Breathing protection

[QBhoy]

Bit of a minefield, when advising in written form perhaps…all I’d suggest is a FFP3 mask as a minimum, in terms of what’s easily obtainable. But the preference might be something more substantial and full face fitting really. Some might also suggest additional ppe like full protective disposable and hooded paper suits. Gloves and any other measures to avoid skin contact, ingestion, injection or other means of or potential harm.
Not to be the danger-ranger…but this topic in particular, is something that’s far too often, taken with with less of a serious tone that it should be. We are, after all, talking about a very potent and dangerous substance. A substance that’s literally been chemically designed and produced, with the very idea of inflicting lethal harm, at its worst…or a severe, detrimental and deterring effect, at its best.
Anyway…it’s a thing to be given a little consideration towards for sure.

 

[skedaddle]

I am going to be howled down here but I will proceed.

The very reason that the antifoul is being removed is that it is no longer active. ie It is not killing or deterring the specifically targeted organisms.

The biocide boosters that are currently being used in lieu of TBT are actually commercially available fungicides used in agricultural food production. Ie Diuron, Chlorothanonil, Irgarol etc etc.

In the case of Irgarol - quote “Irgarol which is a highly specific and effective inhibitor of photosynthesis”

They are all a precisely targeted fungicides that inhibit photosynthesis in certain organisms. They are not targeted at humans. In AF, the remnant levels that they exist at once they are no longer active against their specific target are hardly going to be toxic to an organism that was never ever a intended target to begin with.

If you read the Application Data for the application of those chemicals in a agricultural use. They all carry all the standard warnings about avoiding breathing the dust, getting the dust in your eyes, ingesting the dust or getting the mixed liquid on bare skin. About the same precautions that apply to Micro Balloons/Epoxy for fairing compound.

If I remove old AF. I will use a Mask and Goggles because the paint carrier is a irritant to the eyes and I really dont want to be taking it into my lungs for the same reason. Removing active AF. Then I would use more caution.

Fire away!

 

[Refueler]

I am going to be howled down here but I will proceed.

The very reason that the antifoul is being removed is that it is no longer active. ie It is not killing or deterring the specifically targeted organisms.

The biocide boosters that are currently being used in lieu of TBT are actually commercially available fungicides used in agricultural food production. Ie Diuron, Chlorothanonil, Irgarol etc etc.

In the case of Irgarol - quote “Irgarol which is a highly specific and effective inhibitor of photosynthesis”

They are all a precisely targeted fungicides that inhibit photosynthesis in certain organisms. They are not targeted at humans. In AF, the remnant levels that they exist at once they are no longer active against their specific target are hardly going to be toxic to an organism that was never ever a intended target to begin with.

If you read the Application Data for the application of those chemicals in a agricultural use. They all carry all the standard warnings about avoiding breathing the dust, getting the dust in your eyes, ingesting the dust or getting the mixed liquid on bare skin. About the same precautions that apply to Micro Balloons/Epoxy for fairing compound.

If I remove old AF. I will use a Mask and Goggles because the paint carrier is a irritant to the eyes and I really dont want to be taking it into my lungs for the same reason. Removing active AF. Then I would use more caution.

Fire away!

mmmmmm

I agree to a limited extent - but would also argue that often AF recoating is not so much renewing the Biocide effect - but because the AF surface is no longer smooth .. that areas erode / roughen etc. This is particularly true for cruiser AF .. both eroding and non eroding.

My 38 has a hard racing AF applied .. which has roughened surface since application ... this will need bringing back to smooth and then depending on amount of sanding back - maybe a new coat .. Its not g'teed that I will recoat .. Baltic is brackish and less serious fouling compared to UK. Yes - of course because of intended 'use' of the boat - she will be lifted regularly and cleaned ...

 

[Refueler]

Spent many hours during youth - wet & dry on a hand pad ...

Terrible when you look back !! Especially as in those days we had REAL antifouling !

 

[Sandydog2]

I am going to be howled down here but I will proceed.

The very reason that the antifoul is being removed is that it is no longer active. ie It is not killing or deterring the specifically targeted organisms.

The biocide boosters that are currently being used in lieu of TBT are actually commercially available fungicides used in agricultural food production. Ie Diuron, Chlorothanonil, Irgarol etc etc.

In the case of Irgarol - quote “Irgarol which is a highly specific and effective inhibitor of photosynthesis”

They are all a precisely targeted fungicides that inhibit photosynthesis in certain organisms. They are not targeted at humans. In AF, the remnant levels that they exist at once they are no longer active against their specific target are hardly going to be toxic to an organism that was never ever a intended target to begin with.

