Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Sunny Jiang
 -- 4049 2022-04-21 21:31:29 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 -1 word(s) 4048 2022-04-22 03:25:34 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Jiang, S.; Solo-Gabriele, H.; Bischel, H.; Goel , R.; Rosso, D.; Sherchan, S.; , . Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22143 (accessed on 26 April 2024).
Jiang S, Solo-Gabriele H, Bischel H, Goel R, Rosso D, Sherchan S, et al. Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22143. Accessed April 26, 2024.
Jiang, Sunny, Helena Solo-Gabriele, Heather Bischel, Ramesh Goel , Diego Rosso, Samendra Sherchan,  . "Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22143 (accessed April 26, 2024).
Jiang, S., Solo-Gabriele, H., Bischel, H., Goel , R., Rosso, D., Sherchan, S., & , . (2022, April 21). Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22143
Jiang, Sunny, et al. "Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 April, 2022.
Virus Monitoring Strategies for Wastewater Reuse
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/w14081187

Wastewater reclamation and reuse have the potential to supplement water supplies, offering resiliency in times of drought and helping to meet increased water demands associated with population growth. Non-potable water reuse represents the largest potential reuse market. Yet, economic constraints for new water reuse infrastructure and safety concerns due to microbial water quality, especially viral pathogen exposure, limit the widespread implementation of water reuse. Cost-effective, real-time methods to measure or indicate the viral quality of recycled water would do much to instill greater confidence in the practice.  One of the greatest challenges of water-quality monitoring is that pathogens (including viruses as well as bacteria and protozoa) are often present at concentrations high enough to present disease risks but too low for direct detection. As a result, a variety of surrogate microorganisms are used as indicators of microbial water quality. 

viruses wastewater reuse

1. Current Technologies for Monitoring Viruses

1.1. Sample Concentration Methods

The quantities and types of human enteric viruses in wastewater vary widely and depend on several factors such as geographic location, season, and source of wastewater. High concentrations of human viruses can be detected easily from small amounts of wastewater or sludge samples, while greater volumes are generally required for detection for treated water due to lower viral concentrations. To improve detection, it is necessary to concentrate viruses in water samples.
Several different types of concentration methods are available. A single method is rarely capable of effectively concentrating all viruses in a water sample. As a result, using the right concentration approach can enhance virus detection [1]. Several studies summarized and compared concentration methods including virus adsorption and elution (VIRADEL), electronegative filtration, electropositive filtration, size-exclusion, and coagulation/flocculation [1][2][3][4]. Viral concentration methods that are useful for monitoring viruses in water reuse are highlighted below.
Electronegative membranes are commonly applied for virus concentration. Several studies demonstrated virus concentration using flat filter membranes with electronegative surface charge in electronegative filtration [5][6][7][8][9]. Haramoto et al. [2] successfully concentrated viruses and protozoa from wastewater, river water, and groundwater samples using electronegative mixed cellulose ester membranes (pore size, 0.45 µm). More recently, electronegative membranes are extensively used for concentrating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from wastewater in efforts to document COVID-19 disease transmission [10][11]. The VIRADEL method has been used to concentrate viruses from a variety of water samples, including seawater, tap water, surface water, and wastewater [3]. Electropositive media and filters have also been applied in a variety of configurations for virus concentration. Examples include 1MDS filters (3M, Maplewood, MN USA) [1] and NanoCeram filters (Argonide, Sanford, FL, USA). The NanoCeram filter media is applied to concentrate viruses in drinking water [4], seawater [12]​ and wastewater [1][13] and are suggested as a less expensive alternative to the 1MDS filter [12].
In addition to surface-charged filters, size-exclusion filtration methods (e.g., ultrafiltration) allow for the simultaneous recovery of viruses and bacteria [1][4][14][15]. Another common ultrafiltration technique uses specialized cartridges designed for separation through membrane filters during centrifugation [7][16].
Among coagulation/flocculation methods, skimmed milk flocculation was shown to be a low-cost, one-step virus concentration approach. This procedure entails flocculating viruses with skimmed milk proteins in pre-acidified water samples (pH 3.5), stirring for 8 h, and gravity sedimentation of the floc for another 8 h. The sedimented floc is centrifuged to obtain a pellet, which is resuspended in a smaller volume of phosphate buffer after supernatant removal. Virus recoveries using this method are established at roughly 50% from 5 and 10 L samples of saltwater and river water [1][4]. The method is likely highly applicable to the treated wastewater for reuse. Another common coagulation/flocculation method utilizes polyethylene glycol precipitation (PEG) [17][18][19]. This method is similar to that of skimmed milk flocculation except that PEG and sodium chloride are added, and the centrifugation and sedimentation steps are slightly different [20].
As these studies show, no single strategy for concentrating human enteric viruses in wastewater appears to be completely efficient [21]. Given the attention to SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in wastewater, a recent inter-laboratory method comparison study in the recovery of SARS-CoV-2 from wastewater was conducted [11]. Three viral concentration methods (ultrafiltration, electronegative filtration, and PEG precipitation) did not present significant variability in the final outcomes [22]. The recent SARS-CoV-2 research also indicated that the virus was concentrated naturally by settled solids in wastewater treatment plants because of the affinity of viral lipophilic outer envelope [23]. Therefore, testing settled solids and primary sludge can provide highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 [24][25]. These methods are expected to be less applicable to the detection of viruses in finished water produced for reuse (low solids). Applications of automated virus concentration techniques, including magnetic bead-based virus capture [26][27], demonstrate the potential for high-throughput virus concentration.
Given the emergence of various new target viruses of interest (e.g., crAssphage), recovery efficiencies of different concentration approaches may need to be reevaluated [3]. The influence of viral shape, surface charge, hydrophobicity and other characteristics on recovery efficiencies of existing concentration methods should be examined. Given the wide range of viral recoveries from various water matrices, as well as the discoveries of new viruses, incorporating efficient viral concentration methods will be beneficial for future research and applications in practice.

1.2. Culture versus Molecular Detection

Cell culture methods are the gold standard for detecting infectious viruses, but next-generation molecular tools are now widely utilized for detecting enteric viruses in water samples [28]. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods enable faster detection timeframes (within hours), higher sensitivity and specificity, and the capacity to detect unculturable viruses.
Multiplex quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays that use distinct fluorophores for various targets can detect several different viruses in a sample at the same time [29]. High-throughput qPCR using microfluidic technology is demonstrated as a direct multi-pathogen detection approach for environmental water samples. This technology makes use of microfluidic chips, which allow for high-throughput measurement of large sample quantities for a variety of enteric viruses and other pathogens [30][31].
A downside of PCR-based approaches is that they are susceptible to inhibitory compounds that are frequently co-concentrated with viruses, such as humic acids commonly found in environmental water samples. Various strategies are applied to reduce the effects of inhibitory substances. For instance, magnetic bead-based extraction methods may remove qPCR inhibitors more efficiently than spin column-based approaches [21].
Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is also shown to have improved performance in the presence of inhibitory compounds as compared to qPCR [31][32]. ddPCR performs better because it is an end-point positive/negative detection combined with Poisson statistics for quantification, so it has higher accuracy and precision against PCR inhibition. Furthermore, ddPCR directly quantifies viral gene copies in a sample without the need for calibration by known-concentration standards [33][34]. Since 2020, the adoption of ddPCR has accelerated due to increasing application for wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic [35].

2. Viruses and Viral Surrogates in Wastewater for Reuse

Risk-based assessments of wastewater treatment performance and water reuse applications should include both quantitative assessments of waterborne pathogenic human viruses known to be in circulation as well as non-pathogenic virus surrogates for human viral pathogens. The presence and loads of human viruses within treated wastewater will depend upon the health characteristics of the communities contributing to the wastewater and the efficacy of the treatment operations to remove the viruses. Hence, the number and type of human pathogenic viruses in untreated and treated wastewater will vary regionally and over time. Given the high level of variability of human viruses in wastewater, viral surrogates are often used to assess viral risks. The EPA defines viral surrogates as “Nonpathogenic (e.g., coliphage, pepper mild mottle virus [PMMoV], etc.) or pathogenic viruses (e.g., adenovirus, norovirus, etc.) and/or other types of indicators (e.g., enterococcus qPCR (EPA Method 1609, [36]), the human marker HF183, etc.) demonstrated to predict the presence of and/or risk of illness from human pathogenic viruses via co-occurrence studies and quantitative microbial risk assessments.” Given this EPA definition, viral surrogates are surrogates of risk of illnesses from viruses as a whole, and thus pathogenic viruses themselves can serve as surrogates of risk.

2.1. Human Viruses

Human enterovirus, norovirus, and adenovirus are frequently used in risk-based water quality assessments because of their high abundance in wastewater, their importance in waterborne outbreaks, and the historical data on their prevalence in wastewater around the world. Enteroviruses including coxsackievirus, enterovirus 71, coxsackie A virus, DHV-1a, and DHV-3 are considered the most prevalent viruses in the world [37]. They cause a number of infectious illnesses, which are usually mild. Children, particularly those younger than 10 years old, are most likely to be infected. Human noroviruses are the leading cause of epidemic gastroenteritis in all age groups. They are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States and are responsible for at least 50% of acute gastroenteritis outbreaks occurring worldwide each year [38]. Adenoviruses in water are extensively investigated and reviewed [39]. The high abundance (typically 108–1010 gc/L in raw wastewater) and relative ease of detection made adenovirus a popular target for monitoring viral quality in water. With a double-stranded DNA genome, adenovirus is more resistant to UV disinfection than other viral pathogens during wastewater reclamation [40]. Diverse serotypes of human adenoviruses are responsible for both enteric illnesses and respiratory and eye infections. Unlike the three viruses discussed above, Aichivirus was identified more recently in wastewater. High concentrations of Aichivirus were found in over 90% of wastewater tested in the Netherlands, Japan, and North America [41][42][43][44][45], suggesting that further investigation of Aichivirus to assess treatment performance is warranted. Most human viruses that are identified in high concentrations in wastewater are transmitted through fecal–oral pathways with the exception of human adenovirus. Amongst various serotypes of adenoviruses, serotypes 40 and 41 are enteric viruses and are transmitted through the fecal–oral route, while adenovirus serotype 5 causes respiratory infection and is transmitted by aerosols but also shed in human feces in high concentrations [39]. Understanding the viral transmission pathways has important implications on health risk assessment.
Enteric viruses in wastewater show clear seasonality in concentrations and are unlikely to be detected in wastewater at all times of year [44][46]. Human virus selected for risk-based monitoring of recycled water should thus attempt to capture known seasonality of regionally significant waterborne viruses. For instance, enteroviruses peak in the summer while noroviruses peak during winter in temperate climates. In contrast, human adenovirus and Aichivirus are frequently found in wastewater without any distinct seasonality. Data on the presence and removal of a suite of human viruses alongside other water treatment operations and water quality may thus provide a broad picture of viral pathogens and their removal during wastewater reclamation throughout a given year.

