Abstract
Biofouling has detrimental impacts on vessel operations, greenhouse gas emissions, and marine environmental, economic, social, and cultural values through the spread of non-indigenous species. The biosecurity impacts of vessel biofouling have led to regulations across multiple jurisdictions and a global push for mandatory requirements through the International Maritime Organization. In-water cleaning to remove or prevent macrofouling may represent a rare win-win solution for both the shipping industry and the environment. However, at present, the focus is primarily limited to the planar surfaces of vessel hulls, which have the largest direct impact on ship efficiency. Given the substantial contribution of niche areas to vessel biosecurity risk, and their importance to ship operations in general, further emphasis on biofouling prevention and reactive management of these areas is required.
1 Introduction
Biofouling on the submerged areas of vessels has been a substantial challenge for seafarers since ancient times (See: Callow and Callow, 2002). In modern shipping, biofouling accumulated on vessel planar surfaces (i.e., large, relatively flat expanses of the main ship’s hull) has a range of impacts including increased frictional drag leading to the need for additional fuel consumption to maintain speed and higher operational costs (e.g., Schultz, 2007; Schultz et al., 2011; Farkas et al., 2018, 2020), and a subsequent increase in greenhouse gas emissions (International Maritime Organization [IMO], 2023a).
The spread of non-indigenous species (NIS) by vessels has long been known (Darwin, 1854; Chilton, 1910; Allen, 1953; Skerman, 1960). However, documentation of the significant risks associated with the translocation of marine NIS via vessel biofouling is relatively recent (e.g., Carlton, 1985; Carlton and Geller, 1993; James and Hayden, 2000; Ruiz et al., 2000; Hewitt et al., 2004; Lewis, 2004). Notably, biofouling has also been implicated in the international translocation of pathogens that can impact marine life, including species important for fisheries and aquaculture, or of cultural significance (Georgiades et al., 2021), and potentially human health (Shikuma and Hadfield, 2010).
To minimize these biosecurity risks, vessel biofouling management guidelines (IMO, 2023b) and regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, 2017; Ministry for Primary Industries [MPI], 2023; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry [DAFF], 2023; Marinha do Brasil, 2025) have recently been developed at international, regional, and national levels (e.g., Georgiades et al., 2020; Scianni et al., 2021; Santos-Simón et al., 2025). However, traditionally, the incentive to manage ship biofouling has been almost exclusively the direct economic benefits of limiting or reducing biofouling on vessel planar surfaces (hence the term “hull fouling”) and the resulting decrease in fuel consumption and exhaust emissions.
2 Management of biofouling on vessel planar surfaces
For vessel planar surfaces, the most common approach to minimize biofouling accumulation is through the application and maintenance of antifouling coatings (AFCs; Georgiades et al., 2018; Arndt et al., 2021). The two main types of AFCs are: 1) biocidal coatings, which inhibit macrofouling attachment (e.g., using biocides such as cuprous oxide) or 2) biocide-free (e.g., biocide-free fouling release) coatings that typically reduce adhesion to wetted surfaces (Dafforn et al., 2011; Arndt et al., 2021).
The service life (i.e., interval the coating is intended to last before renewal at dry dock) of AFCs applied to ocean-going vessels is typically between 3 and 5 years, with some extending up to 10 years (Arndt et al., 2021). However, AFCs do not prevent biofouling accumulation under all conditions, and on all ship submerged surfaces (Davidson et al., 2016; Georgiades and Kluza, 2017). This is particularly the case where vessels experience extended stationary periods in challenging conditions (Baltic and International Maritime Council [BIMCO], 2013; Davidson et al., 2020; Ruiz et al., 2022).
3 In-water cleaning of vessel planar surfaces
The in-water cleaning (IWC) of biofouled vessels is recognized as a key component of comprehensive biofouling management (Department of Agriculture [DOA] et al., 2015; Scianni et al., 2017; Georgiades et al., 2018; IMO, 2023b). As a result, there is a growing literature regarding IWC system efficacy and safety (Lewis, 2013; Morrisey et al., 2013, 2015; Alliance for Coastal Technologies and the Maritime Environmental Resource Center [ACT/MERC], 2019; 2020; Growcott et al., 2019; Tamburri et al., 2020; Georgiades et al., 2021; Jones and McClary, 2021; Soon et al., 2021; 2023; 2024; Shin et al., 2023). IWC is typically divided into two categories: proactive IWC and reactive IWC (Scianni and Georgiades, 2019; Tamburri et al., 2021; Scianni et al., 2023). Proactive IWC involves the periodic removal or reduction of biofilms or microfouling (e.g., bacteria, microalgae, and invertebrate larvae) on ship surfaces to prevent the accumulation of macrofouling (e.g., barnacles, mussels, tubeworms, bryozoans, and macroalgae). By contrast, reactive IWC involves the direct physical removal of macrofouling. The collection and disposal of both biotic and abiotic debris is common for modern reactive IWC systems but can also be a part of the proactive IWC process (Tamburri et al., 2025).
Recently, IMO released their Guidance on In-Water Cleaning of Ships’ Biofouling (IMO, 2025), which provides suggestions for IWC performance standards, testing (e.g., the use of International Organization for Standardization [ISO] 20679, 2025), approvals, and operations. However, because the main market driver for IWC services is ship operational efficiency, the majority of current IWC technologies have been developed for hull areas, with complex niche area cleaning crudely performed by divers only when absolutely required (e.g., heavy hard macrofouling).
