Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Toxic marine microalgae and shellfish poisoning in the British isles: history, review of epidemiology, and future implications

  • Stephanie L Hinder1, 2Email author,
  • Graeme C Hays2,
  • Caroline J Brooks3,
  • Angharad P Davies1,
  • Martin Edwards4, 5,
  • Anthony W Walne4 and
  • Mike B Gravenor1
Environmental Health201110:54

DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-54

Received: 11 January 2011

Accepted: 6 June 2011

Published: 6 June 2011

Abstract

The relationship between toxic marine microalgae species and climate change has become a high profile and well discussed topic in recent years, with research focusing on the possible future impacts of changing hydrological conditions on Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species around the world. However, there is very little literature concerning the epidemiology of these species on marine organisms and human health. Here, we examine the current state of toxic microalgae species around the UK, in two ways: first we describe the key toxic syndromes and gather together the disparate reported data on their epidemiology from UK records and monitoring procedures. Secondly, using NHS hospital admissions and GP records from Wales, we attempt to quantify the incidence of shellfish poisoning from an independent source. We show that within the UK, outbreaks of shellfish poisoning are rare but occurring on a yearly basis in different regions and affecting a diverse range of molluscan shellfish and other marine organisms. We also show that the abundance of a species does not necessarily correlate to the rate of toxic events. Based on routine hospital records, the numbers of shellfish poisonings in the UK are very low, but the identification of the toxin involved, or even a confirmation of a poisoning event is extremely difficult to diagnose. An effective shellfish monitoring system, which shuts down aquaculture sites when toxins exceed regularity limits, has clearly prevented serious impact to human health, and remains the only viable means of monitoring the potential threat to human health. However, the closure of these sites has an adverse economic impact, and the monitoring system does not include all toxic plankton. The possible geographic spreading of toxic microalgae species is therefore a concern, as warmer waters in the Atlantic could suit several species with southern biogeographical affinities enabling them to occupy the coastal regions of the UK, but which are not yet monitored or considered to be detrimental.

Introduction

Within the UK, several toxic marine microalgae species, where some species are also known as Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species are present throughout the coastal regions. These species produce biotoxins, which are ingested by filter feeding organisms, accumulating within their flesh [1]. These toxins gradually get transferred to the higher trophic levels within the food web, posing a threat to human health, if the shellfish is consumed [24].

In UK waters, an effective shellfish monitoring system acts as a sentinel, and has prevented serious impact on human health but this has led to long-term closures of fisheries, with severe economic consequences [5]. The shellfish industry is an important aspect of the economy in the UK; with shellfish contributing to 42% of UK landings, and with the shellfish industry worth £267.1 million in 2008 [6]. There have been several in-depth reviews concerning the toxins produced by these toxic microalgae species, and the future implication of climate change on these species composition and potential alterations in locations. However, despite many closures of fisheries there is very little literature concerning the epidemiology of adverse events on human health. Generally, information regarding the acute manifestations of these illnesses is greatly under reported, and species involved not even identified. With the changing hydrological conditions and the general idea that toxic microalgae species are increasing in their geographical location and frequency [7, 8], it is important to determine the possible future threat in the UK.

Here, we address the problem in two ways: first we describe the key toxic syndromes and gather together the disparate data on their epidemiology from sporadic UK records and monitoring procedures. We describe the ecology of the main species, including their seasonal patterns, global distribution and how these might be affected by climate change. Second, using the Health Information Research Unit for Wales (HIRU), all NHS hospital admissions and GP records involving shellfish toxins were identified within Wales, and the implication for monitoring shellfish poisoning in the UK are discussed.

Toxic Syndromes

There are around 60 to 80 toxic marine microalgae species throughout the world, with dinoflagellates accounting for 75% of all such species [9]. The examination of toxins from this large and diverse group of dinoflagellates has lead to the identification of five major seafood poisoning categories [1, 9]: paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP), diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP), ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP), and a newly identified azaspiracid poisoning (AZP). Diatom species have also been identified as producing toxins causing Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP).

Within UK waters, only PSP, DSP, AZP and ASP are present, with each toxin syndrome having a different lethal dose, onset and duration time, and a range of symptoms. A review of each toxin and symptoms involved can be found in Table 1. There have been very few cases of NSP and CFP reported in the UK, and those that have occurred arose from imported contaminated fish [10, 11]. Therefore we have not examined these two toxins syndromes.
Table 1

Toxin syndromes and symptoms within UK waters

 

Toxin

Causal species

Symptoms

References

PSP

Saxitoxin and gonyautoxin

Alexandrium spp.

Gymnodinium spp.

Pyrodinium spp.

Tingling and numbness

Drowsiness

Incoherence

In high doses - respiratory arrest or cardiovascular shock or death

[1, 11, 26, 52]

DSP

Okadaic acid and Dinophysis toxin (1,2 and3)

Dinophysis spp.

Prorcentrum spp.

Nausea

Vomiting

Diarrhoea

Abdominal cramps

[1, 26, 53, 54]

 

Pectenotoxin

Dinophysis spp.

  
 

Yessotoxin

Gonyaulax spinifera

Lingulodinium polyedrum

Protoceratium reticulatum

In high doses - dehydration and shock

 

AZP

Azaspiracids

Azadinium spinosum

Nausea

Vomiting

Diarrhoea

Abdominal cramps

[22]

ASP

Domonic acid

Pseudo-nitzschia

Nausea

Vomiting

Diarrhoea

Abdominal cramps

Loss of short term memory

[11, 26, 55]

UK Monitoring Procedures

Legislative requirements are implemented to monitor shellfish to ensure human consumer protection and to control the risk of shellfish poisoning [12]. In 2001, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) took responsibility for becoming a National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for the monitoring of marine biotoxins within the UK by collecting and analyzing samples of shellfish and water from around the harvesting regions [13, 14]. Water samples are tested twice monthly for the presence of toxic algae and shellfish are tested on a monthly basis for the presence of toxins [13]. The number of water samples, shellfish flesh sampled and the number of contributing harvesting areas in Wales and England from 1999-2009 are shown in Table 2. Toxin threshold values and water action limits have been produced (Table 3) and maximum acceptable limits set [15]. If toxins are shown to exceed these limits, the FSA communicate to the local authority of the relevant infected beds, who can impose a temporary prohibition order, which closes the beds to harvesting until daily tests have returned negative results for two consecutive weeks [15]. To ensure the safety of the shellfish placed on market, the Food Business Operators (FBOs) are required under regulation (EC) No 853/2004 to monitor the levels of biotoxins and ensure they do not exceed regulatory limits [16].
Table 2

The number of shellfish flesh samples, water samples and the number of active classified shellfish production and relaying areas collected by CEFAS from 1999-2009 in Wales and England

 

Shellfish Testing

Water Samples

 
 

No. of Samples

No. of active classified shellfish production and relaying areas

No. of Samples

No. of active classified shellfish production and relaying areas

Reference

April 1999 - March 2000

1017

25

320

19

[49]

April 2000 - March 2001

703

34

350

20

[56]

April 2001 - March 2002

1326

67

195

23

[57]

April 2002 - March 2003

1529

64

1529

23

[58]

April 2003 - March 2004

1326

66

388

23

[59]

April 2004 - March 2005

949

64

314

21

[50]

April 2005 - March 2006

1143

64

737

61

[60]

April 2006 - March 2007

941

64

879

54

[61]

April 2007 - March 2008

1163

64

1122

54

[62]

April 2008 - March 2009

1059

66

1079

56

[51]

Table 3

Regulative limits of the maximum toxin levels of the four major seafood poisoning categorises that is allowed to be present in shellfish and the action limit of four genera in water samples within the UK

Regulative limits of maximum toxin level within the UK

Type of Shellfish Poisoning

Toxin

Maximum Level of Toxin

PSP

STX in bivalve molluscs

80 mg STX eg/100 g of meat [63]

DSP

OA, DTXs and PTXs in edible tissues (whole of any part edible separately) of molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods

160 mg OA equivalents/kg [64]

 

YTX in edible tissues (whole of any part edible separately) of molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods.

1 mg YTX equivalents/kg [64]

AZP

AZP toxins in bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods (whole body or any part edible separately)

160 μg/kg [64]

ASP

DA toxin content in the edible parts of molluscs (the entire body or any part edible separately).

20 mg/kg [65]

Water Sampling, maximum species abundance in the UK

 

Species

Action Limit (cells/litre)

PSP

Alexandrium spp.

Present [62]

DSP

Dinophysis spp.

100 [62]

 

Prorocentrum spp.

100 [62]

ASP

Pseudo-nitzschia spp.

150,000 [62]

The statutory laboratory testing methods for shellfish toxins vary throughout the UK. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) monitors PSP and DSP in England, Wales and Scotland, and ASP in England and Wales [12]. In Northern Ireland, the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has conducted the testing program [15]. The method currently specified by European Food Safety legislation for Official Control testing for PSP and DSP are mouse bioassays (MBAs) based on the protocol of Yasumoto et al., [15, 17], whereby shellfish extract is injected into mice, followed by observation of the survival time [15]. The bioassay results are compared to the threshold limits (Table 3) to determine if the toxin level is exceeded, which could result in the closure of the bed [12]. However, with the discovery of a range of novel lipophilic compounds associated with DSP toxins, Pectenotoxins (PTXs) and (Yessotoxins) YTXs, which give a positive result in the DSP MBAs, this approach is considered inadequate in scale for these toxins (EC) No 225/2002 [18]. This and the fact that the MBA method has considerable ethical objections, has lead to a demand to use alternative approaches [12, 19]. Commission regulation (EC) No. 2074/2005 was revised to allow other detection approaches to be used, as alternative or supplementary methods to the MBAs, as long as they are as effective and EC 853/2004 valid [20]. Since 2006, a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method has been used as a qualitative screen with the MBA used to provide a quantitative result from HPLC positive samples [14]. AZP toxins are harder to detect, as the toxins are not confined to the digestive glands but are distributed throughout all tissues, rendering the MBAs method inefficient [21, 22]. Several EU Member states are currently using Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) and Liquid Chromatography- UV detection (LC-UV) methods [20] to measure and determine toxin concentrations of AZP, ASP, DSP, and DSP lipophilic toxins (PTXs, YTXs) [2224]. The success of the toxin detection and quantification of the LC-MS method is due to its efficient toxin separation, high sensitivity (lower limits of detection than MBA), high selectivity, and accurate and precise quantification [19]. However, LC-MS cannot detect mixtures of two different toxins, unlike the MBA method. Figure 1, show the location of samples collected in Wales and England during April 2008 to March 2009, and Tables 4 and 5 show the CEFAS shellfish testing and water sample results from April 1990- March 2009.
Figure 1

English and Welsh flesh sampling locations - FSA Biotoxin monitoring programme 1 st April 2008 to 31st March 2009 (adapted with permission from CEFAS [51]).

Table 4

CEFAS shellfish flesh results for the toxins, DSP, PSP and ASP from 1999-2009 in Wales and England

 

DSP

PSP

ASP

 
 

No. samples tested

% Present

No. areas effected

No. samples tested

% Present

No. areas effected

No. samples tested

% Present

No. areas effected

Reference

April 1999 - March 2000

302

15 (5.0%)

5

370

5 (1.4%)

3

345

21 (6.1%)

21

[49]

April 2000 - March 2001

579

115 (19.9%)

35

438

8 (1.8%)

3

365

32 (8.8%)

32

[56]

April 2001 - March 2002

1173

166 (14.2%)

5

774

5 (0.6%)

4

768

10 (1.3%)

3

[57]

April 2002 - March 2003

1342

203 (15.1%)

20

981

12 (1.2%)

2

902

10 (1.1%)

7

[58]

April 2003 - March 2004

1128

148 (13.1%)

15

873

1 (0.1%)

1

818

11 (1.3%)

7

[59]

April 2004 - March 2005

847

14 (1.6%)

8

876

2 (0.2%)

2

841

8 (1.0%)

5

[50]

April 2005 - March 2006

1023

4 (0.4%)

3

1085

4 (0.4%)

2

1004

9 (0.9%)

2

[60]

 

LTs

PST

AST

 

April 2006 - March 2007

821

5 (0.6%)

3

892

8 (0.9%)

3

823

21 (2.6%)

7

[61]

April 2007 - March 2008

1024

9 (0.9%)

5

1099

3 (0.3%)

1

985

6 (0.6%)

5

[62]

April 2008 - March 2009

926

66 (7.1%)

5

991

4 (0.4%)

1

904

2 (0.2%)

1

[51]

The number of samples tested for each toxin, with the % presence of each toxin and the number of areas each toxin has affected are recorded. In 2006, LTs (Lipophilic toxins) were detected, which included OA/DTXs, AZAs, YTXs and PTXs.