2.2. Viral Surrogates for Human Viruses

Various viral surrogates for human viruses are proposed to indicate the removal of infectious viruses during wastewater treatment. Among them, somatic and F-specific coliphage are top candidates. In fact, a large body of work evaluated the suitability of coliphages as indicators of human viral contamination in recreational water [47]. In comparison with human virus infectivity assays, coliphage assays are significantly faster, cheaper, and easier. Advancements in genome-based methods also identified new potential surrogates for human viruses in wastewater, with pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV) and crAssphage rising as particularly promising candidates. In 2021, tomato brown rugose fruit virus (ToBRFV) was found to be the most abundant RNA virus in Southern California wastewater, in much greater abundance than PMMoV [48]. These potential human viral surrogates, although morphologically and physiologically distinct from human enteric viruses, are found in high concentrations in municipal wastewater. Furthermore, recent studies evaluating viral indicators [49][50] suggest gut-associated bacteriophages beyond crAssphage as additional potential viral surrogates, with the advantage of adding human specificity over the more abundant plant viruses.

2.2.1. Coliphages

Coliphages are bacterial viruses that infect E. coli and are found in human fecal waste. Coliphages are relatively easy and inexpensive to measure through culture-based techniques, which are based upon counts of plaque-forming units (PFU) on agar containing the host bacteria [51]. This technique provides an approximation of the presence and number of infective coliphage viruses. These analyses help overcome the limitations of PCR, which measures genetic material regardless of infectivity. Coliphages are considered better indicators for viral pathogens than traditional FIB (fecal indicator bacteria) due to their more similar physical structure and morphology [52][53][54]. Coliphages are generally expected to exhibit persistence in environmental waters and response to treatment that is similar to human enteric viruses, but extensive reviews of environmental data reveal varying patterns [55]. The detection of infectious coliphage in reuse water implies a potential presence of infectious human viruses in the same wastewater or the failure of treatment processes to inactive viruses.
Coliphages are separated into two classes: somatic and male-specific (otherwise known as F+ or F-specific) coliphages. Somatic coliphages are DNA viruses that infect host bacteria via the outer membrane. They consist of a broad range of coliphage types and have been included in many environmental studies. Male-specific coliphages (F+) were originally believed to contain a single-stranded RNA genome [56] but are now known to include viruses with DNA- or RNA-based genomes [57]. The male-specific coliphages (F+) infect host bacteria through an appendage, the F-pilus of male strains of E. coli, used for bacterial conjugation. Various studies suggest that somatic coliphages are more abundant than F-specific coliphages in untreated wastewater, primary and raw sludge. With few exceptions, similar relative proportions of somatic coliphages, F-specific bacteriophages, and RNA F-specific bacteriophages are measured in secondary effluents from wastewater treatment plants when counted using standardized methods in the same samples [53][58][59]. F-specific bacteriophages are inactivated by high temperature or high pH and have low persistence in warmer climates. F-specific bacteriophages thus perform more accurately as viral indicators in samples where they predominate, such as groundwater, clay sediments, and reclaimed waters [60]. MS2 is a strain of F+ RNA (group I) coliphage. Because of the resemblances of physical size and shape of MS2 and its genomic content to many human enteric viruses (i.e., enterovirus), MS2 is proposed as a viral surrogate by EPA for recreational water quality. Somatic coliphages are greatly affected both by UV radiation as well as chlorination. Chlorination may not significantly change the relative proportion of somatic and F- specific coliphages [59], but somatic coliphages are found to be lower in number than F-specific coliphages following UV treatment. F-specific coliphages may therefore be better indicators in effluents from facilities using UV treatment [52][61].

