Bottom Paint For Caribbean

[Exile]

Maybe fstbttms or someone else can confirm or dispel a rumor I just heard that the US EPA has recently banned one of the most commonly used biocides used in cuprous oxide bottom paints. The conversation came up in comparing the effectiveness of Pettit Trinidad SR. Not really up on this stuff, so maybe someone who is can respond. (Nothing to do with the ban on Sea Hawk tinned paints, afaik).

[colemj]

I don't know if the EPA has recently banned a biocide, but I do know that the manufacturer of one of the commonly used biocides recently quit production of it. I don't remember which specific biocide it was (Irgarol?).

Mark

[fstbttms]

The rights to manufacture the anti slime additive, Irgarol, were bought by BASF, who have not re-registered the product for use in anti-fouling paints in this country. It is unknown if they ever will. It was not banned by the EPA.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The rights to manufacture the anti slime additive, Irgarol, were bought by BASF

Just to clarify. BASF bought Ciba´s chemical business for more than 3 billion million euro; Irgarol 1051 was only one of thousands of products included in that acquisition.

Originally Posted by fstbttms

.. who have not re-registered the product for use in anti-fouling paints in this country. It is unknown if they ever will. It was not banned by the EPA.

It is my understanding that BASF could not re-register Irgarol (CAS 28159-98-0) because the EPA did not make a Registration Eligibility, which in turn was not made because the EPA wanted more data for risk assessment that no one submitted. I believe that as a result of EPA decisions there were time-limited and conditional registrations that expired in 2014.

I would not blame BASF for pulling the plug on funding research for Irgarol if they saw that a significant chunk of Irgarol 2051 sales were lost to a competitive "NCN" generic product (same chemistry as in CAS 28159-98-0) without any benefit to the guys who invented the thing and paid for all the tests to get the pesticide registration. I have no proof that loss of sales to generic producers of the same molecule made BASF pull the plug, but I have seen labels of many antifouling paints that used to say "Irgarol" and later said "NCN".

I confess that these days I do not have free access to pesticide registration gurus at work, hence I might have missed something. I will appreciate corrections/additions to the facts stated above.

All this is in addition to the concerns raised in UK and other places, which may have been enough of a reason to let the product die.

I have seen too many situations in which the leading producer of an old chemical pulls the plug on registration just to stop copycats from free-riding on their work once the effect of patent protection and trade secrets goes away. Then they move to a new thing, that may or may not be more effective or safe than the old stuff, but it has patent or trade secret protection.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

It is my understanding that BASF could not re-register Irgarol (CAS 28159-98-0) because the EPA did not make a Registration Eligibility, which in turn was not made because the EPA wanted more data for risk assessment that no one submitted. I believe that as a result of EPA decisions there were time-limited and conditional registrations that expired in 2014.

That all may very well be true. I simply repeated what I learned from my sources, which were the wholesale manager at a large chandlery and a boatyard owner, both of whom had taken meetings with the Petit sales rep about the issue.

[Exile]

OK, so what's the bottom line, if anyone knows, as far as the expectations of the end user go? Is the generic equivalent of Irgarol now being used as a substitute and, if so, is it equally effective? Or is there some other alternative now in use when a boatowner decides to pay extra money, for example, to buy Pettit Trinidad "SR" with the added biocide vs. regular Trinidad? This came to my attention after another boatowner using the same "SR" six months ago claimed poor performance compared to the same SR I applied to my boat two years ago. Anecdotal, to be sure, but there's also an experienced Carib charter cap over on SN with serious complaints about the poor performance of recently done bottom paint jobs on his and other boats in his area. Just wondering if we can all expect lower performance when we purchase bottom paint of any brand in the future.

[fstbttms]

I personally have never noticed any difference in performance between Trinidad SR and non-SR Trinidad, old or new version.

[colemj]

My bet is that any slime release pesticide added to a paint loses all effectiveness after a couple of months due to water solubility or chemical degradation. So a SR paint would be useful to a seasonal sailor who hauls every year and slaps on another coat, but of no advantage for a cruiser or warm water sailor who only hauls and paints every 2-3 years.

Mark

[Exile]

Thanks for the comments. Useful to know the added biocide may not be worth the extra money, and that the post-Ignarol mfg. paints don't appear to be inferior. Back to the thread topic, there also seems to be a consensus that Trinidad isn't recommended for the Carib in any event. Fwiw, Trinidad is marketed as a hard epoxy with ablative characteristics. Whatever that means in practice!

[colemj]

Fstbttms would probably disagree from California, but we have not met anyone with good experiences with Trinidad in the Caribe in the past 6 years. It is particularly bad in the Western Caribe. It has the good reputation that never seems to die, though. Maybe it's the paint that bottom cleaners like the most?

I think there are both hard and semi-ablative versions of Trinidad, but I'm too lazy to google it.

Mark

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is the generic equivalent of Irgarol now being used as a substitute and, if so, is it equally effective?

There is no difference in the effect of generic "NCN" and Irgarol, other than adding a brand name to a generic chemical. Now the registration (same for both) for both is gone because EPA opened a review and asked for tests on certain tings and I understand that BASF did not do them. As far as I know Petit´s "SR" suffix is gone too now that they cannot use the "slime resistance" biocide called NCN (generic) or Irgarol (brand name).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

There is no difference in the effect of generic "NCN" and Irgarol, other than adding a brand name to a generic chemical. Now the registration (same for both) for both is gone because EPA opened a review and asked for tests on certain tings and I understand that BASF did not do them. As far as I know Petit´s "SR" suffix is gone too now that they cannot use the "slime resistance" biocide called NCN (generic) or Irgarol (brand name).

So if I understand you correctly, none of the paint cos. will be able to offer the add'l biocide since there is only one mfg., and that co. has been unwilling or unable to comply with new requirements imposed by the EPA. But if I understand fstbttms & colemj correctly, it doesn't much matter anyway since this biocide has ltd. impact on performance. It is thus the copper/cuprous oxide formulation in each brand of paint that has the primary & definitely the more lasting effect.

Fair enough?

[Celestialsailor]

Slightly off topic...Does anyone know the effect of storing a boat on the hard for a year or so and what that does to bottom paint?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Slightly off topic...Does anyone know the effect of storing a boat on the hard for a year or so and what that does to bottom paint?

Ablative- OK. Hard paint- not so much.

[Celestialsailor]

Thanx for the reply...I will be doing only a 1/2 season in Mx. Meaning only 4 months in the water. Maybe I'll heavily thin a gallon and store again. Light sand the following year and 10% thinned and 2 coats. No sense building up a heavy coat for 4 months let alone the price of Pettit.