2I

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021

Survey on Biofouling Practices                  
V1 Oct 2021
Introduction
There is a growing importance attached to the selection and application of appropriate antifouling coatings
as well as an increasing need to introduce effective, vessel-specific hull management procedures across a
company’s fleet.

AFS Convention and the coatings market

Prior to the entry into force in 2008 of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling
Systems on Ships 2001 (AFS Convention) and the subsequent banning of organotin-based antifouling systems,
the antifouling coatings market was very much limited to products containing tributyl-tin (TBT). Removing TBT
as a biocide, the AFS Convention changed the antifouling coatings market, opening it up to a wider range
of products with a variety of fouling release technology and biocide options. This change in the coatings
market is widely believed to have led to an initial reduction in the performance of antifouling coatings and
with this, a heightened awareness of the need to more carefully consider the appropriate coating systems and
maintenance regime for a particular vessel.

Air emissions and fuel consumption reduction

Following the adoption of MARPOL Annex VI on air pollution in 2005 and consequential amendments in
2008 and 2010, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) turned its focus to greenhouse gas emissions
and in 2011 adopted mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures with the objective of
reducing the amount of CO2 emissions from international shipping. These mandatory measures (EEDI/SEEMP)
entered into force in 2013 and saw the shipping industry’s attention turn to the detailed assessment of a
vessel’s performance with a view to enhancing its energy efficiency and reducing air emissions. Key to this
assessment was to develop a better understanding of the performance of the antifouling coating to allow
for improvements in the vessel’s operating performance and an overall reduction in fuel consumption, and
consequentially, air emissions.

Related to the reduction in fuel consumption, high bunker costs during this period also meant that there was,
and remains, an added incentive to analyse a vessel’s performance to ensure that it remains efficient in terms
of fuel consumption.

Biofouling and aquatic invasive species

In parallel to the regulatory, financial and commercial factors covered above, a secondary environmental issue
has been growing in significance. 2011 saw the release of the Guidelines for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species 2011 (MEPC.207 (62)) (2011 Biofouling
Guidelines), firmly placing the issue of transferring invasive species on ships’ hulls on the global regulatory
agenda. Biofouling as an issue had already been on the IMO’s agenda for several years, but it was the
introduction of the 2011 Biofouling Guidelines coupled with mandatory regulations introduced by California
and New Zealand that has seen the issue move up the industry’s environmental agenda.

Hull management best practice, including the use of standardised Biofouling Management Plans (BMPs) and
Biofouling Record Books (BRBs) has become more common, but for now the mandatory requirements for
such documentation are limited to national and regional regulations. An IMO review of the 2011 Biofouling
Guidelines is underway and will likely fuel the drive by some countries to implement a globally binding regime
for ships’ biofouling.

In-water cleaning
Concurrently managing the developing challenges relating to the management of the hull coating and
biofouling growth has seen an increase in the use of in-water cleaning (IWC) as an operational solution and
management option, with the consequential growth in the number of IWC service providers and contractors.

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 1

Compounding challenges have emerged with different cleaning techniques being used with varying results
depending on the coating type, cleaning technology used and methodology applied. Lessons were often learnt
the hard way in terms of matching the appropriate cleaning technology and type with the optimum cleaning
frequency, together with the antifouling coating on the vessel.

IWC techniques have advanced considerably to meet the demand of the industry for performance purposes,
with the focus on niche areas for compliance targets also being carefully considered alongside the more
established hull cleaning operations for vessel performance purposes. With this, attention has also turned to
the establishment of global standards for IWC which should provide an increased confidence that hull cleaning
operations will meet both the vessel performance as well as biofouling compliance requirements of the ship.

INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

INTERTANKO is an active participant in the IMO’s Correspondence Group (CG) on Review of the Biofouling
Guidelines that reports to the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR). The CG has been
tasked to revise the 2011 Biofouling Guidelines and submit a report to the PPR.

In discussions within the INTERTANKO Environmental Committee, it was agreed that there is a need for the
revised guidelines to remain practical and founded on industry best practice.

To assist the Committee in establishing INTERTANKO’s strategy and provide input into the CG’s discussion,
INTERTANKO conducted a survey to understand biofouling management practices among INTERTANKO
Members between August and September 2021.

Detailed guidance on biofouling and antifouling selection can be found in INTERTANKO’s Guide to Modern
Antifouling Systems and Biofouling Management (2nd Edition) 2020:
https://INTERTANKO.com/info-centre/INTERTANKO-guidance/guidancenotearticle/guide-to-
modern-antifouling-systems-and-biofouling-management-2nd-edition

2 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

2021 Biofouling Practices Survey – the responses
An analysis follows on the responses to the INTERTANKO survey on biofouling practices between August and
September 2021, with 24 Members responding, representing 1,664 tankers.

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 3

1. Biofouling Management Plan (BFMP)
22 respondents (92%) reported having BFMPs for their ships as part of the ships’ Safety Management System
(SMS) under the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, or the ships’ Planned Maintenance System.
Four respondents indicated that the BFMP forms part of the ships’ operational procedure or ship-specific
standalone biofouling and sedimentation management plan and record book.

Having a BFMP onboard is a recommendation being considered within the International Maritime
Organization’s (IMO’s) Correspondence Group that is reviewing the IMO’s Biofouling Guidelines.

2. Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS)

4 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 5
 Hard Coating Manufacturer's claim Planned service life
1 year 1 0
5 years 0 1

Others Manufacturer's claim Planned service life

5 years 1 1

Biocidal coatings reported by 23 respondents:

• Responses indicated the average AFS lifetime was between 3-5 years (as per manufacturer and planned
service life).

• Hull cleaning needed to be done within three years after the application of AFS coating as reported by
10 respondents with a further six respondents reporting hull cleaning needed to be done within two
years.

• The responses indicated that hull cleaning had to be conducted between 2-4 times within the five-year
dry-docking period. Considered factors included vessels’ age, vessel’s trading pattern, hull conditions
and engine performance.

Foul release coatings reported by eight respondents:

• Foul release coatings average lifetime reported at five years.

• Most responses indicated the need for hull cleaning within four years of application of the AFS. Other
responses indicated the AFS lasted the full five years. One respondent indicated that cleaning was
not performed due to fear of damaging the silicone coating. Factors considered included vessels’ idle
period, hull condition and engine performance.

Individual responses included:

• The use of hard coating which lasted the full five years (ice-class vessels trading regularly in Arctic
conditions).

• The use of hybrid coating (self-polishing copolymer/ foul release).

• Hybrid coating using organotin-free self-polishing hydrolysing antifouling system.

These results seem to indicate that hull inspections are not needed frequently within the first two
years from the application of the AFS coatings. In addition, the inspection schedule should take into
account the type of AFS being applied, as some AFS do not need inspecting regularly.

6 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

3. Contact with AFS manufacturers
Regular contact with AFS manufacturers reported by 19 respondents (79%).

4. In-water inspections
In-water inspections were reported by more than 50% of respondents for the following scenarios:
• Regularly in accordance with the BFMP.

• When regulations are enforcing it.

• In connection with a planned period of inactivity.

• After determining the presence of biofouling of concern on the ship’s hull.

Significant changes to the operational or trading profile of a ship is a scenario indicated by eight respondents
(33%) as a factor for them to conduct in-water inspections.

5. In-water hull cleaning

Hull cleaning was undertaken by 19 respondents (79%) resulting from in-water inspections and/or in accordance
with calculations identifying increased drag.

Cleaning techniques that minimise degradation of the antifouling coating and/ or biocide release were chosen
by 22 respondents (92%). These include using:

• Low friction nylon brushes.

• Soft brushes.

• Water jets and hydro jetting systems.

• Diving services.

• ROV with high pressure washing.

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 7

6. Niche areas
Niche areas were reported to be cleaned by 21 respondents (88%), including but not limited to:

• Sea chests. • Exposed tube seal assemblies.

• Rudder blade. • Rope guards.

• Rudder hinges. • Propeller.

• Sea chest gratings. • Drydock keel block.

• Stabiliser fin apertures. • Sea suction gratings.

Niche areas are susceptible to biofouling due to variable hydrodynamic forces, susceptibility to
coating system wear or damage, or has inadequate protection by AFS or no coating. Regulators are
focusing their compliance checks on the niche area as part of their biofouling mitigating measures.

7. Biofouling Record Book (BFRB)

All respondents are maintaining BFRB on their ships and capture information pertaining to dry-dock cleaning,
coating repairs and/or re-coating.

50% and more respondents capture the following information in their BFRB:

• Inspections by divers and their observations of biofouling percentage coverages.

• In-water hull cleaning.

• In-water niche area cleaning.

• In-water propeller cleaning.

• Extended periods of time when the ship was idle or laid up.

• Period of time when ship was operating outside its normal trading profile.

Information on sea water temperature was captured by six respondents in the BFRB.

8 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

Annex A – Collated response
RESPONSES RECEIVED AS AT 5 Oct 2021
Number of responding members: 24
Number of ships owned/ managed/ operated: 1664

Q1. Please indicate the number of ships that your company own/ manage/ operate in the table
below.

Please indicate number of ships

Ship’s status
where applicable
Own 647 (39%)
Manage 646 (39%)
Operate 358 (22%)

Others, please provide more details: 13 (1%) [3rd party management]

Q2. On what type of charterparties does your company operate? Do also include the number of
ships at the applicable column.

Type of charterparties Number of Ships

Voyage charter (spot market) 466 (28%)

Time charter 666 (40%)
Under own management 398 (24%)
134 (8%) [managed as a poll;
Others, please provide more details:
bareboat; 3rd party management]

Q3. Do all your ships have a biofouling management plan (BFMP)?

Yes for all ships in my fleet Yes for some ships in my fleet No
22 (92%) (Percentage of ships
with BFMP: ___________%)
2 (8% of responses by Member/
est 145 ships; 9% of all vessels)

Q3a. If you answer “yes” to Q3, please tick the appropriate box, if it is part of the systems/ procedures
listed below.
Systems/Procedures
The ship’s operational procedures and documentation 20 (83%)
(Safety Management System under the ISM Code)

The ship’s Planned Maintenance System (PMS)? 8 (33%)

Others, please specify: 4 (17%)

External manuals created to ensure vessels’ compliance;

part of operational procedure documentation for each vessel;
ship-specific standalone biofouling and sediment management
plan and record book

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 9

Q4. Please indicate antifouling system(s) that are used for your ships. Please select the ones that
apply. Do also provide the information provided in the table below.
Note: The list of systems is adapted from the list used by BIMCO for their survey among their
members that was submitted to the IMO (Ref: PPR 7/7/1). The Secretariat decided to us the same list
of systems to ensure consistency in responses provided by the industry to the IMO.

How long does it How many

take for the ship’s times have
Average lifetime
Average planned hull needing to you performed
Systems used claimed by
service life be cleaned after cleaning within
manufacturer
application of the a 5 year dry-
AFS coating? dock cycle?
Biocidal 15 responses 13 responses Within 1 year (1) 1 time: 3
coating (e.g. stated 5 years stated 5 years Within 2 years (6) 1-2 times: 2
Self-Polishing Within 3 years (10) 1-3 times: 1
2 responses 3 responses
Copolymer) Within 4 years (3) 1-4 time: 1
stated 3 years stated 3 years
23 (96%) Within 5 years 2 times: 5
3 responses 3 responses Only at the next 2-3 times: 4
stated 3-5 years stated 3-5 years drydock as the AFS 3 times: 2
lasted the entire 3-5 times: 2
1 response 2 responses lifetime 4 times: 1
stated 2.5 years stated 2.5 years
Considerations
Vessels’ age;
vessels’ trading
pattern; hull
condition
and engine
performance
Comments
partial hull
cleaning
performed
(vertical sides)/
flat bottom
cleaning
Foul release 7 responses 6 responses Within 1 year 1 time: 4
coating (e.g. stated 5 years stated 5 years Within 2 years (1) 2-3 times: 1
silicone) Within 3 years (1)
1 response
Within 4 years (2) Considerations
8 (35%) stated 3-5 years
Within 5 years Vessels’ idle
Only at the next period; hull
drydock as the AFS condition
lasted the entire and engine
lifetime (2) performance;
cleaning not
performed
due to fear
of damaging
silicone coating

10 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

 How long does it How many
take for the ship’s times have
Average lifetime
Average planned hull needing to you performed
Systems used claimed by
service life be cleaned after cleaning within
manufacturer
application of the a 5 year dry-
AFS coating? dock cycle?
Hard 1 response state 1 response state Within 1 year Comment:
coating (e.g. 1 year 5 years Within 2 years cleaning not
biotechnology) Within 3 years required as
Within 4 years vessels are
1(4%)
Within 5 years ice class and
Only at the next regularly
drydock as the AFS trade in arctic
lasted the entire conditions
lifetime (1)
Other system, 1 response 1 response Within 1 year 1 time every 5
please specify: stated 5 years stated 5 years Within 2 years years
2 (9%) Within 3 years
Within 4 years
1 report stated
Within 5 years
hybrid coatings
Only at the next
consisting of
drydock as the AFS
self polishing
lasted the entire
copolymer /
lifetime (1)
foul release.
Currently
in the early
stages of use.
1 report stated
organotin-free
self polishing
hydrolyzing
antifouling
system

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 11

Q5. Do you have regular contact with the Anti-fouling System manufacturers in between dry-
docking? If yes, how often are you in contact?
Yes No
19 (79%) 5 (21%)

If your answer is “yes”, please indicate how often you are in contact:_______________

7 responses indicated annual

2 responses indicated twice in a year
2 responses indicated that they are submitting monthly to the ICCP and MGPS makers the reports
for their review of the proper running conditions of these units.
1 response indicated once or twice a year
1 response indicated monthly
1 response indicated contact during drydocking
1 response indicated contact before dry docking
1 response indicated contact as needed
1 response indicated contact based on observation of coating condition and performance after dry-
docking, and also prior to dry-docking for identifying the optimum solution
2 responses indicated contact on a case by case depending on AFS paintwork performance or getting
updates for new products and solutions

Q6. When do you conduct in-water inspections? Please select all that apply.
(1) Never 1 (4%)
(2) Regularly in accordance with the biofouling management plan 14 (58%)
(3) In accordance with contractual specifications 7 (29%)
(4) When regulations are enforcing it 16 (67%)
(5) In connection with a planned period of inactivity 16 (67%)
(6) Before and after a significant change to the ship’s operating or trading profile 8 (33%)
(7) After determining the presence of biofouling of concern on the ship’s hull 16 (67%)
(8) Following damage to, or premature failure of, the antifouling system 12 (50%)
(9) Others, please specify: 3 (13%)
1 report stated in case of emergency, where extra intervals as described in BMP
1 report stated during planned cleaning of the propeller, usually every 6 months
1 report stated after a known or suspected marine pest or other species of concern is discovered in
a ship’s internal seawater cooling systems

12 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

Q7. When do you conduct in-water cleaning of the hull? Please select all that apply.
(1) Never 0
(2) As a result of in-water inspections 19 (79%)
(3) In accordance with calculations showing increased drag 19 (79%)
(4) Regularly at preselected interval 3 (13%)
(5) Others, please specify 2 (8%)

1 report stated in case vessel exceeds 40 days continuously idle and

in case ship’s overall performance and Main Engine power are indicating
an increased hull resistance, then an underwater inspection is to be carried
out to determine whether cleaning is required
1 report indicated during dry docking

Q8. Do you choose cleaning techniques that minimize degradation of the antifouling coating and/
or biocide release?