2.2.2. CrAssphage

CrAssphage is a group of dsDNA bacteriophages infecting Bacteroides spp. [62] and potentially other bacterial hosts. CrAssphage is highly abundant in wastewater (excreted by 50–70% of people). This group was named based on its metagenome-assembled genome and is thought to belong to the normal human gut virome [63]. Importantly, crAssphage can be specifically associated with humans and is a specific indicator of human waste, distinguishable from other animal waste. There is still much to be learned about crAssphage in wastewater, although some groups are already using it as a specific indicator of human fecal contamination [44][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. In addition, qPCR comparisons of crAssphage abundance with PMMoV and Aichivirus show that crAssphage abundance correlates with human viral pathogens and is found in high abundance relative to other tested viruses [45].

2.2.3. Pepper Mild Mottle Virus

Pepper mild mottle viruses (PMMoV) are non-enveloped, rod-shaped plant pathogens that contain a single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) genome [71][72]. Several characteristics make PMMoV a valuable indicator of human fecal load in a water sample from diverse geographic regions. PMMoV is ubiquitous and present at high concentrations in human feces worldwide [73]. PMMoV virions are also stable over a range of environmentally relevant temperatures [73]. Since the presence of PMMoV is dietary in origin, PMMoV may be a more consistent indicator of fecal load than viruses that cause human disease [73]. Finally, PMMoV is rarely found in animal feces, limiting the potential for animal fecal contributions to bias PMMoV-based estimates of human fecal load [72]. PMMoV is used extensively as a measure of fecal strength in wastewater in analyses of SARS-CoV-2.
PMMoV does have several limitations as a water-quality indicator. PMMoV’s morphology and surface charge are markedly different from enteric viruses. This could lead to differences between PMMoV and viruses of interest with respect to environmental behavior and removal/reduction rates under different treatment processes. The co-occurrence of PMMoV with human viruses is poorly understood, if not inconsistent, and requires further investigation. There are also concerns about underestimating viral removal efficiency due to the high stability of PMMoV genome fragments. On the other hand, PMMoV detection may offer a conservative estimation of viral risk in water reuse.

2.3. Metagenomics Approaches

Metagenomics can provide unique insights for selecting targeted viral surrogates for the non-potable reuse of wastewater. As sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines continue to rapidly evolve, they may offer more comprehensive input data for risk assessments. Already known to be the most abundant biological entity in the earth’s biosphere [74], virus diversity is expected to be significantly larger than currently known. The current 10th report by the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses identified 189 viral families and 9110 viral species [75], while one study estimated more than 320,000 viral species infecting mammals alone [76]. As municipal wastewater contains both fecal and other human bodily wastes, it is expected to contain viruses of diverse origins, including human viral pathogens, plant and animal viruses from dietary ingestion, and bacteriophages that infect the human microbiome. Metagenomics based on the emerging next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies requires no a priori knowledge of the targets and hence has the unique capability of providing more comprehensive mapping of the viral diversity in wastewater and identifying new potential viral surrogates.
Metagenomic characterization of viruses in wastewater reported a highly diverse wastewater virome with specific host affiliation profiles. Many studies reported that a significant portion of wastewater viral metagenomic sequences have no known matches in reference databases [77][78][79][80], indicating tremendous virus diversity in wastewater. Sequences assigned to human viral pathogens (either enteric or respiratory) are usually present but at very low abundance levels (e.g., often less than 1% of the total reads or contigs) [76][78][81][82]. For example, in a 2021 study of Southern California wastewater, norovirus was detected in the majority of unenriched or enriched wastewater samples, while PMMoV was detected in all samples regardless of enrichment [48]. Although the direct metagenomic detection of human pathogenic viruses may be the most unbiased approach for microbial risk assessment in water reuse, the low abundance and associated requirements for pre-processing of wastewater samples and post-sequencing bioinformatic analysis could present significant technical challenges. A resurgence of interest in wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 led to additional approaches for analyzing imperfect sequence data to assess the abundance and distribution of variants of concern, all of which may expand the utility of wastewater sequencing [83][84][85].
The metagenomic characterization of the wastewater viromes led to the identification of potential alternative viral surrogates. The analysis of human fecal metagenomes led to the discovery of the most abundant phage in human feces. The previously unknown Bacteroides phage, crAssphage [86], was also shown to be the most abundant phage in wastewater virome [87]. Given the high abundance of fecal bacteria in wastewater, not surprisingly, many viral sequences in wastewater virome were identified to belong to bacteriophages, including crAssphage [77][81][88][89]. The metagenomic sequencing of wastewater viromes also detected plant viruses as the largest group of eukaryotic viruses in wastewater viromes which is attributable to undigested plant matter in human fecal matter [90]. Among many different plant viral families, the PMMoV was previously detected by metagenomic sequencing as the dominant RNA virus in human feces [91], which has also been suggested as a viral surrogate in fecal pollution [72], and may also be potentially suitable for water quality monitoring in water reuse.

3. Non-Viral Indicators of Viral Quality

3.1. Physicochemical Water Quality Parameters

Physicochemical water quality parameters measured at wastewater treatment plants have the potential to support viral health risk assessments by informing expectations about treatment performance and by indicating virus removal efficiency (e.g., by the breakthrough of small molecules in a reverse osmosis system). Total organic carbon (TOC) and electrical conductivity (EC) are easily measurable water quality parameters that can serve as conservative surrogates for continuous monitoring of microbe removal for water reuse [92][93]. Other physicochemical parameters, such as pH, NH4+, turbidity, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), also offer rapid and low-cost measures of water quality.  New modeling approaches, such as Artificial Neural Network​ models, could potentially integrate diverse data inputs to determine which provide a meaningful indication of virus infectivity and removal.

3.2. Bacterial Surrogates

Bacterial surrogates for human viral pathogens are likely to provide an incomplete understanding of viruses in water reuse, but information from bacterial monitoring programs may ultimately provide utility in viral health risk assessments. Common bacterial surrogates include coliform bacteria (especially Escherichia coli), fecal streptococci, enterococci, and bacteria belonging to the genus Bacteroides [94][95]. Fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) have had a long history trying to establish their utility for microbial water quality monitoring. FIB are not pathogenic in themselves but are used to “indicate” the possible presence of pathogens. The coliform group of bacteria was the original FIB group, dating back to 1914 [96], used to regulate drinking water. This group is still used today to regulate drinking water supplies, except that regulations also require measurements of specific subcategories of total coliform, fecal coliform (which selects for coliforms of fecal origin by using a higher incubation temperature), and E. coli (based on the action of β-glucuronidase).
As for viruses, differences in source, size, morphology, persistence, stability, genome structure, and other characteristics of bacterial surrogates can (1) lead to differences in the ways that surrogates and viruses respond to different treatment processes and (2) can create inconsistent relationships between surrogates and viruses in different settings. Using multiple surrogates or surrogate approaches is often recommended to obtain a comprehensive and reliable water-quality assessment. For bacterial monitoring, this may mean combining the monitoring of one or more individual surrogate species with approaches that examine the broader bacterial community in a water sample. Examples of the latter include heterotrophic plate count (HPC) [97], the 16s rRNA gene assay [95], and flow cytometry (FCM) [98]. Such approaches are especially useful for monitoring bacterial regrowth in drinking-water infrastructure [99] and generally for assessing water quality in highly treated waters where the concentration of any individual surrogate is expected to be low [100].
The use of coliforms for regulating recreational water is questioned as it was found that environmental sources other than feces can contribute to the presence of the coliform group of microbes. Alternative sources were observed in both tropical and subtropical climates [101][102][103][104], and most recently, within temperate regions [105][106]. Alternative bacteria were identified as Clostridium perfringens [107] and enterococci (previously known as fecal streptococci). Enterococci include a group of 26 species of Enterococcus [108]. These alternative indicators of fecal contamination can potentially be used to supplement viral surrogates in water reuse.

3.3. Virus-like Particles as Viral Removal and Viral Safety Indicator

An important remaining challenge associated with enumeration strategies for human viruses and viral surrogates is the lengthy time for analysis (from hours for PCR to days for bacteriophage culture, to more than a week for human virus culture). Flow cytometry (FCM), has the potential to quickly determine concentrations of biological particles in water samples. FCM refers to the analysis of particles (including cells, cell fragments, inorganic debris, and viruses) based on how they scatter light in the forward and side directions and/or fluoresce when passing through a laser beam. Switzerland’s Federal Office of Public Health officially endorsed FCM as an acceptable method for obtaining total cell counts for freshwater samples [109], and many utilities and regulatory bodies around the world are considering the same. The successful application of FCM to enumerate bacteria in drinking water demonstrates that FCM can characterize microbial water quality in a rapid, reliable, and reproducible manner. The recent development of better instrumentation and new fluorescent dyes expanded the applications of FCM from bacteria to viruses. The total number of viruses in wastewater is estimated to be in the range of 1011/L based on direct counting under the microscope and by FCM [110]. Ma et al. [111] and Huang et al. [110] both used FCM combined with sensitive nucleic-acid dyes to quantify the abundance of virus-like particles (VLPs) at various stages of wastewater treatment. A review by Safford and Bischel [98] of nearly 300 studies published in the past two decades concluded that “substantial progress” was made in the application of FCM to water treatment, distribution, and reuse. Nevertheless, research showed that FCM is only capable of detecting viral particles of relatively large physical and/or genome size [112]. Despite progress on the use of FCM to detect viruses, demonstration studies of FCM in wastewater treatment are needed to evaluate correlations between total virus removal as detected by flow cytometry and removal of human viruses. Such studies would provide much value to understand the potential role of FCM in supporting measurements of viral quality and risk in municipal reuse applications.

