Marine diatom settlement on microtextured materials in static field trials
Source abstract
Abstract
The influence of surface topography (surface relief) on biofouling and cell settlement has been widely examined in the search for novel marine antifouling materials. Effects of surface topography on biofilms are, however, most commonly reported for laboratory experiments only. Marine diatoms are a particularly problematic group of biofouling organisms, and marine raphid diatom species are commonly used in conjunction with other assays to assess antifouling efficacy in laboratory studies. The effects of topographically structured materials on natural marine diatom fouling communities in field experiments are less commonly reported. Here, we report a number observations on the effects of microstructures created in poly(dimethylsiloxane) on diatom settlement in static field trials. It can be concluded that the effects of microscale surface topography on initial natural diatom settlement under static conditions in field tests depend upon the size, shape, adhesion strategy of the biofouling diatom species. Furthermore, while the topography of the underlying surface may influence the kinetics of cell settlement in laboratory tests, these effects can be masked by the effects of cell/mucilage aggregates and the diversity of settling cells in the natural marine environment.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Marine Biology and Environmental Chemistry · Marine Ecology and Invasive Species · Polymer Surface Interaction Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Bachmann RT, Edyvean RGJ (2006) Biofouling: an historic and contemporary review of its causes, consequences and control in drinking water distribution systems. Biofilms 2:19710.1017/S1479050506001979 ↗
2. Lejars M, Margaillan A, Bressy C (2012) Fouling release coatings: a nontoxic alternative to biocidal antifouling coatings. Chem Rev 112:4347–439010.1021/cr200350v ↗
3. Rosenhahn A, Sendra GH (2012) Surface sensing and settlement strategies of marine biofouling organisms. Biointerphases 7:1–1310.1007/s13758-012-0063-5 ↗
4. Wetherbee R, Lind JL, Burke J, Quatrano RS (1998) Minireview—the first kiss: establishment and control of initial adhesion by raphid diatoms. J Phycol 34:9–1510.1046/j.1529-8817.1998.340009.x ↗
5. Holland R, Dugdale TM, Wetherbee R et al (2004) Adhesion and motility of fouling diatoms on a silicone elastomer. Biofouling 20:323–32910.1080/08927010400029031 ↗
6. Poulsen N, Kröger N, Harrington MJ et al (2014) Isolation and biochemical characterization of underwater adhesives from diatoms. Biofouling 30:513–523. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2014.89589510.1080/08927014.2014.895895 ↗
7. Patil JS, Anil AC (2005) Quantification of diatoms in biofilms: standardisation of methods. Biofouling 21:181–18810.1080/08927010500241726 ↗
8. Molino PJ, Hodson OM, Quinn JF, Wetherbee R (2008) The quartz crystal microbalance: a new tool for the investigation of the bioadhesion of diatoms to surfaces of differing surface energies. Langmuir 24:6730–673710.1021/la800672h ↗
9. Dalu T, Froneman PW, Chari LD, Richoux NB (2014) Colonisation and community structure of benthic diatoms on artificial substrates following a major flood event: a case of the Kowie River (Eastern Cape, South Africa). Water SA 40(3):471–48010.4314/wsa.v40i3.10 ↗
10. Wahl M, Kröger K, Lenz M (1998) Non-toxic protection against epibiosis. Biofouling 12:205–22610.1080/08927019809378355 ↗
11. Wahl M (2008) Ecological lever and interface ecology: epibiosis modulates the interactions between host and environment. Biofouling 24:427–43810.1080/08927010802339772 ↗
12. Scardino AJ, de Nys R (2011) Mini review: biomimetic models and bioinspired surfaces for fouling control. Biofouling 27:73–8610.1080/08927014.2010.536837 ↗
13. Brzozowska AM, Parra-Velandia FJ, Quintana R et al (2014) Biomimicking micropatterned surfaces and their effect on marine biofouling. Langmuir 30:9165–917510.1021/la502006s ↗
14. Sullivan T, McGuinness K, O’ Connor NE, Regan F (2014) Characterization and anti-settlement aspects of surface micro-structures from Cancer pagurus. Bioinspir Biomim 9:4600310.1088/1748-3182/9/4/046003 ↗
15. Kerr A, Cowling MJ (2003) The effects of surface topography on the accumulation of biofouling. Philos Mag 83:2779–2795. doi: 10.1080/147864303100014845110.1080/1478643031000148451 ↗
16. Schumacher JF, Carman ML, Estes TG et al (2007) Engineered antifouling microtopographies—effect of feature size, geometry, and roughness on settlement of zoospores of the green alga Ulva. Biofouling 23:55–62. doi: 10.1080/0892701060113695710.1080/08927010601136957 ↗
17. Decker JT, Kirschner CM, Long CJ et al (2013) Engineered antifouling microtopographies: an energetic model that predicts cell attachment. Langmuir 29:13023–1303010.1021/la402952u ↗
18. Graham M, Cady N (2014) Nano and microscale topographies for the prevention of bacterial surface fouling. Coatings 4:37–5910.3390/coatings4010037 ↗
