Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35306079›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2022

Coordination of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater and clinical testing of university students demonstrates the importance of sampling duration and collection time.

Brienna L Anderson-Coughlin, Adrienne E H Shearer, Alexis N Omar, Pushpinder K Litt, Erin Bernberg, Marcella Murphy, Amy Anderson, Lauren Sauble, Bri Ames, Oscar Damminger and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors.

Brienna L Anderson-CoughlinDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Center for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Adrienne E H ShearerDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Center for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Alexis N OmarDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Center for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Pushpinder K LittDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Center for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Erin BernbergDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Marcella MurphyDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; University of Delaware Poultry Health System, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Amy AndersonDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Lauren SaubleDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; University of Delaware Poultry Health System, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Bri AmesDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Oscar DammingerDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Brian S LadmanDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; University of Delaware Poultry Health System, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Timothy F DowlingStudent Health Services, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
K Eric WommackCenter for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Kalmia E KnielDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States; Center for Environmental and Wastewater-based Epidemiological Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States. Electronic address: kniel@udel.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater surveillance has been a useful tool complementing clinical testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, transitioning surveillance approaches to small populations, such as dormitories and assisted living facilities poses challenges including difficulties with sample collection and processing. Recently, the need for reliable and timely data has coincided with the need for precise local forecasting of the trajectory of COVID-19. This study compared wastewater and clinical data from the University of Delaware (Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters), and evaluated wastewater collection practices for enhanced virus detection sensitivity. Fecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 is known to occur in infected individuals. However, shedding concentrations and duration has been shown to vary. Therefore, three shedding periods (14, 21, and 30 days) were presumed and included for analysis of wastewater data. SARS-CoV-2 levels detected in wastewater correlated with clinical virus detection when a positive clinical test result was preceded by fecal shedding of 21 days (p< 0.05) and 30 days (p < 0.05), but not with new cases (p = 0.09) or 14 days of shedding (p = 0.17). Discretely collected wastewater samples were compared with 24-hour composite samples collected at the same site. The discrete samples (n = 99) were composited examining the influence of sampling duration and time of day on SARS-CoV-2 detection. SARS-CoV-2 detection varied among dormitory complexes and sampling durations of 3-hour, 12-hour, and 24-hour (controls). Collection times frequently showing high detection values were between the hours of 03:00 to 05:00 and 23:00 to 08:00. In each of these times of day 33% of samples (3/9) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the control sample. The remainder (6/9) of the collection times (3-hour and 12-hour) were not different (p > 0.05) from the control. This study provides additional framework for continued methodology development for microbiological wastewater surveillance as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses and in preparation for future epidemiological efforts.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsStudentsUniversitiesWastewaterWastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringWastewaterCOVID-19Method developmentSARS-CoV-2Virus recoveryWastewater-based epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID35306079
PMCPMC8925087

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.