• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Sci Total Environ . Comparative analysis of adsorption-extraction (AE) and nanotrap® magnetic virus particles (NMVP) workflows for the recovery of

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Sci Total Environ


. 2022 Nov 7;160072.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160072. Online ahead of print.
Comparative analysis of adsorption-extraction (AE) and nanotrap® magnetic virus particles (NMVP) workflows for the recovery of endogenous enveloped and non-enveloped viruses in wastewater


Warish Ahmed[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Aaron Bivins[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Asja Korajkic[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Suzanne Metcalfe[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Wendy J M Smith[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Stuart L Simpson[SUP] 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

In this study, two virus concentration methods, namely Adsorption-extraction (AE) and Nanotrap® Magnetic Virus Particles (NMVP) along with commercially available extraction kits were used quantify endogenous pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nucleic acid extracted from 48 wastewater samples collected over six events from eight wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The main aim was to determine which workflow (i.e., concentration and extraction methods) produces greater concentrations of PMMoV and SARS-CoV-2 gene copies (GC) in comparison with each other. Turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) of wastewater samples within and among the eight WWTPs were highly variable (41-385 NTU and 77-668 mg/L TSS). In 58 % of individual wastewater samples the log[SUB]10[/SUB] GC concentrations of PMMoV were greater by NMVP workflow compared to AE workflow. Paired measurements of PMMoV GC/10 mL from AE and NMVP across all 48 wastewater samples were weakly correlated (r = 0.455, p = 0.001) and demonstrated a poor linear relationship (r[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0.207). The log[SUB]10[/SUB] GC concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in 69 % of individual samples were greater by AE workflow compared to NMVP workflow. In contrast to PMMoV, the AE and NMVP derived SARS-CoV-2 GC counts were strongly correlated (r = 0.859, p < 0.001) and demonstrated a strong linear relationship (r[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0.738). In general, the PMMoV GC achieved by the NMVP workflow decreased with increasing turbidity, but the PMMoV GC by the AE workflow did not appear to be sensitive to either turbidity or TSS levels. These findings suggest that suspended solids concentration, and the intended target for analysis should be considered when validating an optimal workflow for wastewater surveillance.

Keywords: Concentration methods; Health risks; PMMoV; SARS-CoV-2; Wastewater.
 
Back
Top Bottom