Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34296387›Full record

ArticleFood and environmental virology2021

Methods Evaluation for Rapid Concentration and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in Raw Wastewater Using Droplet Digital and Quantitative RT-PCR.

Matthew T Flood, Nishita D'Souza, Joan B Rose, Tiong Gim Aw

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Food and environmental virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew T FloodDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Nishita D'SouzaDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Joan B RoseDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
Tiong Gim AwDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 2100, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. taw@tulane.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9773-5868
Michigan State University · USTulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater surveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging public health tool to understand the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in communities. The performance of different virus concentration methods and PCR methods needs to be evaluated to ascertain their suitability for use in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. We evaluated ultrafiltration and polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation methods to concentrate SARS-CoV-2 from sewage in wastewater treatment plants and upstream in the wastewater network (e.g., manholes, lift stations). Recovery of viruses by different concentration methods was determined using Phi6 bacteriophage as a surrogate for enveloped viruses. Additionally, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in all wastewater samples was determined using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcription droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR), targeting three genetic markers (N1, N2 and E). Using spiked samples, the Phi6 recoveries were estimated at 2.6-11.6% using ultrafiltration-based methods and 22.2-51.5% using PEG precipitation. There was no significant difference in recovery efficiencies (p < 0.05) between the PEG procedure with and without a 16 h overnight incubation, demonstrating the feasibility of obtaining same day results. The SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers were more often detected by RT-ddPCR than RT-qPCR with higher sensitivity and precision. While all three SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers were detected using RT-ddPCR, the levels of E gene were almost below the limit of detection using RT-qPCR. Collectively, our study suggested PEG precipitation is an effective low-cost procedure which allows a large number of samples to be processed simultaneously in a routine wastewater monitoring for SARS-CoV-2. RT-ddPCR can be implemented for the absolute quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genetic markers in different wastewater matrices.

Indexed as

Chemical FractionationChemical PrecipitationEnvironmental MonitoringPolyethylene GlycolsPublic HealthReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2SewageUltrafiltrationViral ProteinsWastewaterWater PollutionPolyethylene GlycolsSewageViral ProteinsWastewaterCoronavirusPEG precipitationRT-ddPCRRT-qPCRSARS-CoV-2Wastewater-based epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID34296387
PMCPMC8297606
OpenAlexW3185889316

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.