Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Comparative analysis of rapid concentration methods for the recovery of SARS-CoV-2 and quantification of human enteric viruses and a sewage-associated marker gene in untreated wastewater.
Ahmed, Warish; Bivins, Aaron; Simpson, Stuart L; Smith, Wendy J M; Metcalfe, Suzanne; McMinn, Brian; Symonds, Erin M; Korajkic, Asja.
  • Ahmed W; CSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia. Electronic address: Warish.Ahmed@csiro.au.
  • Bivins A; Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Science, University of Notre Dame, 156 Fitzpatrick Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
  • Simpson SL; CSIRO Land and Water, Lucas Heights, NSW 2234, Australia.
  • Smith WJM; CSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia.
  • Metcalfe S; CSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia.
  • McMinn B; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 26W Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
  • Symonds EM; College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, 140 7th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA.
  • Korajkic A; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 26W Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Sci Total Environ ; 799: 149386, 2021 Dec 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545398
ABSTRACT
To support public-health-related disease surveillance and monitoring, it is crucial to concentrate both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses from domestic wastewater. To date, most concentration methods were developed for non-enveloped viruses, and limited studies have directly compared the recovery efficiency of both types of viruses. In this study, the effectiveness of two different concentration methods (Concentrating pipette (CP) method and an adsorption-extraction (AE) method amended with MgCl2) were evaluated for untreated wastewater matrices using three different viruses (SARS-CoV-2 (seeded), human adenovirus 40/41 (HAdV 40/41), and enterovirus (EV)) and a wastewater-associated bacterial marker gene targeting Lachnospiraceae (Lachno3). For SARS-CoV-2, the estimated mean recovery efficiencies were significantly greater by as much as 5.46 times, using the CP method than the AE method amended with MgCl2. SARS-CoV-2 RNA recovery was greater for samples with higher titer seeds regardless of the method, and the estimated mean recovery efficiencies using the CP method were 25.1 ± 11% across ten WWTPs when wastewater samples were seeded with 5 × 104 gene copies (GC) of SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile, the AE method yielded significantly greater concentrations of indigenous HAdV 40/41 and Lachno3 from wastewater compared to the CP method. Finally, no significant differences in indigenous EV concentrations were identified in comparing the AE and CP methods. These data indicate that the most effective concentration method varies by microbial analyte and that the priorities of the surveillance or monitoring program should be considered when choosing the concentration method.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Viruses / Enterovirus / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Sci Total Environ Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Viruses / Enterovirus / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Sci Total Environ Year: 2021 Document Type: Article