ABSTRACT
Analysis of atmospheric particulate matter (PM) has been proposed for the environmental surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to increase the current knowledge about the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 in atmospheric PM, introduce a dedicated sampling method, and perform a simultaneous assessment of human seasonal coronavirus 229E. Thirty-two PM samples were collected on quartz fiber filters and six on Teflon using a low- and high-volumetric rate sampler, respectively, adopting a novel procedure for optimized virus detection. Sampling was performed at different sites in the Venice area (Italy) between 21 February and 8 March 2020 (n = 16) and between 27 October and 25 November 2020 (n = 22). A total of 14 samples were positive for Coronavirus 229E, 11 of which were collected in October-November 2020 (11/22; positivity rate 50%) and 3 in February-March 2020 (3/16 samples, 19%). A total of 24 samples (63%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Most of the positive filters were collected in October-November 2020 (19/22; positivity rate, 86%), whereas the remaining five were collected in February-March 2020 at two distinct sites (5/16, 31%). These findings suggest that outdoor PM analysis could be a promising tool for environmental surveillance. The results report a low concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in outdoor air, supporting a scarce contribution to the spread of infection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Particulate Matter/analysisABSTRACT
The emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 has led to a compelling request for accurate diagnostic tests. The aim of this study was assessing the performance of a real-time RT-qPCR (rt RT-qPCR) assay and of a droplet digital RT-PCR (dd RT-PCR) targeting the nsp14 genome region for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs. A total of 258 nasopharyngeal swabs were analyzed with the nsp14 assays and, for comparison, with a reference assay targeting the RdRp and E genes. Conflicting results were further investigated by two additional protocols, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) real-time targeting N1/N2, and a nested RT-PCR for the spike region. Agreement of results was achieved on 226 samples (156 positive and 70 negative), 8 samples were positive in the reference assay and in the nsp14 rt RT-qPCR but negative with the dd RT-PCR, and 24 samples provided different combinations of results with the three assays. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95 %C.I.) of the nsp14 assays were: 100.0 % (97.4-100.0), 98.7 % (92.1-100.0), and 99.6 % (97.5-100.0) for the rt RT-qPCR; 92.4 % (87.4-95.6), 100.0 % (94.2-100.0), and 94.7 % (91.1-97.0) for the dd RT-PCR. The results of the study support the use of the nsp14 real-time RT-qPCR and ddPCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.