If you read the Application Data for the application of those chemicals in a agricultural use. They all carry all the standard warnings about avoiding breathing the dust, getting the dust in your eyes, ingesting the dust or getting the mixed liquid on bare skin. About the same precautions that apply to Micro Balloons/Epoxy for fairing compound.

If I remove old AF. I will use a Mask and Goggles because the paint carrier is a irritant to the eyes and I really dont want to be taking it into my lungs for the same reason. Removing active AF. Then I would use more caution.

Fire away!

The problem with your theory is that although the chemicals you list are not targeted at humans, when they are no longer active against their target organisms they have not disappeared. They break down via a series of other chemicals. Some of these are toxic to humans.

Also the fact they are used in agriculture doesn't prove they are safe. The level of protection using them for crop protection will be very high.

Only one of the chemicals you listed is a fungicide by the way.

 

[thinwater]

I am going to be howled down here but I will proceed.

The very reason that the antifoul is being removed is that it is no longer active. ie It is not killing or deterring the specifically targeted organisms.

The biocide boosters that are currently being used in lieu of TBT are actually commercially available fungicides used in agricultural food production. Ie Diuron, Chlorothanonil, Irgarol etc etc.

In the case of Irgarol - quote “Irgarol which is a highly specific and effective inhibitor of photosynthesis”

They are all a precisely targeted fungicides that inhibit photosynthesis in certain organisms. They are not targeted at humans. In AF, the remnant levels that they exist at once they are no longer active against their specific target are hardly going to be toxic to an organism that was never ever a intended target to begin with.

If you read the Application Data for the application of those chemicals in a agricultural use. They all carry all the standard warnings about avoiding breathing the dust, getting the dust in your eyes, ingesting the dust or getting the mixed liquid on bare skin. About the same precautions that apply to Micro Balloons/Epoxy for fairing compound.

If I remove old AF. I will use a Mask and Goggles because the paint carrier is a irritant to the eyes and I really dont want to be taking it into my lungs for the same reason. Removing active AF. Then I would use more caution.

Fire away!

I would add that copper and zinc are not harmful to humans in any reasonable exposure scenario related to amateur seasonal painting, just as chocolate is toxic to dogs but not people. Many people take zinc pills! Copper pipes are known to be safe.

But there are still good reasons not to breath the dust. I think that is agreed.

 

[oldharry]

RYA on disposing of antifoul and residue from cleaning off:

Antifoul - The Green Blue

The problem with Sandydog's hypothesis above that antifoul is removed because it is no longer active is not quite right: Antifouls are removed because the existing layer is too thin (or too thick) to be effective. It may be insufficient to be effective for its original purpose, but it will still retain signficant quantities of the original chemicals.

 

[thinwater]

RYA on disposing of antifoul and residue from cleaning off:

Antifoul - The Green Blue

The problem with Sandydog's hypothesis above that antifoul is removed because it is no longer active is not quite right: Antifouls are removed because the existing layer is too thin (or too thick) to be effective. It may be insufficient to be effective for its original purpose, but it will still retain signficant quantities of the original chemicals.

Absolutely. But if you analyze the whitewater and sludge (I'm a wastewater engineer, so I'm not guessing), you will find that the limit restriction you fail are for copper and zinc, because they are marine toxins (sort of the point), not human toxins. The drinking water standards are where you find the human health concerns, and you will find the limits on zinc and copper are quite high, and in fact pretty hard to actually fail, because copper and zinc are not that soluble in neutral pH tap water ... going back to why copper and galv pipes are acceptable for potable water.

But wear your mask, cover your skin, and keep waste off the ground.

 

[oldharry]

Absolutely. But if you analyze the whitewater and sludge (I'm a wastewater engineer, so I'm not guessing), you will find that the limit restriction you fail are for copper and zinc, because they are marine toxins (sort of the point), not human toxins. The drinking water standards are where you find the human health concerns, and you will find the limits on zinc and copper are quite high, and in fact pretty hard to actually fail, because copper and zinc are not that soluble in neutral pH tap water ... going back to why copper and galv pipes are acceptable for potable water.

But wear your mask, cover your skin, and keep waste off the ground.

Yes, but its not just the public water supply. Environmentalists react strongly to any form of metallic compound being released into the environment, particularly when it comes from a tin clearly marked 'poison'! Never mind the actual science, the 'experts' will and do object strongly to possibly toxic compound being released, just like they dont like anchors in Studland eelgrass, even though the science clearly says otherwise. Mixing 'Toxic' and 'environment' is a clear red rag to the environmental bull.

