Effectiveness of bite-resistant materials to reduce injuries from white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) bites

Introduction

Despite being relatively infrequent compared with other sources of human–wildlife conflict, the number of human–shark interactions and shark bites have steadily risen over the past 40 years globally (McPhee 2014; Midway et al. 2019; Ryan et al. 2019; Riley et al. 2022). Such increase has fuelled public concern and pressure for government agencies to develop and implement mitigation measures that decrease risk from shark bites. These measures typically aim to either reduce the spatiotemporal overlap between sharks and humans (perimeter-based measure) or prevent bites from occurring (proximity-based measure; McPhee et al. 2021; Huveneers et al. 2024). Perimeter-based mitigation can be through physical separation (e.g. swimming enclosures), reducing shark abundance in particular areas (e.g. culls and beach meshing), implementing early warning systems (e.g. tagged-shark listening stations; SMART drumlines, Tate et al. 2021, Butcher et al. 2023; aerial surveillance, Robbins et al. 2014, Engelbrecht et al. 2017, Butcher et al. 2019) or changing human behaviour (e.g. education to avoid times and locations where shark abundance is higher, see sharksmart.nsw.gov.au). However, aside from well-maintained physical barriers or enclosures separating sharks and humans, these measures cannot stop shark bites entirely (Guyomard et al. 2020; McPhee et al. 2021; Niella et al. 2021; Tate et al. 2021; Huveneers et al. 2024). Proximity-based mitigation can be used when human–shark overlap cannot be avoided or sufficiently reduced, and aims to deter an approaching shark from biting. Whereas many commercially available deterrents show variable evidence of reducing the probability of a bite from sharks (Hart and Collin 2015; Huveneers et al. 2018), some electric deterrents can reduce the risk of bites from large, predatory sharks (i.e. Ocean Guardian Freedom + Surf and Freedom7 models on white shark, Carcharodon carcharias; tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier; and bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas) by ~60% and increase the time that it takes for bites to occur, providing more time for water users to see the shark and exit the water (Smit and Peddemors 2003; Kempster et al. 2016; Huveneers et al. 2018; Thiele et al. 2020; Blount et al. 2021; Riley et al. 2022; Clarke et al. 2024). However, even devices that can repel sharks when approaching at speed and in a predatory mode are not infallible, with bites still occurring ~40% of the time (Huveneers et al. 2013, 2018; Clarke et al. 2024). As a result, there remains a need for further shark-bite mitigation approaches to reduce injuries and fatalities when bites cannot be prevented.

When shark bites result in fatality, it is most often due to haemorrhaging from injuries incurred to major arteries or tissue loss (Cliff 1991; Woolgar et al. 2001; Ballas et al. 2017). Reducing the severity of injuries can therefore provide additional time for first aid responders and emergency services to reach and attend to victims before blood loss becomes fatal, and therefore increases the likelihood of survival (Woolgar et al. 2001; Khalil 2021). Reducing punctures and lacerations from shark bites regardless of whether it is potentially fatal also shortens the physical healing process and recovery time. This highlights the important role of measures that can reduce the severity of holistic shark-bite injuries as part of shark-bite mitigation programs. This approach has been referred to as preventing bleeding-type of mitigation, and, combined with perimeter and proximity, forms the ‘three P’s’ approach (Huveneers et al. 2024).

The use of puncture- and tear-resistant materials to protect humans from shark bites originated in the late 1970s, when mesh suits made from chainmail (i.e. links of stainless steel, e.g. Neptunic Sharksuits, see neptunic.com) were developed to reduce wounds from bites for shark handlers, researchers and during tourism operations (Gellerman 1988). Although these suits could reduce injuries from small sharks (e.g. blue sharks), the weight and restricted mobility of these suits makes them impractical for some aquatic activities, for example, surfing, swimming, and spearfishing, which are also when unprovoked bites occur most often (Riley et al. 2022). Additionally, the ability of chainmail suits to reduce injuries from large, predatory sharks, such as white sharks and tiger sharks, is unknown. As such, there has been increasing investment into alternative materials that can balance protection with functionality for ocean users. Although commercial availability of bite-resistant wetsuits is relatively limited compared with other personal mitigation measures, several companies have recently developed lightweight and protective fabric to reduce injuries from shark bites. These products incorporate bite-resistant materials into the design of traditional wetsuits worn by ocean users, while maintaining mobility and flexibility. We tested the product from the following four bite-resistant wetsuit manufacturers that use different composites incorporated into traditional wetsuit neoprene (hereafter referred to as bite-resistant materials): Aqua Armour (see aquaarmour.com.au), ActionTX-S (by Powderworks Surf Pty Ltd), Brewster material and the patented Shark Stop (see sharkstop.co).

