Advertisement

Chinese Science Bulletin

, Volume 56, Issue 7, pp 598–612 | Cite as

Progress of marine biofouling and antifouling technologies

  • Shan Cao
  • JiaDao Wang
  • HaoSheng Chen
  • DaRong Chen
Open Access
Review Materials Science

Abstract

Adhesion of marine fouling organisms on artificial surfaces such as ship hulls causes many problems, including extra energy consumption, high maintenance costs, and increased corrosion. Therefore, marine antifouling is an important issue. In this review, physical and biochemical developments in the field of marine biofouling, which involves biofilm formation and macro-organism settlement, are discussed. The major antifouling technologies based on traditional chemical methods, biological methods, and physical methods are presented. The chemical methods include self-polishing types such as tributyltin (TBT) self-polishing copolymer coatings, which despite its good performance has been banned since 2008 because of its serious environmental impact. Therefore, other methods have been encouraged. These include coatings with copper compounds and biocide boosters to replace the TBT coatings. Biological extracts of secreted metabolites and enzymes are anticipated to act as antifoulants. Physical methods such as modification of surface topography, hydrophobic properties, and charge potential have also been considered to prevent biofouling. In this review, most of the current antifouling technologies are discussed. It is proposed that the physical antifouling technologies will be the ultimate antifouling solution, because of their broad-spectrum effectiveness and zero toxicity.

Keywords

biofouling antifouling technology biofilm adhesion mechanism 

References

  1. 1.
    Yebra D M, Kiil S, Dam J K. Antifouling technology — past, present and future steps towards efficient and environmentally friendly antifouling coatings. Prog Org Coat, 2004, 50: 75–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Champ M. A review of organotin regulatory strategies, pending actions, related costs and benefits. Sci Total Environ, 2000, 258: 21–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abbott A, Abel P D, Arnold D W, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of the use of TBT: The case for a treatment approach. Sci Total Environ, 2000, 258: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joseph J C, Ruey J T. Quantifying effects of antifouling paints on microbial biofilm formation. Methods Enzymol, 1999, 310: 637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stefan M O. Controlled release of environmentally friendly antifouling agents from marine coatings. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark, 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maureen E C, Robert L F. The influence of low surface energy materials on bioadhesion — A review. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 1994, 34: 333–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fletcher M, Loeb G I. Influence of substratum characteristics on the attachment of a marine pseudomonad to solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1979, 37: 67–72Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walt D R, Smulow J B, Turesky S S, et al. The effect of gravity on initial microbial adhesion. J Colloid Interface Sci, 1985, 107: 334–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Per R J, Kent M B, Ann I L. Linking larval supply to recruitment: Flow-mediated control of initial adhesion of barnacle larvae. Ecology, 2004, 85: 2850–2859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chambers L D, Stokes K R, Walsh F C, et al. Modern approaches to marine antifouling coatings. Surf Coat Technol, 2006, 201: 3642–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewin R. Microbial adhesion is a sticky problem. Science, 1984, 224: 375–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abarzua S, Jakubowski S. Biotechnological investigation for the prevention of biofouling I. Biological and biochemical principles for the prevention of biofouling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 1995, 123: 301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luciana V R, de Messano, Lucio S, et al. The effect of biofouling on localized corrosion of the stainless steels N08904 and UNS S32760. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 2009, 63: 607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooksey K E, Wigglesworth B C. Adhesion of bacteria and diatoms to surfaces in the sea: A review. Aquat Microb Ecol, 1995, 9: 87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maki J S, Rittschof D, Schmidt A R, et al. Factors controlling adhesion of bryozoan larvae: A comparison of bacterial films and unfilmed surfaces. Biol Bull, 1989, 177: 295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lau S C K, Harder T, Qian P Y. Induction of larval settlement in the serpulid polychaete Hydroides elegans (Haswell): Role of bacterial extracellular polymers. Biofouling, 2003, 19: 197–204Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hung O S, Thiyagarajan V, Wu R S S, et al. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on films and subsequent settlement of Hydroides elegans. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 2005, 304: 155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lasa I. Towards the identification of the common features of bacterial biofilm development. Int Microbiol, 2006, 9: 21–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flemming H C, Griebe T, Schaule G. Antifouling strategies in technical systems—a short review. Water Sci Technol, 1996, 34: 517–524Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costerton J W. Overview of microbial biofilms. J Ind Microbiol, 1995, 15: 137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies D G, et al. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol, 2002, 56: 187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waters C M, Bassler B L. Quorum sensing: Cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol, 2005, 21: 319–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krug P. Defence of benthic invertebrates against surface colonization by larvae: A chemical arms race. Prog Mol Subcell Biol, 2006, 42: 1–53Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jayaraman M, Seetharaman J. Physicochemical analyses of the exopolysaccharides produced by a marine biofouling bacterium, Vibrio alginolyticus. Process Biochem, 2003, 38: 841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jakob B K, Rikke L M, Brian S L, et al. Antifouling enzymes and the biochemistry of marine settlement. Biotechnol Adv, 2008, 26: 471–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Latasa. Biofilm-associated proteins. C R Biologies, 2006, 329: 849–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen P, Nielsen J L, Dueholm M S, et al. Amyloid adhesins are abundant in natural biofilms. Environ Microbiol, 2007, 9: 3077–3090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yanming X, Keiichi H. Amyloid fibril proteins. Mech Ageing Dev, 2002, 123: 1625–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wetzel R, Shivaprasad S, Williams A D. Plasticity of amyloid fibrils. Biochemistry, 2007, 46: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiorboe T. Turbulence, phytoplankton cell size, and the structure of pelagic food webs. Adv Mar Biol, 1993, 29: 1–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Finlay J A, Callow M E, Ista L K, et al. Adhesion strength of settled spores of the green alga enteromorpha and the diatom amphora. Integr Comp Biol, 2002, 42: 1116–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sitaraman K, Nick W, Christopher K O, et al. Comparison of the fouling release properties of hydrophobic fluorinated and hydrophilic pegylated block copolymer surfaces: Attachment strength of the diatom navicula and the green alga ulva. Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7: 1449–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jeffery R S, Sherilyn C F. Three-dimensional modeling of lacustrine diatom habitat areas: Improving paleolimnological interpretation of planktic: Benthic ratios. Limnol Oceanogr, 2004, 49: 1540–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gross F, Zeuthen E. The buoyancy of plankton diatoms: A problem of cell physiology. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B, 1948, 135: 382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ille C G, Herbert S, Manfred D. Diatom bionanotribology—biological surfaces in relative motion: Their design, friction, adhesion, lubrication and wear. J Nanosci Nanotechno, 2005, 5: 1–9Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kellar A, Yiching A L, Tonia S H, et al. Adhesive force of a single gecko foot-hair. Nature, 2000, 405: 681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holland R, Dugdale T, Wetherbee R, et al. Adhesion and motility of fouling diatoms on a silicone elastomer. Biofouling, 2004, 20: 323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edgar L A, Zavortink M. The mechanism of diatom locomotion. II. Identification of actin. Proc R Soc London Ser B, 1983, 218: 345–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nicole C P, Ilan S, Timothy P S, et al. Diatom gliding is the result of an actin-myosin motility system. Cell Motil Cytoskel, 1999, 44: 23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lind J L, Heimann K, Miller E A, et al. Substratum adhesion and gliding in a diatom are mediated by extracellular proteoglycans. Planta, 1997, 203: 213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gordon R, Drum R W. A Capillarity mechanism for diatom gliding locomotion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1970, 67: 338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Edgar L A. Diatom locomotion: A consideration of movement in a highly viscous situation. Eur J Phycol, 1982, 17: 243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Edgar L A, Pickett H J D. The mechanism of diatom locomotion. i. an ultrastructural study of the motility apparatus. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B, 1983, 218: 331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wetherbee R, Lind J L, Burke J, et al. The first kiss: Establishment and control of initial adhesion by raphid diatoms. J Phycol, 1998, 34: 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chiovitti A, Dugdale T M, Wetherbee R. Diatom adhesives: Molecular and mechanical properties. In: Smith A M, Callow J A, eds. Biological Adhesives. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bhaskar P V, Narayan B B. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances in marine biogeochemical processes. Curr Sci, 2005, 88: 45–53Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rahul A B, PETER G K. Localization of EPS components secreted by freshwater diatoms using differential staining with fluorophore-conjugated lectins and other fluorochromes. Eur J Phycol, 2007, 42: 199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yan W, Ya C, Colleen L, et al. Extracellular matrix assembly in diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). IV. Ultrastructure of Achnanthes longipes and Cymbella cistula as revealed by high-pressure freezing/freeze substitution and cryo-field emission scanning electron microscopy. J Phycol, 2000, 36: 367–378Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wustman B A, Gretz M R, Hoagland K D. Extracellular matrix assembly in diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) —1. A model of adhesives based on chemical characterization and localization of polysaccharides from the marine diatom Achnanthes longipes and other diatoms. Plant Physiol, 1997, 113: 1059–1069Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rakhee D S K, Narayan B B. Extracellular polymeric substances of the marine fouling diatom amphora rostrata Wm.Sm. Biofouling, 2001, 17: 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Michael J H, Simon A C, Paul M, et al. Characterization of the adhesive mucilages secreted by live diatom cells using atomic force microscopy. Protist, 2002, 153: 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Michael J H, Paul M, Paul M U, et al. The structure and nanome-chanical properties of the adhesive mucilage that mediates diatom-substratum adhesion and motility. J Phycol, 2003, 39: 1181–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    de Brouwer J F C, Cooksey K E, Wigglesworth C B, et al. Time of flight-secondary ion mass spectrometry on isolated extracellular fractions and intact biofilms of three species of benthic diatoms. J Microbiol Methods, 2006, 65: 562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tony M D, Anusuya W, Wetherbee R. Adhesive modular proteins occur in the extracellular mucilage of the motile, pennate diatom phaeodactylum tricornutum. Biophys J, 2006, 90: 58–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    John M. A Comparison of the value of various flagellates and diatoms as food for barnacle larvae. ICES J Mar Sci, 1963: 175-187Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Huang S, Hadfield M G. Composition and density of bacterial biofilms determine larval settlement of the polychaete hydroides elegans. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 2003, 260: 161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Patil J S, Anil A C. Influence of diatom exopolymers and biofilms on metamorphosis in the barnacle Balanus amphitrite. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 2005, 301: 231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dobretsov S, Xiong H, Xu Y, et al. Novel antifoulants: Inhibition of larval adhesion by proteases. Mar Biotechnol, 2007, 9: 388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nobuhiro F. Biofouling and antifouling. Nat Prod Rep, 2004, 21: 94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lagersson N, Høeg J. Settlement behavior and antennary biomechanics in cypris larvae of Balanus amphitrite (Crustacea: Thecostraca: Cirripedia). Mar Biol, 2002, 141: 513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kristin Ö, Christian A, James T R, et al. An in vivo study of exocytosis of cement proteins from barnacle Balanus improvisus (D.) cyprid larva. J Exp Biol, 2006, 209: 956–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Callow J A, Crawford S, Higgins M, et al. The application of atomic force microscopy to topographical studies and force measurements on the secreted adhesive of the green alga Enteromorpha. Planta, 2000, 211: 641–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Callow M E, Callow J A, Pickett H J D, et al. Primary adhesion of Enteromorpha (chlorophyta, Ulvales) propagules: Quantitative settlement studies and video microscopy. J Phycol, 1997, 33: 938–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rosenhahn A, Finlay J A, Pettit M E, et al. Zeta potential of motile spores of the green alga Ulva linza and the influence of electrostatic interactions on spore settlement and adhesion strength. Biointerphases, 2009, 4: 7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ederth T, Nygren P, Pettitt M E, et al. Anomalous settlement behavior of Ulva linza zoospores on cationic oligopeptide surfaces. Biofouling, 2008, 24: 303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Finlay J A, Callow M E, Schultz M P, et al. Adhesion strength of settled spores of the green alga Enteromorpha. Biofouling, 2002, 18: 251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Callow J A, Stanley M S, Wetherbee R, et al. Cellular and molecular approaches to understanding primary adhesion in Enteromorpha: An overview. Biofouling, 2000, 16: 141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kamino K, Koji I, Tadashi M, et al. Barnacle cement proteins — importance of disulfide bonds in their insolubility. J Biol Chem, 2000, 275: 27360–27365Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kamino K. Novel barnacle underwater adhesive protein is a charged amino acid-rich protein constituted by a Cys-rich repetitive sequence. Biochem J, 2001, 356: 503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Admiraal W. Influence of light and temperature on the growth rate of estuarine benthic diatoms in culture. Mar Biol, 1997, 39: 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rascio V J D. Antifouling coatings: Where do we go from here. Corros Rev, 2003, 18: 133–154Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Peter D S, Schneider R, Staffan K. Chemical defenses of seaweeds against microbial colonization. Biodegradation, 1997, 8: 211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Callow M E. Ship fouling: Problems and solutions. Chem Ind,1990, 5: 123–127Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Iwao O. Organotin antifouling paints and their alternatives. Appl Organomet Chem, 2003, 17: 81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Marson F. Antifouling paints. I. Theoretical approach to leaching of soluble pigments from insoluble paint vehicles. J Appl Chem, 1969, 19: 93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rascio V, Giúdice C, Amo B D. High-build soluble matrix antifouling paints tested on raft and ship’s bottom. Prog Org Coat, 1990, 18: 389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yebra D M, Kiil S, Claus E W, et al. Dissolution rate measurements of sea water soluble pigments for antifouling paints: ZnO. Prog Org Coat, 2006, 56: 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kiil S, Claus E W, Michael S P, et al. Analysis of self-polishing antifouling paints using rotary experiments and mathematical modeling. Ind Eng Chem Res, 2001, 40: 3906–3920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yebra D M, Kiil S, Claus E W, et al. Effects of marine microbial biofilms on the biocide release rate from antifouling paints—model-based analysis. Prog Org Coat, 2006, 57: 56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Anna K. Environmental management aspects for TBT antifouling wastes from the shipyards. J Environ Manage, 2009, 90(S): 77–85Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wisniewski N, Reichert M. Methods for reducing biosensor membrane biofouling. Colloids Surf B, 2000, 18: 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Comber S D W, Franklin G, Gardner M J, et al. Partitioning of marine antifoulants in the marine environment. Sci Total Environ, 2002, 286: 61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Iwao O. General Aspects of tin-free antifouling paints. Chem Rev, 2003, 103: 3431–3448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Voulvoulis N, Scrimshaw M D, Lester J N. Alternative antifouling biocides. Appl Organomet Chem, 1999, 13: 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Anita G J B, Sascha B S, Willem H P, et al. Impact of the antifouling agent Irgarol 1051 on marine phytoplankton species. J Sea Res, 2009, 61: 133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Shtykova L, Fant C, Handa P, et al. Adsorption of antifouling booster biocides on metal oxide nanoparticles: Effect of different metal oxides and solvents. Prog Org Coat, 2009, 64: 