Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The antifouling (AF) activity of 2-hydroxy-4-(3-hydroxy-5-methylphenoxy)- 6-methylbenozoic acid methyl ester (1), 3,5-dibromo-2-(2',4'-dibromophenoxy)phenol (2); 3,4,5-tribromo-2-(2',4'-dibromophenoxy)phenol (3), 3,4,5-tribromo-2-(2'-bromophenoxy)phenol (4), 3,5-dibromo-2(2',4'-dibromophenoxy)phenol (5), 3,4,5,6-tetrabromo-2-(2'-bromophenoxy)phenol (6); 4-phenoxyphenol (7), 4-phenoxyaniline (9), 1-chloro-4-phenoxybenzene (10); 1-bromo-4-phenoxybenzene (13) was investigated against marine bacteria, a diatom, barnacle larvae and mussel juveniles. The naturally occurring compound 2 showed the strongest AF activity in all bioassays but lacked toxicity. It inhibited the growth of all tested bacterial strains (MIC = 0.02 - 1.52 microM) and its 50% effective concentrations (EC(50)) were 0.24 microM (diatom test), 0.66 microM (mussel test) and 1.26 microM (barnacle test). Among the commercially available derivates, compound 7 was the most active in bacterial and diatom bioassays but its activity was lower than that of compound 2. Overall, the naturally occurring compounds showed stronger activity than the commercially available analogues and could be possible future non-toxic AF candidates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortlepp et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: