Methodological differences between studies confound one-size-fits-all approaches to managing surface waterways for food and water safety

Even though differences in methodology (e.g., sample volume and detection method) have been shown to affect observed microbial water quality, multiple sampling and laboratory protocols continue to be used for water quality monitoring. Research is needed to determine how these differences impact the comparability of findings to generate best management practices and the ability to perform meta-analyses. This study addresses this knowledge gap by compiling and analyzing a data set representing 2,429,990 unique data points on at least one microbial water quality target (e.g., Salmonella presence and Escherichia coli concentration). Variance partitioning analysis was used to quantify the variance in likelihood of detecting each pathogenic target that was uniquely and jointly attributable to non-methodological versus methodological factors. The strength of the association between microbial water quality and select methodological and non-methodological factors was quantified using conditional forest and regression analysis. Fecal indicator bacteria concentrations were more strongly associated with non-methodological factors than methodological factors based on conditional forest analysis. Variance partitioning analysis could not disentangle non-methodological and methodological signals for pathogenic Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. This suggests our current perceptions of foodborne pathogen ecology in water systems are confounded by methodological differences between studies. For example, 31% of total variance in likelihood of Salmonella detection was explained by methodological and/or non-methodological factors, 18% was jointly attributable to both methodological and non-methodological factors. Only 13% of total variance was uniquely attributable to non-methodological factors for Salmonella, highlighting the need for standardization of methods for microbiological water quality testing for comparison across studies.