Logo image
Back
A comparison of precipitation and filtration-based SARS-CoV-2 recovery methods and the influence of temperature, turbidity, and surfactant load in urban wastewater
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

A comparison of precipitation and filtration-based SARS-CoV-2 recovery methods and the influence of temperature, turbidity, and surfactant load in urban wastewater

J.L. Kevill, C. Pellett, K. Farkas, M.R. Brown, I. Bassano, H. Denise, J.E. McDonald, S.K. Malham, J. Porter, J. Warren, …
Science of The Total Environment, Vol.808, Art. 151916
2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916
pdf
urban wastewater.pdfDownloadView
Published (Version of Record) Open Access
url
Free to Read *No subscription requiredView

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has become a complimentary surveillance tool during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Viral concentration methods from wastewater are still being optimised and compared, whilst viral recovery under different wastewater characteristics and storage temperatures remains poorly understood. Using urban wastewater samples, we tested three viral concentration methods; polyethylene glycol precipitation (PEG), ammonium sulphate precipitation (AS), and CP select™ InnovaPrep® (IP) ultrafiltration. We found no major difference in SARS-CoV-2 and faecal indicator virus (crAssphage) recovery from wastewater samples (n = 46) using these methods, PEG slightly (albeit non-significantly), outperformed AS and IP for SARS-CoV-2 detection, as a higher genome copies per litre (gc/l) was recorded for a larger proportion of samples. Next generation sequencing of 8 paired samples revealed non-significant differences in the quality of data between AS and IP, though IP data quality was slightly better and less variable. A controlled experiment assessed the impact of wastewater suspended solids (turbidity; 0–400 NTU), surfactant load (0–200 mg/l), and storage temperature (5–20 °C) on viral recovery using the AS and IP methods. SARS-CoV-2 recoveries were >20% with AS and <10% with IP in turbid samples, whilst viral recoveries for samples with additional surfactant were between 0–18% for AS and 0–5% for IP. Turbidity and sample storage temperature combined had no significant effect on SARS-CoV-2 recovery (p > 0.05), whilst surfactant and storage temperature combined were significant negative correlates (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). In conclusion, our results show that choice of methodology had small effect on viral recovery of SARS-CoV-2 and crAssphage in wastewater samples within this study. In contrast, sample turbidity, storage temperature, and surfactant load did affect viral recovery, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the viral concentration methodology used when working with wastewater samples.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Metrics

34 File views/ downloads
62 Record Views
60 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Citation topics
1 Clinical & Life Sciences
1.104 Virology - General
1.104.1353 Coronavirus Research
Web Of Science research areas
Environmental Sciences
ESI research areas
Environment/Ecology
Logo image