Skip to main content
SLU publication database (SLUpub)

Research article2022Peer reviewedOpen access

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

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

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 selectTM InnovaPrep (R) (IP) ultrafiltration. We found no major difference in SARS-CoV2 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 degrees 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

RNA detection; qRT-PCR; COVID-19; Faecal indicator virus; Wastewater concentration

Published in

Science of the Total Environment
2022, Volume: 808, article number: 151916

    UKÄ Subject classification

    Diagnostic Biotechnology
    Other Chemical Engineering
    Microbiology

    Publication identifier

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151916

    Permanent link to this page (URI)

    https://res.slu.se/id/publ/118860