Yes No
22 (92%) 2 (8%)

Comments
1 report stated low friction nylon brushes used
1 report stated subject to availability in the vessels’ trading areas
1 report stated Hull wiper for silicon type coatings
1 report stated soft brushes, waterjet systems
1 report stated soft brushes
1 report stated hydro jetting, if available
1 report stated use of soft brushes, diving services and ROV cleaning with high pressure washing
done in some instances

Q9. Do you clean niche areas?

Yes No
21 (88%) 3 (13%)

Comments
1 report stated including sea chests, rudder blade
1 report stated “Particular attention is paid to the positions of dry-docking blocks and supports.
Depending on the condition, cleaning is also carried out for rudder hinges, sea chest gratings,
stabilizer fin apertures, exposed stern tube seal assemblies & the internal surfaces of rope guards
etc., as applicable.”
1 report stated Sea chests gratings, propeller, drydock keel blocks, rope guard,
1 report stated Cleaning is dictated by the degree of fouling and also time available during the
charter
1 report stated the propeller, sea suction gratings
1 report stated not all niche areas can be cleaned every time
1 report stated propeller, rudder blades, ICCP anodes area, sea chest gratings and speed log eyes are
usually cleaned with side shell plating.

Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices 13

Q10. Do you use and maintain a Biofouling Record Book (BFRB)?
Yes No
24 (100%)

Q10a. If your answer to the above is “yes”, are the following information captured in your BFRB?
Please select all that apply.
(1) Dry-docking cleaning, coating repairs and/or re-coating 24 (100%)
(2) Inspections by divers and their observations of biofouling percentage 22 (92%)
coverages
(3) In-water hull cleanings 22 (92%)
(4) In-water niche area cleanings 21 (88%)
(5) In-water propeller cleanings 22 (92%)
(6) Extended periods of time when the ship was idle or laid up 17 (71%)
(7) Periods of time when ship was operating outside its normal trading profile 14 (58%)
(8) Monitoring of seawater temperatures 6 (25%)
(9) Others, please specify: 3 (13%)
1 report stated maintenance of the marine growth prevention systems/ inspections or treatment of
the internal sea water pipeline systems
1 report stated cooling seawater system inspection or cleaning, MGPS monitoring, maintenance or
malfunction
1 report stated locations that may significantly affect biofouling accumulation (e.g. freshwater, high
latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) or tropical ports)

INTERTANKO would like to thank all of those who took part in this survey. Further information on all of
INTERTANKO’s environmental output can be found on our website: www.INTERTANKO.com

We will also take this opportunity to remind you that detailed guidance on biofouling and antifouling selection
can be found in INTERTANKO’s Guide to Modern Antifouling Systems and Biofouling Management (2nd
Edition) 2020:
https://INTERTANKO.com/info-centre/INTERTANKO-guidance/guidancenotearticle/guide-to-
modern-antifouling-systems-and-biofouling-management-2nd-edition

14 Analysis of INTERTANKO’s 2021 Survey on Biofouling Practices

INTERTANKO London
St Clare House
30-33 Minories
London EC3N 1DD
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7977 7010
Fax:+44 20 7977 7011
london@intertanko.com

INTERTANKO Oslo
Nedre Vollgate 4
5th floor
PO Box 761 Sentrum
N-0106 Oslo
Norway
Tel: +47 22 12 26 40
oslo@intertanko.com

INTERTANKO Asia
70 Shenton Way
#20-04 Eon Shenton
079118
Singapore                                                          
Tel: +65 6333 4007
Fax: +65 6333 5004
singapore@intertanko.com

INTERTANKO North America

801 North Quincy Street – Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22203
USA
Tel: +1 703 373 2269
Fax:+1 703 841 0389
washington@intertanko.com

INTERTANKO Athens
Karagiorgi Servias 2
Syntagma
Athens 10 562
Greece        
Tel: +30 210 373 1772/1775
athens@intertanko.com

www.intertanko.com