Aqua Armour wetsuits incorporate a modern version of interlocking chainmail links into the neoprene wetsuit design through protective pads layered with standard neoprene (see aquaarmour.com.au/technology; Table S1). Protective pads comprise composite alloys situated over vulnerable areas (e.g. inner areas of the thigh, arms), while the remaining areas of the suit are designed for maintaining mobility and buoyancy of a standard wetsuit. Brewster material is a composite matrix consisting of Kevlar material infused with polyurethane (C. Brewster, pers. comm.; Table S1). Kevlar is a strong and lightweight material (see dupont.com) with high thermal and impact-resistant properties, which has been at the forefront of personal protective clothing in industrial workplaces (Wang et al. 2017; Santos et al. 2020; Zhou et al. 2022). ActionTX-S and Shark Stop wetsuits incorporate ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene nanofibres (UHMPE) woven into their design (S. Smithers and H. Burford, pers. comm.; Table S1). UHMPE are polymer fibres that are high in modulus and strength, being 10 times stronger than steel and up to 50% more resistant to some punctures than is Kevlar (Dyneema, Spectra) (Van Dingenen 1989). These lightweight materials and fibres are resistant to abrasions and cuts (Zhu et al. 2011; Bao et al. 2016) and require twice the force to puncture than standard neoprene (Whitmarsh et al. 2019). Protective material can be modified on the basis of usage and flexibility or protective requirements. For example, light (850 g m⁻²) or heavy (1100 g m⁻²) ActionTX-S material can be used with four-way, two-way or no stretch, depending on aquatic activity (e.g. surfing, diving, spearfishing). Earlier versions of UHMPE-incorporated neoprene (ActionTX-S, Shark Stop) have been trialled using electrodynamic testing and in situ testing, and have been found to be more resistant to punctures from white shark bites than is traditional neoprene (Whitmarsh et al. 2019).

Our aim was to test the efficacy of four bite-resistant materials, namely, Aqua Armour, Brewster material, ActionTX-S and Shark Stop to reduce injuries from large, predatory sharks. We selected to test the materials on white shark and tiger shark because they contribute to most unprovoked bites in Australia (Riley et al. 2022), and are responsible for most fatal shark bites (25 and 38% of white and tiger shark bites are fatal respectively; Tucker et al. 2022; Riley et al. 2022). Specifically, we aimed to identify whether wetsuits incorporating novel bite-resistant materials are an effective means of reducing damage inflicted from bites from these species, and to identify any differences in efficacy among materials.

Materials and methods

Experimental protocol

White shark trials were undertaken at the Neptune Islands Group (Ron and Valerie Taylor) Marine Park (South Australia; 35°13′49.7″S, 136°04′25.6″E) between the 14 January 2022 and 18 January 2023. Tiger shark trials occurred off Norfolk Island (Queensland; 29°02′45.1″S, 167°55′10.4″E; Fig. 1) between 19 February 2023 and 6 March 2024. Sharks were attracted to research vessels by using a combination of berley and tethered baits (locally sourced fish gills and entrails, e.g. southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyii; yellowtail kingfish, Seriola lalandi; trevally, Pseudocaranx spp.). Once a shark attempted to consume the tethered bait, the bait was removed from the water, and we deployed a ‘bite package’ ~10 m behind the vessel. Bite packages were a wooden board (650- × 325- × 8-mm marine plywood), a sheet of ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA) foam on either side of the wooden board, and a neoprene or bite-resistant pouch placed over the foam and wooden panel (Fig. 1). Polypropylene rope (9-mm diameter) covered with thick plastic hose was passed through two-holes near the top of the bite package to attach it to the research vessel and facilitate recovery following bites. During each bite, tension was maintained on the rope to ensure resistance and ensure prompt recovery once the board was released to avoid repeated bites from different sharks. Each bite was assigned an intensity category by using a scale of 1 (mild; one bite and quick release), 2 (moderate; one to two bites with some shaking of head) and 3 (severe; multiple bites including head shakes or dragging equipment below the surface). We deployed each bite package with one of the four bite-resistant materials or standard neoprene (control) pouches, with the order being block-randomised. We used new foam and material pouches in each trial and filmed each bite from the surface by using an Apple iPhone (Models 10 or 11) or underwater by using a GoPro (Hero 7 or 8). We identified individual sharks on the basis of markings on the following five morphological areas: caudal fin, pelvic fins, first dorsal fin (hereafter dorsal fin), gills and pectoral fins, by using established white shark identification methods (Nasby-Lucas and Domeier 2012; Nazimi et al. 2018; Bègue et al. 2020). We determined sex on the basis of clasper presence and estimated total body length visually (May et al. 2019). Brewster material was supplied only for white shark trials and was not tested on tiger sharks.

This study was undertaken according to relevant permits: Parks Australia – Marine Permit (Norfolk Island field work): permit number PA2021-00001. Animal ethics approval was acquired through Flinders University (approval number: E4985-3).

Fig. 1.

(a) Location and images of bite-resistant material testing for white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias, circle) and tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier, triangle). Maps show (b) Neptune Islands Group Marine Park and (c) Norfolk Island.

Image analyses

After each bite, foam panels were removed from material pouches, and top and bottom panels were photographed using an Apple iPhone (Models 10 or 11). Video footage of bites was watched to verify field-based assigning of bite intensity. Mild bites were removed from subsequent analyses because these bites were considered less relevant when testing materials to protect humans from severe injuries. Damage from each bite was quantified using the image processing software ImageJ (ver. 1.53t, W. S. Rasband, US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, see https://imagej.net/ij/). Each puncture or depression in the foam panel was assigned into one of the following four damage categories (C; Fig. 2a–d): C1, superficial (mark with no to minimal depressions on the foam, no cuts); C2, slight (small depression of the foam, but no cuts or tear visible); C3, substantial (visible puncture, tear or cut); and C4, critical damage (large tear where some of the foam is missing). We measured the area of each puncture or depression by tracing the outline of each bite on the foam by using the freehand selection tool in ImageJ and calculated the area of each individual puncture (mm²) on the basis of the number of pixels of a chosen area. We extrapolated pixel size in each image by using a pre-set scale from an object of known length (i.e. 300-mm ruler) taken from each image. We expressed each damage category a proportional value from 0 to 1, to represent the proportion of the total bite area (mm²) falling within that category.

Fig. 2.

Photos showing representative damage for each category (C1–C4), showing (a) superficial, (b) slight, (c) substantial and (d) critical damage from bites on a standard 3-mm neoprene.

Results

We sampled 84 white shark bites across 19 days of sampling (27 control material, 57 treatment; Supplementary Table S1). In total, 28 individual sharks were identified, with 10 bites being from unidentified individuals. White sharks were between 2.4- and 4.5-m total length (mean ± s.d., 3.6 ± 0.4 m). From 68 tiger shark bites (22 control, 46 treatment; Table S1) sampled across 5 days, we identified eight individual tiger sharks across the study, ranging from 3- to 4.3-m total length (4 ± 0.2 m), with four bites being from unidentified individuals. Total bite area ranged from 49.4 to 927,832 mm² for white sharks (mean ± s.d. 27,225 ± 65,118 mm²) and from 1182 to 1,568,501 mm² for tiger sharks (71,511 ± 259,487 mm²).

White shark bites

The top-ranked model assessing differences in the proportional damage from white shark bites included the interaction between damage category and material (wAIC_c = 0.601), and explained 16% of model variance (Table 1). Bites on Control material had similarly low values of C1 damage to Aqua Armour, ActionTX-S and Brewster materials (<1% of bite area; Fig. 3a, Table S2). However, C1 damage on Shark Stop was significantly higher than on the Control and Brewster materials (4 ± 2%; Fig. 3, Table S2). C2 damage was not significantly different between Control and bite-resistant materials, nor among bite-resistant materials (Tukey-adjusted P > 0.05, Table S2). However, all bite-resistant materials significantly decreased damage in the C3 category compared with Control material (P < 0.05; Fig. 3a, Table S2), with Aqua Armour leading to the largest decrease from 8 ± 1% (Control material) to <1 ± 0.2% (Fig. 3a). White shark bites had the highest proportion of C4 damage on Control material (3 ± 2%), which decreased to <1% for all bite-resistant materials (Fig. 3a). This decrease in C4 damage was significantly different between the Control material and both Shark Stop and Brewster material, but not for ActionTX-S or Aqua Amour (Fig. 3a, Table S2). However, no C4 damage occurred on Aqua Armour material (Fig. 3a). It is likely that the small number of bites collected on this material (n = 4; Table S2) affected the ability of the pairwise comparisons to detect a significant difference. There were no significant differences in C4 damage across bite-resistant materials (Fig. 3a, Table S2). Shark total length did not affect the amount of damage from white shark bites (Table 1a). However, shark identity had a small influence on the damages, with this random effect explaining 3% of model variance (Table 1a).

Table 1.Generalised linear mixed model summaries of the top five models (top-ranked model in bold) estimating the amount of damage of bites from (a) white (Carcharodon carcharias) and (b) tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) sharks.

Shark	Model	d.f.	Loglink	AICc	ΔAICc	wAICc	Rm	Rc
White	Category × Material	22	−982.45	2012.05	0	0.601	0.16	0.19
	Category × Material + Category × Shark length	23	−981.71	2012.87	0.82	0.399	0.16	0.19
	Category + Material	10	−1014.78	2050.22	38.17	0	0.1	0.12
	Category + Material + Shark length	11	−1014.03	2050.86	38.81	0	0.1	0.12
	Category	6	−1024.21	2060.66	48.61	0	0.05	0.11
Tiger	Category × Material + Shark length	19	−610.2	1261.41	0	0.686	0.28	0.29
	Category × Material	18	−612.14	1262.97	1.56	0.314	0.26	0.29
	Category + Material + Shark length	10	−636.95	1294.74	33.33	0	0.18	0.19
	Category + Material	9	−638.96	1296.62	35.20	0	0.16	0.19
	Category + Shark length	7	−646.92	1308.26	46.85	0	0.12	0.14

AIC_c, Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample size; ΔAIC_c, difference in AIC_c between the current and top-ranked model; wAIC_c, model probability; R_m, marginal fixed-effects R²; R_c, conditional random effects R².

Fig. 3.

Percentage of total shark bite area ± s.e. in damage categories (C1: superficial, C2: slight, C3: substantial, C4: critical) resulting from bites from (a) white and (b) tiger sharks. Materials that differed significantly from control (Tukey P_adj < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.

Discussion

Our study showed that bite-resistant materials integrated into wetsuits can reduce damage, and potentially injuries, from white and tiger shark bites. Previous studies have highlighted the capacity of such materials to resist punctures and lacerations when tested in the laboratory and during preliminary field trials (Whitmarsh et al. 2019), and on small-bodied shark species (Thiele et al. 2020). Our findings have built on these previous studies and further showed that bite-resistant materials can reduce substantial and critical damage from bites occurring from white and tiger sharks. Bite-resistant materials significantly reduced the amount of C3 (substantial) and C4 (critical) damage compared with standard 3-mm control neoprene. Bite-resistant materials tested in this study all performed similarly, with no significant differences in substantial and critical damages among materials across both species. Our findings suggest that lightweight bite-resistant materials integrated into traditional wetsuit designs offer a promising prevent-bleeding shark-bite mitigation approach to reduce injuries, haemorrhaging and tissue loss from the species responsible for most fatal bites globally.

All bite-resistant materials reduced C3 and C4 damage from white and tiger shark bites to a similar degree. However, changes in C1 damage were more variable and increased in white shark bites on Shark Stop, but did not change on other materials. Although a non-significant difference, C2 damage was also much higher on Shark Stop than on the Control material. This increase in C1 and C2 damages is likely to reflect a transition from damage that would have otherwise resulted in more severe damage (i.e. C3 and C4), which instead was reduced into these lesser-damage categories. Being only slight markings or depressions in the EVA foam padding, C1 and C2 are more representative of minor wounds or bruising, and less likely to result in tissue loss, disabilities or fatalities (Lentz et al. 2010). This suggests that even though bite-resistant materials are unlikely to eliminate all injuries, they can instead lead to severe injuries and bleeds becoming minor wounds requiring shorter recovery (Byard et al. 2000; Woolgar et al. 2001; Lentz et al. 2010). However, there were no statistical differences in C1 and C2 damages across the materials tested for both white and tiger sharks. This is likely to be due to the low proportional damage in C1 and C2 categories on the Control material (~5%) and high variance among bites, making it difficult to detect a significant difference, even if no C1 or C2 damages were detected on bite-resistant materials. Low C1 and C2 damage indicates that superficial or minor damages are uncommon from moderate and severe bites from tiger and white sharks, even on control materials. Instead, damage inflicted in C3 and C4 categories are more representative of life-threatening injuries typically inflicted from these species and provide a more valuable comparison for material efficacy.

