SARS-CoV-2 RNA occurrence in wastewater samples. A total of 205 untreated wastewater samples from five points of the ABC Region (São Paulo, Brazil) were analyzed between June 9th, 2020 and March 17th, 2021 (41 weeks) for the SARS-CoV-2 RNA occurrence. Samples with Ct (Cycle threshold) less than 40 were considered positive and had their concentrations determined (genome copies/sample volume), according to Medema et al. (2020)7 and Wu et al. (2020)10.
Figure 1 shows the Ct values of the five sampling points for the entire monitoring period.
The RT-qPCR N1 and N2 gene assays were analyzed for all wastewater samples. However, as shown in Fig. 1, there was a higher SARS-CoV-2 occurrence for the N1 target. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 40% (83/205) and 29% (60/205) of wastewater samples, for N1 and N2 gene assays, respectively. The differences among N1 and N2 assays on wastewater samples were also reported by other recent studies7,8,10. This could be associated with the different analytical sensitivity between the RT-qPCR gene assays8. Furthermore, different PCR reactions may not be identically susceptible to the inhibitory effects of the evaluated matrix19.
As in this study, Medema et al. (2020)7 verified a higher sensitivity for N1 gene assay, detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers for a greater number of monitoring points even when clinical data indicated a low prevalence of 1 case per 100,000 inhabitants.
As shown in Fig. 1, the SARS-CoV-2 occurrence in the first weeks was less frequent. However, from November onwards, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers were detected in most of the wastewater samples. Coincidentally, at that same time, there were signs of the beginning of a “second wave” and/or recurring local outbreaks of COVID-19 in Brazil20. In January, February, and March 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 91% (10/11), 100% (11/11), 82% (9/11), 64% (7/11), and 82% (9/11) of the wastewater samples from points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, clearly indicating the late spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the ABC Region.
Figure 2 shows the Box Plot of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load (N1 assay) per sampling point for the entire monitoring period.
There were no statistical differences among the mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations, as determined by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), considering a significance level of 0.05. The mean concentrations were 5.1 ± 1.2, 5.2 ± 1.0, 5.3 ± 1.2, 5.4 ± 1.6, and 4.9 ± 0.9 log10 genome copies.L− 1 for points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
The average SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers in wastewater samples were equivalent to those detected by Randazzo et al. (2020)8 in Spain, about 5.1 ± 0.3 log10 genome copies.L− 1 for the N1 assay. Similarly, Wu et al. (2020)10 detected a viral load between 4 and 5 log10 genome copies.L− 1, but in Massachusetts, USA.
The maximum and minimum values of SARS-CoV-2 RNA found in this study were 7.1 and 2.7 log10 genome copies.L− 1, respectively, considering the entire data set. Other studies have also observed this wide range of concentrations. Wurtzer et al. (2020)21, for example, detected a viral load between 4 and 7 log10 genome copies.L− 1, in France. Gonzales et al. (2020)22 detected values between 2 and 5 log10 genome copies.L− 1, in Virginia, USA. According to Prado et al. (2021)11, different factors can influence the viral load determination, including the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic experienced in each region. Besides, we believe that the specificities of the sewage and the sewer network in each region also affect the experimental determinations. In Brazil, sewage, and surface run-off (rainwater and stormwater) are collected separately. However, there is a high rate of clandestine connections to the sewer network, which promotes the dilution of sewage during rainy events.
Therefore, the viral load measured in the wastewater samples from the ABC Region was consistent with those found in other studies around the world.
Environmental surveillance. Supplementary Fig. 1 shows the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 in the ABC region for different dates, considering the viral load measured (N1 assay) in the wastewater samples.
As observed in Supplementary Fig. 1, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration from all sampling sites increased gradually over time, indicating the spread of COVID-19 infection in the ABC Region. At the beginning of monitoring (June 2020), the amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers in wastewater samples were much less expressive than those found in the last weeks. As previously shown, this behavior was also observed for the Ct results (Fig. 1).
The presentation of monitoring results through heat maps (Supplementary Fig. 1) can be especially useful for health agencies since it allows the spatial analysis of the pandemic situation.
Epidemiological/clinical data on COVID-19 in the ABC Region was obtained from the publicly available repository of the Federal University of ABC, “Onde tem coronavirus?” project (available at https://ondetemcoronavirus.ufabc.edu.br/). Figure 3 shows the new cases during the monitoring period normalized by each city’s population. The cumulative prevalence of COVID-19 (in percentage), considering all municipalities of the ABC Region, was also plotted.
As shown in Fig. 3, although there is a wide variability of data, an upward trend of COVID-19 cases in the ABC Region can be observed, especially from November onwards. As previously discussed, the SARS-CoV-2 occurrences in wastewater samples showed the same behavior (Fig. 2).
Figure 4 shows the SARS-CoV-2 viral load (N1 assay) in the five sampling points throughout the monitoring period.
Despite the relatively large variance, an upward trend in SARS-CoV-2 viral load (red arrow) was observed for the five monitoring points (Fig. 4), following the continuous increase of reported clinical cases (Fig. 3). Therefore, there is a correlation between the amount of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater and the hospitalization data, as observed by other authors7,11,23,24. However, few studies have reported long-term monitoring (over several months) of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater11,25. A large dataset allows for more robust statistical analysis and, therefore a more reliable model for WBE13.
Figure 5 shows the SARS-CoV-2 amount (N1 assay) for samples of Point 1 (WWTP ABC) in relation to the number of new COVID-19 cases of ABC Region. The temporal delay between the SARS-CoV-2 RNA peaks (for wastewater samples) and clinical data are indicated with black arrows. Point 1 was chosen for this comparative analysis, since it receives most of the wastewater generated in the ABC region and, therefore is the most representative monitoring point.
As observed in Fig. 5, there is a correlation between the SARS-CoV-2 amount variation in wastewater and the clinical data on COVID-19 with the former preceding the latter by approximately 14 days (two weeks). These results are consistent since the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 generally precedes the notification of a positive test by 2 to 3 weeks. This time interval corresponds to an incubation period between 2 and 14 days followed by clinical testing about a week after symptoms onset25–27.
Other studies have observed the same behavior7,25,27−30. Saguti et al. (2021)25, for example, verified peaks of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples from a WWTP in Sweden occurring 3 to 4 weeks before clinical notification. Ahmed et al. (2021)28, detected SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater samples from three WWTPs in Australia up to 3 weeks before the first reported clinical case. Peccia et al. (2020)27, observed a shorter delay of about a week when analyzing samples of primary sludge from a WWTP in USA.
In Florianopolis (Santa Catarina, Brazil), the viral genome of SARS-CoV-2 was detected in wastewater samples in November 2019, before the first case in the Americas was reported. The SARS-CoV-2 occurrence was confirmed by genome sequencing analysis. The mean concentration was 5.83 ± 0.12 log10 genome copies.L− 1, while the maximum and minimum values were 6.68 ± 0.02 and 5.49 ± 0.02 log10 genome copies.L− 1, respectively31.
These results indicate that wastewater surveillance can be used successfully as an early warning system for monitoring COVID-19. This methodology allows verifying the increase or reduction in the number of active cases about 2 weeks in advance. In addition, since the monitoring can be regionalized by sewer sub-basins, control actions by health agencies can be directed to the infection and transmission clusters.
Prevalence estimate. The COVID-19 prevalence for each sampling site, shown in Table 1, was estimated using the SARS-CoV-2 RNA titers data (N1 assay) and other parameters (methods: equations 1 and 2). The positive results (for SARS-CoV-2 occurrence) of all monitoring weeks were considered. The predicted prevalence of COVID-19, resulting from the Monte-Carlo simulation, was summarized in Table 1 as mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) (lower and upper).
Table 1
Predicted prevalence of COVID-19 for each sampling point.
Sampling point
|
Mean
(%)
|
95% Confidence Interval
|
Lower (%)
|
Upper (%)
|
Point 1:
WWTP ABC
|
0.20
|
0.05
|
2.10
|
Point 2:
Vila Vilma
|
0.19
|
0.05
|
2.16
|
Point 3:
Califórnia Paulista
|
0.23
|
0.06
|
2.61
|
Point 4:
Parque Indaiá
|
0.38
|
0.10
|
4.39
|
Point 5:
WTTP Parque Andreense
|
0.05
|
0.01
|
0.55
|
The average prevalence (in percentage) in the ABC Region for the same period (June 9th, 2020 - March 17th, 2021) was 0.016 ± 0.005%. As shown in Table 1, the predicted values were much higher (about 10 times) than the observed COVID-19 prevalence (considering epidemiological/clinical data).
Wu et al. (2020)10, also estimated prevalence values (0.1–5%) higher than those reported (about 0.026%) in Massachusetts, USA.