Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33714910›Full record

ArticleWater research2021

Viability of SARS-CoV-2 in river water and wastewater at different temperatures and solids content.

Leonardo Camilo de Oliveira, Andrés Felipe Torres-Franco, Bruna Coelho Lopes, Beatriz Senra Álvares da Silva Santos, Erica Azevedo Costa, Michelle S Costa, Marcus Tulius P Reis, Marília C Melo, Rodrigo Bicalho Polizzi, Mauro Martins Teixeira and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Water research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Survival of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.The Science of the total environment · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  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

11 authors.

Leonardo Camilo de OliveiraBiochemistry and Immunology Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Andrés Felipe Torres-FrancoDeparment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Bruna Coelho LopesDeparment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Beatriz Senra Álvares da Silva SantosVeterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Erica Azevedo CostaVeterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Michelle S CostaMinas Gerais State Health Authority (SES).
Marcus Tulius P ReisSanitation Company for Minas Gerais (COPASA).
Marília C MeloMinas Gerais Institute for Water Management (IGAM).
Rodrigo Bicalho PolizziRegulatory Agency for Water Supply and Sewage Services of the State of Minas Gerais (ARSAE).
Mauro Martins TeixeiraBiochemistry and Immunology Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Electronic address: mmtex.ufmg@gmail.com.
César Rossas MotaDeparment of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Electronic address: cesar@desa.ufmg.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 patients can excrete viable SARS-CoV-2 virus via urine and faeces, which has raised concerns over the possibility of COVID-19 transmission via aerosolized contaminated water or via the faecal-oral route. These concerns are especially exacerbated in many low- and middle-income countries, where untreated sewage is frequently discharged to surface waters. SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in river water (RW) and raw wastewater (WW) samples. However, little is known about SARS-CoV-2 viability in these environmental matrices. Determining the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in water under different environmental conditions is of great importance for basic assumptions in quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). In this study, the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 was assessed using plaque assays following spiking of RW and WW samples with infectious SARS-CoV-2 that was previously isolated from a COVID-19 patient. These assays were carried out on autoclaved RW and WW samples, filtered (0.22 µm) and unfiltered, at 4 °C and 24 °C. Linear and nonlinear regression models were adjusted to the data. The Weibull regression model achieved the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) and was hence chosen to estimate T

Indexed as

COVID-19WastewaterHumansRiversRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2TemperatureWaterRNA, ViralWastewaterWaterpersistenceSARS-CoV-2temperatureviabilitywastewaterwater

Identifiers

PMID33714910
PMCPMC7927590

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.