\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Reliability** & **Sample Size** & **Sensitivity** & **References** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Soapy wash} & 90\% when bees are frozen and centrifuged at 6342 rpm & Approx. 100 bees & More than 3 mites per 100 bees, when the 100 bees, when the 100 bees, when the 100 bees is lower & [2] \\  & 6342 rpm & & \\  & & & than 3\%, efficiency is 85\% & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Equally accurate as & & \\  & powdered sugar test (93\%) & 250 frozen bees & [3] \\ \cline{2-5}  & Positive correlations & & \\  & between relative number of & & \\  & infested honey bees & & \\  & detected by powdered & & \\  & sugar shake and washing & & \\  & bees with alcohol plus & & \\  & soapy water (\(r=0.90\) and \(r=0.62\)) & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Hand shaking for & & \\  & 1 min 92\% & 300 adult bees & [5]1  \\ \cline{2-5}  & Mechanical shaking for & & \\  & 30 min 100\% & Approx. 250 adult bees & [6] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Brod uncapping} & More reliable in & 50 worker brood cells & \\  & combination with & and on average & \\  & sampling adult bees & 29 drone brood cells & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Powdered sugar roll} & \multirow{3}{*}{91\%} & Dusting and CO\({}_{2}\) & \\  & 91\% & anaesthesia, 761 adult & 10 mites/100 bees, 42 h & [8] \\  & & bees (5 replicates) & \\ \cline{2-5}  & 73.8\%/90.98\%-low & & \\  & infestation level & & \\  & 76.2\%/87.86\%-medium & & \\  & infestation level & Approx. 318 adult bees & \\  & 79.8\%/82.16\%-high & & \\  & infestation level & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & 66.10 \(\pm\) 35.23\% and & & \\  & 94.64 \(\pm\) 9.56\% in August & \multirow{2}{*}{300–400 bees} & [4] \\  & and October & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CO\({}_{2}\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{49.5\%} & 200–600 adult bees on 32 efficiency was below 80\% & [11] \\  & & average 415 adult bees & 80\% & \\ \cline{2-5}  & 62.5\% & On average 427 adult & \\  & bees & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Natural mite fall} & Strong linear correlation & & \\  & between natural mite fall & & \\  & and mite fall after chemical & 22 colonies & [7] \\  & treatment r = 0.951 & & \\ \cline{2-5}  & Strong linear correlation & & \\  & between natural mite fall & 150 colonies & Correlation depending on \\  & and mite fall after chemical & the year & \\ \cline{2-5}  & treatment r = 0.41–0.89 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{76.43\% low} & & & \\  & infestation level & & \\  & 68.26\% medium & Approx. 318 adult bees & [10] \\ \cline{2-5}  & infestation level & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Review of methods for varroa infestation level assessment. The optimal sample size in terms of adult bees and number of hives to sample to estimate the varroa infestation levels at the apiary level, has been determined by [PERSON] et al. [5]. They recommend a sampling procedure in which at least 300 adult honey bees per colony are collected from any comb in the uppermost brood box. Moreover, if a higher accuracy of 0.5 mites per 100 bees is requested, three units of 300 adult bees from each colony, from three separate combs in the upper brood box, should be collected and used to calculate the colony infestation [5]. The powdered sugar roll method was described for the first time by [PERSON] [10]: 30 g of adult honey bees (\(\approx\)300 workers) are collected from the open brood area and placed in a jar with a 2 mm hardware cloth or mesh. One tablespoon of powdered sugar is poured through the mesh or cloth, and the jar is rolled for a minute to cover all the adult bees with sugar. Then the jar is turned upside down and shaken for one min so that mites dislodge from the honey bees' body and fall on a prepared plate, where they can be counted. This method is practical, low cost, non-destructive, and has been shown to be effective [1; 2; 5; 10]. \"Washing\" bees in warm soapy water or ethanol was first described by [PERSON] [14] as a quantitative diagnostic method. It consists of adding one of the mentioned liquids to cover 300 adult honey bees previously sampled and put in a jar.