4 The Trojan seahorse – vessel niche areas
The concept of vessel niche areas is a relatively recent development, emerging from biofouling surveys that identified specific ship regions prone to substantial macrofouling accumulation (and heightened biosecurity risks), irrespective of their physical characteristics (e.g., James and Hayden, 2000; Coutts and Taylor, 2004; Davidson et al., 2009; Inglis et al., 2010). Thus, from a biosecurity perspective, niche areas often include both planar surfaces where AFCs are difficult to apply (e.g., dry-dock support strips) or prone to damage (e.g., bulbous bow, below the anchor chain, and near the water line where ships make contact with fenders, tugs, and barges), and complex surfaces that are difficult to coat or cannot be coated (e.g., anodes) or areas that experience distinct surface or hydrodynamic conditions that may lead to sub-optimal coating performance (e.g., sea chests, gratings, rudders, and projections) (Georgiades et al., 2018; IMO 2023b). These locations are often collectively known as ‘niche areas.’
The term ‘niche’ also typically implies surfaces with complex geometries, including curves, edges, protrusions, indentations, and gratings, which are often disproportionately fouled relative to planar surfaces (Coutts and Taylor, 2004; Inglis et al., 2010; Davidson et al., 2009; 2016). As some niche areas are sheltered from external currents (e.g., sea chests), they allow the potential growth of three-dimensional macrofouling structures with higher diversity, which can include mobile species (e.g., crabs, amphipods, gastropods, and seastars), than biofouling on planar surfaces (Coutts et al., 2003; Coutts and Dodgshun, 2007; Inglis et al., 2010; Frey et al., 2014; Lewis, 2016). The tendency for accumulation of biofouling in niche areas has been known for some time (Kan et al., 1958; Newman, 1963; Carlton, 1985), leading to their recognition as biofouling “hotspots” (e.g., Davidson et al., 2014; Moser et al., 2017).
Niche areas can be further separated into external niches (i.e., open to the marine environment, e.g., thrusters, rudders, sea chest gratings, bilge keel) and internal niches (i.e., vessel internal seawater systems, including all surfaces beyond the outer sea chest grating). Sea chests are recessed chambers, below the water line, which serve as the initial seawater access to internal seawater systems. These systems are integral to vessel functions, including power generation (electrical and main engine), ballast water systems for cargo operations, and service systems (e.g., firefighting, air-conditioning, freshwater making) (Gust et al., 2018a; Davidson et al., 2021) and thus critical for the safe operation of ships.
Although obvious examples are commonly cited for niche areas (e.g., stabilizers, rudders, bow thrusters), clear, objective, and quantifiable definitions for a ship’s “hull” and “niche” areas are lacking, including when a submerged surface transitions from one to the other (e.g., DAFF, 2023; MPI, 2023; IMO, 2023b). In fact, a common approach currently used to distinguish a ship’s hull from its niche areas comes from the operational perspective. That is, it is based on which submerged surfaces a particular IWC service provider can address with their main unit, versus surfaces they either:
cannot clean,
employ divers with handheld cleaning devices to remove biofouling, or
apply a biofouling prevention or treatment method.
Although there appears to be a common understanding of what ship niche areas are, the numerous variables, complexities, exceptions, and interpretive challenges involved have made developing a thorough, objective, and measurable definition elusive. This difficulty echoes the observation by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his 1964 opinion addressing a complex regulatory issue under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. He famously stated, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…” (Stewart, 1964).
Regardless of the specific definitions applied to niche areas, there is a broad consensus that these regions typically pose a greater biosecurity risk compared to vessel planar surfaces due to the ability of biologically mature and diverse biofouling assemblages to establish over time (Coutts and Taylor, 2004; Coutts and Dodgshun, 2007; Davidson et al., 2009; Frey et al., 2014). According to Godwin (2003), the translocation of adult marine NIS to new areas increases the likelihood of establishment of founder populations due to their reproductive maturity and the potential to release propagules into the surrounding environment. However, to ensure effective ship biofouling management and the successful implementation of related policies and regulations, subjective or inconsistent classifications of submerged ship surfaces must be avoided.
5 Economic and operational impacts of niche area biofouling
The impacts associated with biofouling of niche areas are distinct from those resulting from the biofouling of external planar hull surfaces. However, the majority of studies focus on the more visible effects of biofouling on planar hull surfaces, such as increased fuel consumption from increased hydrodynamic drag (e.g., Schultz et al., 2011). From an operational perspective, attention to niche area biofouling has traditionally focused on critical external surfaces such as propellers and thrusters due to similar efficiency losses (e.g., Owen et al., 2018; Zinati et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023). However, internal niche areas are operationally and economically distinct from both external planar hull surfaces and external niche areas. Biofouling impacts within internal niches are often latent and only detected after damage or operational disruption has occurred (i.e., they remain out of sight, out of mind; Davidson et al., 2021).
Although less studied, biofouling of internal niche areas can lead to substantial impacts on vessel operational efficiency and maintenance costs (Pamitran et al., 2016; Ceylan et al., 2022) through reductions of water flow and impacts to system integrity and function, including that of component equipment (Houghton and Gage, 1979; Jones and Little, 1990a; 1990b; Coutts and Dodgshun, 2007; Gust et al., 2018a). For example, biofouling may lead to pipework corrosion and thus to unscheduled maintenance (Jones and Little, 1990; Grandison et al., 2011; Piola and Grandison, 2013). Further, blockages can be caused by unattached biofouling debris (e.g., mussels, shell halves, shell fragments, hydroids, and serpulids; Jones and Little, 1990) resulting from species mortalities due to conditions within the internal seawater system or from reactive treatment (Grandison et al., 2011; Cahill et al., 2019a; Davidson et al., 2023).
Within the available literature, ship-scale biofouling impact assessments specific to internal seawater systems remain scarce (Davidson et al., 2021). In terms of modelled financial impacts, following implementation of their recommended cleaning schedule (i.e., every 600 h) of heat exchangers for naval applications, Ezgi et al. (2014) estimated savings of USD $16,500 per 2,500 h of usage. Further, Pamitran et al. (2016) calculated that USD $464,000 in excessive fuel use could be incurred from biofouling-related performance loss from a main-engine heat exchanger on an 8,000-brake horsepower vessel that consumes 530 L/h diesel.
By examining internal seawater system occlusion (i.e., blockage) scenarios simulated through the Kongsberg engine room simulator (K-Sim), Davidson et al. (2023) observed a characteristic “hockey-stick” relationship between the percentage of occlusion and impacts to vessel operations. For single nodes (i.e., a point of connection within the internal seawater system, such as sea chests, strainers, or heat exchangers), the simulated occlusion suggests that a high level of biofouling accumulation is required before substantial operational impacts are observed. For example, rapid performance decreases were observed at occlusion rates > 55% of a single node. Impacts at much lower rates were observed when simultaneous occlusion of multiple nodes was simulated. Analysis of economic consequences of the simulated occlusions showed that the required freight rate (i.e., the cost per ton of freight transported on a voyage to ensure profitability) increased 1–26% prior to occlusion-induced forced (automatic) vessel slowdown. In the cases where a slowdown was necessary, the required freight rate increased by up to 82%. While these economic effects can pale in comparison to those recorded for ships with heavily macrofouled planar surfaces, they do not account for impacts to the integrity of critical ship systems, which can be extremely costly to repair (Davidson et al., 2023). Examples of the condition of components exposed to challenging operational conditions for less than 24 months and some of the macrofouling recovered from an internal seawater system in the vicinity of the impeller are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
In addition to the settlement of sessile fouling organisms on vessel planar surfaces, organisms within internal seawater systems may also be involuntarily ‘vacuumed’ up when the vessel is in port (Coutts and Dodgshun, 2007). The degree of biofouling in internal niche areas is independent to that of the vessel planar surfaces thus, these internal areas need to be surveyed to accurately determine a vessel’s overall biosecurity risk (Georgiades and Kluza, 2020). There are many examples of vessel hull surfaces having almost exclusively microfouling (i.e., essentially free of macrofouling), while their niche areas contain substantial and extensive macrofouling growth (e.g., Coutts et al., 2003; Neil and Stafford, 2005; Inglis et al., 2010).
Blockage/damage to critical systems or failure to meet biosecurity requirements can result in unscheduled maintenance and resultant delays. For example, the seawater pump impeller from Figure 1 had to be replaced within 24 months, resulting in an early dry-docking of the ship. The internal seawater systems repair costs alone were in excess of USD $38,000. The total maintenance and dry-docking costs were substantially higher, even without adding the opportunity costs associated with at least 14 days off hire. The cost of the failed component(s) may be relatively trivial by comparison. In the above case, the cost of a replacement seawater pump impeller was estimated at approximately 2 - 3% of the cost of the internal seawater system repairs and the general dry-docking costs associated with the project, such as berth hire, mooring fees, etc.
Costs of appropriate (e.g., safe and effective) reactive in-water cleaning or treatment or emergency dry-docking are not just associated with the treatment/maintenance activities themselves, as providers for reactive in-water treatments or dry-docks are often not available in all parts of the world, nor can those available cater for all vessel sizes (e.g., Inglis et al., 2012). There are also costs associated with breaches of contract delivery, lead time for sourcing replacements for the failed components or systems, which in the case of the seawater pump impeller (Figure 1) was over two months, as well as loss of opportunity and reputation. Hence, there is a heavy emphasis on ongoing niche area management in biofouling regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, 2017; DAFF, 2023; MPI, 2023; Marinha do Brasil, 2025), technical documents (e.g., Jones and Little, 1990), and guidance materials (e.g., Georgiades et al., 2018; IMO, 2023b).
6 Management of niche area biofouling
Despite the above knowledge, the best practice management of biofouling of niche areas (e.g., Georgiades et al., 2018; IMO, 2023b), particularly internal seawater systems, remains problematic. Further, these areas often have a lower likelihood or frequency of AFC applications, inspections, and maintenance due to issues of accessibility or surface configurations and functioning (Growcott et al., 2017; Georgiades et al., 2018; Georgiades and Kluza, 2020).
6.1 Preventive management of niche area biofouling
Niche area biofouling prevention measures include the application of AFCs for some external niche areas (e.g., propeller and shaft, rudders, sea chest gratings) and internal niche areas (e.g., sea chests) and/or the installation of marine growth prevention systems for internal niches (MGPS; e.g., sodium hypochlorite injection, copper electrolysis; Lewis, 2016; Georgiades et al., 2018; IMO 2023b). However, for sea chests and sea chest gratings, even accounting for issues of access and coverage, the AFC may not be compatible with the range of hydrodynamic conditions experienced within these locations (Lewis, 2016).
MGPS are often installed within sea chests (beyond the grating) or sea strainers to prevent biofouling accumulation within these areas and on downstream pipework, respectively (Grandison et al., 2011; Lewis, 2016). However, the efficacy of these systems has come into question with few independently verified, published, and accessible data available (Lewis, 2016; Growcott et al., 2017). Recently, Lovett et al. (2025) demonstrated that short-term copper dosing would need to be two to three orders of magnitude higher than current MGPS manufacturer recommendations to effectively prevent or treat biofouling within internal niche areas.
Examples of demonstrated MGPS efficacy via independent testing or the standards to be achieved are scarce for both existing and emerging approaches (e.g., ultraviolet light and ultrasonic MGPS). Recently, a set of guidelines for the evaluation of the efficacy of MGPS was proposed (Global TestNet, 2024). According to the proposed guidelines, MGPS should be tested in a range of salinities and temperatures representative of the expected operational and environmental conditions. However, there are limitations to using experimental setups to evaluate equipment efficacy, such as whether the quantity and quality of test data obtained through experimental setups will be representative of real-life conditions. Gathering efficacy test data is certainly useful, provided robust reporting, well-designed experimental setups (e.g., representative structures), and a transparent, repeatable experimental approach. However, combining test data with in-service performance assessments has the potential to accelerate data collection efforts and the process of understanding the benefits and limitations of different systems.
To the authors’ knowledge, there are few studies investigating the feasibility and efficacy of proactive IWC of niche areas outside of the practice of removal of microfouling from dry dock support strips as part of the maintenance of planar hull surfaces. This is due in part to variable characterization of hull versus niche areas by IWC service providers.
6.2 Reactive management of niche area biofouling
The management of biofouling can include physical removal (i.e., IWC) systems for both external and internal niches (e.g., Jones and McClary, 2021) or treatment for internal niches (e.g., freshwater, chemical, heat; Growcott et al., 2017; Cahill and Floerl, 2019; Cahill et al., 2019a; 2019b). Given the difficulties of managing the biofouling of niche areas relative to hull surfaces and the general oversight of the importance of niche area biofouling for operational efficiency and biosecurity, there are few guidelines or standards available regarding efficacy testing of reactive IWC or treatment systems for external (e.g., Morrisey et al., 2015; ISO 20679, 2025) or internal (e.g., Growcott et al., 2019) niche areas. In 2021, BIMCO/ICS proposed an industry standard for IWC with capture that included niche areas, including propellers (BIMCO/ICS, 2021). However, the BIMCO/ICS standard had several shortcomings as discussed by Tamburri et al. (2021).
Specific to internal niches, questions remain regarding the ability of physical systems to remove all biofouling within these areas due to access (e.g., presence of baffles, corners, obstructions; Figure 2) and maintaining appropriate debris capture performance (e.g., Jones and McClary, 2021). There are many data gaps related to treatments for internal niche areas, including cost, treatment efficacy, operator safety, compatibility with internal seawater system components, feasibility at vessel-scale, and chemical disposal (Growcott et al., 2017; Gust et al., 2018b; Cahill and Floerl, 2019). Further, the blockage of internal niche areas due to detached or removed biofouling can be a costly, perverse outcome of reactive treatment (Grandison et al., 2011; Cahill et al., 2019a; Davidson et al., 2023).
Figure 2
7 Realization of regulatory benefit
Biofouling (IMO, 2023b) and IWC (DAFF, 2024; US EPA, 2024; IMO, 2025; NMA, 2025) guidelines and regulations are progressing globally. Indeed, the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) has approved an output to develop a legally binding framework to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species via biofouling and assigned it to the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR) for action within the next four sessions (from 2026 to 2028). However, before the benefits of these activities can be fully realized, there are several issues that need to be resolved with respect to IWC or treatment in general, and for niche areas in particular. These include the following considerations:
release of chemical and microplastic contamination (e.g., Scianni and Georgiades, 2019; Tamburri et al., 2022; Scianni et al., 2023; Soon et al., 2024),
spread of pathogens from macrofouling (Georgiades et al., 2021),
management of biofilms (Georgiades et al., 2023), and
determination of efficacy and performance (Tamburri et al., 2021, 2025).
Before the implementation of any legally binding framework, standardized, objective, and measurable distinctions between vessel planar hull surfaces and niche areas are needed. In addition, substantial research efforts must be undertaken to resolve the preventive and reactive management issues associated with vessel niche areas, particularly those that are difficult to access. Production of independent test data on the efficacy of current and modern technologies to minimize biofouling accumulation in and on niche areas can be supplemented with real-world data that are collected by agencies with existing biofouling regulations and by the global shipping industry. Understanding the economic benefits associated with niche area management may also incentivize end-user adoption of efficacious proactive measures. Once the above data gaps are resolved, there will still be a need for global capacity building regarding best practice IWC and in-water treatment to support mandatory regulation and marine environmental protection goals.
8 Conclusions
Due to their configurations and the limitations in biofouling prevention and/or reactive management, vessel niche areas are known to be disproportionally fouled relative to main hull areas, with differences in composition and degree of biofouling observed. Hence, vessel niche areas present a higher biosecurity risk relative to vessel planar surfaces. Although there is a basic collective understanding of the types of ship surfaces that are often designated as ‘niche areas’ (i.e., I know it when I see it), additional clarity is required if upcoming regulations introduce different limits, requirements, and/or management approaches for submerged areas based on their higher potential for biofouling or other functional characteristics.
Maintaining the status quo of focusing primarily on planar surfaces at the expense of niche areas undermines the aims of biosecurity-based regulations and can impact vessel operations. Relying on the false sense of security resultant from better-managed planar surfaces welcomes the Trojan horse into coastal marine environments, with the resulting significant and typically irreversible impacts. It is hoped that the content of this paper is heeded better than the advice of Cassandra.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
EG: Conceptualization, Visualization, Investigation, Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. CS: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. RM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. MT: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This effort was supported by the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation’s Port Administration, through the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
Acknowledgments
We thank an anonymous contributor for providing the photographs used in Figure 1 and the background to the case. Their generosity in sharing these materials has greatly enhanced this work. We appreciate the feedback provided by the reviewer, which usefully strengthened this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
RM is employed by Safinah.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Author disclaimer
The information contained within the manuscript reflects the views of the authors only.
References
1
AllenF. E. (1953). Distribution of marine invertebrates by ships. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res.1, 106–109.
