Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36581284›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2023

Parallel deployment of passive and composite samplers for surveillance and variant profiling of SARS-CoV-2 in sewage.

Gyuhyon Cha, Katherine E Graham, Kevin J Zhu, Gouthami Rao, Blake G Lindner, Kumru Kocaman, Seongwook Woo, Isabelle D'amico, Lilia R Bingham, Jamie M Fischer and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Tracking epidemic viruses in wastewaters.Microbial biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

23 authors.

Gyuhyon ChaSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Katherine E GrahamSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Kevin J ZhuDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431, USA.
Gouthami RaoDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431, USA.
Blake G LindnerSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Kumru KocamanSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Seongwook WooSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Isabelle D'amicoSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Lilia R BinghamSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Jamie M FischerSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Camryn I FloresSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
John W SpencerSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Pranav YathirajSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Hayong ChungSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Shweta BiliyaParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Naima DjeddarParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Liza J BurtonParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Samantha J MascuchParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Joe BrownDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7431, USA.
Anton BryksinParker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.
Ameet PintoSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Janet K HattSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
Konstantinos T KonstantinidisSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: kostas@ce.gatech.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology during the COVID-19 pandemic has proven useful for public health decision-making but is often hampered by sampling methodology constraints, particularly at the building- or neighborhood-level. Time-weighted composite samples are commonly used; however, autosamplers are expensive and can be affected by intermittent flows in sub-sewershed contexts. In this study, we compared time-weighted composite, grab, and passive sampling via Moore swabs, at four locations across a college campus to understand the utility of passive sampling. After optimizing the methods for sample handling and processing for viral RNA extraction, we quantified SARS-CoV-2 N1 and N2, as well as a fecal strength indicator, PMMoV, by ddRT-PCR and applied tiled amplicon sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Passive samples compared favorably with composite samples in our study area: for samples collected concurrently, 42 % of the samples agreed between Moore swab and composite samples and 58 % of the samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 using Moore swabs while composite samples were below the limit of detection. Variant profiles from Moore swabs showed a shift from variant BA.1 to BA.2, consistent with in-person saliva samples. These data have implications for the broader implementation of sewage surveillance without advanced sampling technologies and for the utilization of passive sampling approaches for other emerging pathogens.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2FecesHumansPandemicsSewageSewageMoore swabPassive samplingWastewater-based epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID36581284
PMCPMC9792180

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.