 

[Laysula]

Pay someone else to do it.

 

[QBhoy]

I am going to be howled down here but I will proceed.

The very reason that the antifoul is being removed is that it is no longer active. ie It is not killing or deterring the specifically targeted organisms.

The biocide boosters that are currently being used in lieu of TBT are actually commercially available fungicides used in agricultural food production. Ie Diuron, Chlorothanonil, Irgarol etc etc.

In the case of Irgarol - quote “Irgarol which is a highly specific and effective inhibitor of photosynthesis”

They are all a precisely targeted fungicides that inhibit photosynthesis in certain organisms. They are not targeted at humans. In AF, the remnant levels that they exist at once they are no longer active against their specific target are hardly going to be toxic to an organism that was never ever a intended target to begin with.

If you read the Application Data for the application of those chemicals in a agricultural use. They all carry all the standard warnings about avoiding breathing the dust, getting the dust in your eyes, ingesting the dust or getting the mixed liquid on bare skin. About the same precautions that apply to Micro Balloons/Epoxy for fairing compound.

If I remove old AF. I will use a Mask and Goggles because the paint carrier is a irritant to the eyes and I really dont want to be taking it into my lungs for the same reason. Removing active AF. Then I would use more caution.

Fire away!

Not targeted at humans, certainly. Is ir can it harmful to humans? Certainly!
Have you had a look at the Coshh data sheets ?

Anyway…merry Xmas !

 

[thinwater]

Yes, but its not just the public water supply. Environmentalists react strongly to any form of metallic compound being released into the environment, particularly when it comes from a tin clearly marked 'poison'! Never mind the actual science, the 'experts' will and do object strongly to possibly toxic compound being released, just like they dont like anchors in Studland eelgrass, even though the science clearly says otherwise. Mixing 'Toxic' and 'environment' is a clear red rag to the environmental bull.

Isn't that what I said?

" ... you will find that the limit restriction you fail are for copper and zinc, because they are marine toxins (sort of the point) ...."

The actual science on copper and zinc are pretty compelling. As a wastewater plant designer and operator, I can go farther. Copper and zinc bioacumulate within the bacteria biomass that purifies the water in the reactors, inhibiting the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment plant. They must be removed from industrial wastewater before discharge to the sewer main for this reason. These are referred to as pre-treatment processes. They also concentrate up in the wastewater treatment bio-sludge, limiting the ways the sludge can be disposed of. It cannot be used as fertilizer if it is contaminated with metals.

Also, some of the toxic materials are solvents, long gone by the time you are sanding. Of course, you will want to mask to paint.

 

[rogerthebodger]

Pay someone else to do it.

That's what I do

 

[Momac]

I wouldn't rely on the toxicity of old antifoul being fully spent. But certainly would agree its toxicity must be diminished compared to to the fresh paint.
But wet sanding is certainly safer than dry sanding from the perspective of safety of people involved in the paint sanding/removal operation.

As for the risk and consequences of ground pollution caused by the antifoul removal this is for consideration by individuals undertaking the work and the operators of the site used for the work.

If peole are really concerned over pollution caused by sanding or removal of antifoul they might best not to use any applied toxic hull coatings . Or perhaps don't own or use a boat at all.

 

[QBhoy]

I wouldn't rely on the toxicity of old antifoul being fully spent. But certainly would agree its toxicity must be diminished compared to to the fresh paint.
But wet sanding is certainly safer than dry sanding from the perspective of safety of people involved in the paint sanding/removal operation.

As for the risk and consequences of ground pollution caused by the antifoul removal this is for consideration by individuals undertaking the work and the operators of the site used for the work.

If peole are really concerned over pollution caused by sanding or removal of antifoul they might best not to use any applied toxic hull coatings . Or perhaps don't own or use a boat at all.

Agreed. Let’s face it..having a boat is never going to be associated, embrace or embellish any ideas around or even close to what might be considered a light carbon footprint or more topically, any planet saving ambition.
It’s a non essential and luxury item for most. All be it, something I and many of you couldn’t quite imagine themselves without..but perhaps we should be all be in the mindset to be considerate enough, or have a notion towards or regarding a duty of care around such things, around and associated with the aforementioned. Where we can anyway.
I’m not and haven’t been an angel with such things…perhaps more towards things like using marine friendly antifreeze each year, in particular. I’ll be making an effort towards correcting, going forwards, upon reflection here.
Anyway…plenty beers consumed here…and hoping you all had an amazing Xmas with the family too.
Shortest day now surpassed..surely on our way to the new season now !