Preprint Communication Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater

Version 1 : Received: 9 February 2022 / Approved: 11 February 2022 / Online: 11 February 2022 (08:38:07 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Wilson, M.; Qiu, Y.; Yu, J.; Lee, B.E.; McCarthy, D.T.; Pang, X. Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater. Pathogens 2022, 11, 359. Wilson, M.; Qiu, Y.; Yu, J.; Lee, B.E.; McCarthy, D.T.; Pang, X. Comparison of Auto Sampling and Passive Sampling Methods for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater. Pathogens 2022, 11, 359.

Abstract

Wastewater-based surveillance is emerging as an important tool for COVID-19 pandemic trending. Current methods of wastewater collection, such as grab and auto-composite sampling, have drawbacks that impede effective surveillance, especially from small catchments with limited accessibility. Passive samplers, which are more cost-effective and require fewer resources to process, are promising candidates for monitoring wastewater for SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared traditional auto sampling with passive sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection in wastewater. Torpedo-style 3D printed passive sampler device containing both cotton swabs and electronegative filter membranes was used. Between April and June 2021, fifteen passive samplers were placed at a local hospital wastewater outflow alongside an auto sampler. Reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the samples after processing and RNA extraction. The swab and membrane of the passive sampler showed similar detection rates and Ct values for SARS-CoV-2 RNA for the N1 and N2 gene targets. The passive method performed as well as the grab/auto sampling, with no significant differences between N1 and N2 Ct values. There were discrepant results on two days with negative grab/auto samples and positive passive samples, which might be related to the longer duration of passive sampling in the study. Overall, the passive sampler was rapid, reliable and cost-effective, and could be used as an alternative sampling method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; wastewater; passive sampler; autosampler; RT-qPCR

Subject

Biology and Life Sciences, Virology

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.