Table 1.

Summary of methods applicable to the detection of brevetoxin-producing phytoplankton and shellfish brevetoxins.

Method	Advantages	Disadvantages
Microscopy	Detection of Karenia genus	Detection not species-specific
	Fulfils requirement of legislation	No evidence for shellfish toxicity
Particle counting methods	Detection of Karenia genus	Detection may be compromised when analysing dense blooms
	Potentially a more rapid enumeration of cells	Little evidence for suitability for field based monitoring
	Potential for in-situ analysis	Sample preservation compromises detection
		Detection not species-specific
Molecular techniques	Enables identification of different Karenia species	Methods still under development, with no reports of application to official testing to date
	Toxic species can be identified for verification purposes	Requires expensive instrumentation and highly trained analysts
Mouse bioassay (MBA)	Primary tool for toxicity assessment	Inability to detect all BTXs
	History of use and prevention of sickness	Ethical issues
	Relatively simple technology	Variable performance
		Not validated
Cytotoxicity assay	Sensitive functional assay	Matrix effects, high variability
	Use of cultured vs. primary cells	Poor correlation with MBA
	Used to detect all analogues	Noting limited data on performance characteristics of method
		Time consuming
Receptor binding assays (RBA)	Simple, sensitive, rapid	Variable affinity for BTX metabolites
	Good performance in collaborative study	Requirement for animal tissues and radiolabel
	Promising fluorescence-based binding assay	Matrix effects
		Limited development to date with fluorescence-based binding assay
Immunoassays	Specific for type-B and sensitive	Lower cross reactivity for type-A BTXs
	High throughout, fast turnaround and “in the field”	Screening tool only—no toxicity or profile data provided
	Low matrix effects	Valuable quantities of toxin required to produce antibodies
	Good correlation with MBA and LC–MS	Potential issues with commercial kits, with manufacturers changing properties or performance characteristics
	Good single lab validation and multi-lab study anticipated
Conventional chromatography	Use of MEKC-LIF, LC-UV and LC-FLD reported	Very limited data available for determination of low numbers of toxins
	Some degree of specificity	Lack of standards and equipment
		Proof of concept required for all appropriate toxins
LC–MS (MS)	Highly specific	Expensive instrumentation
	Sensitive	Lack of all suitable standards
	Single laboratory validation performed
Biosensor methods	Useful research screening tools	Lack of specificity
	High sensitivity	Expensive instrumentation for biosensors
	Matrix effects can be diluted