长期护理机构与污水处理厂SARS-CoV-2废水被动采样的临床相关性

Q2 Environmental Science

Environmental Advances Pub Date : 2025-04-19 DOI:10.1016/j.envadv.2025.100635

William Strike , Alexus Rockward , Blazan Mijatovic , Ann Noble , Cullen Olsson , Soroosh Torabi , Mohammad Dehghan Banadaki , Reuben Adatorwovor , James Keck , Scott Berry

{"title":"长期护理机构与污水处理厂SARS-CoV-2废水被动采样的临床相关性","authors":"William Strike , Alexus Rockward , Blazan Mijatovic , Ann Noble , Cullen Olsson , Soroosh Torabi , Mohammad Dehghan Banadaki , Reuben Adatorwovor , James Keck , Scott Berry","doi":"10.1016/j.envadv.2025.100635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is a promising tool for improving health outcomes through early detection and cost-effective pathogen surveillance. Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) serve and employ vulnerable populations that may particularly benefit from the use of WBE, but financial and technical costs associated with standard sampling methods limit the feasibility of WBE in the LTCF setting. In this work, we used passive sampling to simplify the wastewater analysis process and compared its performance to the standard composite sampling method. Moore swabs and automatic composite samplers were used concurrently to sample wastewater from two LTCFs, and samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 concentration. Passive sampling relies on an unknown volume of wastewater flowing through a cotton material, which complicates back calculations of pathogen concentration. We chose to calculate analyte concentrations based on the squeezed eluent from the cotton swab, which is practical for temporal analysis. Across all samples, passive and composite sampling performed similarly for SARS-CoV-2 detection and mean concentration. However, we observed a sensitivity advantage at low SARS-CoV-2 concentrations (<180 gc/mL) when using passive sampling. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations obtained via passive sampling correlated with the reported clinical cases, with wastewater concentration leading reported clinical cases by an average of 4 days. Passive and composite sampling were also performed at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to examine the effects of facility type on sampling performance. To our knowledge, this is the first work performing a comparative analysis at both facility- and community-scale locations. Passive sampling yielded significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 and fecal load biomarkers than composite sampling at WWTPs, illustrating an important difference between LTCF samples and WWTP samples.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34473,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Advances","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100635"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical correlation of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater passive sampling in long-term care facilities and wastewater treatment plants\",\"authors\":\"William Strike , Alexus Rockward , Blazan Mijatovic , Ann Noble , Cullen Olsson , Soroosh Torabi , Mohammad Dehghan Banadaki , Reuben Adatorwovor , James Keck , Scott Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envadv.2025.100635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is a promising tool for improving health outcomes through early detection and cost-effective pathogen surveillance. Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) serve and employ vulnerable populations that may particularly benefit from the use of WBE, but financial and technical costs associated with standard sampling methods limit the feasibility of WBE in the LTCF setting. In this work, we used passive sampling to simplify the wastewater analysis process and compared its performance to the standard composite sampling method. Moore swabs and automatic composite samplers were used concurrently to sample wastewater from two LTCFs, and samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 concentration. Passive sampling relies on an unknown volume of wastewater flowing through a cotton material, which complicates back calculations of pathogen concentration. We chose to calculate analyte concentrations based on the squeezed eluent from the cotton swab, which is practical for temporal analysis. Across all samples, passive and composite sampling performed similarly for SARS-CoV-2 detection and mean concentration. However, we observed a sensitivity advantage at low SARS-CoV-2 concentrations (<180 gc/mL) when using passive sampling. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations obtained via passive sampling correlated with the reported clinical cases, with wastewater concentration leading reported clinical cases by an average of 4 days. Passive and composite sampling were also performed at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to examine the effects of facility type on sampling performance. To our knowledge, this is the first work performing a comparative analysis at both facility- and community-scale locations. Passive sampling yielded significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 and fecal load biomarkers than composite sampling at WWTPs, illustrating an important difference between LTCF samples and WWTP samples.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Advances\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100635\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765725000274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765725000274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

基于废水的流行病学（WBE）是一种很有前途的工具，可以通过早期发现和具有成本效益的病原体监测来改善健康结果。长期护理机构（LTCF）服务和雇用的弱势群体可能特别受益于WBE的使用，但与标准抽样方法相关的财务和技术成本限制了WBE在LTCF环境中的可行性。在这项工作中，我们使用被动采样来简化废水分析过程，并将其性能与标准复合采样方法进行比较。同时使用摩尔拭子和自动复合采样器对两个ltcf的废水进行采样，并对样品进行SARS-CoV-2浓度分析。被动采样依赖于流经棉质材料的未知废水量，这使得病原体浓度的反向计算变得复杂。我们选择计算分析物浓度的基础上，从棉花拭子挤压洗脱液，这是实用的时间分析。在所有样本中，被动采样和复合采样在SARS-CoV-2检测和平均浓度方面的表现相似。然而，当使用被动采样时，我们观察到低SARS-CoV-2浓度（<180 gc/mL）的灵敏度优势。此外，通过被动采样获得的SARS-CoV-2废水浓度与报告的临床病例相关，废水浓度平均领先报告的临床病例4天。在污水处理厂（WWTP）进行被动采样和复合采样，以检查设施类型对采样性能的影响。据我们所知，这是第一次在设施和社区规模的地点进行比较分析。在污水处理厂，被动采样获得的SARS-CoV-2和粪便负荷生物标志物显著高于复合采样，说明LTCF样本与WWTP样本之间存在重要差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Clinical correlation of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater passive sampling in long-term care facilities and wastewater treatment plants

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is a promising tool for improving health outcomes through early detection and cost-effective pathogen surveillance. Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) serve and employ vulnerable populations that may particularly benefit from the use of WBE, but financial and technical costs associated with standard sampling methods limit the feasibility of WBE in the LTCF setting. In this work, we used passive sampling to simplify the wastewater analysis process and compared its performance to the standard composite sampling method. Moore swabs and automatic composite samplers were used concurrently to sample wastewater from two LTCFs, and samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 concentration. Passive sampling relies on an unknown volume of wastewater flowing through a cotton material, which complicates back calculations of pathogen concentration. We chose to calculate analyte concentrations based on the squeezed eluent from the cotton swab, which is practical for temporal analysis. Across all samples, passive and composite sampling performed similarly for SARS-CoV-2 detection and mean concentration. However, we observed a sensitivity advantage at low SARS-CoV-2 concentrations (<180 gc/mL) when using passive sampling. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations obtained via passive sampling correlated with the reported clinical cases, with wastewater concentration leading reported clinical cases by an average of 4 days. Passive and composite sampling were also performed at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to examine the effects of facility type on sampling performance. To our knowledge, this is the first work performing a comparative analysis at both facility- and community-scale locations. Passive sampling yielded significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 and fecal load biomarkers than composite sampling at WWTPs, illustrating an important difference between LTCF samples and WWTP samples.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