Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30978995›Full record

ArticlePolymers2019

Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance.

Bradley Donnelly, Ian Bedwell, Jim Dimas, Andrew Scardino, Youhong Tang, Karl Sammut

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bradley DonnellyCentre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, Australia. bradley.donnelly@flinders.edu.au.
Ian BedwellDefence Mission Systems, Thales Australia, New South Wales 2116, Australia. Ian.Bedwell@thalesgroup.com.au.
Jim DimasMaritime Division, Defence Science & Technology, Victoria 3207, Australia. Jim.Dimas@dst.defence.gov.au.
Andrew ScardinoMaritime Division, Defence Science & Technology, Victoria 3207, Australia. Andrew.Scardino@dst.defence.gov.au.
Youhong TangCentre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, Australia. youhong.tang@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2718-544X
Karl SammutCentre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, Australia. karl.sammut@flinders.edu.au.
Defence Science and Technology Group · AUFlinders University · AUThales (Australia) · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council Research Training Centre for Naval Design and Manufacturing (IC140100003)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a rising imperative to increase the operational availability of maritime vessels by extending the time between full docking cycles. To achieve operational efficacy, maritime vessels must remain clear of biological growth. Such growth can cause significant increases in frictional drag, thereby reducing speed, range and fuel efficiency and decreasing the sensitivity of acoustic sensors. The impact that various stages of fouling have on acoustic equipment is unclear. It is also unclear to what extent antifouling techniques interfere with the transmission of acoustic signals. In this study, to examine this effect, neoprene samples were coated with three antifouling coatings, namely, Intersmooth 7460HS, HempaGuard X7 and Hempasil X3. Other neoprene samples were left uncoated but were imbedded with the biocide, 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) during the mixing and curing process. Uncoated nitrile samples that had varying levels of fouling from immersion in Port Phillip Bay, Australia, for 92, 156 and 239 days were also extracted. The acoustic properties of these samples were measured using an acoustic insertion loss test and compared to uncoated neoprene or nitrile to ascertain the acoustic effects of the applications of antifouling coatings as well as the fouling growth itself. A T-peel test was performed on all coated samples in an attempt to understand the adhesive properties of the coatings when applied to neoprene. It was found that the application of antifouling coatings had little effect on the transmission characteristics of the neoprene with approximately 1 dB loss. The embedment of DCOIT, however, has a chance of causing aeration in the neoprene, which can heavily hamper transmission. An assessment of the effect of the fouling growth found that light and medium fouling levels produced little transmission loss, whereas more extreme fouling lead to a 9 dB transmission loss. The adhesion properties of the coatings were investigated but not fully ascertained as tensile yielding occurred before peeling. However, various failure modes are presented and discussed in this study.

Indexed as

acoustic sensorsantifouling coatingsfoulingtransmission loss

Identifiers

PMID30978995
PMCPMC6523467
OpenAlexW2936264695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.