The Diatoms: From Eutrophic Indicators to Mitigators

  • Aviraj Datta
  • Thomas Kiran Marella
  • Archana Tiwari
  • Suhas P. Wani


Diatoms are heterokonts which are highly diverse and have significant evolutionary differences when compared with green algae and vascular plants. Diatoms drive primary production in all photic zones from the equator to arctic. Diatoms have great potential as bioindicators as their population diversity reflects the environmental conditions of their oceanic or riverine ecosystems. The ease of their detection and versatility across different ecosystems complements to their sensitivity to many physicochemical and biological changes. Diatom importance in marine and fresh water ecosystems is attributed to their primary role in aquatic food webs. Mass cultivation of microalgae for biodiesel and high-value products needs enormous supply of growth medium. Meeting this need from fresh water and fertilizers is not environmentally and economically sustainable. Hence, growing diatom algae utilizing the nutrient contents of wastewater will offer a natural wastewater treatment option with revenue generation potential. Constructed wetland-based decentralized wastewater treatment when followed by diatom treatment can reduce their footprint and increase their revenue generation potential. Performance monitoring of decentralized wastewater treatment facilities through standard physicochemical methods remains a challenge for remote locations as the time lag between sampling and analysis often diminishes the quality of performance evaluation. In this chapter we explore the enormous potential of diatom to augment the feasibility of constructed wetland as a sustainable wastewater treatment technology with simultaneous biomonitoring.


Diatoms Bioindicator Limnology Constructed wetland 


  1. Abidov M, Ramazanov Z, Seifulla R, Grachev S (2010) The effects of Xanthigen™ in the weight management of obese premenopausal women with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and normal liver fat. Diabetes Obes Metab 12(1):72–81Google Scholar
  2. Amano Y, Takahashi K, Machida M (2012) Competition between the cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa and the diatom Cyclotella sp. under nitrogen-limited condition caused by dilution in eutrophic lake. J Appl Phycol 24(4):965–971Google Scholar
  3. Ansa E, Lubberding H, Ampofo J, Gijzen H (2011) The role of algae in the removal of Escherichia coli in a tropical eutrophic lake. Ecol Eng 37(2):317–324Google Scholar
  4. Armbrust EV (2009) The life of diatoms in the world’s oceans. Nature 459(7244):185–192Google Scholar
  5. Armbrust EV, Berges JA, Bowler C, Green BR, Martinez D, Putnam NH, Zhou S, Allen AE, Apt KE, Bechner M (2004) The genome of the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana: ecology, evolution, and metabolism. Science 306(5693):79–86Google Scholar
  6. Bennion H, Battarbee R (2007) The European Union water framework directive: opportunities for palaeolimnology. J Paleolimnol 38(2):285–295Google Scholar
  7. Black RW, Moran PW, Frankforter JD (2011) Response of algal metrics to nutrients and physical factors and identification of nutrient thresholds in agricultural streams. Environ Monit Assess 175(1–4):397–417Google Scholar
  8. Blinn D, Herbst D (2003) Use of diatoms and soft algae as indicators of environmental determinants in the Lahontan Basin, USA. Annual report for California state water resources board Contract agreement 704558Google Scholar
  9. Cantonati M, Angeli N, Virtanen L, Wojtal AZ, Gabrieli J, Falasco E, Lavoie I, Morin S, Marchetto A, Fortin C (2014) Achnanthidium minutissimum (Bacillariophyta) valve deformities as indicators of metal enrichment in diverse widely-distributed freshwater habitats. Sci Total Environ 475:201–215Google Scholar
  10. Carpelan LH (1978) Revision of Kolbe’s System der Halobien based on diatoms of California lagoons. Oikos 31:112–122Google Scholar
  11. Cibic T, Blasutto O (2011) Living marine benthic diatoms as indicators of nutrient enrichment: a case study in the Gulf of Trieste. In: Diatoms: classification, ecology and life cycle. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York, pp 169–184Google Scholar
  12. Cox EJ (1991) What is the basis for using diatoms as monitors of river quality? In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Universität Innsbruck, Austria. pp 33–40Google Scholar
  13. Craggs RJ, Smith VJ, McAuley PJ (1995) Wastewater nutrient removal by marine microalgae cultured under ambient conditions in mini-ponds. Water Sci Technol 31(12):151–160Google Scholar
  14. Craggs RJ, McAuley PJ, Smith VJ (1997) Wastewater nutrient removal by marine microalgae grown on a corrugated raceway. Water Res 31(7):1701–1707Google Scholar
  15. de Godos I, Vargas VA, Blanco S, González MCG, Soto R, García-Encina PA, Becares E, Muñoz R (2010) A comparative evaluation of microalgae for the degradation of piggery wastewater under photosynthetic oxygenation. Bioresour Technol 101 (14):5150-5158Google Scholar
  16. De la Rey P, Taylor J, Laas A, Van Rensburg L, Vosloo A (2004) Determining the possible application value of diatoms as indicators of general water quality: a comparison with SASS 5. Water SA 30(3):325–332Google Scholar
  17. De Pauw N, Beyst B, Heylen S (2000) Development of a biological assessment method for river sediments in Flanders, Belgium. Verh Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 27(5):2703–2708Google Scholar
  18. Delgado C, Pardo I, García L (2010) A multimetric diatom index to assess the ecological status of coastal Galician rivers (NW Spain). Hydrobiologia 644(1):371–384Google Scholar
  19. Dell’Uomo A (1996) Assessment of water quality of an Apennine river as a pilot study for diatom-based monitoring of Italian watercourses. In: Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Eugen Rott, Innsbruck, pp 65–72Google Scholar
  20. Desbois AP, Mearns-Spragg A, Smith VJ (2009) A fatty acid from the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum is antibacterial against diverse bacteria including multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Mar Biotechnol 11(1):45–52Google Scholar
  21. Descy J (1979) A new approach to water quality estimation using diatoms. Nova Hedwingia, Beiheft 64:305–323Google Scholar
  22. Descy J-P, Coste M (1991) A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms. Verh Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 24(4):2112–2116Google Scholar
  23. Dixit SS, Smol JP, Kingston JC, Charles DF (1992) Diatoms: powerful indicators of environmental change. Environ Sci Technol 26(1):22–33Google Scholar
  24. Eloranta P, Soininen J (2002) Ecological status of some Finnish rivers evaluated using benthic diatom communities. J Appl Phycol 14(1):1–7Google Scholar
  25. Eriksson PG, Weisner SE (1997) Nitrogen removal in a wastewater reservoir: the importance of denitrification by epiphytic biofilms on submersed vegetation. J Environ Qual 26(3):905–910Google Scholar
  26. Falkowski PG, Barber RT, Smetacek V (1998) Biogeochemical controls and feedbacks on ocean primary production. Science 281(5374):200–206Google Scholar
  27. Falkowski PG, Katz ME, Milligan AJ, Fennel K, Cramer BS, Aubry MP, Berner RA, Novacek MJ, Zapol WM (2005) The rise of oxygen over the past 205 million years and the evolution of large placental mammals. Science 309(5744):2202–2204Google Scholar
  28. Findlay JA, Patil AD (1984) Antibacterial constituents of the diatom Navicula delognei. J Nat Prod 47(5):815–818Google Scholar
  29. Fore LS, Grafe C (2002) Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (USA). Freshw Biol 47(10):2015–2037Google Scholar
  30. Furnas MJ (1990) In situ growth rates of marine phytoplankton: approaches to measurement, community and species growth rates. J Plankton Res 12(6):1117–1151Google Scholar
  31. Furse M, Hering D, Moog O, Verdonschot P, Johnson RK, Brabec K, Gritzalis K, Buffagni A, Pinto P, Friberg N (2006) The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566(1):3–29Google Scholar
  32. Gaiser EE, Sullivan P, Tobias FA, Bramburger AJ, Trexler JC (2014) Boundary effects on benthic microbial phosphorus concentrations and diatom beta diversity in a hydrologically-modified, nutrient-limited wetland. Wetlands 34(1):55–64Google Scholar
  33. García L, Delgado C, Pardo I (2008) Seasonal changes of benthic communities in a temporary stream of Ibiza (Balearic Islands). Limnetica 27(2):259–272Google Scholar
  34. Gómez N, Licursi M (2001) The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquat Ecol 35(2):173–181Google Scholar
  35. González LE, Cañizares RO, Baena S (1997) Efficiency of ammonia and phosphorus removal from a Colombian agroindustrial wastewater by the microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus dimorphus. Bioresour Technol 60(3):259–262Google Scholar
  36. Gottschalk F, Ort C, Scholz R, Nowack B (2011) Engineered nanomaterials in rivers–exposure scenarios for Switzerland at high spatial and temporal resolution. Environ Pollut 159(12):3439–3445Google Scholar
  37. Hecky RE, Kilham P (1973) Diatoms in alkaline, saline lakes: ecology and geochemical implications. Limnol Oceanogr 18(1):53–71Google Scholar
  38. Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot PF (2006) Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshw Biol 51(9):1757–1785Google Scholar
  39. Hildebrand M, Davis AK, Smith SR, Traller JC, Abbriano R (2012) The place of diatoms in the biofuels industry. Biofuels 3(2):221–240Google Scholar
  40. Hong Y-W, Yuan D-X, Lin Q-M, Yang T-L (2008) Accumulation and biodegradation of phenanthrene and fluoranthene by the algae enriched from a mangrove aquatic ecosystem. Mar Pollut Bull 56(8):1400–1405Google Scholar
  41. Ishida CK, Arnon S, Peterson CG, Kelly JJ, Gray KA (2008) Influence of algal community structure on denitrification rates in periphyton cultivated on artificial substrata. Microb Ecol 56(1):140–152Google Scholar
  42. Kelly M, Whitton B (1995) The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. J Appl Phycol 7(4):433–444Google Scholar
  43. Kelly M, Cazaubon A, Coring E, Dell’Uomo A, Ector L, Goldsmith B, Guasch H, Hürlimann J, Jarlman A, Kawecka B (1998) Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J Appl Phycol 10(2):215–224Google Scholar
  44. Kim SM, Jung Y-J, Kwon O-N, Cha KH, Um B-H, Chung D, Pan C-H (2012) A potential commercial source of fucoxanthin extracted from the microalga Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 166(7):1843–1855Google Scholar
  45. King L, Clarke G, Bennion H, Kelly M, Yallop M (2006) Recommendations for sampling littoral diatoms in lakes for ecological status assessments. J Appl Phycol 18(1):15–25Google Scholar
  46. Kooistra WH, Medlin L (1996) Evolution of the diatoms (Bacillariophyta) IV A reconstruction of their age from small subunit rRNA coding regions and fossil record. Mol Phylogenet Evol 6(3):391–407Google Scholar
  47. Kröger N, Poulsen N (2008) Diatoms-from cell wall biogenesis to nanotechnology. Annu Rev Genet 42:83–107Google Scholar
  48. Lamberti GA (1996) The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In: Stevenson RJ, Bothwell ML, Lowe LR (eds) Algal ecology: freshwater benthic ecosystems. Academic Press, California. pp 533–572Google Scholar
  49. Lavoie I, Campeau S (2010) Fishing for diatoms: fish gut analysis reveals water quality changes over a 75-year period. J Paleolimnol 43(1):121–130Google Scholar
  50. Lebeau T, Robert J (2003) Diatom cultivation and biotechnologically relevant products. Part II: Current and putative products. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 60(6):624–632Google Scholar
  51. Leclercq L, Maquet B (1987) Deux nouveaux indices chimique et diatomique de qualité d’eau courante: application au Samson et à ses affluents (Bassin de la Meuse Belge), comparaison avec d’autres indices chimiques, biocénotiques et diatomiques. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de BelgiqueGoogle Scholar
  52. Leguay S, Lavoie I, Levy JL, Fortin C (2016) Using biofilms for monitoring metal contamination in lotic ecosystems: the protective effects of hardness and pH on metal bioaccumulation. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(6):1489–1501Google Scholar
  53. Leira M, Sabater S (2005) Diatom assemblages distribution in catalan rivers, NE Spain, in relation to chemical and physiographical factors. Water Res 39(1):73–82Google Scholar
  54. Leland HV (1995) Distribution of phytobenthos in the Yakima River basin, Washington, in relation to geology, land use and other environmental factors. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52(5):1108–1129Google Scholar
  55. Li Y, Gao J, Meng F, Chi J (2015) Enhanced biodegradation of phthalate acid esters in marine sediments by benthic diatom Cylindrotheca closterium. Sci Total Environ 508:251–257Google Scholar
  56. Lobo E, Bes D, Tudesque L, Ector L (2004) Water quality assessment of the Pardinho River, RS, Brazil, using epilithic diatom assemblages and faecal coliforms as biological indicators. Vie Milieu 54(2–3):115–126Google Scholar
  57. Lougheed VL, Parker CA, Stevenson RJ (2007) Using non-linear responses of multiple taxonomic groups to establish criteria indicative of wetland biological condition. Wetlands 27(1):96–109Google Scholar
  58. Lynn SG, Price DJ, Birge WJ, Kilham SS (2007) Effect of nutrient availability on the uptake of PCB congener 2, 2′, 6, 6′-tetrachlorobiphenyl by a diatom (Stephanodiscus minutulus) and transfer to a zooplankton (Daphnia pulicaria). Aquat Toxicol 83(1):24–32Google Scholar
  59. Mallick N (2002) Biotechnological potential of immobilized algae for wastewater N, P and metal removal: a review. Biometals 15(4):377–390Google Scholar
  60. Marella TK, Tiwari A, Bhaskar MV (2015) A new novel solution to grow diatom algae in large natural water bodies and its impact on CO2 capture and nutrient removal. J Algal Biomass Util 6(2):22–27Google Scholar
  61. Marella TK, Parine NR, Tiwari A (2018) Potential of diatom consortium developed by nutrient enrichment for biodiesel production and simultaneous nutrient removal from waste water. Saudi J Biol Sci 25 (4):704–709Google Scholar
  62. McCormick PV, Cairns J (1994) Algae as indicators of environmental change. J Appl Phycol 6(5–6):509–526Google Scholar
  63. Milligan AJ, Morel FM (2002) A proton buffering role for silica in diatoms. Science 297(5588):1848–1850Google Scholar
  64. Muxika I, Borja A, Bald J (2007) Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 55(1–6):16–29Google Scholar
  65. Mulholland PJ, Helton AM, Poole GC, Hall RO, Hamilton SK, Peterson BJ, Tank JL, Ashkenas LR, Cooper LW, Dahm CN (2008) Stream denitrification across biomes and its response to anthropogenic nitrate loading. Nature 452(7184):202Google Scholar
  66. Munoz R, Guieysse B (2006) Algal–bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous contaminants: a review. Water Res 40(15):2799–2815Google Scholar
  67. Naviner M, Bergé J-P, Durand P, Le Bris H (1999) Antibacterial activity of the marine diatom Skeletonema costatum against aquacultural pathogens. Aquaculture 174(1):15–24Google Scholar
  68. Nixon SW (2009) Eutrophication and the macroscope. Hydrobiologia 629(1):5–19Google Scholar
  69. Olguın EJ (2003) Phycoremediation: key issues for cost-effective nutrient removal processes. Biotechnol Adv 22(1–2):81–91Google Scholar
  70. Oswald WJ (1988) Large-scale algal culture systems (engineering aspects). In: Borowitzka MA, Borowitzka LJ (eds) Micro-algal biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–394Google Scholar
  71. Passy SI, Bode RW, Carlson DM, Novak MA (2004) Comparative environmental assessment in the studies of benthic diatom, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. Int Rev Hydrobiol 89(2):121–138Google Scholar
  72. Phang SM, Miah MS, Yeoh BG, Hashim MA (2000) Spirulina cultivation in digested sago starch factory wastewater. J Appl Phycol 12(3–5):395–400Google Scholar
  73. Poulíčková A, Duchoslav M, Dokulil M (2004) Littoral diatom assemblages as bioindicators of lake trophic status: a case study from perialpine lakes in Austria. Eur J Phycol 39(2):143–152Google Scholar
  74. Prygiel J, Lévêque L, Iserentant R (1996) A new Practical Diatom Index for the assessment of water quality in monitoring networks. J Water Sci 9(1):97–113Google Scholar
  75. Prygiel J, Coste M, Bukowska J (1999) Review of the major diatom-based techniques for the quality assessment of rivers-state of the art in Europe. In: Prygiel J, Whitton BA, Bukowska J (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers, vol 3. Agences de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai, pp 224–238Google Scholar
  76. Patrick R (1961) A study of the number and kinds of species found in rivers of the Eastern Unisted States. Proc Acad Natl Sci Phila 113 : 215–258.Google Scholar
  77. Payne WJ (1991) A review of methods for field measurements of denitrification. Forest Ecol Manag 44 (1):5-14Google Scholar
  78. Raven JA (1983) The transport and function of silicon in plants. Biol Rev 58(2):179–207Google Scholar
  79. Raven JA (1987) The role of vacuoles. New Phytol 106(3):357–422Google Scholar
  80. Renaud S, Parry D, Thinh L, Kuo C, Padovan A, Sammy N (1991) Effect of light intensity on the proximate biochemical and fatty acid composition of Isochrysis sp. and Nannochloropsis oculata for use in tropical aquaculture. J Appl Phycol 3(1):43–53Google Scholar
  81. Renuka N, Sood A, Prasanna R, Ahluwalia A (2015) Phycoremediation of wastewaters: a synergistic approach using microalgae for bioremediation and biomass generation. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(4):1443–1460Google Scholar
  82. Rott E, Pipp E, Pfister P (2003) Diatom methods developed for river quality assessment in Austria and a cross-check against numerical trophic indication methods used in Europe. Algol Stud 110(1):91–115Google Scholar
  83. Rott E, Pipp E, Pfister E, van Dam H, Orther K, Binder N, Pall K (1999) Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen in Österreichischen Fliessgewassern. Teil 2, Trophieindikation. Bundesministerium für Land, und Forstwirtschaft, Wien 248.Google Scholar