References

  1. Corpuz, M.V.; Buonerba, A.; Vigliotta, G.; Zarra, T.; Ballesteros, F.; Campiglia, P.; Belgiorno, V.; Korshin, G.; Naddeo, V. Viruses in wastewater: Occurrence, abundance and detection methods. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 140910.
  2. Haramoto, E.; Kitajima, M.; Hata, A.; Torrey, J.R.; Masago, Y.; Sano, D.; Katayama, H. A review on recent progress in the detection methods and prevalence of human enteric viruses in water. Water Res. 2018, 135, 168–186.
  3. Bofill-Mas, S.; Rusiñol, M. Recent trends on methods for the concentration of viruses from water samples. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 16, 7–13.
  4. Cashdollar, J.L.; Wymer, L. Methods for primary concentration of viruses from water samples: A review and meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 1–11.
  5. Abdelzaher, A.M.; Solo-Gabriele, H.M.; Wright, M.E.; Palmer, C.J. Sequential concentration of bacteria and viruses from marine waters using a dual membrane system. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1648–1655.
  6. Abdelzaher, A.M.; Solo-Gabriele, H.M.; Palmer, C.J.; Scott, T.M. Simultaneous concentration of Enterococci and coliphage from marine waters using a dual layer filtration system. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 2468–2473.
  7. Ahmed, W.; Bertsch, P.M.; Bivins, A.; Bibby, K.; Farkas, K.; Gathercole, A.; Haramoto, E.; Gyawali, P.; Korajkic, A.; McMinn, B.R.; et al. Comparison of virus concentration methods for the RT-qpcr-based recovery of murine hepatitis virus, a surrogate for SARS-COV-2 from untreated wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139960.
  8. American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; APHA: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.abebooks.com/9780875532875/Standard-Methods-Examination-Water-Wastewater-087553287X/plp (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  9. Bonilla, J.A.; Bonilla, T.D.; Abdelzaher, A.M.; Scott, T.M.; Lukasik, J.; Solo-Gabriele, H.M.; Palmer, C.J. Quantification of protozoa and viruses from small water volumes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 7118–7132.
  10. Sharkey, M.E.; Kumar, N.; Mantero, A.M.A.; Babler, K.M.; Boone, M.M.; Cardentey, Y.; Cortizas, E.M.; Grills, G.S.; Herrin, J.; Kemper, J.M.; et al. Lessons learned from SARS-COV-2 measurements in wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149177.
  11. Sherchan, S.P.; Shahin, S.; Ward, L.M.; Tandukar, S.; Aw, T.G.; Schmitz, B.; Ahmed, W.; Kitajima, M. First detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater in North America: A study in Louisiana, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140621.
  12. Li, D.; Shi, H.-C.; Jiang, S.C. Concentration of viruses from environmental waters using nanoalumina fiber filters. J. Microbiol. Methods 2010, 81, 33–38.
  13. Soto-Beltran, M.; Ikner, L.A.; Bright, K.R. Effectiveness of poliovirus concentration and recovery from treated wastewater by two electropositive filter methods. Food Environ. Virol. 2013, 5, 91–96.
  14. Qiu, Y.; Lee, B.E.; Ruecker, N.J.; Neumann, N.; Ashbolt, N.; Pang, X. A one-step centrifugal ultrafiltration method to concentrate enteric viruses from wastewater. J. Virol. Methods 2016, 237, 150–153.
  15. Farkas, K.; McDonald, J.; Malham, S.; Jones, D. Two-step concentration of complex water samples for the detection of viruses. Methods Protoc. 2018, 1, 35.
  16. KWR Water Research Institute. Protocol, SOP Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 RNA Assays; KWR: Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, 2020.
  17. Torii, S.; Furumai, H.; Katayama, H. Applicability of polyethylene glycol precipitation followed by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction for the detection of SARS-COV-2 RNA from municipal wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143067.
  18. Torii, S.; Oishi, W.; Zhu, Y.; Thakali, O.; Malla, B.; Yu, Z.; Zhao, B.; Arakawa, C.; Kitajima, M.; Hata, A.; et al. Comparison of five polyethylene glycol precipitation procedures for the RT-qpcr based recovery of murine hepatitis virus, bacteriophage PHI6, and pepper mild mottle virus as a surrogate for SARS-COV-2 from wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150722.
  19. Sangkham, S. A review on detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater in light of the current knowledge of treatment process for removal of viral fragments. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 299, 113563.
  20. Farkas, K.; Hillary, L.S.; Thorpe, J.; Walker, D.I.; Lowther, J.A.; McDonald, J.E.; Malham, S.K.; Jones, D.L. Concentration and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Wastewater Using Polyethylene Glycol-Based Concentration and qRT-PCR. Methods Protocols 2021, 4, 17.
  21. Gerba, C.P.; Betancourt, W.Q.; Kitajima, M. How much reduction of virus is needed for recycled water: A continuous changing need for assessment? Water Res. 2017, 108, 25–31.
  22. Pecson, B.M.; Darby, E.; Haas, C.N.; Amha, Y.; Bartolo, M.; Danielson, R.; Dearborn, Y.; Di Giovanni, G.; Ferguson, C.; Fevig, S.; et al. Reproducibility and sensitivity of 36 methods to quantify the SARS-COV-2 genetic signal in raw wastewater: Findings from an interlaboratory methods evaluation in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 3, 504–520.
  23. Ye, Y.; Ellenberg, R.M.; Graham, K.E.; Wigginton, K.R. Survivability, partitioning, and recovery of enveloped viruses in untreated municipal wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5077–5085.
  24. Peccia, J.; Zulli, A.; Brackney, D.E.; Grubaugh, N.D.; Kaplan, E.H.; Casanovas-Massana, A.; Ko, A.I.; Malik, A.A.; Wang, D.; Wang, M.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in primary municipal sewage sludge as a leading indicator of COVID-19 outbreak dynamics. medRxiv 2020.
  25. Graham, K.E.; Loeb, S.K.; Wolfe, M.K.; Catoe, D.; Sinnott-Armstrong, N.; Kim, S.; Yamahara, K.M.; Sassoubre, L.M.; Mendoza Grijalva, L.M.; Roldan-Hernandez, L.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater settled solids is associated with COVID-19 cases in a large urban sewershed. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 488–498.
  26. Karthikeyan, S.; Ronquillo, N.; Belda-Ferre, P.; Alvarado, D.; Javidi, T.; Longhurst, C.A. High-throughput wastewater SARS-CoV-2 detection enables forecasting of community infection dynamics in San Diego County. Msystems 2021, 6, e00045-21.
  27. Safford, H.; Zuniga-Montanez, R.E.; Kim, M.; Wu, X.; Wei, L.; Sharpnack, J.; Shapiro, K.; Bischel, H. Wastewater surveillance for COVID-19 response at multiple geographic scales: Aligning wastewater and clinical results at the census-block level and addressing pervasiveness of qPCR non-detects. medRxiv 2022.
  28. Tandukar, S.; Sherchan, S.P.; Haramoto, E. Reduction of Pathogenic and Indicator Viruses at a Drinking Water Treatment Plant in Southern Louisiana, USA. Food Environ. Virol. 2020, 12, 269–273.
  29. Rodríguez R., A.; Pepper, I.L.; Gerba, C.P. Application of PCR-based methods to assess the infectivity of enteric viruses in environmental samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 297–307.
  30. Kishida, N.; Noda, N.; Haramoto, E.; Kawaharasaki, M.; Akiba, M.; Sekiguchi, Y. Quantitative detection of human enteric adenoviruses in river water by microfluidic digital polymerase chain reaction. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 555–560.
  31. Xue, J.; Caton, K.; Sherchan, S.P. Comparison of Next-Generation Droplet Digital PCR with Quantitative PCR for Enumeration of Naegleria fowleri in Environmental water and Clinical Samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 322–328.
  32. Ciesielski, M.; Blackwood, D.; Clerkin, T.; Gonzalez, R.; Thompson, H.; Larson, A.; Noble, R. Assessing sensitivity and reproducibility of RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR for the quantification of SARS-COV-2 in wastewater. J. Virol. Methods 2021, 297, 114230.
  33. Vasudevan, H.N.; Xu, P.; Servellita, V.; Miller, S.; Liu, L.; Gopez, A.; Chiu, C.Y.; Abate, A.R. Digital droplet PCR accurately quantifies SARS-COV-2 viral load from crude lysate without nucleic acid purification. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 780.
  34. Mousazadeh, M.; Ashoori, R.; Paital, B.; Kabdaşlı, I.; Frontistis, Z.; Hashemi, M.; Sandoval, M.A.; Sherchan, S.; Das, K.; Emamjomeh, M.M. Wastewater based epidemiology perspective as a faster protocol for detecting coronavirus RNA in human populations: A review with specific reference to SARS-COV-2 virus. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1008.
  35. Tiwari, A.; Ahmed, W.; Okiarinen, S.; Sherchan, S.P.; Heikinheimo, A.; Jiang, G.; Simpson, S.; Greaves, J.; Bivins, A.W. Application of digital PCR for public health-related water quality monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, accepted.
  36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Method 1609: Enterococci in Water by TaqMan® Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) with Internal Amplification Control (IAC) Assay; EPA-820-R-13-005; U.S. EPA Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/method_1609_2013.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  37. Betancourt, W.Q.; Shulman, L.M. Polioviruses and other Enteroviruses. In Water and Sanitation for the 21st Century: Health and Microbiological Aspects of Excreta and Wastewater Management (Global Water Pathogen Project); Part 3: Specific Excreted Pathogens: Environmental and Epidemiology Aspects—Section 1: Viruses; Rose, J.B., Jiménez-Cisneros, B., Eds.; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017.
  38. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Burden of Norovirus Illness in the U.S. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/trends-outbreaks/burden-US.html#:~:text=Norovirus%20is%20the%20leading%20cause,ages%20in%20the%20United%20States (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  39. Jiang, S.C. Human adenoviruses in water: Occurrence and health implications: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 7132–7140.
  40. Eischeid, A.C.; Thurston, J.A.; Linden, K.G. UV disinfection of adenovirus: Present state of the research and Future Directions. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 41, 1375–1396.
