State Water Board training details stepwise best practices for harmful algal bloom sampling and testing

Anna Holder, Open Data Science, Equity and Tribal Coordinator at the California State Water Board, opened a virtual training that walked practitioners through sample-collection protocols and lab pathways used for harmful algal bloom monitoring. "Today, we're going to be diving deep into sample collection protocols," Holder said, framing the session as part of an ongoing course series for tribal and local partners.

Marisa Van Dyke, a presenter with the California Water Boards, described a tiered monitoring strategy programs can tailor to resources and goals. She said event-response monitoring is reactive and can scale across many sites, routine monitoring characterizes bloom timing at specific water bodies, and ambient monitoring (the most resource-intensive) supports status-and-trend analyses and management decisions. Van Dyke emphasized that cyanobacteria can move vertically in the water column and that toxin concentrations are often concentrated in cells, so field reconnaissance should target the densest material to capture worst-case exposures.

For low-resource screening, Van Dyke recommended visual guides and simple qualitative field tests such as the stick, glove-hand and jar tests, and optional field microscopy. "If it comes up and falls apart, it's likely cyanobacteria," she said describing the glove-hand test. These approaches require minimal equipment and can guide whether to collect samples for lab analysis.

For laboratory triage, presenters recommended a tiered sequence: microscopy or DNA-based identification (metabarcoding) or qPCR to determine if toxin-producing genes are present, followed by targeted toxin testing when indicated. Van Dyke said qPCR can be rapid and indicate a bloom’s genetic potential to make specific toxins, while toxin quantification methods include ELISA (faster, antibody-based) and liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), which is more precise but costlier.

The training stressed sample integrity and logistics: use amber glass when possible (PETG plastic is acceptable to avoid breakage), protect bottles with cushioning and ice packs, keep samples dark and chilled, and ship promptly. Presenters advised labs typically expect samples below 10°C on receipt and that overnight shipping or same-day transport reduces degradation. Van Dyke warned against crushed ice and noted some labs will pause analysis if samples arrive warm.

Presenters also discussed costs and lab selection. Van Dyke provided ballpark figures discussed in the session: DNA-based screening for multiple toxin gene targets can be on the order of $250 per sample, while full toxin panels can range roughly $500–$700 per sample depending on method and turnaround. She advised programs to check lab detection limits, whether labs perform cell lysis prior to analysis, and accreditation status (drinking-water monitoring may require accredited methods; recreational monitoring often uses non-accredited but widely available tests).

Emerging technologies covered included imaging flow cytometers for faster automated identification, in-situ imaging instruments for continuous monitoring, SPATT passive samplers to track dissolved toxins over deployment periods, and pigment (chlorophyll) measurements as cost-effective triggers for expanded testing.

The session closed with links to the Water Board’s standard operating procedures, field checklists and the statewide HAB reports map. Presenters invited attendees to request one-on-one technical support and to participate in pre-holiday monitoring coordination. "We are available to do one-on-one discussions," Van Dyke said, offering follow-up assistance to programs seeking to set up or refine sampling and analysis workflows.

Next steps include additional training modules on data interpretation and mitigation strategies later in the year; resources and slide recordings will be posted online for registrants.