Mini-review: Molecular mechanisms of antifouling compounds

Abstract

Various antifouling (AF) coatings have been developed to protect submerged surfaces by deterring the settlement of the colonizing stages of fouling organisms. A review of the literature shows that effective AF compounds with specific targets are ones often considered non-toxic. Such compounds act variously on ion channels, quorum sensing systems, neurotransmitters, production/release of adhesive, and specific enzymes that regulate energy production or primary metabolism. In contrast, AF compounds with general targets may or may not act through toxic mechanisms. These compounds affect a variety of biological activities including algal photosynthesis, energy production, stress responses, genotoxic damage, immunosuppressed protein expression, oxidation, neurotransmission, surface chemistry, the formation of biofilms, and adhesive production/release. Among all the targets, adhesive production/release is the most common, possibly due to a more extensive research effort in this area. Overall, the specific molecular targets and the molecular mechanisms of most AF compounds have not been identified. Thus, the information available is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about the types of molecular targets to be used as sensitive biomarkers for future design and screening of compounds with AF potential. In this review, the relevant advantages and disadvantages of the molecular tools available for studying the molecular targets of AF compounds are highlighted briefly and the molecular mechanisms of the AF compounds, which are largely a source of speculation in the literature, are discussed.

Degradation kinetics of a potent antifouling agent, butenolide, under various environmental conditions

“…The undesirable accumulation of biofoulers, including microfoulers (bacteria, algae and protozoa) and macrofoulers (barnacles, bryozoans and tubeworms), has caused tremendous economic loss and ecological disturbance globally (Dobretsov et al, 2006;Qian et al, 2013). Following the definitive ban of organotin-based antifouling paint, various alternative antifouling biocides, such as Irgarol 1051, diuron, zinc pyrithione (ZnPT), copper pyrithione (CuPT), chlorothalonil, and SeaNine 211, have been developed and are currently the most common solutions used for biofouling (Konstantinou and Albanis, 2004;Qian et al, 2013).…”

SeaNine 211 as antifouling biocide: A coastal pollutant of emerging concern

“…In addition to economic lost, 67 the occurrence of biofouling will induce ecological risks by 68 increasing the emission of greenhouse gases and introducing 69 invasive species to native environment (Qian et al, 2013). 70 To deter the unwanted biofouling, it is common to coat the 71 immersed surfaces with a layer of antifouling paint, which 72 will release antifouling biocide in a controlled manner to form 73 a protective film against nearby biofoulers (Voulvoulis, 2006).…”

Chronic Exposure of Marine Medaka (Oryzias melastigma) to 4,5-Dichloro-2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) Reveals Its Mechanism of Action in Endocrine Disruption via the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Gonadal-Liver (HPGL) Axis

“…3 Since the definitive ban of organotin compounds as antifouling additives due to their bioaccumulative potential and negative endocrine effects, a variety of booster biocides, including Irgarol 1051, Diuron, zinc pyrithione (ZnPT), chlorothalonil, and SeaNine 211, have been used alternatively in combination with cuprous oxide to prevent biofouling. 3,4 SeaNine 211, which contains 4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) as the bioactive ingredient, has been proposed to be an environmentally acceptable alternative with regard to its fast degradation in the marine environment. 5 However, the large-scale application of SeaNine 211 as an antifouling agent eventually leads to coastal pollution worldwide.…”