Back

Insights from Wastewater Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Skilled Nursing Facilities: Comparing Virus Concentration Methods for Wastewater and Correlating Wastewater Virus Concentrations with Clinical Infections, Georgia, USA, 2022

Whitehill, F.; Lyons, A. K.; Abera, B.; Adler, C.; Burgos-Garay, M.; Campbell, M.; Santiago, A. J.; Ganim, C.; Moore, J.; Cahela, Y.; Lenz, S.; Gable, P.; Medrzycki, M.; Walters, M. S.; Keaton, A.; Cook, P. W.; Li, Y.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Malapati, L.; Retchless, A. C.; Tong, S.; Williams, M.; Donlan, R.; Coulliette-Salmond, A.

2026-06-04 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.06.01.26354622 medRxiv
Show abstract

To understand the utility of healthcare facility-level wastewater surveillance (WWS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is important to correlate wastewater SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection with the number of clinical infections. WWS for SARS-CoV-2 was performed at three skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) over 25 weeks. Electronegative membrane filtration (enMF) and Nanotrap(R) Magnetic Virus Particles (NP) virus concentration methods were compared. Extracts were tested by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Spearman's correlations ({rho}) between wastewater virus RNA concentrations and infection counts were calculated. From split wastewater samples, enMF recovered higher SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations than NP. Combining data from all facilities, the median concentrations were 53.0 versus 38.6 gc/100 mL for enMF and NP, respectively (p=0.001). Using enMF, correlations were moderate to strong at SNF A ({rho} ranged 0.67 to 0.86, all p-values <0.001). Weak to moderate correlations can be explained by the sampled manhole not representing the entire facility (SNF B, {rho} ranged 0.47 to 0.72, p-values ranged <0.001 to 0.12) and longitudinal data gaps from summer heat and equipment maintenance (SNF C, {rho} ranged 0.14 to 0.59, p-values ranged 0.52 to <0.01). WWS can be a valuable tool for tracking dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.6%
2
Water Research
74 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.7%
3
ACS ES&T Water
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
4
Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
6
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.4%
8
FEMS Microbes
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
13
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
Chemical Engineering Journal
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
15
Environmental Pollution
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
19
PLOS Water
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
20
Environmental Science & Technology Letters
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
22
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Chemosphere
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
25
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
26
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%