19. Hoipkemeier-Wilson L, Schumacher JF, Carman ML et al (2004) Antifouling potential of lubricious, micro-engineered, PDMS elastomers against zoospores of the green fouling alga ulva (Enteromorpha). Biofouling 20:53–6310.1080/08927010410001662689 ↗
20. Schumacher JF, Long CJ, Callow ME et al (2008) Engineered nanoforce gradients for inhibition of settlement (attachment) of swimming algal spores. Langmuir 24:4931–493710.1021/la703421v ↗
21. Schumacher JF, Aldred N, Callow ME et al (2007) Species-specific engineered antifouling topographies: correlations between the settlement of algal zoospores and barnacle cyprids. Biofouling 23:307–31710.1080/08927010701393276 ↗
22. Chung KK, Schumacher JF, Sampson EM et al (2007) Impact of engineered surface microtopography on biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus. Biointerphases 2:8910.1116/1.2751405 ↗
23. Finlay JA, Callow ME, Ista LK et al (2002) The influence of surface wettability on the adhesion strength of settled spores of the green alga Enteromorpha and the diatom amphora. Integr Comp Biol 42:1116–112210.1093/icb/42.6.1116 ↗
24. Vucko MJ, Poole a J, Carl C et al (2014) Using textured PDMS to prevent settlement and enhance release of marine fouling organisms. Biofouling 30:1–16. doi: 10.1080/08927014.2013.83650710.1080/08927014.2013.836507 ↗
25. Jellali R, Kromkamp JC, Campistron I et al (2013) Antifouling action of polyisoprene-based coatings by inhibition of photosynthesis in microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 47:6573–658110.1021/es400161t ↗
26. Rasband, WS, Image J (1997–2016) U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/
27. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
28. Schultz MP (2007) Effects of coating roughness and biofouling on ship resistance and powering. Biofouling 23:331–341. doi: 10.1080/0892701070146197410.1080/08927010701461974 ↗
29. Zargiel KA, Coogan JS, Swain GW (2011) Diatom community structure on commercially available ship hull coatings. Biofouling 27:955–96510.1080/08927014.2011.618268 ↗
30. Genzer J, Efimenko K (2006) Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review. Biofouling 22:339–36010.1080/08927010600980223 ↗
31. Carman ML, Estes TG, Feinberg AW et al (2006) Engineered antifouling microtopographies–correlating wettability with cell attachment. Biofouling 22:11–2110.1080/08927010500484854 ↗
32. May RM, Magin CM, Mann EE et al (2015) An engineered micropattern to reduce bacterial colonization, platelet adhesion and fibrin sheath formation for improved biocompatibility of central venous catheters. Clin Transl Med 4:810
33. Callow ME, Jennings AR, Brennan AB et al (2002) Microtopographic cues for settlement of zoospores of the green fouling Alga Enteromorpha. Biofouling 18:229–236. doi: 10.1080/0892701029001490810.1080/08927010290014908 ↗
34. Scardino AJ, Harvey E, de Nys R (2006) Testing attachment point theory: diatom attachment on microtextured polyimide biomimics. Biofouling 22:55–6010.1080/08927010500506094 ↗
35. Scardino AJ, Guenther J, de Nys R (2008) Attachment point theory revisited: the fouling response to a microtextured matrix. Biofouling 24:45–5310.1080/08927010701784391 ↗
36. Round FE, Crawford RM, Mann DG (1992) The Diatom; biology & morphology of the genera. Cambridge Univ Press Gt Britain 746
37. Majewska R, Gambi MC, Totti CM, De Stefano M (2013) Epiphytic diatom communities of Terra Nova Bay, Ross Sea, Antarctica: structural analysis and relations to algal host. Antarct Sci 13:1–13. doi: 10.1017/S095410201200110110.1017/S0954102012001101 ↗
38. Majewska R, Gambi MC, Totti CM et al (2012) Growth form analysis of epiphytic diatom communities of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Polar Biol 36:73–86. doi: 10.1007/s00300-012-1240-110.1007/s00300-012-1240-1 ↗
39. Staats N, Stal LJ, Mur LR (2000) Exopolysaccharide production by the epipelic diatom Cylindrotheca closterium: effects of nutrient conditions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 249:13–27. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0981(00)00166-010.1016/S0022-0981(00)00166-0 ↗
40. Belando MD, Marin A, Aboal M (2012) Licmophora species from a Mediterranean hypersaline coastal lagoon (Mar Menor, Murcia, SE Spain). Nov Hedwigia 141:275–288
41. Daniel GF, Chamberlain AHL, Jones EBG (1987) Cytochemical and electron microscopical observations on the adhesive materials of marine fouling diatoms. Br Phycol J 22:101–118. doi: 10.1080/0007161870065013110.1080/00071618700650131 ↗
42. Chambers LD, Stokes KR, Walsh FC, Wood RJK (2006) Modern approaches to marine antifouling coatings. Surf Coat Technol 201:3642–3652. doi: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.08.12910.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.08.129 ↗
43. Alldredge AL, Crocker KM (1995) Why do sinking mucilage aggregates accumulate in the water column? Sci Total Environ 165:15–22. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(95)04539-D10.1016/0048-9697(95)04539-D ↗
44. Alldredge AL, Silver MW (1988) Characteristics, dynamics and significance of marine snow. Prog Oceanogr 20:41–82. doi: 10.1016/0079-6611(88)90053-510.1016/0079-6611(88)90053-5 ↗