20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wang J L, Wang F Q, Yu J, et al. A survey analysis of heavy metals bio-accumulation in internal organs of sea shell animals affected by the sustainable pollution of antifouling paints used for ships anchored at some domestic maritime spaces. Chinese Sci Bull, 2008, 53: 2471–2475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Loschau M, Kratke R. Efficacy and toxicity of self-polishing biocide-free antifouling paints. Environ Pollut, 2005, 138: 260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chen M L, Qu Y Y, Yang L, et al. Structures and antifouling properties of low surface energy non-toxic antifouling coatings modified by nano-SiO2 powder. Sci China Ser B: Chem, 2008, 51: 848–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Brady R F. A fracture mechanical analysis of fouling release from nontoxic antifouling coatings. Prog Org Coat, 2001, 43: 188–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Umemura K, Yamada T, Maeda Y, et al. Regulated growth of diatom cells on self-assembled monolayers. J Nanobiotech, 2007, 5: 2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Abarzua S, Jakubowski S, Eckert S, et al. Biotechnological investigation for the prevention of marine biofouling II. Blue-green algae as potential producers of biogenic agents for the growth inhibition of microfouling organisms. Bot Mar, 1999, 42: 459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Xiong H R, Qi S H, Xu Y, et al. Antibiotic and antifouling compound production by the marine-derived fungus Cladosporium sp. F14. J Hydro-environ Res, 2009, 2: 264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Limna M V P, Raveendran T V, Parameswaran P S. Antifouling activity exhibited by secondary metabolites of the marine sponge, Haliclona exigua (Kirkpatrick). Int Biodeterior Biodegrad, 2009, 63: 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Fernando S A, Carlos R. Inhibition of attachment of some fouling diatoms and settlement of Ulva lactuca zoospores by film-forming bacterium and their extracellular products isolated from biofouled substrata in Northern Chile. Electron J Biotechnol, 2008, 11: 1–11Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Burgess J G, Boyd K G, Armstrong E, et al. The development of a marine natural product-based antifouling paint. Biofouling, 2003, 19(S): 197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Moss G. Enzyme nomenclature-recommendations of the nomenclature committee of the international union of biochemistry and molecular biology on the nomenclatureand classification of enzymes by the reactions they catalyse. Online edition. International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (NC-IUBMB). Tipton K F, Boyce S, eds. Department of Chemistry, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/index.html. 2006. Accessed 01-27-2008
  98. 98.
    Pettitt M E, Henry S L, Callow M E, et al. Activity of commercial enzymes on settlement and adhesion of cypris larvae of the barnacle balanus amphitrite, spores of the green alga Ulva linza, and the diatom Navicula perminuta. Biofouling, 2004, 20: 299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Charlotte J, Falholt P, Gram L. Enzymatic removal and disinfection of bacterial biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1997, 63: 3724–3728Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Asuri P, Sandeep S K, Ravi S K, et al. Polymer-nanotube-enzyme composites as active antifouling films. Small, 2007, 3: 50–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kim Y D, Jonathan S D, Douglas S C. Siloxane-based biocatalytic films and paints for use as reactive coatings. Biotechnol Bioeng, 2001, 72: 475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Novick S J, Jonathan S D. Protein-containing hydrophobic coatings and films. Biomaterials, 2002, 23: 441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Leroy C, Delbarre C, Ghillebaert F, et al. Effects of commercial enzymes on the adhesion of a marine biofilm-forming bacterium. Biofouling, 2008, 24: 11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Luckarift H R, Matthew B D, Kenneth H S, et al. Room-temperature synthesis of antibacterial bionanocomposites of lysozyme with amorphous silica or titania. Small, 2006, 2: 640–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nick A, Phang I Y, Conlan S L, et al. The effects of a serine protease, Alcalase, on the adhesives of barnacle cyprids (Balanus amphitrite). Biofouling, 2008, 24: 97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Chiovitti A, Higgins M J, Harper R E, et al. The complex polysaccharides of the raphid diatom Pinnularia viridis (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol, 2003, 39: 543–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Joao B X, Cristian