spc5euhh

Property	Value
?:abstract	Wastewater based epidemiology (WBE) has emerged as a reliable strategy to assess the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Recent publications suggest that SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastrewater is technically feasible; however, many different protocols are available and most of the methods applied have not been properly validated. To this end, different procedures to concentrate and extract inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and surrogates were initially evaluated. Urban wastewater seeded with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), and mengovirus (MgV) was used to test the concentration efficiency of an aluminum hydroxide adsorption-precipitation method and a polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation protocol. Moreover, two different RNA extraction methods were compared in this study: a commercial manual spin columns centrifugation kit and an automated protocol based on magnetic silica beads. Overall, the evaluated concentration methods did not impact the recovery of gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 nor MgV, while extraction methods showed significant differences for PEDV. Mean recovery rates of 42.9 ± 9.5%, 27.5 ± 14.3% and 9.0 ± 2.2% were obtained for gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, PEDV and MgV, respectively. Limits of detection (LoD95%) for five genomic SARS-CoV-2 targets (N1, N2, gene E, IP2 and IP4) ranged from 1.56 log genome equivalents (ge)/mL (N1) to 2.22 log ge/mL (IP4) when automated system was used; while values ranging between 2.08 (N1) and 2.34 (E) log ge/mL were observed when using column-based extraction method. Different targets were also evaluated in naturally contaminated wastewater samples with 91.2%, 85.3%, 70.6%, 79.4% and 73.5% positivity, for N1, N2, E, IP2 and IP4, respectively. Our benchmarked comparison study suggests that the aluminum precipitation method coupled with the automated nucleic extraction represents a method of acceptable sensitivity to provide readily results of interest for SARS-CoV-2 WBE surveillance.
is ?:annotates of	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0017337> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0017428> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0020517> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0025279> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0037098> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C0318855> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C1415347> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C1416380> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C1825598> <https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/spc5euhh_hasAnnotation_C5203676>
?:creator	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/P%C3%A9rez-Catalu%C3%B1a%2C_Alba%3B_Cuevas-Ferrando%2C_Enric%3B_Randazzo%2C_Walter%3B_Falc%C3%B3%2C_Irene%3B_Allende%2C_Ana%3B_S%C3%A1nchez%2C_Gloria>
?:doi	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143870>
?:doi	10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143870
?:journal	Sci_Total_Environ
?:license	els-covid
?:pdf_json_files	document_parses/pdf_json/745549838df81b6da9e65937c9d9f6a423432cc6.json
?:pmcid	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/PMC7722604>
?:pmid	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/33338788.0>
?:pmid	33338788.0
?:publication_isRelatedTo_Disease	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/COVID-19>
?:sha_id	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/entity/745549838df81b6da9e65937c9d9f6a423432cc6>
?:source	Elsevier; Medline; PMC
?:title	Comparing analytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater
?:type	<https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/vocab/Publication>
?:year	2020-12-08

Property

Value

?:abstract

Wastewater based epidemiology (WBE) has emerged as a reliable strategy to assess the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Recent publications suggest that SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastrewater is technically feasible; however, many different protocols are available and most of the methods applied have not been properly validated. To this end, different procedures to concentrate and extract inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and surrogates were initially evaluated. Urban wastewater seeded with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), and mengovirus (MgV) was used to test the concentration efficiency of an aluminum hydroxide adsorption-precipitation method and a polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation protocol. Moreover, two different RNA extraction methods were compared in this study: a commercial manual spin columns centrifugation kit and an automated protocol based on magnetic silica beads. Overall, the evaluated concentration methods did not impact the recovery of gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 nor MgV, while extraction methods showed significant differences for PEDV. Mean recovery rates of 42.9 ± 9.5%, 27.5 ± 14.3% and 9.0 ± 2.2% were obtained for gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, PEDV and MgV, respectively. Limits of detection (LoD95%) for five genomic SARS-CoV-2 targets (N1, N2, gene E, IP2 and IP4) ranged from 1.56 log genome equivalents (ge)/mL (N1) to 2.22 log ge/mL (IP4) when automated system was used; while values ranging between 2.08 (N1) and 2.34 (E) log ge/mL were observed when using column-based extraction method. Different targets were also evaluated in naturally contaminated wastewater samples with 91.2%, 85.3%, 70.6%, 79.4% and 73.5% positivity, for N1, N2, E, IP2 and IP4, respectively. Our benchmarked comparison study suggests that the aluminum precipitation method coupled with the automated nucleic extraction represents a method of acceptable sensitivity to provide readily results of interest for SARS-CoV-2 WBE surveillance.

is ?:annotates of