Differential Colonization Dynamics of Marine Biofilm-Forming Eukaryotic Microbes on Different Protective Coating Materials

• Published in: Polymers Vol. 11; no. 1; p. 161
• Main Authors: Lang, Yanhe, Sun, Yuan, Yu, Miao, Ji, Yubin, Wang, Lei, Zhang, Zhizhou
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 17.01.2019; MDPI
• Subjects: Biofilms; Biofouling; Carbon; Clustering; Contact angle; Corrosion; early-adherent eukaryotes; Fingerprinting; marine biofouling; Microorganisms; Morphology; Nanoparticles; natural biofilms; Perturbation; Photocatalysis; Polydimethylsiloxane; Polymorphism; Protective coatings; Rubber; Scanning electron microscopy; single-strand conformation polymorphism; Steel; Surface properties; Wettability; China; marine biofouling; protective coatings; early-adherent eukaryotes; single-strand conformation polymorphism; surface properties; natural biofilms
• ISSN: 2073-4360; 2073-4360
• DOI: 10.3390/polym11010161

In this study, the actual anti-biofouling (AF) efficacy of three protective coatings, including a chlorinated rubber-based coating (C₀) and two polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)-based coatings (P₀ and P ), were estimated via the static field exposure assays. The surface properties of these protective coatings, including surface wettability and morphology features, were characterized using the static water contact angle (WCA) and scanning electron microscope (SEM). The colonization and succession dynamics of the early-adherent biofilm-forming eukaryotic microbial communities occupied on these protective coatings were explored using the Single-stranded Conformation Polymorphism (SSCP) technique. The field data clearly revealed that coating P₀ and P performed better in the long-term static submergence, as compared with the C₀ surface, while coating P showed excellent AF efficacy in the field. Fingerprinting analysis suggested that the diversity, abundance, the clustering patterns, and colonization dynamics of the early-colonized eukaryotic microbes were significantly perturbed by these protective coatings, particularly by the P surfaces. These differential AF efficacy and perturbation effects would be largely ascribed to the differences in the wettability and surface nanostructures between the C₀, P₀ and P surfaces, as evidenced by WCA and SEM analysis.