  84. Ruhland K, Paterson AM, Smol JP (2008) Hemispheric-scale patterns of climate-related shifts in planktonic diatoms from North American and European lakes. Glob Chang Biol 14(11):2740–2754Google Scholar
  85. Ruiz-Marin A, Mendoza-Espinosa LG, Stephenson T (2010) Growth and nutrient removal in free and immobilized green algae in batch and semi-continuous cultures treating real wastewater. Bioresour Technol 101(1):58–64Google Scholar
  86. Sládeček V (1986) Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water 14(5):555–566Google Scholar
  87. Smetacek V (1999) Diatoms and the ocean carbon cycle. Protist 150(1):25–32Google Scholar
  88. Stevenson J (2014) Ecological assessments with algae: a review and synthesis. J Phycol 50(3):437–461Google Scholar
  89. Stevenson RJ, Pan Y (1999) Assessing environmental conditions in rivers and streams with diatoms. In: Stoermer EF, Smol JP (eds) The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences, vol 1(4). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  90. Stoermer E (1978) Phytoplankton assemblages as indicators of water quality in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Trans Am Microsc Soc 97:2–16Google Scholar
  91. Stoermer EF, Yang JJ (1970) Distribution and relative abundance of dominant plankton diatoms in Lake Michigan. University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  92. Tilman D, Kilham SS, Kilham P (1982) Phytoplankton community ecology: the role of limiting nutrients. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13(1):349–372Google Scholar
  93. Torrisi M, Scuri S, Dell’Uomo A, Cocchioni M (2010) Comparative monitoring by means of diatoms, macroinvertebrates and chemical parameters of an Apennine watercourse of central Italy: the river Tenna. Ecol Indic 10(4):910–913Google Scholar
  94. Valiente Moro C, Bricheux G, Portelli C, Bohatier J (2012) Comparative effects of the herbicides chlortoluron and mesotrione on freshwater microalgae. Environ Toxicol Chem 31(4):778–786Google Scholar
  95. Wagner H, Jakob T, Wilhelm C (2006) Balancing the energy flow from captured light to biomass under fluctuating light conditions. New Phytol 169(1):95–108Google Scholar
  96. Walden WC, Hentges DJ (1975) Differential effects of oxygen and oxidation reduction potential on the multiplication of three species of anaerobic intestinal bacteria. Appl Microbiol 30(5):781–785Google Scholar
  97. Walsh G, Wepener V (2009) The influence of land use on water quality and diatom community structures in urban and agriculturally stressed rivers. Water SA 35(5):579–594Google Scholar
  98. Watanabe T (1988) Numerical water quality monitoring of organic pollution using diatom assemblages. In: Proceedings of the 9th international diatom symposium, 1988. Biopress Limited, Koeltz Scientific Books, BristolGoogle Scholar
  99. Weckström K, Juggins S (2006) Coastal diatom–environment relationships from the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. J Phycol 42(1):21–35Google Scholar
  100. Weilhoefer C, Pan Y (2007) A comparison of diatom assemblages generated by two sampling protocols. J N Am Benthol Soc 26(2):308–318Google Scholar
  101. Wetzel RG (1981) Longterm dissolved and particulate alkaline phosphatase activity in a hardwater lake in relation to lake stability and phosphorus enrichments. Verh Int Ver Theor Angew Limnol 21(1):369–381Google Scholar
  102. Woertz I, Feffer A, Lundquist T, Nelson Y (2009) Algae grown on dairy and municipal wastewater for simultaneous nutrient removal and lipid production for biofuel feedstock. J Environ Eng 135(11):1115–1122Google Scholar
  103. Wu J-T, Kow L-T (2002) Applicability of a generic index for diatom assemblages to monitor pollution in the tropical River Tsanwun, Taiwan. J Appl Phycol 14(1):63–69Google Scholar
  104. Wu X, Mitsch WJ (1998) Spatial and temporal patterns of algae in newly constructed freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 18(1):9–20Google Scholar
  105. Yamamoto T, Goto I, Kawaguchi O, Minagawa K, Ariyoshi E, Matsuda O (2008) Phytoremediation of shallow organically enriched marine sediments using benthic microalgae. Mar Pollut Bull 57(1):108–115Google Scholar
  106. Yongmanitchai W, Ward OP (1989) Omega-3 fatty acids: alternative sources of production. Process Biochem 24(4):117–125Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aviraj Datta
    • 1
  • Thomas Kiran Marella
    • 1
  • Archana Tiwari
    • 2
  • Suhas P. Wani
    • 1
  1. 1.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsPatancheruIndia
  2. 2.AMITY UniversityNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations