Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ahmed, Warish
• Bivins, Aaron
• Simpson, Stuart L.
• Smith, Wendy J.M.
• Metcalfe, Suzanne
• McMinn, Brian
• Symonds, Erin M.
• Korajkic, Asja

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• The Science of the total environment, 2021-12, Vol.799, p.149386-149386, Article 149386

Ort / Verlag

Netherlands: Elsevier B.V

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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. [Display omitted] •Concentration methods varied by microbial target.•Concentrating pipette yielded better recovery for SARS-CoV-2 than adsorption-extraction method.•SARS-CoV-2 RNA recovery was greater for samples with higher titer seeds.•Laboratories must empirically validate methods for water matrix and microbial target.