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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |