IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0256785.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic review of predictive models of microbial water quality at freshwater recreational beaches

Author

Listed:
  • Cole Heasley
  • J Johanna Sanchez
  • Jordan Tustin
  • Ian Young

Abstract

Monitoring of fecal indicator bacteria at recreational waters is an important public health measure to minimize water-borne disease, however traditional culture methods for quantifying bacteria can take 18–24 hours to obtain a result. To support real-time notifications of water quality, models using environmental variables have been created to predict indicator bacteria levels on the day of sampling. We conducted a systematic review of predictive models of fecal indicator bacteria at freshwater recreational sites in temperate climates to identify and describe the existing approaches, trends, and their performance to inform beach water management policies. We conducted a comprehensive search strategy, including five databases and grey literature, screened abstracts for relevance, and extracted data using structured forms. Data were descriptively summarized. A total of 53 relevant studies were identified. Most studies (n = 44, 83%) were conducted in the United States and evaluated water quality using E. coli as fecal indicator bacteria (n = 46, 87%). Studies were primarily conducted in lakes (n = 40, 75%) compared to rivers (n = 13, 25%). The most commonly reported predictive model-building method was multiple linear regression (n = 37, 70%). Frequently used predictors in best-fitting models included rainfall (n = 39, 74%), turbidity (n = 31, 58%), wave height (n = 24, 45%), and wind speed and direction (n = 25, 47%, and n = 23, 43%, respectively). Of the 19 (36%) studies that measured accuracy, predictive models averaged an 81.0% accuracy, and all but one were more accurate than traditional methods. Limitations identifed by risk-of-bias assessment included not validating models (n = 21, 40%), limited reporting of whether modelling assumptions were met (n = 40, 75%), and lack of reporting on handling of missing data (n = 37, 70%). Additional research is warranted on the utility and accuracy of more advanced predictive modelling methods, such as Bayesian networks and artificial neural networks, which were investigated in comparatively fewer studies and creating risk of bias tools for non-medical predictive modelling.

Suggested Citation

  • Cole Heasley & J Johanna Sanchez & Jordan Tustin & Ian Young, 2021. "Systematic review of predictive models of microbial water quality at freshwater recreational beaches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-31, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256785
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256785
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256785&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0256785?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Johanna Sanchez & Jordan Tustin & Cole Heasley & Mahesh Patel & Jeremy Kelly & Anthony Habjan & Ryan Waterhouse & Ian Young, 2021. "Region-Specific Associations between Environmental Factors and Escherichia coli in Freshwater Beaches in Toronto and Niagara Region, Canada," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256785. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.