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

Jessica L Kevill; Cameron Pellett; Kata Farkas; Mathew R Brown; Irene Bassano; Hubert Denise; James E McDonald; Shelagh K Malham; Jonathan Porter; Jonathan Warren; Nicholas P Evens; Steve Paterson; Andrew C Singer; Davey L Jones

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

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

Jessica L Kevill, Cameron Pellett, Kata Farkas, Mathew R Brown, Irene Bassano, Hubert Denise, James E McDonald, Shelagh K Malham, Jonathan Porter, Jonathan Warren, Nicholas P Evens, Steve Paterson, Andrew C Singer, Davey L Jones

Biosciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

62 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original language	English
Article number	151916
Journal	Science of the Total Environment
Volume	808
Early online date	24 Nov 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916
Publication status	Published - 20 Feb 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council National under the COVID-19 Wastewater Epidemiology Surveillance Programme ( NE/V010441/1 ) and the Centre for Environmental Biotechnology Project funded though the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Welsh Government. We particularly thank Tony Harrington at Dŵr Cymru-Welsh Water and Jo Harrison and Charmian Abbott at United Utilities PLC alongside staff at the wastewater treatment facilities for their support in this project. We thank Prof Ian Goodfellow (University of Cambridge, UK) for providing MNV and BV2 stocks.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors

Keywords

COVID-19
Faecal indicator virus
RNA detection
Wastewater concentration
qRT-PCR
Surface-Active Agents
SARS-CoV-2
Temperature
Humans
Waste Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Pollution
Waste Management and Disposal
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Chemistry

Access to Document

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)

kevillj2022comparisonFinal published version, 1.63 MBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)

Cite this

Kevill, J. L., Pellett, C., Farkas, K., Brown, M. R., Bassano, I., Denise, H., McDonald, J. E., Malham, S. K., Porter, J., Warren, J., Evens, N. P., Paterson, S., Singer, A. C., & Jones, D. L. (2022). A comparison of precipitation and filtration-based SARS-CoV-2 recovery methods and the influence of temperature, turbidity, and surfactant load in urban wastewater. Science of the Total Environment, 808, Article 151916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

@article{d1fb9c95792541188124256e078bc7c9,

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

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{\texttrademark} InnovaPrep{\textregistered} (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.",

keywords = "COVID-19, Faecal indicator virus, RNA detection, Wastewater concentration, qRT-PCR, Surface-Active Agents, SARS-CoV-2, Temperature, Humans, Waste Water",

author = "Kevill, {Jessica L} and Cameron Pellett and Kata Farkas and Brown, {Mathew R} and Irene Bassano and Hubert Denise and McDonald, {James E} and Malham, {Shelagh K} and Jonathan Porter and Jonathan Warren and Evens, {Nicholas P} and Steve Paterson and Singer, {Andrew C} and Jones, {Davey L}",

note = "Funding Information: Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council National under the COVID-19 Wastewater Epidemiology Surveillance Programme ( NE/V010441/1 ) and the Centre for Environmental Biotechnology Project funded though the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Welsh Government. We particularly thank Tony Harrington at Dŵr Cymru-Welsh Water and Jo Harrison and Charmian Abbott at United Utilities PLC alongside staff at the wastewater treatment facilities for their support in this project. We thank Prof Ian Goodfellow (University of Cambridge, UK) for providing MNV and BV2 stocks. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors",

year = "2022",

month = feb,

day = "20",

doi = "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916",

language = "English",

volume = "808",

journal = "Science of the Total Environment",

issn = "0048-9697",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Kevill, JL, Pellett, C, Farkas, K, Brown, MR, Bassano, I, Denise, H, McDonald, JE, Malham, SK, Porter, J, Warren, J, Evens, NP, Paterson, S, Singer, AC & Jones, DL 2022, 'A comparison of precipitation and filtration-based SARS-CoV-2 recovery methods and the influence of temperature, turbidity, and surfactant load in urban wastewater', Science of the Total Environment, vol. 808, 151916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

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 - Funding Information: Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council National under the COVID-19 Wastewater Epidemiology Surveillance Programme ( NE/V010441/1 ) and the Centre for Environmental Biotechnology Project funded though the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Welsh Government. We particularly thank Tony Harrington at Dŵr Cymru-Welsh Water and Jo Harrison and Charmian Abbott at United Utilities PLC alongside staff at the wastewater treatment facilities for their support in this project. We thank Prof Ian Goodfellow (University of Cambridge, UK) for providing MNV and BV2 stocks. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors

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

KW - Surface-Active Agents

KW - SARS-CoV-2

KW - Temperature

KW - Humans

KW - Waste Water

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120655826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

M3 - Article

C2 - 34826466

SN - 0048-9697

VL - 808

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

M1 - 151916

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this