South Australia Water Corporation, Australian Water Quality Centre, 250 Victoria Square, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
South Australia Water Corporation, Australian Water Quality Centre, 250 Victoria Square, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Water Res. 2017 Jul 1;118:227-238. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.025. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
The presence of toxigenic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in drinking water reservoirs poses a risk to human and animal health worldwide. Guidelines and health alert levels have been issued in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for three major toxins, which are therefore the subject of routine monitoring: microcystin, cylindrospermopsin and saxitoxin. While it is agreed that these toxic compounds should be monitored closely, the routine surveillance of these bioactive chemicals can be done in various ways and deciding which technique to use can therefore be challenging. This study compared several assays available for the detection of these toxins and their producers in environmental samples: microscopy (for identification and enumeration of cyanobacteria), ELISA (Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbant Assay), PPIA (Protein phosphatase inhibition assay), PSI (Protein synthesis inhibition), chemical analysis and PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction). Results showed that there was generally a good correlation between the presence of potentially toxigenic cyanobacteria and the detection of the toxin by ELISA. Nevertheless data suggest that cell numbers and toxin concentrations measured in bioassays do not necessarily correlate and that enumeration of potentially toxic cyanobacteria by microscopy, while commonly used for monitoring and risk assessment, is not the best indicator of real toxin exposure. The concentrations of saxitoxins quantified by ELISA were significantly different than those measured by LC-MS, while results were comparable in both assays for microcystin and cylindrospermopsin. The evaluation of these analytical methods led to the conclusion that there is no "gold standard" technique for the detection of the aforementioned cyanotoxins but that the choice of detection assay depends on cost, practicality, reliability and comparability of results and essentially on the question to be answered, notably on toxin exposure potential.
在饮用水水库中存在产毒蓝藻（蓝绿藻）会对全球人类和动物的健康构成威胁。澳大利亚饮用水指南针对三种主要毒素（微囊藻毒素、节球藻毒素和石房蛤毒素）发布了指南和健康警报级别，因此这些毒素是常规监测的对象。虽然人们一致认为这些有毒化合物应密切监测，但这些生物活性化学物质的常规监测可以通过多种方式进行，因此决定使用哪种技术可能具有挑战性。本研究比较了几种可用于检测环境样品中这些毒素及其生产者的检测方法：显微镜检查（用于蓝藻的鉴定和计数）、酶联免疫吸附测定（ELISA）、PPIA（蛋白磷酸酶抑制测定）、PSI（蛋白合成抑制）、化学分析和聚合酶链反应（PCR）。结果表明，潜在产毒蓝藻的存在与 ELISA 检测到的毒素之间通常存在良好的相关性。尽管如此，数据表明生物测定法中测量的细胞数量和毒素浓度不一定相关，并且通过显微镜计数潜在有毒蓝藻虽然常用于监测和风险评估，但并不是真正暴露于毒素的最佳指标。通过 ELISA 定量的石房蛤毒素浓度与通过 LC-MS 测量的浓度显著不同，而对于微囊藻毒素和节球藻毒素，两种测定方法的结果相当。对这些分析方法的评估得出的结论是，没有用于检测上述蓝藻毒素的“金标准”技术，但检测检测方法的选择取决于成本、实用性、可靠性和结果的可比性，并且本质上取决于要回答的问题，特别是毒素暴露的可能性。