Aqua Armour material had the least C3 damage from white and tiger shark bites of any of the tested materials, and no C4 damage. Aqua Armour consists of advanced composites and high-tech alloys that are similar in design to chainmail suits developed in the late 1970s, and which are currently used by shark handlers and for shark feeding during tourism operations (Gellerman 1988). Although no C4 damage occurred on Aqua Armour, a qualitative assessment of the four bite-resistant materials suggests that Aqua Armour is also the least flexible of the bite-resistant materials we tested, limiting its application for wetsuits, which typically require flexibility. Additionally, only four white shark bites were collected on this material and further replication is required to comprehend effectiveness. The ability of the Brewster material and ActionTX-S to reduce damage from shark bites was similar, but they differ in their design and material properties. Like Aqua Armour, Brewster material contains a protective layer (i.e. laceration-resistant webbing) placed between two layers of neoprene. This design provides a high level of protection but may also limit flexibility when incorporated into a traditional wetsuit design. By contrast, protective fibres of ActionTX-S and Shark Stop (i.e. ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene) are woven into the Yulex material (a flexible natural rubber; Cornish et al. 2005, 2008) and maintain a comparatively higher level of flexibility and manoeuvrability (see https://powderworkssurf.com/), while also offering protection comparable to the more rigid materials of Aqua Armour and Brewster material. Less flexible bite-resistant materials that cannot be woven into neoprene (e.g. Aqua Armour and Brewster material) instead require strategic positioning where catastrophic bleeding is most likely (e.g. arteries), while maintaining standard neoprene in areas requiring the most flexibility (e.g. knees, hips, shoulders). For example, shark bites occurring on the torso have the highest proportional rate of fatality (~48% of bites on torso are fatal), more than twice the rate of death from bites on legs or arms (Riley et al. 2022). Protective panels around the torso region and femoral artery may therefore be beneficial when designing wetsuits or neoprene apparel using less-malleable wetsuit materials (joints around knees, shoulders, hips; Whitmarsh et al. 2019; Thiele et al. 2020; Riley et al. 2022). It might also be possible to develop a bite-resistant material that is not incorporated into neoprene, but that could be worn as a jumpsuit (similar to a stingersuit) or over any wetsuits. While these variations might not be suitable for some activities (e.g. surfing), it could be a suitable solution for activities that requires less movement such as diving. All the tested materials are incorporated one way or another into neoprene, and collectively result in wetsuits with a minimum thickness of ~3 mm. Although this could be a potential limitation in their commercial uptake, wetsuits of that thickness and greater are worn year-round on Australia’s southern and western coasts and are common on the eastern coast over winter and spring when white sharks are relatively abundant and widely distributed (McAuley et al. 2017; Gooden et al. 2025).

Shark length did not affect the amount of damage from white sharks, despite bites from large sharks typically leading to more serious injuries than did bites from smaller sharks (Ritter and Levine 2005). This is likely because of the limited size range and moderate to large size of the white sharks in our study (83% of white sharks were 3–4-m total length). However, shark length influenced damage from tiger shark bites, despite the tiger sharks in our study also being of a similar narrow size range (80% of tiger sharks were 3.5–4-m total length). This is largely due to bites from the three largest individuals of >4.2 m, which inflicted the most C3 and C4 damage. Although size ranges of sharks were small, individuals were relatively large, i.e. subadults and adults, which are expected to have the most damaging bites and are responsible for most fatal bites on humans (i.e. >3-m total length; West 2011). Therefore, the efficacy of bite-resistant materials tested in our study represents a likely scenario for the Australian southern and western coasts where sharks of this size are more common, but a worst-case scenario for the eastern coast where sightings and catches of large white sharks are less frequent, i.e. white sharks larger than 3-m total length comprised less than 10% of the catch on SMART drumlines in New South Wales (NSW) in 2021–23 (Tate et al. 2021; NSW Department of Primary Industries 2022, 2023) and less than 5% of the catch in shark nets since 1991 (DPIRD, unpubl. data). Bite-resistant materials may be more effective on smaller sharks, which remains to be tested.

Whereas most shark bites result in relatively minor injuries (i.e. minor lacerations of skin and soft tissue; Lentz et al. 2010; Riley et al. 2022), major vascular injury occurs and heightens the risk of exsanguination and fatality (Lentz et al. 2010; Ballas et al. 2017). In such situations, immediate medical action is vital to increase survival, but is not always possible when shark bites occur in unpopulated remote areas away from medical assistance or where access is limited. For example, many parts of the Australian coastline are sparsely populated and often lack sufficient emergency response infrastructure, especially in southern Australia where white sharks are common and responsible for most shark bites (Riley et al. 2022). The bite-resistant materials tested in our study would be particularly useful in these areas, where major injuries and blood loss could be minimised, increasing the time for medical aid to reach bite victims before they reach critical conditions. While the materials tested may not prevent bone fractures and crushing injuries and that some punctures and lacerations may still occur, particularly from white shark bites, the bite-resistant materials we tested reduce substantial and critical damages, which represent injuries involving major tissue or limb loss and which are the main causes of fatalities (Byard et al. 2000; Lentz et al. 2010). Our findings indicated that the integration of bite-resistant materials into wetsuits is a promising mechanism to reduce external injuries from white and tiger shark bites.

Sensitivities around enticing bites from wild sharks to objects that resemble people or boards used for water sports led to some limitations in the board design and bite collection. We used ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) foam panels to represent human skin and muscle beneath wetsuit materials, with damage on these panels used as a proxy to estimate likely human injuries. Whereas this method was effective at identifying damage incurred from bites, this may not directly translate to injuries and damage to human tissue (Olson et al. 2013). However, EVA foam is comparable in consistency to human tissue and is often used as a human surrogate during ballistic testing and in surgery training for dermatological surgery practices (Gutiérrez-Mendoza et al. 2011; Chang et al. 2021). We therefore expect that the relative reductions in bites on EVA foam panels are comparable to what would occur with human tissues. However, testing of the protective materials incorporated in a wetsuit design and to assess the potential damage to human or animal tissue would allow more robust recommendations about the use of bite-resistant material as shark-bite mitigation measure.

Conclusions

White and tiger sharks are responsible for the most unprovoked bites and are two of the top three species with the highest rate of fatal bites. Interactions between humans and sharks continue to rise in frequency globally, with expanding coastal populations and rising popularity of ocean-based activities. As shark-bite mitigation continues to shift from traditional lethal methods towards non-lethal alternatives, personal protective measures such as electric deterrents and protective wetsuits continue to gain interest as tools to reduce the number of interactions and injuries, and increase the likelihood of survival (Gray and Gray 2017; Rosciszewski-Dodgson and Cirella 2021; Huveneers et al. 2024). Our study showed that bite-resistant materials incorporated into wetsuits can reduce damage from large white and tiger sharks (>3 m) compared with a standard neoprene wetsuit, even from moderate and severe bites. However, there remains a trade-off between the effectiveness and flexibility of these materials, challenging the uptake of such products by ocean goers. Although personal mitigation measures such as electric deterrents can reduce the likelihood of bites from white, tiger and bull sharks (Huveneers et al. 2013, 2018; Gauthier et al. 2020; Clarke et al. 2024), the uptake of personal shark deterrents has been limited, likely because of their high cost and ongoing scepticism of their effectiveness despite independent testing, but also because electric deterrents are not standard equipment for most surfers or divers. By contrast, wetsuits are already used by people engaging in aquatic activities across most areas. Water users are therefore more likely to be willing to spend money on a wetsuit, which will provide thermal protection and can reduce injuries from shark bites (Naebe et al. 2013; Kim and Kim 2019) rather than purchasing an additional piece of equipment, such as a personal electric deterrent. Our findings will allow for informed decisions to be made about the use of bite-resistant wetsuit materials for occupational activities, as well as enabling the public to make appropriate decisions about the suitability of using these products.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online.