoringdissolved copper in boat basins. Antifouling coatingsapplied in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands,Belgium, Finland, and Austria must be registered undercurrent pesticide laws. (International Coatings Ltd UKand International Paint Inc 2004; EC 1998).

Copper-based bottom paints have been banned forpleasure craft on the east coast of Sweden and arerestricted on the west coast of Sweden and in Denmarkdepending on cuprous oxide leach rates and vessel size.Copper-based antifouling paints have been banned inthe Netherlands for recreational boats since 1999.(Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate 2004; Ministry of theEnvironment Danish Environmental Protection Agency2003; The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment 2004; College ToelatingBestrijdingsmiddelen 2004)

What Are Your Options If Copper Paints Are Banned or Restricted?Recreational boaters will still need to control foulinggrowth, if copper-based antifouling paints are banned orrestricted. Replacing copper with another, toxic agentthat harmed marine life would not solve the problem.Thus, the University of California CooperativeExtension – Sea Grant Extension Program has beenstudying nontoxic antifouling strategies since 1999.

Nontoxic antifouling strategies combine a nontoxicboat bottom coating with a companion strategy.Examples of companion strategies include:

Frequently cleaning the coating, Storing the boat out of water; and Surrounding the boat with a slip liner and addingfreshwater to discourage marine fouling growth.

Although epoxy coatings should be scrubbed often,most of the larger fouling growth may be removed fromsilicone coatings by a water spray or light brush (Meyeret al. 1994; Callow et al. 1988; Swain and Schultz 1996)

Demonstration Project MethodsTo help boat owners make decisions about nontoxicantifouling strategies, the University of CaliforniaCooperative Extension – Sea Grant Extension Program(UCSGEP) conducted a field demonstration of nontoxicboat bottom coatings in 2002-2003. The demonstrationwas funded in part by the USEPA and the CaliforniaState Water Resources Control Board 319(h) Program.

We tracked the performance of three types ofnontoxic bottom coatings:

Epoxy; Ceramic-epoxy; and Silicone-rubber

on six recreational boats in San Diego Bay for over ayear. Each coating was placed on one sailboat and onepowerboat:

The two-part epoxy coating, Aquaply M,® was placedon a powerboat for the demonstration and it wasmonitored on a sailboat that had received it in Januaryof 1999. We received hull cleaning data on the sailboatfor July, 1999 through September, 2003. This providedan opportunity to assess longer-term performance ofAquaply M.®

The ceramic-epoxy coating, CeRam-Kote 54,® wasplaced on a sailboat and a diesel-electric launch. A

newer formulation, CeRam-Kote Marine,® was placed onthe sailboat partway through the project.

The silicone-rubber coating, Miracle Cover,® wasreplaced by an updated formulation, Miracle CoverMarine,® partway through the demonstration period.

Professional, underwater hull-cleaning divers reportedon the following factors twice a month for epoxycoatings and more often for silicone coatings each timethe vessels were cleaned:

Fouling growth level;Coating condition;Cleaning tool aggressivenessDiver effort;Cleaning time;Days since last cleaning; Hand or powered tool used.

The first four factors were rated on a five-point scaledeveloped in cooperation with members of theCalifornia Professional Divers Association. The scale isexplained in Table 1.

Daily water temperatures from near the Navy andBroadway Piers in San Diego Bay were obtained fromthe NOAA/NOS Center for Operational OceanographicProducts and Services. They provided a record ofrelative temperatures experienced by fouling growth onthe boats in the demonstration project.


Boat Coating

28-foot Powerboat AquaPly M®

35-foot Sailboat AquaPly M®

30-foot Powerboat CeRam-Kote 54®

21-foot Sailboat CeRam-Kote 54®

CeRam-Kote Marine®

42-foot Powerboat Miracle Cover®

Miracle Cover Marine®

46-foot Sailboat Miracle Cover®

Miracle Cover Marine®

Nontoxic Boat Bottom PaintDemonstration Project

Coatings used inDemonstration

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

consultation with Bill Roberts of Shelter Island BoatYard and Marlan Hoffman of California Marine Services.

All of the coatings were still in good condition or better,including the nearly five-year old epoxy coating on one ofthe sailboats. Boat owners’ comments on the performanceof the coatings are discussed later in this report.

Detailed results are presented in Table 2. Theceramic-epoxy coating shown in the photograph,“Evaluating Ceramic-Epoxy Coating,” is five months old.The coating’s condition is 1.5 – a little past New, Slickand Shiny. The level of fouling growth is 1.5 – a littlemore than Light Silting – and it reflects two weeks ofgrowth since the most recent cleaning.

Hull Cleaner DataPlease note that the results reported here cover only ourfindings for the three products in our demonstration onsix boats in northern San Diego Bay. The relationshipbetween fouling growth and cleaning interval for allmonths for which we received data is summarized inTable 3. (Table 3 is based on data collected during the


TABLE 1. FIVE-POINT SCALE FOR DIVER REPORTS

* Coating Condition Fouling Growth Cleaning Tool***, **** Diver Effort

1 New, slick finish, still shiny Light silting (looks like dust) that Use for Level 1 Fouling Growth: Light pressure: very easyif appropriate to type of can be brushed off with a piece a. Carpet, soft, medium to to remove growth with one wipecoating of carpet. Some plumes long shag

of discoloration. b. White pad, softc. Soft nylon bristle brush,bristle thickness .028-.032d. Soft polypropylene brush,bristle thickness .022-.032

2 Shine is gone or surface is Moderate silting (a solid, Use for Level 2 Fouling Growth: Light to medium pressure: still easylightly etched on all of discernible, physical layer) that a. Green pad, medium to remove growth but may requirecoating, no physical must be removed with a soft b. Nylon bristle brush, medium, two or more passes in someblemishes or defects brush or green 3M® pad. bristle thickness .040 areas to remove growth

3 Some blemishes or defects Dark algae impregnation. Use for Level 3 Fouling Growth: Light scrub, firm effort: firm wipein coating on up to 20% Algae must be scrubbed off; a. Purple pad, medium and/or multiple wipes or passesof boat bottom can’t just wipe it off. b. Nylon bristle brush, medium, with brush to remove growth

bristle thickness .050

4 Some blemishes or defects Hard growth. Need heavier Use for Level 4 Fouling Growth: Firm scrub, hard effort: firm scrubin coating on 20%-50% of tools, such as steel wool, a. Brown pad, coarse and continuous passes requiredboat bottom plastic and metal scrapers. b. Black pad, coarse to remove fouling growth

c. Stainless steel row bristle brush

5 Blemishes or defects on Lengthy, soft algae and hard, Use for Level 5 Fouling Growth: Hard scrub, very hard effort:over 50% of boat bottom tube worms and possibly a. Steel pad, abrasive even with hard physical effort,

barnacles impregnating the b. Flat wire bristle brush, very growth presented a challengecoatings. Coral** growth can coarse to remove with pad or brushbe seen to extend out from the c. Whirlaway® tool, very abrasivehull. Clean with metal scrapersand stainless steel brushes.

* 1 is best condition; 5 is worst condition** Coral is the local name for limestone tubes of worms that grow on the coating’s surface.

*** Carpet and pads are hand operated tools; brushes and Whirlaway® are powered tools. **** In practice, choice of tool did not always correspond to fouling growth level.

TABLE 1. FIVE-POINT SCALE FOR DIVER REPORTS

Evaluating Ceramic-Epoxy Coating

(Lei

gh T

aylo

r Joh

nson

)

Visual Evaluation of CoatingsThe six boats were hauled in early October 2003 andtheir coating conditions were visually evaluated in

project for all six boats plus three more years of historicaldata on the sailboat with the epoxy coating.) Datameans (averages) for the 13-month period during whichwe collected data on all six boats are presented in Table4. All four years of data for the sailboat with the epoxycoating are graphed in Figure 1.

Table 3 shows the means (averages) for fouling growthlevels for each boat and coating as reported by theunderwater hull cleaners each time a boat was cleaned.Note that 1 is the best rating and 5 is worst on our scale.The table also shows the mean and the range of intervalsbetween cleanings.

Comparing results for the four boats with epoxycoatings to results for the two boats with silicone-rubbercoating shows that more frequent cleaning of thesilicone-rubber coating prevented fouling growth fromreaching a higher level. [Table 3 is based on all of thedata available for each boat.]


Evaluating Epoxy Coating

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

TABLE 2. VISUAL EVALUATION OF COATINGS AT FINAL HAULOUT (OCTOBER 2003)

Boat Coating Application MethodNo. Boat Type (Length) Visual Evaluation and Future Plans for Coating

1 AquaPly M® After a little over 15 months the coating surface was lightly etched and worn on edges of the(two-part epoxy) chines due to cleaning.Coating rolled on. Coating appeared new with little wear. Power (28 feet) Owner will continue with coating.

2 AquaPly M® After almost 5 years old the coating was in good condition.(two-part epoxy) Some coral scarring and blistering were present.Coating rolled on. Edges on the hull and through-hull fittings were worn due to cleaning.Sail (35 feet) Overall, coating was smoother due to wear from cleaning.

Boatyard and hull cleaner estimated the coating will last another two years.Owner will continue with coating.

3 CeRam-Kote® After almost 14 months the coating appeared in new condition with little wear.(ceramic epoxy) Coating had a sheen but no shine.Coating rolled on Coral scarring and algae impregnation were present. Power (30 feet) Owner will continue with coating

4 CeRam-Kote® and After about 9 months the new, improved formula of CeRam-Kote® (CeRam-Kote Marine®)CeRam-Kote Marine® was applied at the owners’ request.(ceramic epoxy) Overall coating condition improved with the new formula, but fouling growth increased,Coating sprayed on likely due to seasonal changes. Sail (21 feet) Light, but normal, etching was present at end of project.

Owner will continue with coating (new formula); may cover with copper paint.

5 Miracle Cover® and After a little more than 13 months the new formula of Miracle Cover® (Miracle Cover Marine®) Miracle Cover Marine® was applied. (silicone-rubber) Older layers of Miracle Cover were sanded down and the boatyard appliedCoating sprayed on one coat of the new formula, Miracle Cover Marine.®

Power (42 feet) After three days the coating was still tacky, so three layers of the original Miracle Cover were applied over the one coat of Miracle Cover Marine.®

According to the manufacturer, the silicone-rubber coating should last for five years before a new coating is required. After the project, the owner changed to E Paint, a zinc-based coating, recommended by the boatyard.

6 Miracle Cover® and After a little over 12 months the owner decided to try the new formula of Miracle Cover®

Miracle Cover Marine® (Miracle Cover Marine®).(silicone-rubber) The performance of the coating improved with the new formula.Coating sprayed on According to the manufacturer, the silicone-rubber coating should last forSail (46 feet) five years before a new coating is required.

Owner has replaced boat.

TABLE 2. VISUAL EVALUATION OF COATINGS AT FINAL HAULOUT (OCTOBER 2003)

TABLE 3. FOULING GROWTH VERSUS CLEANING INTERVAL

Dates on Which Vessel/Coating Means Are Based Mean Fouling Growth ** Cleaning Interval (days)

Powerboat July 2, 2002 – October 6, 2003 3.25 Mean = 16AquaPly M (15.2 months) Range: 11-23(epoxy)

Sailboat July 7, 1999 – Sept 30, 2003 3 Mean = 15AquaPly M (50.5 months) Range: 7-28(epoxy)

Powerboat August 9, 2002 – October 6, 2003 3.5 Mean = 15 CeRam-Kote 54 (13.9 months) Range: 8-24 (ceramic epoxy)

Sailboat July 3, 2002 – April 15, 2003 3.5 Mean = 15CeRam-Kote 54 (9.4 months) Range: 8-21 (ceramic epoxy)

CeRam-Kote Marine April 24, 2003 – September 30, 2003 4* Mean = 18(ceramic-epoxy) (5.2 months) Range: 14-21

Powerboat May 16, 2002 – June 27, 2003 2.8 Mean = 12Miracle Cover (13.4 months) Range: 5-30(silicone-rubber)

Miracle Cover Marine July 9, 2003 – September 26, 2003 2 Mean = 8(silicone-rubber) (2.6 months) Range: 7-15

Sailboat May 23, 2002 – May 30, 2003 2.5 Mean = 8Miracle Cover (12.2 months) Range: 7-14(silicone)

Miracle Cover Marine July 11, 2003 – September 26, 2003 2 Mean = 7(silicone) (2.5 months) Range: 7-9

TABLE 3. FOULING GROWTH VERSUS CLEANING INTERVAL

* High fouling growth mean is due in part to additional time between cleanings and warmer water temperature in summermonths when it was measured. This new formula was only evaluated in summer months.

** Disregards first cleaning interval because it is typical to refrain from cleaning for some time after coating is applied.

Table 4 shows the means (averages) of the coatingconditions, fouling growth levels, cleaning tools, anddiver effort levels as rated by the underwater hullcleaners each time a boat was cleaned. Note that a levelof 1 is best while a level of 5 is worst for each scale. SeeTable 1 for rating scale details. Three boats received newformulas of the same paints during the project.

[Table 4 is based on the 13-month period when datawere collected on all of the boats and it is the sameperiod on which the statistical analysis was based.Restricting the time period used in the statistical analysisallowed us to take seasonal changes into account. Wewill discuss the results of the statistical analysis later inthis report. Note that means differ somewhat from Table3 which is based on all of the data collected for eachboat.]

The average coating conditions for all demonstrationproject boats were good (scale level of less than 3)throughout the project. This was to be expected becausefive of the six boats had new or almost new coatings.However, the 5-year old epoxy coating on the sailboatwas also in good condition during the project.


The fouling growth means were the highest for theboats with the ceramic-epoxy coating and the lowest forboats with the silicone-rubber coating. Fouling growthmeans for the ceramic epoxy coating were in the rangeof levels 3 to 4 while those for the epoxy coating were inthe lower level 3 range. In other words, on average theceramic-epoxy coating had a little more fouling growththan the epoxy coating. (The new formula of ceramic-epoxy was applied just before summer, so its means arehigher than for the other coatings because most of itsreports were made when the water temperature waswarm.) The fouling growth means for the siliconecoatings were in the level 2 range, reflecting the factthat they were cleaned more often than the epoxycoatings.

The means for the cleaning tool type and diver effortlevel generally reflect the fouling growth means for eachcoating. That is, on average more fouling growth meanta more aggressive cleaning tool and more effort wereneeded. Diver effort level increased when new epoxy andceramic-epoxy coatings were applied; perhaps diverstried to keep them pristine.


TABLE 4. DIVER REPORT DATA SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR AUGUST 2002-SEPTEMBER 2003

Coating/Vessel Coating Condition Fouling Growth Cleaning Tool Type Diver Effort Coating Age (months)

EpoxyPowerboat Mean = 1.7 Mean = 3.3 Mean = 3.3 Mean = 2.8 15.2 Sailboat Mean = 2.6 Mean = 3.0 Mean = 3.1 Mean = 3.2 56.5

Ceramic-EpoxyPowerboat Mean = 2.0 Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.7 Mean = 3.8 13.9Sailboat Mean = 2.9 Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.8 Mean = 3.6 9.4Sailboat New Formula* Mean = 2.0 Mean = 4.0 Mean = 4.0 Mean = 4.0 5.2

Silicone-RubberPowerboat Mean = 2.4 Mean = 2.8 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 3.0 13.4 Powerboat New Formula Mean = 1.6 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 2.6 2.6 Sailboat Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.5 Mean = 2.2 Mean = 2.7 12.2 Sailboat New Formula Mean = 1.5 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.0 Mean = 2.3 2.5

* High fouling growth, cleaning tool type and diver effort means are due in part to additional time between cleanings and warmer watertemperature in summer months when they were measured. This new formula was only evaluated in summer months.

TABLE 4. DIVER REPORT DATA SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR AUGUST 2002-SEPTEMBER 2003

FIGURE 1. FOUR-YEAR, DATA SUMMARY FOR SAILBOAT WITH EPOXY COATINGFIGURE 1. FOUR-YEAR, DATA SUMMARY FOR SAILBOAT WITH EPOXY COATING

One Bar = OneCleaning Event

Sailboat - Epoxy - Diver Report DataJuly 1999–September 2003

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0Fouling Level Pad or Brush Type Effort Level Coating Condition

Data on Fouling Level, Pad or Brush Type, EffortLevel, and Coating Condition during July 1999 throughSeptember 2003 were obtained for the sailboat with theepoxy bottom coating. Each bar on the graph in Figure 1represents the data for one cleaning event. Fouling Levelshows the influence of seasonal temperature changes.Pad or Brush Type and Effort Level show a generalincrease in aggressiveness over time. In other words, overthe first few years the divers had to use increasinglyaggressive tools and work increasingly harder to cleanthe hull. Coating Condition slowly deteriorated overthe years (higher level is worse on the five-point scale).Pad or Brush Type, Effort Level and Coating Conditionleveled off at about mid-range on the scale.

Introduction to Data AnalysisThe objective of nontoxic antifouling strategies is tocontrol fouling growth while protecting the environmentand the boat’s bottom coating. To be sustainable, thestrategies also need to be cost effective. Extending coatinglife and controlling the cost of each cleaning may enable aboat owner to offset the generally higher costs of buying,applying and frequently cleaning a nontoxic coating.Therefore, we were particularly interested in the effect ofBMPs on coating life and cleaning effort and time.

Based on ecological principles and our discussionswith boat owners, hull cleaners, and boat repair yardoperators, we made the following assumptions:

Warmth, sunlight and a longer interval betweencleanings promote fouling growth;Divers work longer and harder to clean heavierfouling growth and if they use hand tools; BMPs, such as cleaning frequently and using thegentlest possible tool, can extend the life of a coating.

Data collected by the professional hull cleaners in ourdemonstration project provided an opportunity to testthese assumptions.

We worked with Dr. Neil Willits of the UC DavisStatistical Laboratory to examine the relationship of:

fouling growth;nontoxic coatings; hull cleaning by experienced divers using BMPs;and environmental factors, such as seasonal changes inwater temperature and light.

This report is intended for a diverse audience, so we willreport only general findings and conclusions. However, alengthy statistical analysis using multiple and logisticalregressions was conducted to reach these conclusions.

We eliminated extreme data that were due to specialcircumstances, for example when divers spent extensivetime cleaning boats before they were hauled for displayat our field day. Because 23 divers representing threecompanies reported data, the influence of individualperceptions on our findings was minimized.

Although we used a 5-point scale to rate fouling growth,aggressiveness of the cleaning tool, how much effort thediver used to clean the boat and the condition of thecoating, the hull cleaners never reported a level of 5 on anyof the scales. We asked four, experienced, professional hullcleaners the reason. They explained that BMPs, such asfrequent cleaning, prevent fouling growth from reaching anextreme level. This way, the most aggressive type of cleaningtool and level of effort are unnecessary. BMPs also includeusing gentler tools and less pressure. Hand and poweredtools were used, both of which can vary in aggressiveness.

The hull cleaners we surveyed reported that epoxycoatings should be replaced when the condition exceedsa level of 3 and that silicone coatings should be replacedwhen the condition exceeds a level of 2. The reason isthat the coating condition affects time and effort neededto clean the hull. (pers. comm. Rocco 2004; Presley2004; Orlich 2004; Hoffman 2004) None of the coatingsin our study exceeded those conditions.

Boats are cleaned according to a schedule set by theirowners in consultation with their hull cleaningcompanies. In our study, the boats with epoxy orceramic-epoxy coatings were cleaned on average every15–18 days; the boats with the silicone-rubber coatingwere cleaned on average every 7–12 days.

Longer cleaning intervals allowed more foulinggrowth to develop, so we were able to study the effect ofdifferent intervals between cleanings when the statisticalprogram considered all of the boats together. On theother hand, more frequent cleanings can mask the effectsof some factors, so we also had the statistical programconsider the effects for each type of coating.

We received over four years of data for one of thesailboats that had had an epoxy coating for almost fiveyears by the end of the demonstration. This allowed usto study the effects of coating age and of BMPs inextending the life of a durable coating.

Sailboat-Ceramic Epoxy (5 months): Cleaning with Soft Rag

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)


Sailboat-Epoxy (after first 5 years)

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Powerboat-Ceramic-Epoxy (14 months): With Tubeworm Remnants

(Lei

gh T

aylo

r Joh

nson

)

Powered Cleaning Tools for Nontoxic Coatings

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Hull Cleaner Data AnalysisFouling growth was heavier when:

Water was warmer;Interval between cleanings was longer.

The two most important influences on coatingcondition were:

Age of the coating; Aggressiveness of cleaning tools.

Using a gentler cleaning tool is the most importantfactor in extending the life of a coating.

A more aggressive cleaning tool was used when:Fouling growth was heavier;Cleaning interval was longer;Coating condition was worse;Hand cleaning tool was used.

Coating life can be extended by frequent cleaning,especially when water is warmer. This is because frequentcleaning prevents fouling growth from reaching higherlevels that require more aggressive tools to remove.


Thus, powered, cleaning tools may be an important,ergonomic consideration for maintaining a nontoxic hullcoating.

Figure 1 shows changes over 4 years in fouling growth,coating condition, cleaning tool aggressiveness andcleaning time for the sailboat with the 5-year old, epoxycoating. It confirms the statistical finding that foulinggrowth levels reflected seasonal changes in watertemperature and that the coating condition deterioratedover time.

In contrast to the smoothness noted in the visualassessment, Figure 1 shows that more aggressive cleaningtools and longer cleaning times were needed as thecoating aged and its condition became worse. Allreached a level of 3 on the 5-point scale by the end ofthe demonstration.

Further, a more aggressive level of tool was needed ifthe diver used a hand tool. Thus, using powered, rotarytools may allow divers to use a less aggressive tool andhelp to extend the life of the coating.

Divers took longer to clean when:Fouling growth was heavier;Cleaning interval was longer; Water was warmer.

Frequent cleaning may reduce cleaning time andrelated cleaning cost, especially when the water iswarmer.

Divers worked harder to clean when: Fouling growth was heavier;Water was warmer;Coating was older;Coating was in worse condition.

Divers exerted less effort when using a powered, rotarybrush than when cleaning with a hand tool. Repetitivestress injuries are an occupational hazard for hull cleaners.

Conclusions from Data AnalysisThe cost of maintaining a boat bottom coating isaffected by how often it must be replaced and how oftenit must be cleaned. Because nontoxic coatings do notslow fouling growth, an important part of the project wasto examine how fouling growth and best managementpractices affected coating life.

Hull cleaners and boat owners expect more fouling tooccur when the water is warmer and the intervalbetween cleanings is longer; our findings confirmed theirexpectations. When fouling is heavy, divers need to usea more aggressive cleaning tool and they must workharder and longer to clean the hull. They also use amore aggressive level of tool when using hand, instead ofpower, tools.

Using a gentler tool is the most important factor inextending the life of a coating, so BMPs that allowdivers to use less aggressive tools are important.

Although we cannot change the water temperature orprevent a coating from aging, we can control theinterval between cleanings. Cleaning more frequentlyprevents fouling growth from accumulating to highlevels. This is especially important when water iswarmer.

In turn, this allows divers to use less aggressivecleaning tools, spend less time cleaning, and exert lesseffort. Frequent cleaning may thus be expected to extendthe life of the coating, reduce the cost of each cleaningand reduce wear and tear on hull cleaners.

Using a power cleaning tool also allows divers to use aless aggressive tool and exert less effort. Visual inspectionfound that a 5-year old, epoxy coating which had beencleaned with powered tools had become smoother.

The epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings have thepotential to last many more years than copper-basedcoatings and the silicone-rubber coating that was used inour demonstration. Our survey of 200 San Diego Bayboaters (Carson et al. 2002) found that copper-basedpaints are replaced, on average, every 2 1⁄2 years. Thesilicone-rubber coating in our demonstration had to bereplaced annually. Yet, the epoxy coating that was 5years old by the end of the demonstration project wasexpected to last at least 2 more years. The ceramic-epoxycoating appeared likely to have similar durability. Theseproducts may perform differently in other areas.

The silicone-rubber coating was preferred by boatowners who liked to race and were willing to invest invery frequent cleaning and annual replacement. Theepoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings appear to be a good

choice for boat owners who want a nontoxic coatingthat may last long enough to compensate for costsincurred in more frequent cleaning and converting froma copper-based coating.

Nontoxic antifouling strategies are a viable alternativeto copper-based boat bottom paints. Boat owners shouldconsider how they intend to use the boat and their budgetin selecting a coating. They will need to ensure that thehull cleaner uses BMPs that may extend the life of thecoating, such as cleaning frequently and using the gentlesttool that is appropriate. Hull cleaning companies will needto learn and use BMPs that are suitable for the coating, thegeographic area, and how the boat is used and stored.

Powerboat-Silicone-Rubber Prepped to Receive New Formula

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

Powerboat-Epoxy (15 months) with Wearing on Edges of Chines

(Lei

gh T

aylo

r Joh

nson

)

Frequent cleaning with gentle tools can be expected

to extend the life of a coating.

Epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings appear to last enough

to compensate for costs of frequent cleaning

and converting from a copper-based coating.


How Did Demonstration Project BoatOwners React to the Nontoxic Coatings?A year after the demonstration ended, we asked projectboat owners about their experiences with the nontoxiccoatings. All who had used epoxy and ceramic-epoxycoatings reported that they were good, durable, barrier(to water) coats.

The boat owner who has now had an epoxy coatingon his sailboat for six years reported that by the end ofthe fifth year, he had begun to realize cost savingscompared to using a copper-based paint. His boat hadbecome faster in races than when the coating was new.Our visual evaluation in 2003 noted that the hull’ssurface had become smoother over time, possibly due tofrequent cleaning with powered, rotary brushes.

The other three boat owners with epoxy or ceramic-epoxy coatings now have a little more than two years ofexperience with them. One has an out-drive style enginethat requires annual maintenance in the boat repairyard. Thus, he would not be able to make up for frequenthull cleaning costs by extending the time betweenhaulouts. He has used a slip liner for a few months andhas realized savings on hull cleaning.

Another has asked his hull cleaner to clean thecoating just until the surface is smooth without trying toremove all the fouling from pits and grooves. He issatisfied with the coating.

The third was concerned about cleaning costs andperceived slowness during races. However, during thedemonstration he reported that the sailboat had wonsome races with the nontoxic coating. He is considering:

a. switching from a service that uses hand-cleaningtools to one that uses powered, rotary brushes to reducecleaning time; or

b. applying a copper-based paint over the ceramic-epoxy coating.

Another boat owner would recommend the silicone-rubber coating to serious, sailboat racers, but not to thetypical, weekend racer, due to the high maintenance cost.

These results confirm the findings of our economicstudy (Carson et al. 2002; Johnson and Miller 2003). Inother words nontoxic, epoxy or ceramic-epoxy coatingsmay be cost effective in the long-term, if the boat doesnot need to be hauled frequently for other maintenancepurposes. In the short-term, copper paints are more cost-effective.

Silicone-rubber coatings that are cleaned very oftenperform well in races. Racing performance of epoxy andceramic-epoxy coatings may suffer somewhat in theshort-term. Frequent cleaning with powered brushes maysmooth an epoxy coating and restore its racingperformance in the long-term.

Although our demonstration included a small numberof boats, the results suggest that nontoxic coatings canbe a good choice for some boat owners. The epoxy and

Sailboat-Silicone-Rubber (1 year)

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

ceramic-epoxy coatings may serve other boat owners asdurable, barrier coats. New coatings that are still indevelopment may prove to be suitable for those whowish or are required to use environmentally-friendlyalternatives to copper-based, antifouling paints.

How Did We Share Our Results and What Difference Did It Make?The UC Sea Grant Extension Program presentedinformation about the results from the nontoxic boatbottom paint demonstration project and economicincentives study in a series of 16 seminars, 7 conferences,4 booth events and 2 Field Days. Over 1800 boat ownersand representatives of boating and coating industries,government agencies and environmental organizationsattended.

The events:explained the field demonstration;presented reports and photographs from the visualassessments at the end of the field demonstration;

Presenting Demonstration Project Results

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)


provided simple statistics such as means and ranges;andpresented findings from the economic study thatwould be useful to boat owners in deciding whetherto switch to nontoxic antifouling strategies.

The Field Days also featured live, underwater hull clean-ing via an underwater video camera, a chance to inspectproject boats after they were hauled out of the water at theend of the demonstration and speak with participants.

Of those who completed an evaluation after theseminars, conferences, and Field Days:

65% learned about the elevated copper levels inSan Diego Bay, Newport Bay, and Marina Del Rey; 63% learned about the effects of elevated copperlevels on marine organisms; 70% learned that as much as 90% of the copper inSan Diego Bay comes from boat bottom paints;77% learned that nontoxic coatings must becleaned about twice as often as copper-basedantifouling paints;72% learned that epoxy coatings may last severalyears longer than copper-based antifouling paints;67% learned that nontoxic paints will not adhereto existing, copper-based paints;64% learned that unpainted hulls and hulls thatneed to have old paint layers stripped are the mostcost-effective candidates for nontoxic coatings; 81% learned that phasing out copper antifoulingpaints on recreational boats in San Diego Bay over7 years could cost $20 million, but only $1 millionif they were phased out over 15 years;79% would switch to a nontoxic paint if it wasrequired by law; and49% would switch to a nontoxic paint if it was notrequired by law.

Two booklets, What You Need to Know aboutNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats (October2002) and Making Dollars and Sense of NontoxicAntifouling Strategies for Boats (November 2003), weredisseminated at the seminars and Field Days that tookplace after their publishing date. Another 5000 copieswere mailed to boat owners and representatives ofboating and coating industries, government agencies andenvironmental organizations. They are described at theend of this report.

Readers reported in the evaluations that:What You Need to Know… provided a commonfoundation of knowledge about nontoxicantifouling strategies, antifouling policies and theeffects of copper pollution; andMaking Dollars and Sense… provided newinformation on the economics of nontoxiccoatings, particularly with regard to switching to anontoxic epoxy coating and important policyimplications.

What Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies Are On the Market?The field of alternative bottom coatings has expandedsince our first booklet was published in 2002. Morecoatings are reaching the market and every major paintcompany is studying biocide-free paints (Kettlewell2000).

Consult the Nontoxic Antifouling StrategiesSampler in this booklet to learn about nontoxic coatingsand companion strategies that are already available. Itwas compiled to assist boat owners in learning about avariety of products. Note that we have not tested themand inclusion in the Sampler is not an endorsement orrecommendation of any kind. Information in theSampler was provided by manufacturers. Consult localboat repair yards and hull cleaning companies forrecommendations on products and cleaning schedulesthat have proved successful in the area.

Paint and coating companies continue to developinnovative, antifouling approaches to meet the expectedneed for alternatives to copper-based boat bottom paints.Some act as repellents and others use a toxic agent otherthan copper. They are beyond the scope of this booklet,but boat owners should be aware that many newproducts are on the market and more can be expected incoming years.

What’s on the Horizon?Several years ago, tributyl tin-based antifouling paintswere banned for use on recreational boats. Now,restrictions on copper-based paints have been proposedfor recreational boats in San Diego Bay and have beenimposed in some parts of Europe. If many boat ownersswitch to a new, toxic antifoulant that accumulates in

Independent Studies on Nontoxic Bottom Coatings Are Needed in a Variety of Locations under Various Operating Conditions

(Car

ol A

nder

son)


boat basins, a new problem will likely be created and yetanother change in antifouling strategies will be needed.

The goal of the UC Cooperative Extension – SeaGrant Extension Program is to help boat owners andboating businesses protect marine life and prepare forrestrictions on copper-based antifoulants in a cost-effective fashion by providing the best availableinformation on nontoxic antifouling strategies.

Our field demonstration of three types of nontoxiccoatings for one year in San Diego Bay and the related,economic research found that they show promise assustainable solutions. Other nontoxic products and otheralternatives to copper-based paints may also be viablechoices.

We briefly tracked a fourth coating that hadperformed well on commercial vessels in northernEurope. Unfortunately, a local tubeworm fouled thiscoating very quickly and heavily in San Diego Bay.

Clearly, the types of fouling growth present in eacharea, how the boat is used and stored, and local climateaffect which antifouling strategy is best for each boat.Further, new and developing, nontoxic and other,alternative antifouling strategies work in various ways.As a result:

No single, nontoxic or other, alternativeantifouling strategy will suit every boat; and Independent studies of new strategies are needed indifferent geographic areas and on different types ofboats. Boat owners should investigate carefully todetermine which coating best suits their situation!

Our evaluations indicate that compared to five yearsago:

More boaters are considering switching to nontoxicbottom coatings;More boat repair yards and hull cleaning companiesare gaining experience with these coatings andtheir performance capabilities; and Marinas and yacht clubs in San Diego Bay areconsidering ways to comply with proposedrestrictions on discharges of copper from tenantboats.

Our work will not be the final word in newantifouling strategies. It is just the first chapter in thestory of a revolution in sustainable, antifoulingstrategies!

Where Can You Learn More about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies?The University of California Cooperative Extension –Sea Grant Extension Program has produced fact sheets,two other booklets and a television documentary. Ourfact sheets and the first booklet in our series, What You

Need to Know about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategiesfor Boats, can be downloaded from our Internet site athttp://seagrant.ucdavis.edu.

The second booklet in our series, Making Dollars andSense of Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats,summarizes results from our study of economic incentivesfor boat owners to switch to nontoxic boat bottomcoatings (Carson et al. 2002). It also includes a boatowners’ worksheet for calculating costs of using copper-based and nontoxic coatings. Visit our Internet site tolearn how to obtain a copy.

The television documentary, Time for a Change –Alternatives to Copper-Based Boat Bottom Paint, canbe viewed in streaming format on our Internet site. Itpresents an overview of the issue and comments byrepresentatives of: boat owners; marinas; a port; boatrepair yard, hull cleaning and coating companies; anenvironmental organization; and a regulatory agency. Itis also available in DVD format with English andSpanish programs; visit our Internet site to learn how toobtain a copy.


Surveying Recreational Boat Owner

(Jam

ie A

nne

Gonz

alez

)

DedicationWe want to express our deep appreciation to

Carol S. Anderson whose skills as an artist, computer

whiz, and organizer have helped us stay afloat

throughout this project. We wish her a wonderful

retirement doing whatever strikes her fancy!


EPO

XYRo

ll on

2 c

oats

; Woo

d, m

etal

, Us

e so

ft clo

th, b

rush

or b

urla

pCo

atin

g is

slipp

ery;

Use

cau

tion

Long

evity

: 14

year

s and

coa

ting

Aqua

Ply

M®

(In

UC d

emo

proj

ect)

fiber

glas

s;to

rem

ove

grow

thw

hen

plac

ing

boat

in sl

ings

or o

n is

still

in g

ood

cond

ition

; Can

Soun

d Sp

ecia

lty C

oatin

gs

Do n

ot a

pply

over

old

cop

per p

aint

;bl

ocks

; Osm

otic

blist

er b

arrie

r coa

t;be

add

ed in

mol

d fo

r new

boa

ts2

part

epox

yCa

n be

reap

plie

d w

ithou

t rem

oval

Coat

ing

smoo

ths o

ut w

ith w

ear

$280

/2 g

allo

ns45

0 sq

ft/2

gal

lons

http

://w

ww

.soun

dspe

cialty

coat

ings

.com

CERA

MIC

-EPO

XY2

coat

s @ 5

mils

eac

h; F

iber

glas

s,Cl

ean

ever

y 2

wee

ks in

sum

mer

Ab

rasio

n an

d co

rrosio

n re

sista

nt;

Long

evity

: 10+

yea

rs; N

ew fo

rmul

a Ce

Ram

-Kot

e M

arin

e®st

eel,

or a

lum

inum

; Do

not a

pply

and

ever

y 3–

4 w

eeks

in w

inte

r,

Prot

ects

aga

inst

osm

otic

blist

erin

g;

has t

ight

er m

olec

ular

cro

ss li

nkin

g(In

UC

dem

o pr

ojec

t)ov

er o

ld c

oppe

r pai

nt; C

an b

e fie

ldac

cord

ing

to lo

cal c

ondi

tions

Coef

ficie

nt o

f fric

tion

simila

r to

crea

ting

a ha

rder

surfa

ce th

at is

Free

com

, Inc

.re

paire

d an

d re

appl

ied

with

out

Teflo

n, th

us e

nhan

cing

spee

d at

ea

sier t

o sc

rub

Cera

mic

epox

y bi

nds c

eram

ic re

mov

al

sam

e RP

Ms

parti

cles i

n re

sin sy

stem

$108

/gal

lon

120

sq ft

/gal

lon

http

://w

ww

.cer

am-k

ote.

com

Ecos

peed

®Sp

ray

on fi

berg

lass

, ste

el, a

lum

inum

;M

aint

enan

ce a

s nee

ded;

Lev

els o

f G

lass

-flak

e pa

int c

onst

ruct

s a la

yere

dLo

ngev

ity: E

stim

ated

to b

e lif

etim

e of

Su

bsea

Indu

strie

s; Be

lgiu

mCa

n be

bru

shed

on

for s

mal

l fo

ulin

g gr

owth

of u

p to

10

cm h

ave

barri

er th

at re

mai

ns st

able

for l

ong

vess

el; H

ydro

dyna

mic

prof

ile c

anG

lass

par

ticle

s in

mat

rix o

f res

ins

spot

repa

irsbe

en re

mov

ed a

fter o

ne y

ear w

ithou

tpe

riods

of t

ime

in c

orro

sive

give

bet

ter e

fficie

ncy

to th

e ve

ssel

;cu

res i

n vin

yl es

ter c

oatin

g to

da

mag

e to

coa

ting

envir

onm

ents

Easy

mai

nten

ance

: hul

l cle

anin

gscr

eate

pow

erfu

l bon

d to

subs

trate

poss

ible

with

out d

amag

ing

coat

ing

ww

w.e

cosp

eed.

besm

ooth

ness

NOT

ON

CALIF

ORN

IA M

ARKE

T Ju

ly 04

Non

toxi

c A

ntifo

ulin

g St

rate

gies

Sam

pler

Alt

houg

h no

ntox

ic c

oati

ngs

will

not

slo

w g

row

th, t

hey

can

be e

ffect

ive

whe

n us

ed in

a s

trat

egic

com

bina

tion

wit

h ot

her

met

hods

. Non

toxi

c an

tifo

ulin

gst

rate

gies

may

com

bine

non

toxi

c co

atin

gs w

ith

mec

hani

cal h

ull c

lean

ing,

slip

line

rs, o

r bo

at li

fts.

Pri

ces

and

info

rmat

ion

liste

d ar

e ef

fect

ive

as o

f Ju

ly 2

004.

Follo

w m

anuf

actu

rers

’ ins

truc

tion

s re

gard

ing

appl

icat

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

. Mos

t co

atin

gs a

re n

ot c

ompa

tibl

e w

ith

exis

ting

one

s. M

any

coat

ings

req

uire

prof

essi

onal

app

licat

ion!

The

se p

rodu

cts

are

rela

tive

ly n

ew a

nd e

xper

ienc

e w

ith

them

is li

mit

ed. I

ndep

ende

nt e

valu

atio

ns o

f lon

g-te

rm c

osts

, ben

efit

s, an

dpe

rfor

man

ce o

f pro

duct

s ar

e ne

eded

. Inv

esti

gate

pro

duct

s ca

refu

lly!

Ask

man

ufac

ture

rs fo

r co

pies

of i

ndep

ende

nt t

ests

of t

heir

pro

duct

s an

d re

fere

nces

to

othe

rsw

ho h

ave

purc

hase

d th

em in

you

r ar

ea.

Som

e of

the

mai

nten

ance

info

rmat

ion

pres

ente

d he

re is

pro

vide

d by

San

Die

go a

rea

boat

rep

air

yard

s an

d un

derw

ater

hul

l cle

aner

s. A

sk lo

cal b

oat

repa

irya

rds

and

hull

clea

ning

ser

vice

s w

hich

coa

ting

s ha

ve p

erfo

rmed

wel

l and

wha

t m

aint

enan

ce is

nee

ded

in y

our

area

. Che

ck lo

cal a

ir a

nd w

ater

qua

lity

regu

lati

ons

befo

re s

elec

ting

a p

aint

.T

his

info

rmat

ion

on n

onto

xic

alte

rnat

ives

to

copp

er-b

ased

ant

ifou

ling

pain

ts is

inte

nded

for

edu

cati

onal

pur

pose

s on

ly a

nd d

oes

not

cons

titu

te a

nen

dors

emen

t or

rec

omm

enda

tion

by

the

Uni

vers

ity

of C

alif

orni

a or

any

of

the

orga

niza

tion

s th

at f

unde

d th

e de

mon

stra

tion

pro

ject

or

this

pub

licat

ion.

Coa

ting

info

rmat

ion

is c

ompi

led

from

man

ufac

ture

rs’ d

ata

and

has

not

been

ver

ifie

d by

the

aut

hors

. ©

Cop

yrig

ht 2

004,

Reg

ents

of

the

Uni

vers

ity

of C

alif

orni

a.

Non

toxi

c An

tifou

ling

St

rate

gy P

rodu

ct E

xam

ples

Reco

mm

ende

d U

seM

aint

enan

ce*

Coat

ing

Char

acte

ristic

sLo

ngev

ity

*Mai

nten

ance

of c

oati

ngs

depe

nds

on v

esse

l loc

atio

n an

d ac

tivi

ty a

nd d

iver

ava

ilabi

lity.

Gen

eral

ly c

oati

ngs

are

mor

e di

fficu

lt t

o cl

ean

the

long

er t

he t

ime

betw

een

clea

ning

s. In

the

San

Die

go a

rea,

dive

rs r

ecom

men

d cl

eani

ng n

onto

xic

coat

ings

eve

ry 1

-2 w

eeks

in s

umm

er a

nd 2

to

3 w

eeks

in w

inte

r.


Non

toxi

c An

tifou

ling

St

rate

gy P

rodu

ct E

xam

ples

Reco

mm

ende

d U

seM

aint

enan

ce*

Coat

ing

Char

acte

ristic

sLo

ngev

ity

SILI

CON

EAp

ply

epox

y ba

rrier

coa

t; Ti

e co

atDe

pend

s on

usag

e; D

esig

ned

for

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting

Coat

ing

may

dam

age

easil

y if

bum

ped

Inte

rsle

ek®

425

and

finish

coa

t by

airle

ss sp

ray

for a

llhi

gh sp

eed

(30

knot

s) ve

ssel

s; or

scra

ped

or sc

rubb

ed h

ard

Inte

rnat

iona

l Pai

nt C

ompa

nyve

ssel

s; Do

not

app

ly ov

er o

ldLe

ss m

aint

enan

ce n

eede

d if

used

Si

licon

e ba

sed

foul

rele

ase

coat

ing

copp

er p

aint

mor

e of

ten

$250

/gal

lon

125

sq ft

/gal

lon

http

://w

ww

.inte

rnat

iona

l-mar

ine.

com

Si-C

OAT

™ F

oulin

g Re

leas

e Co

atin

g1

coat

prim

erle

ss sy

stem

; Fib

ergl

ass,

Foul

ing

rele

ases

whe

n ve

ssel

mov

es;

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting;

New

form

ula

for b

ette

r sur

face

fini

sh,

CSL

Silic

ones

, Inc

.st

eel,

alum

inum

, and

woo

dAs

ves

sel a

ppro

ache

s 5 k

nots

, fou

ling

100%

solid

s and

VO

C fre

ebe

tter a

dhes

ion,

and

mor

e du

rabi

lity

Silic

one

coat

ing

loos

ens;

As v

esse

l exc

eeds

13

knot

s,ht

tp://

ww

w.c

slsilic

ones

.com

foul

ing

clear

s† ; Low

pre

ssur

e w

ashi

ng† In

depe

nden

t stu

dies

of s

ilicon

e NO

T O

N CA

LIFO

RNIA

MAR

KET

may

also

be

used

to re

leas

e fo

ulin

gco

atin

gs su

gges

t tha

t fou

ling

begi

nsJU

LY 2

004

to sl

ide

off a

t 20

knot

s

Mira

cle C

over

Mar

ine®

1 co

at;

Appl

y to

cle

an su

rface

with

Foul

ing

rele

ases

as v

esse

l mov

es; U

seCa

utio

n: S

lippe

ry c

oatin

g;Pr

oduc

t has

bee

n on

fish

ing

boat

s for

(In U

C de

mo

proj

ect)

brus

h, ro

ller,

spra

yer o

r mix

into

oil

nylo

n br

ush,

soft

cloth

as n

eede

dRe

duce

s dra

g al

low

ing

an in

crea

se

5 ye

ars w

ithou

t rea

pplic

atio

n;M

iracle

Cov

er, I

nc.

and

wat

er-b

ased

coa

tings

; Do

not

in sp

eed;

Abr

asio

n w

ill w

ear t

heSt

retc

hes t

o ac

com

mod

ate

stru

ctur

alW

ater

bas

ed si

licon

e-ru

bber

ap

ply

over

old

cop

per p

aint

; co

atin

g an

d th

e m

ore

the

boat

ism

ovem

ent u

p to

300

%liq

uid

seal

erCa

n be

reap

plie

d w

ithou

t rem

oval

used

, the

mor

e ab

rasio

n w

ill oc

cur

$40/

gallo

n an

d $1

90/5

gal

lons

175

sq ft

/gal

lon

ww

w.te

rryjo

rdan

.com

Wea

rlon®

Supe

r F1-

M1

coat

for w

ood,

alu

min

um,

Self

clean

ing

with

mor

e us

age;

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting;

Long

evity

: 2 to

3 se

ason

s dep

endi

ngEc

cote

ch, I

nc.

fiber

glas

s, st

eel;

Best

spra

yed

on

Reco

mm

ende

d fo

r boa

ts th

atIn

here

nt lu

brici

ty im

prov

es fu

elon

usa

ge; A

bras

ion

lead

s to

mor

eSi

licon

e ep

oxy

wat

er b

ased

coa

ting

for u

nifo

rm fi

nish

; Adh

eres

to

are

in fr

eque

nt u

se; F

oul-r

elea

se,

econ

omy

and

incr

ease

s spe

edw

earin

g$1

89/g

allo

nm

ost b

arrie

r and

prim

er c

oats

low

-ene

rgy

surfa

ce(w

hen

clean

);Ela

stic

mod

ules

25

0 to

275

sq ft

/gal

lon

enab

le it

to d

efor

m a

nd re

sist

http

://w

ww

.wea

rlon.

com

impa

ct d

amag

e

SILO

XAN

ETh

inne

r coa

ting

wor

ks b

est;

Soft

cloth

or w

ater

to c

lean

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting;

Lo

ngev

ity d

epen

ds o

n su

bstra

te;

Meg

aGua

rd®

Liqui

Cote

Mol

ecul

ar la

yer f

ollo

ws c

onto

urs o

fIm

prov

es sp

eed

and

redu

ces f

uel

Redu

ces d

rag

and

surfa

ce fr

ictio

nKI

SS-C

OTE

su

rface

; Can

be

appl

ied

over

cons

umpt

ion;

Pre

vent

s cor

rosio

nan

d cr

eate

s wat

er re

pelle

nt fi

nish

Silo

xane

coa

ting;

ge

l coa

t or d

ilute

d ve

rsio

n ov

erSe

lf-bo

ndin

g po

lymer

sex

istin

g bo

ttom

pai

nt$1

75/4

oz

4 oz

cov

ers 2

000

sq ft

http

://w

ww

.kiss

-cot

e.co

m/a

pps/

mar

ine.

htm

*Mai

nten

ance

of c

oati

ngs

depe

nds

on v

esse

l loc

atio

n an

d ac

tivi

ty a

nd d

iver

ava

ilabi

lity.

Gen

eral

ly c

oati

ngs

are

mor

e di

fficu

lt t

o cl

ean

the

long

er t

he t

ime

betw

een

clea

ning

s. In

the

San

Die

go a

rea,

dive

rs r

ecom

men

d cl

eani

ng n

onto

xic

coat

ings

eve

ry 1

-2 w

eeks

in s

umm

er a

nd 2

to

3 w

eeks

in w

inte

r.

Non

toxi

c A

ntifo

ulin

g St

rate

gies

Sam

pler


FOU

L-RE

LEAS

E PO

LYU

RETH

ANE

Min

imum

of 1

coa

t;Lo

w su

rface

ene

rgy

crea

tes s

lick

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting

Long

evity

: 6 to

7 y

ears

; No

leac

hing

No-To

x™ F

oulin

g Re

leas

e Co

ntro

lAm

bien

t cur

ed sp

ray

appl

icabl

esu

rface

that

wip

es e

asily

with

FP

U®51

NT15

0™

for a

ll pl

easu

re c

raft;

Do

not

spon

ge21

st C

entu

ry C

oatin

gsap

ply

over

old

cop

per p

aint

Hard

, non

abla

tive,

fluo

rinat

ed

polyu

reth

ane

coat

ing

$400

/gal

lon

250

sq ft

/gal

lon

http

://w

ww

.21s

t-cen

tury

coat

ings

cana

da.c

om/M

arin

e.ht

m

WAT

ER-B

ASED

URE

THAN

EAp

ply

by b

rush

, spo

nge

or ro

ller;

Clea

n as

nee

ded

Caut

ion:

bec

omes

slip

pery

whe

n Lo

ngev

ity: 8

to 1

2 m

onth

s;Se

a-Sl

ide®

Antif

oulin

g pa

ints

will

func

tion

wet

; Wat

er b

ased

pol

yure

than

e Dr

ag-re

ducin

g ov

erco

atin

gAm

erica

n M

arin

e Co

atin

gsno

rmal

ly w

hen

used

und

erre

sin th

at d

ries t

o a

clear

, har

d W

ater

bas

ed u

reth

ane

over

coat

ing

Sea-

Slid

e®fin

ish$4

9.95

/qua

rt co

vers

mos

t 25

foot

ves

sels

http

://w

ww

.cop

perp

oxy.c

om/

new

files

/seas

lide.

htm

l

BOTT

OM

WAX

Appl

ies e

asily

with

a so

ft clo

th;

Clea

n as

requ

ired

or w

hen

fuzz

Caut

ion:

Slip

pery

coa

ting;

Seas

onal

coa

ting;

Cle

ar, s

oft m

ovab

leEa

sy O

n®Bo

ttom

Wax

The

thin

ner i

t is a

pplie

d, th

ede

velo

ps w

ith sp

onge

, dec

k br

ush

For f

ull s

easo

n fre

shw

ater

and

surfa

ce; R

epel

s wat

er fr

om h

ull;

Alex

Miln

e As

socia

tes L

tdbe

tter i

t wor

ks; F

or fi

berg

lass

or w

hite

abr

asive

pad

; Cle

anin

term

itten

t sal

twat

er u

se; I

deal

for

Incr

ease

s top

end

spee

d an

d re

duce

sFo

ul re

leas

e bo

ttom

wax

coa

ting

and

alum

inum

boa

ts; C

an b

esu

rface

as a

bove

and

app

ly th

inra

cked

and

trai

lere

d bo

ats,

pont

oon,

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n; C

an b

e co

ated

on

$34.

95CD

N/45

0ml t

reat

s up

appl

ied

over

old

exis

ting

over

coat

eac

h se

ason

; Can

be

sail,

pow

er, i

nfla

tabl

esou

tdriv

es a

nd e

lect

roni

c se

nsor

s;to

24

ft bo

atan

tifou

ling

pain

tto

tally

rem

oved

with

hig

h Ph

He

lps p

reve

nt o

smos

isht

tp://

ww

w.a

lexm

ilne.

com

clean

erw

ww

.mar

inet

ex.c

om

H.P.

Botto

m W

ax®

with

VS7

21Ap

plie

s with

dam

p sp

onge

;Re

gula

r use

self-

clean

s hul

l;Ca

utio

n: S

lippe

ry c

oatin

g; In

ert,

Seas

onal

coa

ting;

Dur

abilit

y: C

oatin

g Au

rora

Mar

ine

Indu

strie

s Inc

.2

coat

s to

fiber

glas

s, al

umin

um,

For s

tatio

nary

and

ligh

t use

boa

ts

clear

, shi

ny b

arrie

r pol

ymer

coa

ting

stay

ed o

n ra

ce b

oats

up

to 1

45 m

ph

Supe

r hyd

roph

obic

bio

rele

ase

hard

pai

nted

surfa

ces;

Do n

ot a

pply

in h

igh

grow

th a

reas

cle

an e

very

redu

ces s

urfa

ce fr

ictio

n on

hul

l;w

ith n

o de

grad

atio

n; S

ailb

oats

repo

rt ba

rrier

coa

ting

over

exis

ting

antif

oulin

g pa

int

4 to

8 w

eeks

by

wip

ing

off s

lime

Seal

s fib

ergl

ass t

o pr

even

t osm

osis

spee

d in

crea

ses u

p to

2 m

ph45

0 m

ls/$3

1.49

with

spon

geco

vers

400

sq ft

http

://w

ww

.aur

oram

arin

e.co

m

POLY

MER

For i

nfla

tabl

e bo

ats;

2 co

ats t

o Re

gula

r use

self-

clean

s hul

l; Fo

rCa

utio

n: S

lippe

ry c

oatin

g; In

ert,

Seas

onal

coa

ting;

Red

uces

atta

chm

ent

Repe

lin®

Hypa

lon,

PVC

, fib

ergl

ass,

alum

inum

,st

atio

nary

and

ligh

t use

boa

ts in

cle

ar, s

hiny

bar

rier p

olym

er c

oatin

gof

exh

aust

soot

and

die

sel s

tain

sAu

rora

Mar

ine

Indu

strie

s Inc

.ha

rd p

aint

ed su

rface

s;hi

gh g

row

th a

reas

cle

an e

very

redu

ces s

urfa

ce fr

ictio

n on

hul

l;an

d fa

cilita

tes r

emov

alSu

per h

ydro

phob

ic bi

o re

leas

e Us

e Po

ly G

uard

as p

rote

ctive

bar

rier

4 to

8 w

eeks

by

wip

ing

off s

lime

Redu

ced

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n;ba

rrier

coa

ting

for H

ypal

on a

nd P

VC; A

pply

with

spon

geHi

gher

spee

d; S

eals

fiber

glas

s22

0 m

l/$18

.95

dire

ct to

oth

er su

bsta

nces

to p

reve

nt o

smos

isco

vers

200

sq ft

http

://w

ww

.aur

oram

arin

e.co

m

Non

toxi

c An

tifou

ling

St

rate

gy P

rodu

ct E

xam

ples

Reco

mm

ende

d U

seM

aint

enan

ce*

Coat

ing

Char

acte

ristic

sLo

ngev

ity

*Mai

nten

ance

of c

oati

ngs

depe

nds

on v

esse

l loc

atio

n an

d ac

tivi

ty a

nd d

iver

ava

ilabi

lity.

Gen

eral

ly c

oati

ngs

are

mor

e di

fficu

lt t

o cl

ean

the

long

er t

he t

ime

betw

een

clea

ning

s. In

the

San

Die

go a

rea,

dive

rs r

ecom

men

d cl

eani

ng n

onto

xic

coat

ings

eve

ry 1

-2 w

eeks

in s

umm

er a

nd 2

to

3 w

eeks

in w

inte

r.

Non

toxi

c A

ntifo

ulin

g St

rate

gies

Sam

pler


BOAT

LIFT

S

AirB

erth

®Bo

at L

ifts

Elim

inat

es n

eed

for a

ntifo

ulin

g pa

int a

nd u

nder

wat

er h

ull c

lean

ing

if bo

at is

alw

ays r

etur

ned

to li

ftht

tp://

ww

w.a

irber

th.c

omW

ide

rang

e of

mod

els a

vaila

ble

to fi

t var

iety

of b

oats

and

doc

k ap

plica

tions

Gal

va-F

oam

®M

arin

e In

dust

ries B

oat L

ifts

Note

: May

not

be

allo

wed

in so

me

mar

inas

http

://w

ww

.shor

emas

ter.c

om/g

alva

foam

Hydr

oHoi

st®

Inte

rnat

iona

l, In

c. B

oat L

ifts

http

://w

ww

.boa

tlift.

com

Boat

Lift

®Di

strib

utor

sht

tp://

ww

w.b

oatli

ftdist

ribut

ors.c

om

BOAT

SCR

UBB

ING

SYS

TEM

S

Boat

Scru

bber

®Ec

oAnt

ifoul

ing™

syst

em c

ombi

nes r

egul

ar sc

rubs

with

non

toxic

pai

ntht

tp://

ww

w.b

oats

crub

ber.c

omTh

roug

h re

gula

r cle

anin

g w

ithou

t nee

d fo

r che

mica

ls, c

an e

limin

ate

need

for t

oxic

antif

oulin

g co

atin

gs a

nd fu

el e

fficie

ncy

impr

oves

Ente

red

US m

arke

t in

2004

; Not

yet

ava

ilabl

e in

all

stat

es in

cludi

ng C

alifo

rnia

as o

f Jul

y 20

04.

SLIP

LIN

ERS

Botto

m L

iner

®Ch

arac

teris

tics

$104

0 fo

r 25

ft ve

ssel

Elim

inat

es n

eed

for a

ntifo

ulin

g pa

int a

nd u

nder

wat

er h

ull c

lean

ing

if bo

at is

alw

ays r

etur

ned

to li

ner

UV in

hibi

ted

vinyl

coat

ed li

ner w

ith fo

am

Add

fresh

wat

er in

to sl

ip e

nclo

sure

to re

duce

foul

ing

(che

ck lo

cal r

egul

atio

ns)

flota

tion

colla

rLin

er w

ill co

ntai

n an

y sp

ills fr

om v

esse

l at s

lipht

tp://

ww

w.b

otto

mlin

er.c

om

Out

side

of li

ner m

ust b

e m

aint

aine

d

Arm

ored

Hul

l™ li

ner

Caut

ion:

Lin

es th

at su

spen

d lin

er m

ay st

retc

h an

d sa

g

Arm

ored

Hul

l™ A

ir-ga

te™

syst

em lo

wer

s and

raise

s w

ith v

alve

and

han

d pu

mp

so th

at li

nes o

r rop

es

are

unne

cess

ary

UN

DER

WAT

ER H

ULL

CLE

ANIN

G S

ERVI

CES

Mec

hani

cal c

lean

ing

by h

and

or w

ith p

ower

tool

sCl

eani

ng fr

eque

ncy

and

type

of c

lean

ing

tool

dep

ends

on

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

re, t

ype

of p

aint

, fre

quen

cy a

nd sp

eed

of b

oat u

se

Ple

ase

see

our

web

site

at

http

://s

eagr

ant.

ucda

vis.

edu

for

mor

e in

form

atio

n on

alt

erna

tive

s to

cop

per-

base

d an

tifo

ulin

g pa

ints

.

Non

toxi

c A

ntifo

ulin

g St

rate

gies

Sam

pler

Boat

Lift

s, Bo

at S

crub

bing

Sys

tem

s, Sl

ip L

iner

s, an

d U

nder

wate

r Hul

l Cle

anin

g Se

rvic

es

Calabrese, A., J.R. MacInnes, D.A. Nelson, R.A. Greig and P. P.Yevich. 1984. Effects of Long-term Exposure to Silver or Copperon Growth, Bioaccumulation and Histopathology in the BlueMussel Mytilus edulis. Marine Environmental Research. 11:253-274.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2004. CaliforniaCode of Regulations (Title 3. Food and Agriculture) Division 6.Pesticides and Pest Control.http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/inhouse/calcode/020101.html

California Professional Divers Association. 2003. Hull CleaningBest Management Practices Certification Manual, Version1.3/Revision 3. Document provided by partnership between SantaMonica Bay Restoration Foundation and California ProfessionalDivers Association.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San DiegoRegion. 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Copper inShelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego Bay, Public Review Draft.http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/tmdls/tmdl_files/shelter%20island/SIYB%20Staff%20Report.pdf

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. TheSection 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. 2002Monitoring List: Region 9 approved by USEPA 2003: (OceansideHarbor and in San Diego Bay: America’s Cup Harbor, HarborIsland (west and east basins). Laurel Street, Marriott Marina,North Island Aircraft Platform)http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/2002_mon_list_020403.pdf

Callow, M.E., R.A. Pitchers, and R. Santos. 1988. Non-biocidalAntifouling Coatings. In: Biodeterioration 7, (eds.) D.R. Houghton,R.N. Smith, and H.O.W. Eggins. Elsevier Applied Science, Oxford,pp.43-48.

Carson, R., M. Damon, L. Johnson, and J. Miller. 2002.Transitioning to Non-Metal Antifouling Paints on MarineRecreational Boats in San Diego Bay. Pursuant to Senate Bill 315passed in 2001; submitted to California Department of Boatingand Waterways in 2002. 130 p.

Characklis, W.G. and K.E. Cooksey. 1983. Biofilms and MicrobialFouling. Advances in Applied Microbiology, 29:93-138.

Clare, A.S., D. Rittschof, D.J. Gerhart, and J.S. Maki. 1992.Molecular Approaches to Non-toxic Antifouling. InvertebrateReproduction and Development, 22:67-76.

Coglianese, M. P., and M. Martin. 1981. Individual and InteractiveEffects of Environmental Stress on the Embryonic Development ofthe Pacific Oyster, Crassostrea gigas. I. The Toxicity of Copper andSilver. Marine Environmental Research, 5:13-27.

College Toelating Bestrijdingsmiddelen. 2004. www.ctb-wageningen.nl

Crisp, D. J. 1974. Factors Influencing the Settlement of MarineInvertebrate Larvae. In: Chemoreception in marine organisms,edited by P.T. Grant and A.M. Mackie, Academic Press, New York,pp. 117-265.

European Commission. 1998. Biocidal Products Directive (8/98/EC)http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/biocides/

Gould, E., R.J. Thompson, L.J. Buckley, D. Rusanowsky, and G.R.Sennefelder. 1988. Uptake and Effect of Copper and Cadmium onthe Gonad of the Scallop Placopecten magellanicus: ConcurrentMetal Exposure. Marine Biology, 97:217-223.

Hall, N. 2002. US Paint, personal communication.

Hall, W.S., S.J. Bushong, L.W. Hall, Jr., M.J. Lenkevich and A.E.Pinkey. 1988. Monitoring Dissolved Copper Concentrations inChesapeake Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,11:33-42.

Hoffman, M. 2004. California Marine Services, personalcommunication.

Hudon, C., E. Bourget and P. Legendre. 1983. An IntegratedStudy of the Factors Influencing the Choice of the Settling Site ofBalanus crenatus Cyprid Larvae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, 40:1186-1194.

International Coatings Ltd UK and International Paint Inc. 2004.http://www.yachtpaint.com/superyacht/sy/pdf/antifouling_legislation.pdf

International Maritime Organization. 2004. http://www.imo.org/Marine Environment: Antifouling Strategies.

Johnson, L.T. and J.A. Miller. 2003. Making Dollars and Sense ofNontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats. Californian Sea GrantCollege Program Technical Report No. T-052. 13 p.

Katz, C. 1998. Seawater Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons andCopper in San Diego Bay. Technical Report 1768. Space and NavalSystems Center (SPAWAR). San Diego, CA.

Keough, M.J. 1983. Patterns of Recruitment of SessileInvertebrates in Two Subtidal Habitats. Journal of ExperimentalMarine Biology and Ecology, 66:213-245.

Kettlewell, J.J. 2000. “Marine Paint Marketers Change the Pitch.”Boating Industry International Online http://www.boating-industry.com/

Krett Lane, S. M. 1980. Productivity and Diversity ofPhytoplankton in Relation to Copper in San Diego Bay. TechnicalReport 533. Naval Oceans Systems Center.

Krishnakumar, P. K., P.K. Asokan, and V. K. Pillai. 1990. (Abstract)Physiological and Cellular-Responses to Copper and Mercury inthe Green Mussel Perna-Viridis (Linnaeus). Aquatic Toxicology,18(3):163-173.

Kronman, M. 2004. Santa Barbara Harbor Operations Manager,personal communication.

Lee, H. H. and C. H. Xu. 1984. Effects of Metals on Sea UrchinDevelopment: A Rapid Bioassay. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 15:18-21.

Lussier, S. M., J. H. Gentile, and J. Walker. 1985. Acute andChronic Effects of Heavy Metals and Cyanide on Mysidopsis bahia(Crustacea: Mysidacea). Aquatic Toxicology, 7:25-35.

MacDonald J.M., J.D. Shields, and R. K. Zimmer-Faust. 1988.Acute Toxicities of Eleven Metals to Early Life-history Stages of theYellow Crab Cancer anthonyi. Marine Biology, 98:201-207.


References Cited


Maki, J.S., D. Rittschof, J.D. Costlow and R. Mitchell. 1988.Inhibition of Attachment of Larval Barnacles, Balanus amphitrite,by Bacterial Surface Films. Marine Biology, 97:199-206.

Martin, M., K.E. Osborn, P. Billig, and N. Glickstein. 1981.Toxicities of Ten Metals to Crassostrea gigas and Mytilus edulisEmbryos and Cancer magister Larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin,12:305-308.

Meyer, A.E., R.E. Baier, and R.L. Forsberg. 1994. Field Trials ofNontoxic Fouling-release Coatings. Proc 4th International ZebraMussel Conf, Report No. TR-104029 published by Electric PowerResearch Institute, Palo Alto, CA. pp. 273-290.

Mihm, J.W., W.C. Banta and G.I. Loeb. 1981. Effects of AdsorbedOrganic and Primary Fouling Films on Bryozoan Settlement.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology, 54:167-179.

Ministry of the Environment Danish Environmental ProtectionAgency. September 2003 http://www.mst.dk/activi/01060000.htm

The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment. 2004. http://www2.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=4802

Nicely, C. 2002. Interlux Yacht Paints, personal communication.

Orlich, S. 2004. California Marine Services, personalcommunication.

Parliament of Victoria. Environment and Natural ResourcesCommittee. 1996. Report on Ballast Water and Hull Fouling inVictoria. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc%5Fold/ballast/default.htm#TopOfPage

Presley, R. 2004. Presley Precision Diving, Inc., personalcommunication.

Redpath, K. J. and J. Davenport. 1988. The Effect of Copper, Zinc,and Cadmium in the Pumping Rate of Mytilus edulis L. AquaticToxicology, 13:217-226.

Redpath, K. J. 1985. Growth Inhibition and Recovery in Mussels(Mytilus edulis) Exposed to Low Copper Concentrations. Journal ofthe Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom,65(2):421-31.

Rittschof, D. 1993. Body Odors and Neutral-basic Peptide Mimics:A Review of Responses by Marine Organisms. American Zoology,33:487-493.

Rittschof, D., E.S. Branscomb and J.D. Costlow. 1984. Settlementand Behavior in Relation to Flow and Surface in Larval Barnacles,Balanus amphitrite (Darwin). Journal of Experimental MarineBiology and Ecology, 82:131-146.

Rittschof, D. 2004. Professor, Duke University Marine Laboratory,personal communication.

Rocco, B. 2004. Aquarius Yacht Services, personalcommunication.

Rolland, J.P. and J.M. DeSimone. 2003. Synthesis andCharacterization of Perfluoropolyether Graft Terpolymers forBiofouling Applications. Polymeric Materials Science andEngineering, 88:606-607.

Schiff, K., D. Diehl and A. Valkirs. 2003. Copper Emissions fromAntifouling Paint on Recreational Vessels. SCCWRP TechnicalReport #405. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,Westminster, CA.

Sheffield Engineering. 1998. Sediment Analysis of CanaveralHarbor under sponsorship of the Port Authority.

Soeterik, E. 2002. Proline Paint Company, personalcommunication.

Storfer, A. 2002. Kop-Coat, personal communication.

Stromgren, T. and V. Nielsen. 1991. Spawning Frequency, Growth,and Mortality of Mytilus edulis Larvae, Exposed to Copper andDiesel Oil. Aquatic Toxicology, 21:171-180.

Swain, G.W. and M.P Schultz. 1996. The Testing and Evaluationof Non-toxic Antifouling Coatings. Biofouling 10 (1-3):187-197.

Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate. 2004.http://www.kemi.se/lang/english/index.html

Trocine, R.P. and J.H Trefry. 1996. Metal Concentrations inSediment, Water and Clams From the Indian River Lagoon,Florida. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32(10):754-759.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Draft Updated Water Quality Criteria for Copper Fact Sheet. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/draftupdatefs.htm

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Total Maximum DailyLoads for Toxic Pollutants: San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, CA.U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, CA.http://www.epa.gov/Region9/water/tmdl/nbay/summary0602.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Establishment ofNumeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants for the State of California;California Toxics Rule.http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/ctrindex.html

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. NationalRecommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. USEPA. Office of Water. EPA 822-Z-99-001.

VanderWeele, D.A. 1996. The Effects of Copper Pollution on theBivalve, Mytilus edulis and the Amphipod, Grandidierella japonicain the Shelter Island Yacht Basin, San Diego Bay, California. M.S.Thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Ship Shape.Single Industry Campaign: Summary Report. Publication No. 99-16. Prepared by Paul Stasch and Donna Lynch. WashingtonState Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program.

Younqlood, J.P., L. Andruzzi, W. Senaratne, C.K. Ober, J.A.Callow, J.A. Finlay, M.E. Callow. 2003. New Materials for MarineBiofouling Resistance and Release: Semi-fluorinated and PegylatedBlock Copolymer Bilayer Coatings. Polymeric Materials Science andEngineering, 88:608-609.

Publication Design by Chris O’Connor

EVALUATION: STAYING AFLOAT WITH NONTOXIC ANTIFOULING STRATEGIES FOR BOATS

Would you please help us to evaluate the effectiveness of our booklet by completing and returning the evaluation form? Thank you!

Please put an X by all of the groups to which you belong: _____ Recreational Boat Owner _____ Boating Association _____ Marina or Yacht Club Manager _____ Trade Association Manager _____ Boat Repair Yard Company _____ Environmental Organization _____ Paint/Coating Company _____ Underwater Hull Cleaning Company _____ Port or Harbor Authority Commissioner _____ Port or Harbor Authority Staff _____ Other Elected/Appointed Official _____ Other Government Agency Staff _____ University Researcher _____ Consultant _____ Other:________________________________________________________________ Please circle the number that indicates how much you agree with the following statements, using this rating system: 1 = Do not agree, 2 = Agree slightly, 3 = Agree somewhat, 4 = Agree very much, 5 = Agree extremely 1 2 3 4 5 The information in the booklet will be USEFUL TO ME in understanding and making decisions about antifouling STRATEGIES for recreational boats. 1 2 3 4 5 The information in the booklet will be USEFUL TO ME in understanding and making decisions about antifouling POLICIES for recreational boats.

Please place an X beside each topic in the booklet that provided you with NEW information: _____Copper-based antifouling paints can create a problem for marine life in boat basins. _____Nontoxic antifouling strategies include a nontoxic coating and a companion strategy. _____The availability of nutrients, the texture of the surface, the chemical reactions taking place on it, and the movement of surrounding currents influence where fouling growth settles. _____TMDL studies are being completed in Southern California for dissolved copper. _____Several European countries are monitoring dissolved copper in boat basins and copper-based bottom paints have been banned or restricted in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. _____The objective of nontoxic antifouling strategies is to control fouling growth while protecting the environment and the boat’s bottom coating. _____ Nontoxic coatings must be cleaned about twice as often as copper-based antifouling paints. _____ Most nontoxic bottom paints will not adhere to existing, copper-based paints. _____The most cost-effective time for switching to a nontoxic coating is when the boat is new and unpainted or when the copper-based coating needs to be stripped. Please continue on next page……

_____Best Management Practices, such as cleaning frequently and using the gentlest possible tool, can extend the life of a coating. _____In our demonstration project, the epoxy and ceramic-epoxy coatings have the potential to last many more years than copper-based coatings and the silicone coating. _____ In our demonstration project, the silicone coating was preferred by boat owners who like to race and were willing to invest in very frequent cleaning and annual replacement. _____In our demonstration project, the epoxy and ceramic -epoxy coatings appear to be a good choice for boat owners who want a nontoxic coating that may last long enough to compensate for costs incurred in more frequent cleaning and converting from a copper-based coating. _____Our field demonstration of three types of nontoxic coatings for one year in San Diego Bay and the related economic research found that they show promise as sustainable solutions.

Please put an X by each topic with which you agree: *Would you switch to nontoxic bottom paint: _____ If required by law? _____ If not required by law? *If so, which type would you prefer? ____ Epoxy/Ceramic-Epoxy _____Silicone ____Other:_________________ * Why?_____________________________________________________________________________

Did you attend our Nontoxic Bottom Paints Field Day: _____ At the Southwestern Yacht Club in San Diego in 2002? _____ At the Shelter Island Boatyard in San Diego in 2003? _____ Have you read our booklet What You Need to Know about Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats? _____ Have you read our booklet Making Dollars and Sense of Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for Boats?

_____ Have you read any articles about our nontoxic boat bottom paint project in a newspaper, newsletter or magazine? If so, which one(s)?__________________________________________________________________________ Did you participate in the Sea Grant Extension Program and UCSD Department of Economics economic study on incentives to switch to nontoxic paints? YES NO Please comment or suggest other antifouling related information that would be useful to you:

Would you like to receive information on our new project to prevent transport of aquatic invasive species on boat and ship hulls? YES NO

Thank you for helping us to evaluate the effectiveness of our research and education programs!! Please fax or mail the completed evaluation to: Leigh Taylor Johnson, Marine Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension Sea Grant Extension Program, County of San Diego MS O-18, 5555 Overland Avenue Suite 4101 San Diego, CA 92123 Phone (858) 694-2852 FAX (858) 694-2849 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://seagrant.ucdavis.edu

Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for · PDF fileStaying Afloat with...

Documents

Transcript of Staying Afloat with Nontoxic Antifouling Strategies for · PDF fileStaying Afloat with...