2
Alliance for Coastal Technologies and the Maritime Environmental Resource Center [ACT/MERC] (2019). Evaluation of subsea global solutions in-water cleaning and capture technology for ships. Baltimore, MD: ACT/MERC, ACT/MERC IWCC evaluation report ER01-19. Available online at: https://www.maritime-enviro.org/Downloads/Reports/Other_Publications/ACT_MERC_SGS_IWCC_Evaluation_Report.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
3
Alliance for Coastal Technologies and the Maritime Environmental Resource Center [ACT/MERC] (2020). Test plan for the evaluations of the Jotun HullSkater: A proactive biofouling in-water cleaning solution. Available online at: https://www.maritime-enviro.org/Downloads/Other_Publications/ACT_MERC_Jotun_Proactive_IWC_Test_Plan_5Aug2020_signed.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
4
ArndtE.RobinsonA.HesterS. (2021). Factors that influence vessel biofouling and its prevention and management. Final report for CEBRA Project 190803.
5
Baltic and International Maritime Council/International Chamber of Shipping [BIMCO/ICS] (2021). Industry standard on in-water cleaning with capture. V1.01 (Accessed November 11, 2025).
6
Baltic and International Maritime Council [BIMCO] (2013). Hull fouling clause for time charter parties 2013. Available online at: https://www.bimco.org/contracts-and-clauses/bimco-clauses/earlier/hull_fouling_clause_for_time_charter_parties_2013 (Accessed November 11, 2025).
7
CahillP.FloerlO. (2019). “ Reactive treatment approaches for biofouling in internal seawater systems of large commercial vessels,” ( Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra), 71.
8
CahillP.HickeyC. W.LewisP.TaitL.FloerlO. (2019a). Treatment agents for biofouling in internal pipework of recreational vessels. Available online at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/33606-treatment-agents-forbiofouling-in-internal-pipework-of-recreational-vessels-a-review-ofpipework-configurations-biofouling-risk-and-operational-considerations (Accessed November 11, 2025).
9
CahillP.TaitL.FloerlO.BatesT.GrowcottA.GeorgiadesE. (2019b). A portable thermal system for reactive treatment of biofouled internal pipework on recreational vessels. Mar. Poll. Bull.139, 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.032. PMID:
10
California Code of Regulations (2017). Biofouling management to minimize the transfer of nonindigenous species from vessels arriving at California ports California Code of Regulations (California, CA: California Office of Administrative Law). Available online at: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I59E22B505A0A11EC8227000D3A7C4BC3&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 (Accessed December 25, 2025).
11
CallowM. E.CallowJ. A. (2002). Marine biofouling: a sticky problem. Biologist49, 1–5.
12
CarltonJ. T. (1985). Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms: the biology of ballast water. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev.23, 313–371.
13
CarltonJ. T.GellerJ. B. (1993). Ecological roulette: the global transport and invasion of non-indigenous marine organisms. Science261, 78–82. doi: 10.1126/science.261.5117.78. PMID:
14
CeylanB. O.KaratuğÇ.EjderE.UyanıkT.ArslanoğluY. (2022). Risk assessment of sea chest fouling on the ship machinery systems by using both FMEA method and ERS process. Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff.15 (4), 414–433. doi: 10.1080/18366503.2022.2104494. PMID:
15
ChiltonC. (1910). Dispersal of marine crustacea by means of ships. Trans. New Zeal. Inst.43, 131–133.
16
CouttsA. D. M.DodgshunT. J. (2007). The nature and extent of organisms in vessel sea-chests: A protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Mar. pollut. Bull.54, 875–886. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.03.011. PMID:
17
CouttsA. D. M.MooreK. M.HewittC. L. (2003). Ships’ sea-chests: An overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Mar. pollut. Bull.46, 1504–1515. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00292-3. PMID:
18
CouttsA. D.TaylorM. D. (2004). A preliminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on merchant vessels in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res.38, 215–229. doi: 10.1080/00288330.2004.9517232. PMID:
19
DaffornK. A.LewisJ. A.JohnstonE. L. (2011). Antifouling strategies: history and regulation, ecological impacts and mitigation. Mar. pollut. Bull.62, 453–465. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.01.012. PMID:
20
DarwinC. (1854). A monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia: with figures of all the species (Vol. 2) (London: Ray Society). doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.2104
21
DavidsonI. C.BrownC. W.SytsmaM. D.RuizG. M. (2009). The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling25, 645–655. doi: 10.1080/08927010903046268. PMID:
22
DavidsonI.CahillP.HinzA.KluzaD.ScianniC.GeorgiadesE. (2021). A review of biofouling of ships’ internal seawater systems. Front. Mar. Sci.8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.761531. PMID:
23
DavidsonI.CahillP.HinzA.MajorR.KluzaD.ScianniC.et al. (2023). Biofouling occlusion of ships’ internal seawater systems: Operational, economic, and biosecurity consequences. Biofouling39, 410–426. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2023.2225411. PMID:
24
DavidsonI. C.ScianniC.CeballosL.ZabinC.AshtonG.RuizG. (2014). Evaluating ship biofouling and emerging management tools for reducing biofouling-mediated species incursions. (Accessed December 25, 2025).
25
DavidsonI.ScianniC.HewittC.EverettR.HolmE.TamburriM.et al. (2016). Mini-review: assessing the drivers of ship biofouling management–aligning industry and biosecurity goals. Biofouling32, 411–428. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2016.1149572. PMID:
26
DavidsonI. C.SmithG.AshtonG. V.RuizG. M.ScianniC. (2020). An experimental test of stationary lay-up periods and simulated transit on biofouling accumulation and transfer on ships. Biofouling36, 455–466. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2020.1769612. PMID:
27
Department of Agriculture [DOA]Department of the Environment [DOE]New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries [MPI] (2015). “ Antifouling and in-water cleaning guidelines,” ( Department of Agriculture, Canberra, ACT).
