Cargando…

Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater

Wastewater-based surveillance is emerging as an important tool for the COVID-19 pandemic trending. Current methods of wastewater collection, such as grab and auto-composite sampling, have drawbacks that impede effective surveillance, especially from small catchments with limited accessibility. Passi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Melissa, Qiu, Yuanyuan, Yu, Jiaao, Lee, Bonita E., McCarthy, David T., Pang, Xiaoli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35335683
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11030359
_version_ 1784676274105483264
author Wilson, Melissa
Qiu, Yuanyuan
Yu, Jiaao
Lee, Bonita E.
McCarthy, David T.
Pang, Xiaoli
author_facet Wilson, Melissa
Qiu, Yuanyuan
Yu, Jiaao
Lee, Bonita E.
McCarthy, David T.
Pang, Xiaoli
author_sort Wilson, Melissa
collection PubMed
description Wastewater-based surveillance is emerging as an important tool for the COVID-19 pandemic trending. Current methods of wastewater collection, such as grab and auto-composite sampling, have drawbacks that impede effective surveillance, especially from small catchments with limited accessibility. Passive samplers, which are more cost-effective and require fewer resources to process, are promising candidates for monitoring wastewater for SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared traditional auto sampling with passive sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater. A torpedo-style 3D-printed passive sampler device containing both cotton swabs and electronegative filter membranes was used. Between April and June 2021, fifteen passive samplers were placed at a local hospital’s wastewater outflow alongside an autosampler. Reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the samples after processing and RNA extraction. The swab and membrane of the passive sampler showed similar detection rates and cycle threshold (Ct) values for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for the N1 and N2 gene targets. The passive method performed as well as the grab/auto sampling, with no significant differences between N1 and N2 Ct values. There were discrepant results on two days with negative grab/auto samples and positive passive samples, which might be related to the longer duration of passive sampling in the study. Overall, the passive sampler was rapid, reliable, and cost-effective, and could be used as an alternative sampling method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8955177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89551772022-03-26 Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater Wilson, Melissa Qiu, Yuanyuan Yu, Jiaao Lee, Bonita E. McCarthy, David T. Pang, Xiaoli Pathogens Communication Wastewater-based surveillance is emerging as an important tool for the COVID-19 pandemic trending. Current methods of wastewater collection, such as grab and auto-composite sampling, have drawbacks that impede effective surveillance, especially from small catchments with limited accessibility. Passive samplers, which are more cost-effective and require fewer resources to process, are promising candidates for monitoring wastewater for SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared traditional auto sampling with passive sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater. A torpedo-style 3D-printed passive sampler device containing both cotton swabs and electronegative filter membranes was used. Between April and June 2021, fifteen passive samplers were placed at a local hospital’s wastewater outflow alongside an autosampler. Reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the samples after processing and RNA extraction. The swab and membrane of the passive sampler showed similar detection rates and cycle threshold (Ct) values for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for the N1 and N2 gene targets. The passive method performed as well as the grab/auto sampling, with no significant differences between N1 and N2 Ct values. There were discrepant results on two days with negative grab/auto samples and positive passive samples, which might be related to the longer duration of passive sampling in the study. Overall, the passive sampler was rapid, reliable, and cost-effective, and could be used as an alternative sampling method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. MDPI 2022-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8955177/ /pubmed/35335683 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11030359 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Communication
Wilson, Melissa
Qiu, Yuanyuan
Yu, Jiaao
Lee, Bonita E.
McCarthy, David T.
Pang, Xiaoli
Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title_full Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title_fullStr Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title_short Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater
title_sort comparison of auto sampling and passive sampling methods for sars-cov-2 detection in wastewater
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35335683
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11030359
work_keys_str_mv AT wilsonmelissa comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater
AT qiuyuanyuan comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater
AT yujiaao comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater
AT leebonitae comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater
AT mccarthydavidt comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater
AT pangxiaoli comparisonofautosamplingandpassivesamplingmethodsforsarscov2detectioninwastewater