Table 5

CEFAS water sample results for four toxic marine microalgae species from 1999-2009 in Wales and England

  

Dinophysis spp.

Prorocentrum spp.

Alexandrium spp

Pseudo-nitzschia

 
 

No. water samples tested

% Present

%> limit

% Present

%> limit

% Present

% Present

%> limit

Reference

April 1999 - March 2000

320

NA

1 (0.3%)

NA

NA

4 (1.3%)

NA

0

[49]

April 2000 - March 2001

350

25 (7.1%)

2 (0.6%)

NA

NA

NA

15 (4.3%)

0

[56]

April 2001 - March 2002

195

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

14 (7.2%)

0

[57]

April 2002 - March 2003

1529

23 (1.5%)

1 (0.1%)

NA

NA

NA

50 (3.3%)

0

[58]

April 2003 - March 2004

388

0

0

NA

NA

13 ( 3.4%)

18 (4.6%)

0

[59]

April 2004 - March 2005

314

6 (1.9%)

1 (0.3%)

6 (1.9%)

1 (1.9%)

6 (1.9%)

28 (8.9%)

0

[50]

April 2005 - March 2006

737

23 (3.1%)

7 (0.9%)

3 (0.4%)

1 (0.1%)

80 (10.9%)

277 (37.6%)

3 (0.4%)

[60]

April 2006 - March 2007

879

83 (9.4%)

31 (3.5%)

10 (1.1%)

5 (0.6%)

150 (17.1%)

374 (42.5%)

32 (3.6%)

[61]

April 2007 - March 2008

1122

18 (1.6%)

4 (0.4%)

3 (0.3%)

0

139 (12.4%)

570 (50.8%)

4 (0.4%)

[62]

April 2008 - March 2009

1079

25 (2.3%)

4 (0.4%)

11 (1.0%)

5 (0.5%)

75 (6.9%)

438 (40.6%)

21 (1.9%)

[51]

The number of water samples tested, with the species % present in each sample, and the % of samples exceeding the action limit have been recorded. (NA = no results during that time period).

UK Incidents

Although the potential adverse effects of toxic marine microalgae are well documented, there are very few epidemiological studies designed to thoroughly assess these effects [3]. Within the UK, there are few published records of shellfish poisonings, and we suspect that there is a high level of underreporting, as there is no set database which systematically records the number or frequency of incidents.

Epidemiology of shellfish poisoning in the UK, 1960-2009

PSP

The first reliably reported case of PSP in the UK was on the East Coast in 1969, where high concentrations of Alexandrium tamarense were monitored up to 15 miles offshore [2, 25]. This outbreak caused illness in 78 humans and was responsible for the death of numerous birds and other marine mammals in the region [2, 26, 27] (Table 6). In the UK, it is thought that PSP is regional in nature, occurring in particular hotspots mainly in Scotland, e.g. Orkney and Shetland Islands [4]. There appear to be, however, few reported cases of PSP affecting fisheries throughout the UK, with the longest closure occurring in Scotland during 2000-2001, with aquaculture and scallop fisheries affected by PSP throughout the year (Table 6).
Table 6

The history and consequences toxic events of dinoflagellate PSP toxin seafood poisoning within the UK from 1969-2007

Year

Event

Reference

1969

Toxins monitored up to 15 miles offshore on the East Coast of UK. Caused illness to 78 humans and was responsible for the death of numerous birds and marine mammals. Species responsible: Alexandrium tamarense.

[2, 2527]

1990

On the NE English coast in May high levels of toxins detected in mussels and scallops. Commercial fisheries were closed.

[25]

2000

TPO was placed in Falmouth in July, as PSP was above action limit. Species responsible was Alexandrium.

[56]

2000-2001

In Scotland, toxins detected throughout the year in aquaculture sites along the west coast, and in scallop fisheries grounds in Orkney and East coast Scotland. Led to restrictions in Fishing.

[66]

2001

Toxins found in scallops in the sea adjacent to Northern Ireland. Led to a ban on scallop fishing.

[66]

2002

Warning notices and VCA were places in Salcombe estuary, Devon, from July to November, and Holy Island, Northumberland, in May, when cockles and mussels returned positive results.

[58]

2002

Loch Eishort, in Skye and Lock Hourn, were closed in June and July where toxins were detected in mainly mussels.

[67]

2002-2003

PSP was detected in scallops in Orkney, Morary Firth, and the North Minch from May to September. Fisheries closures were implemented.

[67]

2005

Mussels from Pont Pill, Fowey found PSP toxins above the regularity limit. The site was subjected to temporary harvesting restrictions.

[60]

2006-2007

Toxins were detected in Two areas of the Fal, Cornwall. Temporary harvest restrictions in June and July.

[61]

(TPO = Temporary Prohibition Order. VCA = Voluntary Closure Agreement).

Throughout 1999-2009, the toxin PSP has maintained a low level in routine testing (average 0.73%), affecting between 1-4 sampling locations, within Wales and England (Table 4). The PSP producing species Alexandrium has also maintained a low abundance throughout Wales and England during 2005-2009 (Table 5).

DSP

DSP was first reliably recorded in the UK in 1997, when 49 patients showed symptoms 30 minutes after consuming mussels in two London restaurants [28]. Since then the incidents and the presence of DSP appears to becoming more frequent and prolonged [29], which may be partly due to increased knowledge and surveillance programmes. Table 7 shows 19 incidents from 1999-2009, over a wide range of areas throughout the UK. Temporary closures and voluntary closures lasted between a few weeks up to seven months.
Table 7

The history and consequences toxic events of dinoflagellate DSP toxin seafood poisoning within the UK from 1997-2009

Year

Event

Reference

1997

49 patients showed symptoms 30 minutes after consuming mussels in two London restaurants.

[28]

1999

Voluntary closure and warning signs for the general public was undertaken in Holly Island, Northumberland for 6 weeks as Pacific Oyster retuned a positive DSP result.

[49]

2000

TPO was induced from early February to March on the Northern side of the Solent, as Oysters returned positive results.

[56]

2000

Toxins detected in mussels from Cornwall, cockles from southeast England and from south Wales, led to harvesting restrictions.

