Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33429117›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2021

Evaluation of two rapid ultrafiltration-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 concentration from wastewater.

E Forés, S Bofill-Mas, M Itarte, S Martínez-Puchol, A Hundesa, M Calvo, C M Borrego, L L Corominas, R Girones, M Rusiñol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

E ForésSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain; The Water Institute of the University of Barcelona, Spain.
S Bofill-MasSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain; The Water Institute of the University of Barcelona, Spain.
M ItarteSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain; The Water Institute of the University of Barcelona, Spain.
S Martínez-PucholSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain; The Water Institute of the University of Barcelona, Spain.
A HundesaSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain.
M CalvoSection of Statistics, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, Faculty of Biology, University of Barcelona, Spain.
C M BorregoCatalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Scientific and Technological Park of the University of Girona, Emili Grahit 101, E-17003 Girona, Spain; Group of Molecular Microbial Ecology, Institute of Aquatic Ecology, University of Girona, E-17003 Girona, Spain.
L L CorominasCatalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Scientific and Technological Park of the University of Girona, Emili Grahit 101, E-17003 Girona, Spain; University of Girona, E-17003 Girona, Spain.
R GironesSection of Microbiology, Virology and Biotechnology, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, University of Barcelona, Spain; The Water Institute of the University of Barcelona, Spain.
M RusiñolInstitute of Environmental Assessment & Water Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: marta.rosinol@idaea.csic.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative measurements of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in raw wastewater have been implemented worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic. Recent efforts are being made to evaluate different viral concentration methodologies to overcome supplier shortages during lockdowns. A set of 22-wastewater samples seeded with murine hepatitis virus (MHV), a member of the Coronaviridae family, and the bacteriophage MS2, were used to characterize and compare two ultrafiltration-based methods: a centrifugal ultrafiltration device (Centricon® Plus-70) and the automated concentrating pipette CP-Select™. Based on the recovery efficiencies, significant differences were observed for MHV, with Centricon® Plus-70 (24%) being the most efficient method. Nevertheless, concentrations of naturally occurring SARS-CoV-2, Human adenoviruses and JC polyomaviruses in these samples did not result in significant differences between methods suggesting that testing naturally occurring viruses may complement the evaluation of viral concentration methodologies. Based on the virus adsorption to solids and the necessity of a pre-centrifugation step to remove larger particles and avoid clogging when using ultrafiltration methods, we assessed the percentage of viruses not quantified after ultrafiltration. Around 23% of the detected SARS-CoV-2 would be discarded during the debris removal step. The CP-Select™ provided the highest concentration factor (up to 333×) and the lowest LoD (6.19 × 10

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlHumansMiceUltrafiltrationWastewaterWastewaterSARS-CoV-2UltrafiltrationViral concentration methodViral recoveryWastewater

Identifiers

PMID33429117
PMCPMC7789912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.