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.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Water Research
74 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.2%
2
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.5%
3
ACS ES&T Water
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
5
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
7
FEMS Microbes
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
8
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
9
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.6%
11
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
12
PLOS Water
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.9%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
15
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
16
Chemosphere
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
18
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Environmental Pollution
35 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
20
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Environmental Science & Technology Letters
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
22
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
23
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
24
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%