[68]

2000

DSP was detected in England and Wales, with large scale closures (TPO and VCA) with the Solent shellfisheries from June - November, and the Thames shellfisheries from July - September.

[56]

2000

In July, toxins detected in Fleet Lagoon, Dorset. Harvesting was closed until 4th September. Species responsible: Prorocentrum lima.

[30]

2000

DSP affected a large number of areas in Scotland. East coast between July-September. Orkney between July-August. 10 sites within Shetlands between July-October. Outer Hebrides in May, and July-October, and 28 locations in Clyde between May -December. Long term closures of shellfish farming in Scotland lasted up to 24 weeks.

[69]

2000-2001

Camel Estuary, Devon was closed from August until February as mussels returned positive DSP results.

[56]

2000-2001

Toxins detected in mussels and scallops and re-appeared at several sites throughout the year. Restrictions on harvesting at affected sites.

[68]

2001

DSP was detected in The Thames from June-September, and Blyth Northumberland in July, leading to TPO and VCA within shellfisheries.

[57]

2001

The Wash shellfisheries were subjected to closures over winter as DSP was detected in Cockles.

[57]

2001-2002

Cockles from Burry Inlet, Wales produced positive DSP results from June 2001 to March 2002. Leading to a long term closures of shellfisheries.

[57]

2001

Toxins found in scallops in the sea adjacent to Northern Ireland. Led to a ban on scallop fishing.

[66]

2002-2003

Burry Inlet, Thames Estuary and The Wash was subjected to harvest closures every month except May and November for Burry Inlet, September for the Thames, and September, October and February for the Wash.

[58]

2002

DSP toxins were detected throughout Scotland, where VCAs were placed in several regions. Majority of cases closures lasted for periods of four to six weeks, but some closures lasted up to seven months.

[67]

2005

DSP were detected in three areas, East of Ajax, Plymouth, The Wash, and Clamerkin Creek, Newtown. All were subject to temporary harvesting restrictions.

[60]

2006-2007

Toxins were detected in three regions in Cornwall, which led to temporary harvest restriction.

[61]

2007-2008

Toxins detected in Southampton Water, Fal River: Cornwall, Salcombe, Devon, which led to closed to temporary harvesting restrictions.

[62]

2008

Shetland Islands were affected by a large outbreak, closing 13 areas from April-October 2008.

[70]

2008-2009

Seven regions in Argyll and Bute, Scotland suffered temporary closures. With the West Loch Tarbert being closed from April 2008-Feburary 2009.

[70]

During 1999-2004, there was a high percentage of DSP toxin detected in shellfish samples (average of 13.5%) (Table 4). However, the level of LTs detected, which include newly identified toxins, has dramatically decreased, only averaging 2.1% from 2004-2009, within Wales and England. Dinophysis spp. has been detected in UK waters, from 2004-2009 (Table 5) and it is thought that D. acuminata and D. acuta are the main species that dominate, especially in Scottish waters [4]. During 2006-2007, 3.5% of Dinophysis spp. samples returned a greater than the action limit throughout Wales and England. The species Prorocentrum is also associated with DSP, and has been detected since 2004, but due to its epiphytic and epibenthic nature, it may be under-represented in sampling programmes [4, 30].

AZP

Azaspiracids have been identified in mussels within the UK [21, 31], although there have been no reported incidents of poisoning. However, mussels cultivated in Killary Harbour, Ireland, were responsible for the intoxication of at least eight people in the Netherlands in November 1995 [31] (Table 8). Since 1996, several other human intoxications have been reported in Ireland around the Arranmore Island region on Donegal, Northwest Ireland [32], and in 1997 AZP persisted in this region for seven to eight months [21]. In 2000, a number of food poisoning incidents occurred in the UK after the consumption of processed mussels which originated from the SW coast of Ireland. These mussels were initially deems safe-for-human consumption following negative MBAs, but it was later identified that AZP was he causative toxin [33].
Table 8

The history and consequences toxic events of dinoflagellate AZP toxin seafood poisoning within the UK from 1995-2000

Year

Event

Reference

1995

Mussels cultivated in Killary Harbour, Ireland, were responsible for the intoxication of at least eight people in the Netherlands in November.

[31]

1996

Human intoxications have been reported in Ireland around the Arranmore Island region on Donegal, Northwest Ireland.

[32]

2000

In August, a number of incidents of food poisoning occurred in Sheffield, Warrington, Alyesbury and the Isle of Wight after the consumption of processed mussels originating from the SW coast of Ireland. These mussels were deemed safe-for-human consumption following negative mouse bioassays. Later identified that AZP was the causative toxin.

[33]

ASP

ASP was first detected in the UK in Scotland (Shetland) in 1997, when traces of Domonic Acid (DA) were detected [34]. Since then, there have been several ASP outbreaks throughout the UK, causing temporary fisheries closures. There have been two very large outbreaks; in July 1999, when a scallop fishing area of 8,000 square miles was closed in the north west of Scotland following the discovery of ASP toxin over the regulatory limit. In 2002, offshore scallop grounds continually detected ASP throughout the year, leading to fisheries closures (Table 9).
Table 9

The history and consequences toxic events of diatom ASP toxin seafood poisoning within the UK from 1999-2003

Year

Event

Reference

1999

In July, a scallop fishing area of 8,000 square miles was closed in the north west of Scotland following the discovery of ASP toxins over the regulatory limit. Species responsible Pseudo-nitzschia australis.

[71, 72]

1999

A TPO was taken in Poole Harbour on the 6 March. One mussel sample returned over 20 μm of DA.

[49]

2000

VCA of four aquaculture sites in Scotland as Scallops returned positive results for ASP.

[69]

2000-2001

Toxins detected in Scallops above the regulatory limit. Restrictions on fishing activities were placed on affected regions in Scotland.

[68]

2002

ASP was detected at Dale Voe, Shetlands in September, in Loch Moidart during in July, and Broadford Bay in July. Harvesting restrictions were imposed as necessary.

[67]

2002-2003

Offshore scallop grounds in Scotland, continually detected ASP throughout 2002 and early 2003. Fisheries closures were implemented in affected shellfisheries.

