Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35251931›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental chemical engineering2022

Sampling strategies for wastewater surveillance: Evaluating the variability of SARS-COV-2 RNA concentration in composite and grab samples.

Matheus Ribeiro Augusto, Ieda Carolina Mantovani Claro, Aline Kaori Siqueira, Guilherme Santos Sousa, Cláudio Roberto Caldereiro, Adriana Feliciano Alves Duran, Taís Browne de Miranda, Lívia de Moraes Bomediano Camillo, Aline Diniz Cabral, Rodrigo de Freitas Bueno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental chemical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Matheus Ribeiro AugustoFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Ieda Carolina Mantovani ClaroFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Aline Kaori SiqueiraFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Guilherme Santos SousaFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Cláudio Roberto CaldereiroFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Adriana Feliciano Alves DuranFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Taís Browne de MirandaFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Lívia de Moraes Bomediano CamilloFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Aline Diniz CabralFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.
Rodrigo de Freitas BuenoFederal University of ABC (UFABC), Center of Engineering, Modelling and Applied Social Sciences (CECS), Santo Andre, São Paulo 09210-580, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers by infected individuals, even asymptomatic and oligosymptomatic ones, allows the use of wastewater monitoring to track the COVID-19 spread in a community. This approach is interesting especially for emerging countries with limited clinical testing capabilities. However, there are still important methodological aspects that need validation so that wastewater monitoring data become more representative and useful for public health. This study evaluated the between-day and within-day variability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in 24-hour composite and grab samples from three different sampling points, including two wastewater treatment plants (WTTP) and a sewer manhole. In the between-day evaluation (17 weeks of monitoring), a good agreement between the SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration of each sampling method was observed. There were no significant differences between the mean concentrations of the grab and composite samples (p-value > 0.05), considering N1 and N2 gene assays. The strong relationship between composite and grab samples was proven by correlation coefficients: Pearson's r of 0.83 and Spearman's rho of 0.78 (p-value < 0.05). In within-day evaluation, 24-hour cycles were analyzed and low variability in hourly viral concentrations was observed for three sampling points. The coefficient of variation (CV) values ranged from 3.0% to 11.5%. Overall, 24-hour profiles showed that viral RNA concentrations had less variability and greater agreement with the mean values between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m, the recommended time for grab sampling. Therefore, this study provides important information on wastewater sampling techniques for COVID-19 surveillance. Wastewater monitoring information will only be useful to public health and decision-makers if we ensure data quality through best practices.

Indexed as

COVID-19Environmental surveillanceSampling techniquesSARS-CoV-2SewageWastewater-based epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID35251931
PMCPMC8882035

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.