Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34102442›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2021

Moore swab performs equal to composite and outperforms grab sampling for SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in wastewater.

Mohammad Rafiee, Siavash Isazadeh, Anoushiravan Mohseni-Bandpei, Seyed Reza Mohebbi, Mahsa Jahangiri-Rad, Akbar Eslami, Hossein Dabiri, Kasra Roostaei, Mohammad Tanhaei, Fatemeh Amereh

Open access · greenAbstract 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 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Environmental surveillance of pathogens in Africa.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohammad RafieeEnvironmental and Occupational Hazards Control Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Siavash IsazadehEnvironmental Research and Development, American Water Works, Delran, NJ, USA.
Anoushiravan Mohseni-BandpeiEnvironmental and Occupational Hazards Control Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Reza MohebbiGastroenterology and Liver Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahsa Jahangiri-RadWater Purification Research Center, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Akbar EslamiEnvironmental and Occupational Hazards Control Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein DabiriDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.
Kasra RoostaeiEnvironmental and Occupational Hazards Control Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad TanhaeiFoodborne and Waterborne Diseases Research Center, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh AmerehEnvironmental and Occupational Hazards Control Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Electronic address: amereh@sbmu.ac.ir.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRAmerican Water Works Association · USIslamic Azad University Medical Branch of Tehran · IRShahid Beheshti University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) approaches to detect SARS-CoV-2 in municipal wastewater can provide unique information on the incidence or prevalence of COVID-19 in community. However, there are several technical challenges coupled with sewage sampling for SARS-CoV-2, including intermittent shedding of viruses, sampling time, volume, and frequency. Sampling schemes thus may need to be tailored to reach out highly sensitive, accurate, and reliable results. Herein, we compared the accuracy and threshold cycle (Ct) profiles of SARS-CoV-2 in Moore swabs, composite (16-h), and grab samples taken from sewage manholes (n = 17) at the Middle Eastern city of Tehran, Iran, on two occasions (November 2020 and May 2021). Samples were concentrated by polyethylene glycol precipitation and the corresponding Ct values for CDC 'N' and 'ORF1ab' assays were derived by means of real time RT-qPCR. Overall, the Moore swabs performed equal to samples composited over 16 h for qualitative monitoring, and 34/34 (100%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The 'N' assay showed the highest detection frequency as compared to 'ORF1ab'. The mean Moore swab Ct profiles were more consistent with 16 h composite sampling as compared with corresponding grab samples, providing hints as to the best sampling protocol to adopt when planning a sewage monitoring campaign particularly under WBE. Furthermore, our analyses on local differences showed somewhat higher virus copy numbers in the southern areas. The experimental design of this study revealed that the Moore swab and composite samples are more sensitive than grab samples, suggesting that the collection of grab samples may be inappropriate for characterizing total number of viral RNA copies in sewage samples. Given the transiently presence of human host-restricted infections such as SARS-CoV-2 and the simplicity and affordability of Moore swab, the method is well suited for disease surveillance in resource poor regions struggling with limited capacity for clinical testing.

Indexed as

COVID-19WastewaterHumansIranSARS-CoV-2Wastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringWastewaterCompositeGrabMoore swabSampling methodSARS-CoV-2Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE)

Identifiers

PMID34102442
PMCPMC8170911
OpenAlexW3169057244

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.