Back

Twelve Distinct Laboratory Methods Used to Measure SARS-CoV-2 in Wastewaters throughout a Three-Year Ontario-Wide, Canada Study: Impact on Public Health Interpretation of Disease Incidence

Hegazy, N.; Peng, K. K.; de Haan-Ward, J.; Renouf, E.; Mercier, E.; Wan, S.; Hu, X. J.; Dean, C.; Servos, M.; Edwards, E.; Ybazeta, G.; Habash, M.; Goodridge, L.; Brown, R. S.; Payne, S. J.; Kirkwood, A.; Kyle, C.; McKay, R. M.; Gilbride, K.; DeGroot, C.; Delatolla, R.

2026-03-30 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.03.27.26349524 medRxiv
Show abstract

Wastewater and environmental monitoring (WEM) was a critical public health surveillance tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance during the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, substantial methodological heterogeneity across laboratories continues to challenge the interpretation and thus compromise the actionability of resulting WEM measurements. This study quantifies interlaboratory concordance in SARS-CoV-2 WEM measurements using influent wastewater samples collected between September 2021 and January 2024 at a single wastewater treatment facility within the Ontario Wastewater Surveillance Initiative, analyzed independently by 12 laboratories using their routine methods. In the absence of a known true viral concentration, interlaboratory WEM measurements were evaluated against a facility-specific longitudinal benchmark derived from routine surveillance at the source facility and correlated to clinical surveillance metrics. Concordance was assessed across four WEM measurement units commonly used in practice: SARS-CoV-2 copies/mL, SARS-CoV-2 copies/copies of PMMoV, and their standardized counterpart wastewater viral activity level (WVAL) units of WVAL-standardized SARS-CoV-2 copies/mL and WVAL-standardized SARS-CoV-2 copies/copies of PMMoV. Measurements in each unit were analyzed using complementary analytical frameworks, including categorical concordance metrics, principal component analysis, and linear mixed-effects modelling. Across the study period, interlaboratory measurements consistently captured benchmark temporal dynamics, including major peaks and periods of low activity, but showed substantial variation in magnitude and public-health interpretation across laboratory methods. Concordance was strongest during epidemiological extremes and deteriorated during transitional periods, increasing the risk of misclassification with potentially implications for public health decision-making. To explore potential laboratory methodological drivers of agreement, associations between the benchmark concordance and the laboratory-specific concentration, extraction, and RT-qPCR analytical steps were assessed using Fishers exact tests, alongside extracted-mass threshold analyses. No single methodological factor showed a statistically significant association with benchmark concordance in this study; however, several parameters, including RNA template volume, total RT-qPCR reaction volume, and extracted mass of analyzed settled solids, may warrant further investigation in future studies.

Published in Journal of Water Process Engineering · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.