[67]

During 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, ASP returned a positive result in 6.1% of samples affecting 21 areas, and 8.8% effecting 32 areas respectively (Table 2). Since then, the percentage of positive results has remained between 0.2 - 2.6%. However, Pseudo-nitzschia has showed a dramatic increase in abundance since 2005, with an average of 42.9% of water samples returning a positive result (Table 4). During 2006-2007, and 2008-2009, 3.6%, and 1.9% samples respectively were greater than the regulatory limit (> 150,000 cells/Litre) (Table 5).

Despite the increase in Pseudo-nitzschia in recent years, which has been shown in both the CEFAS water samples and the CPR, the level of toxin is not representative. Suggesting that toxin production might not be dependent on the abundance of the species. Water samples showed ASP was at its highest when the percentage of Pseudo-nitzschia was at its lowest (Table 5), implying that stressful conditions could cause a greater increase in toxin presence.

Routine clinical records (NHS) survey, 1998-2009

The reporting of shellfish poisoning incidents to date has been sporadic. To attempt a systematic review, we accessed hospital records in Wales using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank [35]. The important step here is the anonymous linkage of hospital events to a very wide set of health information to the individual, including demographics, mortality statistics, GP records and laboratory tests. This potentially allows a very detailed assessment of the hospital event, and confirmation of its cause and longer term effects. In brief, a split-file approach is used to ensure anonymisation. The datasets are prepared by Health Solutions Wales and separated into, clinical and demographic data. An anonymous system linking field (ALF) is assigned to ensure that the data can be re-connected later at the analysis stage [36, 37]. Clinical data includes information on diagnostic tests, therapeutic tests and interventions. Demographic data is comprised of person based variables, such as gender and age.

First, all hospital episodes that had any mention of "Toxic effects of noxious substances eaten as seafood (ICD10 code T61)" for all Welsh NHS Trusts during April 1998 - 31st August 2009 were identified. From 1998-2009, there were 61 hospital episodes within Wales, with 5 of those being re-admission following an initial visit. Out of the 56 individual hospital patients, 51 were successfully allocated an ALF, which enables the anonymous linkage of person level data within and across all national datasets. From the 51 ALF admissions, 7 detailed pathology reports, and 6 mortality records from 2003-2009, were identified.

GP clinical information recorded within +/- 30 days of the indexed hospital episode was identified for 10 of the patients.

Interpretation of routine clinical records

Within Wales, 56 individual patients were identified with "Toxic effects of noxious substances eaten as seafood" from 1998-2009, with an age range of 5-94 years. The length of stay in hospital varied between 1 to 11 days, with the average stay length of 2.5 days (significantly related to age). The majority of incidents occurred during the summer months (June-August). Six patients were noted to have died, with a delay of between 7 months and 9 years after their incident, suggesting that there have been no deaths in Wales directly resulting from shellfish poisoning over the survey period. The population of Wales is approximately 2.9 million, hence assuming these patterns are representative, these results imply an estimated incidence of shellfish poisoning of 100 cases per year in the UK (of 16 per million per year).

These estimates however must be treated with caution. The clinical presentation may be non-specific, since viral infections, particularly norovirus, or allergy, can cause similar gastrointestinal symptoms to those of shellfish toxin poisonings. A definitive diagnosis is only possible where samples of suspect food are available and tested for toxin, which happens rarely as the food has usually been consumed or discarded before a formal investigation can begin, unless part of a wider epidemiological investigation. Timing of symptom onset is the most helpful factor in distinguishing toxin-induced (very rapid onset) from viral (several hours) causation. Our dataset does not contain this information, although negative results were noted for all bacteriology/virology tests, where they had been performed. Two patients were also tested for the antibody Immunoglobulin E (IgE) to chub mackerel, where low traces were detected, potentially indicating that the patients suffered from an allergic reaction to chub mackerel. It has been shown that chub mackerel are lethal vectors for PSP toxins (saxitoxin (STX), and gonyautoxins) all year around [38], suggesting a possible toxin involvement in these two cases.

Therefore in many cases, it is difficult to be sure whether a case coded as 'toxin poisoning' was not in fact viral gastroenteritis, or allergy - where a medical diagnosis of "food poisoning following shellfish" has been made this may or may not be inputted as toxin-related by the final coder. Furthermore, mild cases are likely to go unreported.

We conclude that although the incidence of shellfish poisoning is likely to be low, the current data is insufficient to allow an accurate estimate. This raises the important question of how changes in the incidence rate, that might be associated with the distribution of toxic microalgae of HAB species, would be detected? At the human level, although it is a notifiable event, reporting is not likely to be accurate enough to quickly identify trends over time. In contrast, routine testing at the fisheries level is much more likely to be able to identify changes in the rate of toxic events and remains the key surveillance system in the UK, acting as a sentinel for potential human impact.

The future of key indicator toxic microalgae species in UK waters

Recent studies suggest that some toxic microalgae species are increasing in frequency and geographical location on a global scale [3]. It is thought that human assistance has spread some species through a variety of mechanisms e.g. ballast water transfer, increase in eutrophication, and aquaculture development [26, 39]. However, the establishment and reoccurrence of blooms cannot occur without a hospitable environment [40]. There have been several suggestions that an alternative or additional explanations for the spreading of some species are as a result of the effects of changing currents, weather patterns, and changing ocean temperatures associated with global warming [8, 41], allowing species to occupy regions in which they would not normally survive.

There is increasing evidence in the literature of the effects of climate change on the phenology of marine organisms. Estimates show that British winters now end 11 days earlier on average than in the mid 1970s [42]. These changes in phenology have caused dramatic shifts in the timing and occurrence of species during the year with a pole-ward shift in latitude distribution range [43], in response to the changing environmental conditions. The UK could gain species from an equatorial direction, and lose existing species as conditions become too warm [43]. In the North Sea, total species abundance has remained relatively stable but the species composition has changed [44]. Warm-water species have increased, while colder-water species have decreased, e.g. euphausiids [45] owing to the warming sea temperatures and changes in climate indices such as the North Atlantic Oscillation Index [46]. From the CEFAS water samples results, we have already noticed a change in species abundance with Pseudo-nitzschia now being present in 37-51% of samples during 2005-2009 (Table 5). This increase in Pseudo-nitzschia has also been observed (personal observation), using the Continuous Plankton Recorded. There has been an expansion of the geographic range and a lengthened seasonal window of Pseudo-nitzschia seriata in the North Atlantic and North Sea during 2000-2009.

Although there has been few human related illness from ingestion of toxins from shellfish in the UK, there remains a threat that this risk will increase over time. The potential future change in species composition due to climate change, could bring new toxic species into the surrounding UK waters. Unless these potential toxic marine species are monitored in their distribution and frequency, these new species could go unnoticed by the current monitoring system. If that is the case there could be several more human related incidents within the UK, whether it is medical related or indirect, via the closure of aquaculture sites. In contrast, in the USA, estimates of the economic impact of HABs are averaged at $75 million/year over the period 1987-2000, which includes impacts from public health, commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and monitoring and management costs [47]. PSP is the most severe of the toxin syndromes, with a total of 500 cases and 30 deaths reported in California, since 1927 (a mortality rate ranging between 1-12%, [48]), caused in part by poor access to advanced life support capabilities [48].

While the geographic distributions of species are clearly important, we also note that the abundance of a species does not necessarily correlate strongly to the amount of toxin produced. There have been several CEFAS reports, where there was high toxin content detected, but water samples showed a low species abundance [49, 50]. This was especially noticeable for the toxin causing ASP, where the highest levels of toxin detected was when Pseudo-nitzschia was at its lowest abundance. The mechanisms behind toxin production are not fully understood, and it is thought that stress could be an initial trigger. If that is the case, toxin production within the UK could potentially increase as the current UK HAB species have to adapt to the changing hydrological conditions.

Conclusions

We have shown that within UK waters, outbreaks of shellfish poisoning are occurring on a regular basis in different regions and affect a diverse range of molluscan shellfish and other marine organisms. Every year, several aquaculture site and shellfisheries are closed due to shellfish toxins, with closures ranging from weeks to several months. The toxin syndrome DSP has shown to be the most problematic toxin within the UK, with 19 records during the period 1999-2009, which resulted in several shellfish harvesting closure. However, despite the regular occurrence of shellfish poisonings, data on human epidemiology of poisoning linked to toxic marine microalgae species is sparse. An extensive literature review of shellfish poisoning has shown that only disparate records are available for incidents and episodes within the UK, with only the large outbreaks related to shellfish and aquaculture industries being recorded. However, the accuracy of the UK data must be treated with caution. Despite obtaining data for hospital admissions, GP records, and pathology records, it remains extremely difficult to determine the precise number of patients who have been affected by toxic shellfish poisoning.

In the absence of a suitable epidemiological surveillance system, the routine fisheries testing regimes remain the key indicator of any potential change in exposure of the human population. From this routine testing we have already seen an increase in abundance of Pseudo-nitzschia in the last 5 years with the species now being present in over 50% of the water samples. In addition, predicted warmer waters in the UK could suit several species with southern biogeographical affinities enabling them to occupy the coastal regions of the UK, but which are not yet considered to be detrimental. To ensure the UK monitoring systems are up to date with the increasing number of new toxic species and the changing seasonal and geographic distribution patterns, research into the environmental conditions that lead to bloom development and toxin production would help predict bloom event. Long term time series of toxic marine microalgae need to be monitored to assess and determine if species are indeed spreading in their geographical location or increasing in frequency.

List of Abbreviations

ALF: 

Anonymous System Linking Field

ASP: 

Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning

AZP: 

Azaspiracid Poisoning

CEFAS: 

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

CFP: 

Ciguatera Fish Poisoning

DA: 

Domonic Acid

DSP: 

Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning

DTX: 

Dinophysis Toxins

FSA: 

Food Standards Agency

HAB: 

Harmful Algal Blooms

HIRU: 

Health Information Research Unit for Wales

HPLC: 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography

LC-MS: 

Liquid Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry

LT: 

Lipophilic Toxin

MBAs: 

Mouse Bioassays

NSP: 

Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning

OA: 

Okadaic Acid

PSP: 

Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

PTXs: 

Pectenotoxin

SAIL: 

Secure Anonymised Information Linkage

STX: 

Saxitoxin

TPO: 

Temporary Prohibition Order

VCA: 

Voluntary Closure Agreement

YTXs: 

Yessotoxin.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

SLH was funded by a NERC doctoral training grant (NE/G524344/1). HIRU is supported by a grant from the Wales Office of Research & Development, National Assembly for Wales. We thank Lorraine Backer and Duncan Purdie for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Life Science, Swansea University
(2)
Institute of Environmental Sustainability, Swansea University
(3)
Health Information Research Unit (HIRU), Swansea University
(4)
SAHFOS, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill
(5)
Marine Institute, University of Plymouth

References

  1. Wang DZ: Neurotoxins from marine dinoflagellates: A brief review. Marine Drugs. 2008, 6: 349-371.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Shumway SE, Allen SM, Boersma PD: Marine birds and harmful algal blooms: sporadic victims or under-reported events?. Harmful Algae. 2003, 2: 1-17. 10.1016/S1568-9883(03)00002-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Moore SK, Trainer VL, Mantua NJ, Parker MS, Laws EA, Backer LC, Fleming LE: Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health. Environ Health. 2008, 7: 12-10.1186/1476-069X-7-12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidson K, Bresnan E: Shellfish toxicity in UK waters: a threat to human health?. Environ Health. 2009, 8: 4-10.1186/1476-069X-8-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Fehling J, Davidson K, Bolch C, Tett P: Seasonality of Pseudo-nitzschia spp. (Bacillariophyceae) in western Scottish waters. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser. 2006, 323: 91-105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Irwin C, Padia T: United Kingdom Sea Fisheries Statistics 2008. Marine and Fisheries Agency, DEFRA and National Statistics. 2009Google Scholar
  7. Fraga S, Bakun A: Global climate change and harmful algal blooms: the example of Gymnodinium catenatum on the Galician coast. Toxic phytoplankton blooms in the sea. Edited by: Smayda TJ, Shimizu Y. 1993, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publisher, 3: 59-65.Google Scholar
  8. Kirkpatrick B, Fleming LE, Squicciarini D, Backer LC, Clark R, Abraham W, Benson J, Cheng YS, Johnson D, Pierce R, Zaias J, Bossart GD, Baden DG: Literature review of Florida red tide: implications for human health effects. Harmful Algae. 2004, 3: 99-115. 10.1016/j.hal.2003.08.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Smayda TJ: Harmful algal blooms: Their ecophysiology and general relevance to phytoplankton blooms in the sea. Limnol Oceanogr. 1997, 42: 1137-1153. 10.4319/lo.1997.42.5_part_2.1137.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis RJ: The changing face of ciguatera. Toxicon. 2001, 39: 97-106. 10.1016/S0041-0101(00)00161-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Smart D: Clinical toxicology of shellfish poisoning. Handbook of clinical toxicology of animal venoms and poisons. Edited by: Meier J, White J. 1995, USA: CRC Press, 33-58.Google Scholar
  12. Morris S, Algoet M, Turner A: Advancing Shellfish Toxin Monitoring. Shellfish News. 2007, 24: 17-20.Google Scholar
  13. Shellfish Association of Great Britain: Algal Toxins. [http://www.shellfish.org.uk]
  14. Turrell E, Mckie J, Higgins C, Shammon T, Holland K: Algal toxins in shellfish from Scottish, Northern Irish and Isle of Man waters. Relating harmful phytoplankton to shellfish poisoning and human health. Edited by: Davidson K, Bresnan E. 2007, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Scotland: Scottish Association for Marine ScienceGoogle Scholar
  15. Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Fifth Report. Session 2003/04. House of Commons. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk]
  16. McElhiney J, Kennington K: What the regulators want from science-Food Standard Agency (FSA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) perspective. Relating harmful phytoplankton to shellfish poisoning and human health. Edited by: Davidson K, Bresnan E. 2007, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Scotland: Scottish Association for Marine ScienceGoogle Scholar
  17. Yasumoto T, Oshima Y, Yamaguchi M: Occurrence of a new type of shellfish poisoning in the Tohoku district. Bulletin of Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries. 1978, 44: 1249-1255.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Stobo LA, Lacaze J, Scott AC, Petrie J, Turrell EA: Surveillance of algal toxins in shellfish from Scottish waters. Toxicon. 2008, 51: 635-648. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2007.11.020.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Chapela MJ, Reboreda A, Vieites JM, Cabado AG: Lipophilic toxins analyzed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and comparison with mouse bioassay in fresh, frozen, and processed molluscs. J Agric Food Chem. 2008, 56: 8979-8986. 10.1021/jf801572j.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. EFSA: Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on Marine Biotoxins in Shellfish - Summary on regulated marine biotoxins. The EFSA Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2009, 1306: 1-23.Google Scholar
  21. James KJ, Furey A, Lehane M, Ramstad H, Aune T, Hovgaard P, Morris S, Higman W, Satake M, Yasumoto T: First evidence of an extensive northern European distribution of azaspiracid poisoning (AZP) toxins in shellfish. Toxicon. 2002, 40: 909-915. 10.1016/S0041-0101(02)00082-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Magdalena AB, Lehane M, Krys S, Fernandez ML, Furey A, James KJ: The first identification of azaspiracids in shellfish from France and Spain. Toxicon. 2003, 42: 105-108. 10.1016/S0041-0101(03)00105-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Ofuji K, Satake M, Oshima Y, McMahon T, James KJ, Yasumoto T: A sensitive and specific determination method for azaspiracids by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Natural Toxins. 1999, 7: 247-250. 10.1002/1522-7189(199911/12)7:6<247::AID-NT68>3.0.CO;2-T.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Christian B, Luckas B: Determination of marine biotoxins relevant for regulations: from the mouse bioassay to coupled LC-MS methods. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2008, 391: 117-134. 10.1007/s00216-007-1778-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Joint I, Lewis J, Aiken J, Proctor R, Moore G, Higman W, Donald M: Interannual variability of PSP outbreaks on the north east UK coast. J Plankton Res. 1997, 19: 937-956. 10.1093/plankt/19.7.937.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Dolah FM: Marine algal toxins: Origins, health effects, and their increased occurrence. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2000, 108: 133-141.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Coulson JC, Potts GR, Deans IR, Fraser SM: Mortality of shags and other sea birds caused by paralytic shellfish poison. Nature. 1968, 220: 23-24. 10.1038/220023a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Durborow RM: Health and safety concerns in fisheries and aquaculture. Occupational Medicine-State of the Art Reviews. 1999, 14: 373-406.Google Scholar
  29. EU-NRL: Minutes of the 3rd meeting of EU National Reference Laboratories (EU-NRL) on marine biotoxins. March. Vigo, Spain. 2000Google Scholar
  30. Foden J, Purdie DA, Morris S, Nascimento S: Epiphytic abundance and toxicity of Prorocentrum lima populations in the Fleet Lagoon, UK. Harmful Algae. 2005, 4: 1063-1074. 10.1016/j.hal.2005.03.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ito E, Satake M, Ofuji K, Kurita N, McMahon T, James K, Yasumoto T: Multiple organ damage caused by a new toxin azaspiracid, isolated from mussels produced in Ireland. Toxicon. 2000, 38: 917-930. 10.1016/S0041-0101(99)00203-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Mc Mahon T, Silke J: Re-occurrence of winter toxicity. Harmful Algal News. 1998, 17: 12-16.Google Scholar
  33. Furey A, O'Doherty S, O'Callaghan K, Lehane M, James KJ: Azaspiracid poisoning (AZP) toxins in shellfish: Toxicological and health considerations. Toxicon. 2010, 56: 173-190. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2009.09.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. EU-NRL: Minutes of the 2nd meeting of the EU National Reference Laboratories (EU-NRL) on marine biotoxins. September-October. Vigo, Spain. 1998Google Scholar
  35. Lyons RA, Jones KH, John G, Brooks CJ, Verplancke JP, Ford DV, Brown G, Leake K: The SAIL databank: linking multiple health and social care datasets. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009, 9: 8-10.1186/1472-6947-9-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Health Solutions Wales. [http://www.hsw.wales.nhs.uk/]
  37. Ford DV, Jones KH, Verplancke JP, Lyons RA, John G, Brown G, Brooks CJ, Thompson S, Bodger O, Couch T, Leake K: The SAIL Databank: building a national architecture for e-health research and evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009, 9: 12-10.1186/1472-6963-9-12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Castonguay M, Levasseur M, Beaulieu JL, Gregoire F, Michaud S, Bonneau E, Bates SS: Accumulation of PSP toxins in Atlantic mackerel: Seasonal and ontogenetic variations. J Fish Biol. 1997, 50: 1203-1213. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1997.tb01648.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Heil CA, Glibert PM, Fan CL: Prorocentrum minimum (Pavillard) Schiller - A review of a harmful algal bloom species of growing worldwide importance. Harmful Algae. 2005, 4: 449-470. 10.1016/j.hal.2004.08.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Omori M, van der Spoel S, Norman CP: Impact of human activities on pelagic biogeography. Progress in Oceanography. 1994, 34: 211-219. 10.1016/0079-6611(94)90009-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Fleming LE, Broad K, Clement A, Dewailly E, Elmir S, Knap A, Pomponi SA, Smith S, Gabriele HS, Walsh P: Oceans and human health: Emerging public health risks in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull. 2006, 53: 545-560. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.08.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Thackeray SJ, Jones ID, Maberly SC: Long-term change in the phenology of spring phytoplankton: species-specific responses to nutrient enrichment and climatic change. Journal of Ecology. 2008, 96: 523-535. 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01355.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Edwards M, Richardson AJ: Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature. 2004, 430: 881-884. 10.1038/nature02808.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Beaugrand G: The North Sea regime shift: evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences. Progress in Oceanography. 2004, 60: 245-262. 10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Kempf A, Floeter J, Temming A: Decadal changes in the North Sea food web between 1981 and 1991 - implications for fish stock assessment. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2006, 63: 2586-2602. 10.1139/f06-147.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Heath MR: Changes in the structure and function of the North Sea fish foodweb, 1973-2000, and the impacts of fishing and climate. Ices Journal of Marine Science. 2005, 62: 1202-1202. 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.07.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoagland P, Scatasta S: The economic effects of harmful algal blooms. Ecology of Harmful Algae. Edited by: Graneli E, Turner J. 2006, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  48. Trainer VL: Harmful algal blooms on the U.S. west coast. Harmful Algal Blooms in the PICES Region of the North Pacific. Edited by: Taylor FJ, Trainer VL. 2002, PICES Scientific Report 23, 89-118.Google Scholar
  49. Higman WA, Milligan S: The marine biotoxin monitoring programmes for England and Wales. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2000, 9:Google Scholar
  50. Stubbs B, Milligan S, Lees D: The Marine Biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 2004 -2005. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2005, 19:Google Scholar
  51. Coates L, Stubbs B, Milligan S, Morris S, Higman WA, Algoet M: Biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2009, 28:Google Scholar
  52. Schantz EJ: Historical-Perspective on Paralytic Shellfish Poison. Acs Symposium Series. 1984, 262: 99-111.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Miles CO, Wilkins AL, Munday R, Dines MH, Hawkes AD, Briggs LR, Sandvik M, Jensen DJ, Cooney JM, Holland PT, Quilliam MA, Lincoln MacKenzie A, Beuzenberg V, Towers NR: Isolation of pectenotoxin-2 from Dinophysis acuta and its conversion to pectenotoxin-2 seco acid, and preliminary assessment of their acute toxicities. Toxicon. 2004, 43: 1-9. 10.1016/j.toxicon.2003.10.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Vale P, Sampayo MAD: First confirmation of human diarrhoeic poisonings by okadaic acid esters after ingestion of razor clams (Solen marginatus) and green crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Aveiro lagoon, Portugal and detection of okadaic acid esters in phytoplankton. Toxicon. 2002, 40: 989-996. 10.1016/S0041-0101(02)00095-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Todd ECD: Domoic Acid and Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning - a Review. Journal of Food Protection. 1993, 56: 69-83.Google Scholar
  56. Higman WA, Gubbins M, Milligan S: The marine biotoxins monitoring programmes for England and Wales:2000 - 2001. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2001, 11:Google Scholar
  57. Gubbins M, Higman WA: The marine biotoxin monitoring programmes for England and Wales: 2001-2002. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2002, 13:Google Scholar
  58. CEFAS: The marine biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 2002-2003. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2003, 15:Google Scholar
  59. CEFAS: The marine biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 2002-2003. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2004, 18:Google Scholar
  60. Stubbs B, Milligan S, Morris S, Higman WA, Algoet M: Biotoxin monitoring programmes for England and Wales: 1st April 2005 to 31st May 2006. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2006, 23:Google Scholar
  61. Stubbs B, Milligan S, Morris S, Algoet M: Biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2007, 24:Google Scholar
  62. Stubbs B, Coates L, Milligan S, Morris S, Higman WA, Algoet M: Biotoxin monitoring programme for England and Wales: 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2008. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2008, 26:Google Scholar
  63. EC: Council directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products. Off J Eur Communities L. 1991, 268: 15-34.Google Scholar
  64. EC: Commission Decision of 15 March 2002. Laying down rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/492/EEC as regards the maximum levels and the methods of analysis of certain marine biotoxins in bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods. Off J Eur Communities (2002/225/EC) L 75. 2002, 62-63.Google Scholar
  65. EC: Commission Decision of 15 March 2002. Establishing special health checks for the harvesting and processing of certain bivalve molluscs with a level of amnesic shellfish poison (ASP) exceeding the limit laid down by Council Directive 91/492/EEC. Off J Eur Communities (2002/226/EC) L 75. 2002, 65-66.Google Scholar
  66. FAO: Marine Biotoxins. Food and Nutrition Paper. 2004, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  67. Howard G, Bresnan E, Petrie J: The marine biotoxin monitoring programmes for Scotland: 2002-2003. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2003, 15:Google Scholar
  68. EU-NRL: Minutes of the 4th meeting of EU National Reference Laboratories (EU-NRL) on marine biotoxins. October. 2001Google Scholar
  69. Howard G, Bresnan E, Petrie J: The biotoxin monitoring programmes for Scotland 2000-2001. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2001, 11:Google Scholar
  70. Stubbs B: Shellfish biotoxin monitoring programme for Scotland: 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. Shellfish News, CEFAS. 2009, 28:Google Scholar
  71. Campbell DA, Kelly MS, Busman M, Bolch CJ, Wiggins E, Moeller PDR, Morton SL, Hess P, Shumway SE: Amnesic shellfish poisoning in the king scallop, Pecten maximus, from the west coast of Scotland. Journal of Shellfish Research. 2001, 20: 75-84.Google Scholar
  72. Bates SS: Domoic-acid-producing diatoms: another genus added'. J Phycol. 2000, 36: 978-983. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2000.03661.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hinder et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Comments

Advertisement