RESUMEN
Wastewater surveillance for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA can be integrated with COVID-19 case data to inform timely pandemic response. However, more research is needed to apply and develop systematic methods to interpret the true SARS-CoV-2 signal from noise introduced in wastewater samples (e.g., from sewer conditions, sampling and extraction methods, etc.). In this study, raw wastewater was collected weekly from five sewersheds and one residential facility. The concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples were compared to geocoded COVID-19 clinical testing data. SARS-CoV-2 was reliably detected (95% positivity) in frozen wastewater samples when reported daily new COVID-19 cases were 2.4 or more per 100,000 people. To adjust for variation in sample fecal content, four normalization biomarkers were evaluated: crAssphage, pepper mild mottle virus, Bacteroides ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and human 18S rRNA. Of these, crAssphage displayed the least spatial and temporal variability. Both unnormalized SARS-CoV-2 RNA signal and signal normalized to crAssphage had positive and significant correlation with clinical testing data (Kendall's Tau-b (τ)=0.43 and 0.38, respectively), but no normalization biomarker strengthened the correlation with clinical testing data. Locational dependencies and the date associated with testing data impacted the lead time of wastewater for clinical trends, and no lead time was observed when the sample collection date (versus the result date) was used for both wastewater and clinical testing data. This study supports that trends in wastewater surveillance data reflect trends in COVID-19 disease occurrence and presents tools that could be applied to make wastewater signal more interpretable and comparable across studies.
RESUMEN
Wastewater-based epidemiology is an emerging tool for tracking the spread of SARS-CoV-2 through populations. However, many factors influence recovery and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 from wastewater, complicating data interpretation. Specifically, these factors may differentially affect the measured virus concentration, depending on the laboratory methods used to perform the test. Many laboratories add a proxy virus to wastewater samples to determine losses associated with concentration and extraction of viral RNA. While measuring recovery of a proxy virus is an important process control, in this piece, we describe the caveats and limitations to the interpretation of this control, including that it typically does not account for losses during RNA extraction. We recommend reporting the directly measured concentration data alongside the measured recovery efficiency, rather than attempting to correct the concentration for recovery efficiency. Even though the ability to directly compare SARS-CoV-2 concentrations from different sampling locations determined using different methods is limited, concentration data (uncorrected for recovery) can be useful for public health response.
