Sensors for Monitoring Harmful Algae, Cyanobacteria and Their Toxins

22 substances. While there are many known congeners for microcystin (> 200), there are only a few certified reference materials for verifying that an assay detects specific congeners. • Q3: Are there shared metrics to assess performance across systems (eg. marine versus fresh water) and uses (e.g. research versus management)? Assessing performance across marine and freshwater systems and uses can often be gleaned through peer-reviewed publications. For example, results from platforms that can be deployed in either type of environment to address broad needs (research and management) are supported by metrics such as 1) error bars for cell counts (e.g. ESP) that are used for visualizing variability within complex systems; and 2) image comparisons within and across databases for in situ automated microscopy platforms (e.g. IFCB). For any freshwater or marine phytoplankton metric, QA/QC development goes hand in hand. The example of phytoplankton identification within both systems was discussed. While manuals are important resources for microscopy, there is a need for cross-method validation. Further, identification can be confounded based on sampling methods used: some phytoplankton cells are very delicate (e.g. athecate dinoflagellates), while others are quite robust (e.g. Pseudo-nitzschia ). Both types of cells can be found in each system. Efforts for hindcasting and forecasting are common to both freshwater and marine systems. Although relationships are typically system dependent, most models are likely not. In both cases, there is uncertainty in evaluation of developing models and this can affect our ability to move forward with management decision capabilities. There is a need for a starting point for co-validation and for utility of methods for management decisions within both system types, e.g. is presence/absence of organism/toxin or quantitative analysis required? Technical components need to be addressed, but a proposal like that may or may not review well. Is this a priority? What is the first step? A successful pipeline would be: essential research – validation – an approved/functioning method. The group drew on parallels in other communities: developing advisory committees – publishing papers – establishing expert references. In the end, the community should “own” the validation process. QARTOD guidelines/manuals can be an important outlet for standardized information in a living document format. Their latest manual, Real-Time Quality Control of Passive Acoustics Data, is “written for the experienced operator but also provides examples for those who are just entering the field”. The group also discussed the need for better methods communication, and suggested adding a chapter on extraction methods to the IOC Manual on Harmful Algae, reviewing the data and method-sharing approach used by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), and developing a living document. • Q4: How would performance testing of these technologies ideally be conducted in the field? Lab testing would be performed in one location, however many HAB species from all regions could be tested. 1) Choose cultures of interest 2) Choose concentrations 3) Change environmental parameters for exposure (e.g. salinity, temperature, turbidity) 4) Alter automatic versus manual classification for ground-truthing