Sensors for Monitoring Harmful Algae, Cyanobacteria and Their Toxins

3 analytical platforms is based on the scientific and/or management goals being addressed, the spatial/temporal sampling scales desired, but must be balanced with availability, capabilities, budget and expertise. Ultimately, tools that effectively integrate shore-station, offshore buoy, and autonomous vehicle monitoring with models of bloom dynamics, probability, and impact tracking are needed. The words of Jewett et al. (2008) are a concise reminder of the vision shared by all stakeholders: “To be useful to HAB management, observing systems must be located in areas where HABs frequently occur and must have sensors capable of detecting HAB cells and toxins and monitoring the environmental conditions that foster blooms. They must deliver integrated data sets that can be used in operational mode for forecasting HAB events.” In re-visiting recommendations from the 2008 workshop: “Technologies and Methodologies for the Detection of Harmful Algae and their Toxins”, there are areas of both great improvement and ongoing need. 1. One hurdle that remains constant is the small size and diversity of the marketplace interested in sensor technology. This impacts product design and production costs, as these should be balanced with robustness and capabilities. The recommendation from the prior HAB workshop suggested development of sensors with broader applications while taking advantage of existing product designs (e.g. drinking water, human health, biomedical) to leverage costs associated with development and implementation. The second part of the recommendation was to garner more interest by local governments and regulators. • Large HAB events, particularly those that reach national coverage, continue to raise awareness among regional and state agencies for the importance of monitoring conditions both within and outside bloom events. For example, in response to the Toledo, OH drinking water ban, funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was awarded to deploy ESP’s to measure daily levels of microcystin at source water intakes. These data are invaluable for alerting water resource managers to a potential toxic threat and making important decisions on water safety before they develop into an event. • Significant efforts have been made to include a broader range of stakeholders and incorporate relevant management sessions into national HAB meetings. The latest meeting held in Long Beach, CA (November 2015) included several relevant sessions: ‘Bloom Prediction, Forecasting and Modeling’; ‘Monitoring and Management’; ‘Emerging Technologies, Instrumentation and Methodologies’. However, HAB researchers still make up the vast majority of attendees and ongoing efforts should be made to engage a variety of stakeholders (e.g. low-cost registration). • Water utilities (such as the City of Toledo) are recognizing the importance of sensors and sensor research and are beginning to design structural modifications to new and existing facilities to better accommodate researchers and sensor platforms. 2. Development of real-time HAB sensors (deployable or handheld) for managers was a high priority . The HAB community has been progressing in this area, with several examples of successful local agency partnerships. • The IFCB is currently being utilized off Catalina Island, CA to monitor for HAB species within a new offshore aquaculture facility and alert managers to potential ecosystem hazards.