TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of precipitation and filtration-based SARS-CoV-2 recovery methods and the influence of temperature, turbidity, and surfactant load in urban wastewater

AU - Kevill, Jessica L

AU - Pellett, Cameron

AU - Farkas, Kata

AU - Brown, Mathew R

AU - Bassano, Irene

AU - Denise, Hubert

AU - McDonald, James E

AU - Malham, Shelagh K

AU - Porter, Jonathan

AU - Warren, Jonathan

AU - Evens, Nicholas P

AU - Paterson, Steve

AU - Singer, Andrew C

AU - Jones, Davey L

N1 - Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022/2/20

Y1 - 2022/2/20

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - COVID-19

KW - Faecal indicator virus

KW - RNA detection

KW - Wastewater concentration

KW - qRT-PCR

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

M3 - Article

C2 - 34826466

VL - 808

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

SN - 0048-9697

M1 - 151916

ER -