Sensors for Monitoring Harmful Algae, Cyanobacteria and Their Toxins

13 potential blooms, over another more expensive technology like the ESP. We need to address the costs in relation to speed and applicability. 3) Research questions need to be secondary/complementary to practical management questions. Simple guidelines and interpretation are needed, in concert with technology and results that answer the main questions and decision-making needs. 4) Each instrument poses its own challenges, some overlapping and some unique to that platform. a. Initial costs – not only are costs associated with procurement of an instrument, but there are costs associated with supporting reagents, consumables, software, hardware, etc. that can significantly add to start-up costs that are out-of-reach for stakeholders. b. Operational costs – there are costs that extend beyond start-up and into the life of the instruments. Consumables, reagents, standards, software updates, maintenance etc. all contribute to these ongoing costs. Some of these costs are required to keep instruments in working order, regardless of if they are in use or not (e.g. to keep them from being moth-balled). c. Expertise – instruments can vary in terms of ease-of-use and expertise needed. Not all agencies will have access to a technician-type employee to dedicate to new instrumentation, in particular complicated platforms that require large time commitments. i. This feeds into reliability of the technology. A platform will be more readily adopted if it is stable and does not require frequent maintenance. d. Calibration performance – calibration of chemistries can be challenging, requiring funding and expertise to generate usable standard curves, etc. i. For example, qPCR and SHA are of great benefit because of their low limits of detection and dynamic working range, however calibration can be affected if cells are outside of log phase growth or experiencing nutrient limitation (Haywood et al. 2007, Main et al. 2014). e. Pathway to use – technology can have a long and arduous path towards approval/acceptance of SOPs within an agency; the process can be inefficient and slow. Furthermore, moving research into application is tough/challenging – when is research or data enough to justify putting into use? f. Limited species/toxin detection – adoption of technologies can be inhibited by limitations in the species/toxins targeted. Probe variability is well recognized and work continues to improve these. Some platforms are broad in their detection of pigments (chlorophyll, phycocyanin, phycoerithrin), while others are species specific. Stakeholders must weigh data generated with costs, expertise, etc. Also, limited capabilities can constrict knowledge of HAB genera in a given location. i. For example, currently, there is no method of detection and/or SOP for toxins in clinical specimens 5) Biology – the inherent biology from the organismal to systems level can have a profound effect on detection chemistries and platforms. If not well understood, this can lead to data inconsistencies. Examples include: pigment concentrations do not