28
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [DAFF] (2023). “ Australian biofouling management requirements version 2,” ( Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT). Available online at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Australian-biofouling-management-requirements.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
29
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [DAFF] (2024). “ Australian anti-fouling and in-water cleaning guidelines: Exposure draft,” ( Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT). Available online at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/exposure-draft-Australian-anti-fouling-and-iwc-guidelines.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
30
EzgiC.OzbaltaN.GirginI. (2014). Thermohydraulic and thermoeconomic performance of a marine heat exchanger on a naval surface ship. Appl. Therm. Eng.64, 413–421. doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.12.061. PMID:
31
FarkasA.DegiuliN.MartićI. (2018). Towards the prediction of the effect of biofilm on the ship resistance using CFD. Ocean Eng.167, 169–186. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.08.055. PMID:
32
FarkasA.DegiuliN.MartićI. (2020). Impact of biofilm on the resistance characteristics and nominal wake. P. I. Mech. Eng. M-J. Eng.234, 59–75. doi: 10.1177/1475090219862897. PMID:
33
FreyM. A.SimardN.RobichaudD. D.MartinJ. L.TherriaultT. W. (2014). Fouling around: vessel sea-chests as a vector for the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Manage. Biol. Invasion.5, 21–30. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2014.5.1.02
34
GeorgiadesE.GrowcottA.KluzaD. (2018). “ Technical guidance on biofouling management for vessels arriving to New Zealand. MPI Technical Paper No: 2018/07,” ( Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington).
35
GeorgiadesE.KluzaD. (2017). Evidence-based decision making to underpin the thresholds in New Zealand’s CRMS: biofouling on vessels arriving to New Zealand. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.51, 76–88. doi: 10.4031/mtsj.51.2.5
36
GeorgiadesE.KluzaD. (2020). “ Conduct of in-water biofouling surveys for domestic vessels,” in Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2020/04. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. Available online at: Conduct of in-water biofouling surveys for domestic vessels (Accessed November 11, 2025).
37
GeorgiadesE.KluzaD.BatesT.LubarskyK.BruntonJ.GrowcottA.et al. (2020). Regulating vessel biofouling to support New Zealand’s marine biosecurity system - A blue print for evidence-based decision making. Front. Mar. Sci.7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00390. PMID:
38
GeorgiadesE.ScianniC.DavidsonI.TamburriM. N.FirstM. R.RuizG.et al. (2021). The role of vessel biofouling in the translocation of marine pathogens: management considerations and challenges. Front. Mar. Sci.8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.660125. PMID:
39
GeorgiadesE.ScianniC.TamburriM. N. (2023). Biofilms associated with ship submerged surfaces: Implications for ship biofouling management and the environment. Front. Mar. Sci.10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1197366. PMID:
40
Global TestNet (2024). “ Proposed guidelines for the evaluation of efficacy of marine growth prevention systems (MGPS),” ( International Maritime Organization, London). Available online at: Proposed guidelines for the evaluation of efficacy of marine growth prevention systems (MGPS).
41
GodwinS. (2003). Hull fouling of maritime vessels as a pathway for marine species invasions to the Hawaiian Islands. Biofouling19, 123–131. doi: 10.1080/0892701031000061750. PMID:
42
GrandisonC.PiolaR.FletcherL. (2011). “ A review of marine growth protection system (MGPS) options for the Royal Australian Navy. Defense Science and Technology Organization (Australia), Maritime Platforms Division, DSTO-TR-2631,” ( Defense Science and Technology Organization, Canberra), 38.
43
GrowcottA.KluzaD.GeorgiadesE. (2017). Review: in-water systems to reactively manage biofouling in sea chests and internal pipework. Mar. Technol. Soc J.51, 89–104. doi: 10.4031/mtsj.51.2.3
44
GrowcottA.KluzaD.GeorgiadesE. (2019). “ Technical advice: Evaluation of in-water systems to reactively treat or remove biofouling within vessel internal niche areas,” ( Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington). Available online at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/33594-technical-advice-evaluation-of-in-water-systems-to-reactively-treat-or-remove-biofouling-within-vessel-internal-niche-areas (Accessed November 11, 2025).
45
GustN.CouttsA.ReinfrankR.LewisP. (2018a). “ Engineering and material considerations for potential treatment of internal seawater systems on large vessels,” in Report for the Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, Australia ( Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra), 78.
46
GustN.CouttsA.ReinfrankR.LewisP. (2018b). “ Biofouling characteristics of ISS on large vessels. Report for the Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources,” ( Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra), 65.
47
HewittC. L.CampbellM. L.ThresherR. E.MartinR. B.BoydS.CohenB. F.et al. (2004). Introduced and cryptogenic species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Mar. Biol.144, 183–202. doi: 10.1007/s00227-003-1173-x. PMID:
48
HoughtonD. R.GageS. A. (1979). Biology in ships. Trans. Inst. Mar. Eng.91, 189–198.
49
InglisG. J.FloerlO.AhyongS.CoxS.UnwinM.Ponder-SuttonA.et al. (2010). “ The biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on international vessels arriving in New Zealand: Summary of the patterns and predictors of fouling. A report prepared for Ministry of Agriculture Biosecurity New Zealand Biosecurity New Zealand,” ( Ministry of Agriculture Biosecurity New Zealand, Wellington), 182.
50
InglisG. J.FloerlO.WoodsC. (2012). “ Scenarios of vessel biofouling risk and their management: An evaluation of options,” in Technical Paper No. 2012/07 ( Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington), 122.
51
International Maritime Organization [IMO] (2023a). Strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships (London: International Maritime Organization). Available online at: https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pages/2023-imo-strategy-on-reduction-of-ghg-emissions-from-ships.aspx (Accessed November 11, 2025).
52
International Maritime Organization [IMO] (2023b). Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (London: International Maritime Organization). Available online at: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.378%2880%29.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
53
International Maritime Organization [IMO] (2025). Guidance on In-Water Cleaning of Ships’ Biofouling (London: International Maritime Organization). Available online at: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Biofouling%20pages/MEPC.1-Circ.918%20-%20Guidance%20On%20In-Water%20Cleaning%20Of%20Ships%27%20Biofouling%20(Secretariat).pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
54
International Organization for Standards [ISO] (2025). Testing of ship biofouling in-water cleaning systems (ISO Standard No. 20679:2025). Available online at: https://www.iso.org/standard/86393.html (Accessed November 11, 2025).
55
JamesP.HaydenB. (2000). The potential for the introduction of exotic species by vessel hull fouling: a preliminary study (Wellington: NIWA). NIWA client report WLG00/51 No. 16.
56
JonesJ. M.LittleB. (1990a). USS Princeton (CG 59): Impact of marine macrofouling (mussels and hydroids) ON failure/corrosion problems in seawater piping systems (Washington, DC: Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric Research Laboratory), 19.
57
JonesJ. M.LittleB. (1990b). USS Princeton (CG 59): Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) and macrofouling status of seawater piping systems (Dahlgren, VA: Naval Surface Warfare Center), 60. doi: 10.21236/ADA476675
58
JonesE.McClaryD. (2021). Summary – testing of reactive in-water cleaning systems for removal of vessel biofouling (Wellington: Biosecurity New Zealand). Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2021/11. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
59
KanS.ShibaH.TsuchidaK.YokooK. (1958). Effect of fouling of a ship’s hull and propeller upon propulsive performance. Int. Shipbuild. Prog.5, 15–34. doi: 10.3233/isp-1958-54102. PMID:
60
LewisJ. A. (2004). Hull fouling as a vector for the translocation of marine organisms: Report 1: Hull fouling research (Canberra: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). Ballast Water Research Series Report No. 14.
61
LewisJ. A. (2013). In-water hull cleaning and filtration system: In-water cleaning trials – 26–28 November 2012. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
62
LewisJ. (2016). Assessment of preventative biofouling management measures (Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries). New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries Technical Paper No. 2016/69. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
63
LovettB.CahillP.AtalahJ.VignierJ.FletcherL.ButlerJ.et al. (2025). Are recommended dosages of copper-based Marine Growth Prevention Systems (MGPS) effective for vessel biosecurity? Mar. Poll. Bull.214, 117771. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.117771. PMID:
64
Marinha do Brasil (2025). Folha de rosto normas da autoridide marítima para a prevenão da poluiҫão ambiental causada por embarcaҫões e plataformas. Marinha do Brasil, Directoria de Portos e Costas. Finalidade: Normativa (1a Revisão). (Accessed November 11, 2025).
65
Ministry for Primary Industries [MPI] (2023). Craft Risk Management Standard (CRMS) for Vessels. CRMS-BIOFOUL (Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries). Available online at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/19757-Vessels-Craft-Risk-Management-Standard. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
66
MorriseyD.GaddJ.PageM.LewisJ.BellA.GeorgiadesE. (2013). In-water cleaning of vessels: Biosecurity and chemical contamination risks (Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries). Available online at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4092-in-water-cleaning-of-vessels-biosecurity-and-chemical-contamination-risks. New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries Technical Paper No. 2013/11. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
67
MorriseyD.InglisG.TaitL.WoodsC.LewisJ.GeorgiadesE. (2015). Procedures for evaluating in-water systems to remove or treat vessel biofouling (Wellington: Ministry for Primary Industries). New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries Technical Paper No. 2015/39. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
68
MoserC. S.WierT. P.FirstM. R.GrantJ. F.RileyS. C.Robbins-WamsleyS. H.et al. (2017). Quantifying the extent of niche areas in the global fleet of commercial ships: the potential for “super-hot spots” of biofouling. Biol. Invasions19, 1745–1759. doi: 10.1007/s10530-017-1386-4. PMID:
69
NeilK. M.StaffordH. (2005). Efficacy of treatments against internal biofouling in small vessels. 30, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and CRC Reef, report to the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
70
NewmanW. A. (1963). On the introduction of an edible oriental shrimp (Caridea, Palaemonidae) to San Francisco Bay. Crustaceana5, 199–132. doi: 10.1163/156854063X00390. PMID:
71
Norwegian Maritime Authority [NMA] (2025). Proposed regulations on the management of hull biofouling. Available online at: https://www.sdir.no/contentassets/9acc75d5a477489785df7de2afdd850a/proposed-regulations-of-on-the-management-of-hull-biofouling-.pdf. (Accessed November 11, 2025).
72
OwenD.DemirelY. K.OguzE.TezdoganT.IncecikA. (2018). Investigating the effect of biofouling on propeller characteristics using CFD. Ocean Eng.159, 505–516. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.087. PMID:
73
PamitranA. S.AdamS. A.AlhamidM. I. (2016). Cost estimation study for the effect of biofouling on engine cooling system performance with an 8000 BHP vessel. Int. J. Appl. Mech.819, 427–431. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.819.427
74
PiolaR.GrandisonC. (2013). In-water treatment of biofouling in internal systems: field validation of quarternary ammonium compound (QAC) chemical treatment protocols. 39, DSTO-TR-2774. Defense Science and Technology Organization, Australia. Canberra: Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
75
RuizG. M.FofonoffP. W.CarltonJ. T.WonhamM. J.HinesA. H. (2000). Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.31, 481–531. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.481. PMID:
76
RuizG. M.GalilB. S.DavidsonI. C.DonelanS. A.MillerA. W.MintonM. S.et al. (2022). Global marine biosecurity and ship lay-ups: Intensifying effects of trade disruptions. Biol. Invasions24, 3441–3446. doi: 10.1007/s10530-022-02870-y. PMID:
77
Santos-SimónM.de la YedraA. F. G.Ortiz-ZarragoitiaM.et al. (2025). Past, present and (possible) future of biofouling regulatory instruments within the international marine environmental protection framework. Environ. Sci. Eur.37, 127. doi: 10.1186/s12302-025-01178-7. PMID:
78
SchultzM. P. (2007). Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling23, 331–341. doi: 10.1080/08927010701461974. PMID:
79
SchultzM. P.BendickJ. A.HolmE. R.HertelW. M. (2011). Economic impact of biofouling on a naval surface ship. Biofouling27, 87–98. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2010.542809. PMID:
80
ScianniC.FalknerM.DeBruyckereL. (2017). Biofouling in the U.S. Pacific States and British Columbia. Coastal Commission of the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. Available online at: http://westernregionalpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Final-CC-Biofouling-White-Paper-11Apr17.pdf (Accessed November 11, 2025).
81
ScianniC.GeorgiadesE. (2019). Vessel in-water cleaning or treatment: Identification of environmental risks and science needs for evidence-based decision making. Front. Mar. Sci.6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00467. PMID:
82
ScianniC.GeorgiadesE.MihaylovaR.TamburriM. N. (2023). Balancing the consequences of in-water cleaning of biofouling to improve ship efficiency and reduce biosecurity risk. Front. Mar. Sci.10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1239723. PMID:
83
ScianniC.LubarskyK.Ceballos-OsunaL.BatesT. (2021). Yes, we CANZ: initial compliance and lessons learned from regulating vessel biofouling management in California and New Zealand. Manage. Biol. Invasions12, 727–746. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2021.12.3.14
84
ShikumaN. J.HadfieldM. G. (2010). Marine biofilms on submerged surfaces are a reservoir for Escherichia coli and Vibrio cholerae. Biofouling26, 39–46. doi: 10.1080/08927010903282814. PMID:
85
ShinD.ChoiY.SoonZ. Y.KimM.JangM. C.SeoJ. Y.et al. (2023). Chemical hazard of robotic hull in-water cleaning discharge on coastal embryonic fish. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.253, 114653. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114653. PMID:
86
SkermanT. M. (1960). Ship fouling in New Zealand waters: a survey of marine fouling organisms from vessels of the coastal and overseas trade. New Zeal. J. Sci.3, 620–648.
87
SoonZ. Y.JungJ. H.LohA.YoonC.ShinD.KimM. (2021). Seawater contamination associated with in-water cleaning of ship hulls and the potential risk to the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.171, 112694. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112694. PMID:
88
SoonZ. Y.KimT.JungJ. H.KimM. (2023). Metals and suspended solids in the effluents from in-water hull cleaning by remotely operated vehicle (ROV): Concentrations and release rates into the marine environment. J. Hazard. Mater.460, 132456. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132456. PMID:
89
SoonZ. Y.TamburriM. N.KimT.KimM. (2024). Estimating total microplastic loads to the marine environment as a result of ship biofouling in-water cleaning. Front. Mar. Sci.11. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2024.1502000. PMID:
90
StewartP. (1964). Jacobellis v. Ohio, US Supreme Court378, 197.
91
TamburriM. N.DavidsonI. C.FirstM. R.ScianniC.NewcomerK.InglisG. J.et al. (2020). In-water cleaning and capture to remove ship biofouling: an initial evaluation of efficacy and environmental safety. Front. Mar. Sci.7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00437. PMID:
92
TamburriM. N.GeorgiadesE. T.ScianniC.FirstM. R.RuizG. M.JunemannC. E. (2021). Technical considerations for development of policy and approvals for in-water cleaning of ship biofouling. Front. Mar. Sci.8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.804766. PMID:
93
TamburriM. N.ScianniC.GeorgiadesE. T. (2025). Debris capture during in-water cleaning of ship biofouling. Front. Mar. Sci.12. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1702855. PMID:
94
TamburriM. N.SoonZ. Y.ScianniC.ØpstadC. L.OxtobyN. S.DoranS.et al. (2022). Understanding the potential release of microplastics from coatings used on commercial ships. Front. Mar. Sci.9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1074654. PMID:
95
US EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2024). Vessel incidental discharge national standards of performance. Available online at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/09/2024-22013/vessel-incidental-discharge-national-standards-of-performance (Accessed November 11, 2025).
96
ZhangJ.QinW.ChenW.FengZ.WuD.LiuL.et al. (2023). Integration of antifouling and anti-cavitation coatings on propellers: a review. Coatings13, 1619. doi: 10.3390/coatings13091619. PMID:
97
ZinatiA.KetabdariM. J.ZeraatgarH. (2023). Effects of propeller fouling on the hydrodynamic performance of a marine propeller. Pol. Mar. Res.4, 61–73. doi: 10.2478/pomr-2023-0059. PMID:
Summary
Keywords
in-water cleaning, niche areas, planar surfaces, ship biofouling, vessel hulls
Citation
Georgiades ET, Scianni C, Mihaylova R and Tamburri MN (2026) The Trojan seahorse: neglecting biofouling management of vessel niche areas. Front. Mar. Sci. 13:1800424. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2026.1800424
Received
30 January 2026
Revised
03 March 2026
Accepted
09 March 2026
Published
06 April 2026
Volume
13 - 2026
Edited by
Clara Belen Giachetti, CONICET Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos (IBIOMAR), Argentina
Reviewed by
Keun-Hyung Choi, Chungnam National University, Republic of Korea
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Georgiades, Scianni, Mihaylova and Tamburri.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Eugene T. Georgiades, Eugene.Georgiades@epa.govt.nz
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.