P, Suriani A R, et al. Biofilm-control strategies based on enzymic disruption of the extracellular polymeric substance matrix—A modelling study. Microbiology, 2005, 151: 3817–3832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Boyd A, Chakrabarty A M. Role of alginate lyase in cell detachment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1994, 60: 2355–2359Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Imlay J A. Pathways of oxidative damage. Annu Rev Microbiol, 2003, 57: 395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Callow J A, Callow M E. Biofilms. Prog Mol Subcell Biol, 2006, 42: 141–169Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Huang Y L, Dobretsov S, Jang S K, et al. Presence of acylhomoserine lactone in subtidal biofilm and the implication in larval behavioral response in the polychaete hydroides elegans. Microb Ecol, 2008, 54: 384–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Olsen S M, Pedersen L T, Laursen M H, et al. Enzyme-based antifouling coatings: A review. Biofouling, 2007, 23: 369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Chiang W C, Chyou S D, Huang R, et al. Control of marine biofouling by conductive coatings. Corros Prevent Control, 2000, 47: 121–128Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tadashi M, Tae K L. Electrochemical prevention of biofouling. Electrochemistry, 2000, 68: 847–852Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Liang C H, Huang N B. Research on electrochemical behavior of titanium-supported anodic coating in electrolytic anti-fouling of brine. Mater Chem Phys, 2008, 111: 244–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sanford E B, Rittscho D. An investigation of low frequency sound waves as a means of inhibiting barnacle settlement. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol, 1984, 79: 149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Miloud R, Mireille L. Application of mechanical waves induced by piezofilms to marine fouling protection of oceanographic sensors. Smart Mater Struct, 1995, 4: 195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Finlay J A, Fletcher B R, Callow M E, et al. Effect of background colour on growth and adhesion strength of Ulva sporelings. Biofouling, 24: 219–225Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Swain G, Herpe S, Ralson E, et al. Short-term testing of antifouling surfaces: The importance of colour. Biofouling, 2006, 22: 425–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Bowen J, Pettitt M E, Kendall K, et al. The influence of surface lubricity on the adhesion of Navicula perminuta and Ulva linza to alkanethiolself-assembled monolayers. J R Soc Interface, 2007, 4: 473–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Ista L, Callow M, Finlay J, et al. Effect of substratum surface chemistry and surface energy on adhesion of marine bacteria and algal spores. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2004, 70: 4151–4157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Mark P, Paul T, Sara S, et al. Effects of ultrafiltration membrane surface properties on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm initiation for the purpose of reducing biofouling. J Membrane Sci, 2001, 194: 15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Callow M E, Callow J A, Ista L K, et al. The use of self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of different wettability to study surface selection and primary adhesion processes of zoospores of the green alga Enteromorpha. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2000, 66: 3249–3254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Statz A, Finlay J, Dalsin J, et al. Algal antifouling and fouling-release properties of metal surfaces coated with a polymer inspired by marine mussels. Biofouling, 2006, 22: 391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Schilp S, Kueller A, Rosenhahn A, et al. Settlement and adhesion of algal cells to hexa(ethylene glycol)-containing self-assembled monolayers with systematically changed wetting properties. Biointerphases, 2007, 2: 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Dineshrama R, Subasrib R, Somarajub K R C, et al. Biofouling studies on nanoparticle-based metal oxide coatings on glass coupons exposed to marine environment. Colloids Surf B, 2009, 74: 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Finlay J A, Krishnan S, Callow M E, et al. Settlement of Ulva zoospores on patterned fluorinated and PEG-lated monolayer surfaces. Langmuir, 2008, 24: 503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Grozea C M, Gunari N, Finlay J A, et al. Water-stable diblock polystyrene-block-poly(2-vinyl pyridine) and diblock polystyrene-block-poly(methyl methacrylate) cylindrical patterned surfaces inhibit settlement of zoospores of the green alga ulva. Biomacromolecules, 2009, 10: 1004–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Scardino A J, Harvey E R, de Nys R. Testing adhesion point theory: diatom adhesion on microtextured polyimide biomimics. Biofouling, 2006, 22: 55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Scardino A J, Guenther J, de Nys R. Attachment point theory revisited: The fouling response to a microtextured matrix. Biofouling, 2008, 24: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Berntsson K M, Andreasson H, Jonsson P R, et al. Reduction of barnacle recruitment on micro-textured surfaces: Analysis of effective topographic characteristics and evaluation of skin friction. Biofouling, 2000, 16: 245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Schumacher J F, Carmen M L, Estes T G, et al. Engineered antifouling microtopographies—Effect of feature size, geometry, and roughness on settlement of zoospores of the green alga Ulva. Biofouling, 2007, 23: 55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Carmen M L, Estes T G, Feinberg A W, et al. Engineered antifouling microtopographies—Correlating wettability with cell attachment. Biofouling, 2006, 22: 11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Chung K K, Schumacher J F, Sampson E M, et al. Impact of engineered surface microtopography on biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus. Biointerphases, 2007, 2: 89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Knoell T, Safarik J, Cormack T, et al. Biofouling potentials of microporous polysulfone membranes containing a sulfonated polyether-ethersulfone/polyethersulfone block copolymer: Correlation of membrane surface properties with bacterial attachment. J Membr Sci, 1999, 157: 117–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Busscher H J, van de Belt-Gritter B, van der Mei H C. Implications of microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons for evaluating cell surface hydrophobicity 1. Zeta potentials of hydrocarbon droplets. Colloids Surf B, 1995, 5: 111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Wilson W W, Wade M M, Holman S C, et al. Status of methods for assessing bacterial cell surface charge properties based on zeta potential measurements. J Microbiol Methods, 2001, 43: 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Kamlesh A S, Ashwin K B, Ali B, et al. Zeta potential of selected bacteria in drinking water when dead, starved, or exposed to minimal and rich culture media. Curr Microbiol, 2008, 56: 93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Rita K H, Andy B, Simon A P, et al. Characterisation of algogenic organic matter extracted from cyanobacteria, green algae and diatoms. Water Res, 2008, 42: 3435–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Dittrich M, Sibler S. Cell surface groups of two picocyanobacteria strains studied by zeta potential investigations, potentiometric titration, and infrared spectroscopy. J Colloid Interface Sci, 2005, 286: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Maria O P, Maria J V, Vitorino M B, et al. Retention of bacteria by cellulose fibers as a means of reducing biofouling in paper pulp production process. Biofouling, 1998, 13: 1–18Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Herrwerth S, Eck W, Reinhardt S, et al. Factors that determine the protein resistance of oligoether self-assembled monolayers—Internal hydrophilicity, terminal hydrophilicity, and lateral packing density. J Am Chem Soc, 2003, 125: 9359–9366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Soeren S, Alexander K, Axel R, et al. Settlement and adhesion of algal cells to hexa (ethylene glycol)-containing self-assembled monolayers with systematically changed wetting properties. Biointerphases, 2007, 2: 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Jurgen K H, Richard L C W, Michael G. Hydroxide ion adsorption on self-assembled monolayers. J Am Chem Soc, 2003, 125: 8384–8389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Jansen B, Kohnen W. Prevention of biofilm formation by polymer modification. J Ind Microbiol, 1995, 15: 391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Gross M, Carmton S E, Gotz F, et al. Key role of teichoic acid net charge in staphylococcus aureus colonization of artificial surfaces. Infec Immunity, 2001, 69: 3423–3426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Schumacher J F, Long C J, Callow M E, et al. Engineered nanoforce gradients for inhibition of settlement (attachment) of swimming algal spores. Langmuir, 2008, 24: 4931–4937CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shan Cao
    • 1
  • JiaDao Wang
    • 1
  • HaoSheng Chen
    • 1
  • DaRong Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of TribologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations