NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

Comparing analytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater

Repositori DSpace/Manakin

IMPORTANT: Aquest repositori està en una versió antiga des del 3/12/2023. La nova instal.lació está en https://roderic.uv.es/

Comparing analytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater

Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

dc.contributor.author Pérez Cataluña, Alba
dc.contributor.author Cuevas Ferrando, Enric
dc.contributor.author Randazzo, Walter
dc.contributor.author Falcó Ferrando, Irene Lourdes
dc.contributor.author Allende, Ana
dc.contributor.author Sánchez, Gloria
dc.date.accessioned 2023-05-26T07:02:32Z
dc.date.available 2023-05-26T07:02:32Z
dc.date.issued 2021
dc.identifier.citation Pérez Cataluña, Alba Cuevas Ferrando, Enric Randazzo, Walter Falcó Ferrando, Irene Lourdes Allende, Ana Sánchez, Gloria 2020 Comparing analytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater Science of the Total Environment 758 1 6
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10550/86954
dc.description.abstract Wastewater based epidemiology (WBE) has emerged as a reliable strategy to assess the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Recent publications suggest that SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater is technically feasible; however, many different protocols are available and most of the methods applied have not been properly validated. To this end, different procedures to concentrate and extract inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and surrogates were initially evaluated. Urban wastewater seeded with gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), and mengovirus (MgV) was used to test the concentration efficiency of an aluminum-based adsorption-precipitation method and a polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation protocol. Moreover, two different RNA extraction methods were compared in this study: a commercial manual spin column centrifugation kit and an automated protocol based on magnetic silica beads. Overall, the evaluated concentration methods did not impact the recovery of gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 nor MgV, while extraction methods showed significant differences for PEDV. Mean recovery rates of 42.9 ± 9.5%, 27.5 ± 14.3% and 9.0 ± 2.2% were obtained for gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2, PEDV and MgV, respectively. Limits of detection (LoD95%) for five genomic SARS-CoV-2 targets (N1, N2, gene E, IP2 and IP4) ranged from 1.56 log genome equivalents (ge)/mL (N1) to 2.22 log ge/mL (IP4) when automated system was used; while values ranging between 2.08 (N1) and 2.34 (E) log ge/mL were observed when using column-based extraction method. Different targets were also evaluated in naturally contaminated wastewater samples with 91.2%, 85.3%, 70.6%, 79.4% and 73.5% positivity, for N1, N2, E, IP2 and IP4, respectively. Our benchmarked comparison study suggests that the aluminum precipitation method coupled with the automated nucleic extraction represents a method of acceptable sensitivity to provide readily results of interest for SARS-CoV-2 WBE surveillance.
dc.language.iso eng
dc.relation.ispartof Science of the Total Environment, 2020, vol. 758, p. 1-6
dc.subject Aigües residuals Microbiologia
dc.subject Microbiologia
dc.subject Ecologia
dc.subject Salut pública
dc.title Comparing analytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater
dc.type journal article
dc.date.updated 2023-05-26T07:02:32Z
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143870
dc.identifier.idgrec 159272
dc.rights.accessRights open access

Visualització       (1.033Mb)

Aquest element apareix en la col·lecció o col·leccions següent(s)

Mostra el registre parcial de l'element

Cerca a RODERIC

Cerca avançada

Visualitza

Estadístiques