journal article·2016-09-27

Managing Redox Chemistry To Deter Marine Biological Adhesion

Chelsey A. Del Grosso, Thomas W. McCarthy, Christopher L. Clark, Joshua L. Cloud, Jonathan J. Wilker

Chemistry of Materials· Volume 28· Issue 18
Publisher page

Abstract

With global shipping accounting for 3.5% of annual fossil fuel use, we have incentive to keep hulls clean from encrusting foulers including barnacles, oysters, and mussels. Current antifouling coatings function by releasing biocidal copper into the surrounding waters. Rather than poisoning the oceans, environmentally benign approaches to defeating biological adhesion are in great demand. Recent chemical characterization insights have found that oxidative cross-linking of proteins plays a potentially key role in the formation of several bioadhesives. Here, antioxidant compounds were placed into coatings in order to quench oxidative chemistry and inhibit glue formation. Antioxidant-containing surfaces decreased mussel adhesion relative to controls. Attacking the mechanisms of biological adhesion may provide us with a new strategy for foul release coatings and minimize the environmental impacts of shipping.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Marine Biology and Environmental Chemistry · Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology · Marine Ecology and Invasive Species

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2084, United States

School of Materials Engineering, Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Hall of Engineering, 701 West Stadium Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2045, United States

Funding

U.S. Department of Defense

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. Conti J. J. · 2012
2. Cames M. · 2015
3. 10.1080/0892701070146197410.1080/08927010701461974 ↗
4. 10.1080/08927014.2010.54280910.1080/08927014.2010.542809 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0300-9440(99)00005-310.1016/S0300-9440(99)00005-3 ↗
6. Callow M. E. · Biologist · 2002 · 49 · 1
7. 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2007.01.01710.1016/j.porgcoat.2007.01.017 ↗
8. 10.1021/ma052477710.1021/ma0524777 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.05.04110.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.05.041 ↗
10. 10.1002/jbm.a.3162610.1002/jbm.a.31626 ↗
11. 10.1073/pnas.120197310910.1073/pnas.1201973109 ↗
12. 10.1080/0892701010937847410.1080/08927010109378474 ↗
13. 10.1021/la048015o10.1021/la048015o ↗
14. 10.1098/rsta.2011.050210.1098/rsta.2011.0502 ↗
15. 10.1007/s00267-005-0030-810.1007/s00267-005-0030-8 ↗
16. 10.1080/08927014.2013.84114510.1080/08927014.2013.841145 ↗
17. 10.1002/polb.2225610.1002/polb.22256 ↗
18. 10.1080/0021846090299635810.1080/00218460902996358 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.11.00910.1016/j.cbpa.2009.11.009 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.02.00710.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.02.007 ↗
21. Sagert, J.; Sun, C.; Waite, J. H.InBiological Adhesives;Smith, A. M.; Callow, J. A., Eds.Springer-Verlag:Berlin, 2006; pp125–143.10.1007/978-3-540-31049-5_7 ↗
22. 10.1242/jeb.02988410.1242/jeb.029884 ↗
23. 10.1074/jbc.M91036319910.1074/jbc.M910363199 ↗
24. 10.1074/jbc.M50845720010.1074/jbc.M508457200 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jsb.2009.09.00810.1016/j.jsb.2009.09.008 ↗
26. 10.1021/ja104996y10.1021/ja104996y ↗
27. 10.1080/0021846050018895210.1080/00218460500188952 ↗
28. 10.1021/bm400251k10.1021/bm400251k ↗
29. 10.1002/anie.20035275910.1002/anie.200352759 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.09.03610.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.09.036 ↗
31. 10.1021/jo00891a00610.1021/jo00891a006 ↗
32. 10.1021/es00110a00910.1021/es00110a009 ↗
33. Verschueren K. · 1983
34. 10.1016/0045-6535(81)90048-510.1016/0045-6535(81)90048-5 ↗
35. Keith L. H. · 1992
36. 10.1080/0021846090299690310.1080/00218460902996903 ↗
37. 10.1093/mollus/53.3.29310.1093/mollus/53.3.293 ↗
38. 10.1093/icesjms/23.2.24910.1093/icesjms/23.2.249 ↗
39. 10.1021/cr200350v10.1021/cr200350v ↗