  41. Lodder, W.J.; Rutjes, S.A.; Takumi, K.; Husman, A.M. Aichi virus in sewage and surface water, The Netherlands. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013, 19, 1222–1230.
  42. Kitajima, M.; Haramoto, E.; Phanuwan, C.; Katayama, H. Prevalence and genetic diversity of Aichi viruses in wastewater and river water in Japan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 2184–2187.
  43. Kitajima, M.; Gerba, C. Aichi virus 1: Environmental occurrence and behavior. Pathogens 2015, 4, 256–268.
  44. Tandukar, S.; Sherchan, S.P.; Haramoto, E. Reduction of human enteric and indicator viruses at a wastewater treatment plant in the United States. Food Environ. Virol. 2020, 12, 260–263.
  45. Tandukar, S.; Sherchan, S.P.; Haramoto, E. Applicability of crassphage, pepper mild mottle virus, and tobacco mosaic virus as indicators of reduction of enteric viruses during wastewater treatment. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3616.
  46. Farkas, K.; Cooper, D.M.; McDonald, J.E.; Malham, S.K.; de Rougemont, A.; Jones, D.L. Seasonal and spatial dynamics of enteric viruses in wastewater and in riverine and estuarine receiving waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1174–1183.
  47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Guidelines for Water Reuse; EPA/600/R-12/618; EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, USA; Agency for International Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/2012-guidelines-water-reuse.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  48. Rothman, J.A.; Loveless, T.B.; Kapcia, J., III.; Adams, E.D.; Steele, J.A.; Zimmer-Faust, A.G.; Langlois, K.; Wanless, D.; Griffith, M.; Mao, L.; et al. RNA Viromics of Southern California Wastewater and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Single-Nucleotide Variants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e01448-21.
  49. Farkas, K.; Walker, D.I.; Adriaenssens, E.M.; McDonald, J.E.; Hillary, L.S.; Malham, S.K.; Jones, D.L. Viral indicators for tracking domestic wastewater contamination in the aquatic environment. Water Res. 2020, 181, 115926.
  50. Amarasiri, M.; Kitajima, M.; Nguyen, T.H.; Okabe, S.; Sano, D. Bacteriophage removal efficiency as a validation and operational monitoring tool for virus reduction in wastewater reclamation: Review. Water Res. 2017, 121, 258–269.
  51. Grabow, W.O.K. Bacteriophages: Update on application as models for viruses in water. Water SA 2001, 27.
  52. Agulló-Barceló, M.; Galofré, B.; Sala, L.; García-Aljaro, C.; Lucena, F.; Jofre, J. Simultaneous detection of somatic and F-specific coliphages in different settings Byescherichia colistrain CB390. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2016, 363, fnw180.
  53. Jofre, J.; Lucena, F.; Blanch, A.; Muniesa, M. Coliphages as model organisms in the characterization and management of Water Resources. Water 2016, 8, 199.
  54. Nappier, S.P.; Hong, T.; Ichida, A.; Goldstone, A.; Eftim, S.E. Occurrence of coliphage in raw wastewater and in ambient water: A meta-analysis. Water Res. 2019, 153, 263–273.
  55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Review of Coliphages as Possible Indicators of Fecal Contamination for Ambient Water Quality; 820-R-15-098; EPA Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-07/documents/review_of_coliphages_as_possible_indicators_of_fecal_contamination_for_ambient_water_quality.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  56. American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed.; APHA: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30906231866 (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Method 1643: Male-Specific (F+) and Somatic Coliphage in Secondary (No Disinfection) Wastewater by the Single Agar Layer (SAL) Procedure; 820-R-18-003; EPA Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/documents/method_1643_draft_2018.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  58. Grabow, W.O.K.; Vrey, A.; Uys, M.; De Villiers, J.C. Evaluation of the Application of Bacteriophages as Indicators of Water Quality; WRC Report No 540/1/98; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 1998; Available online: http://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/540-1-98.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  59. Mandilara, G.D.; Smeti, E.M.; Mavridou, A.T.; Lambiri, M.P.; Vatopoulos, A.C.; Rigas, F.P. Correlation between bacterial indicators and bacteriophages in sewage and sludge. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 263, 119–126.
  60. Toribio-Avedillo, D.; Blanch, A.R.; Muniesa, M.; Rodríguez-Rubio, L. Bacteriophages as fecal pollution indicators. Viruses 2021, 13, 1089.
  61. Montemayor, M.; Costan, A.; Lucena, F.; Jofre, J.; Muñoz, J.; Dalmau, E.; Mujeriego, R.; Sala, L. The combined performance of UV light and chlorine during reclaimed water disinfection. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 935–940.
  62. Shkoporov, A.N.; Khokhlova, E.V.; Fitzgerald, C.B.; Stockdale, S.R.; Draper, L.A.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C. ΦCrAss001 represents the most abundant bacteriophage family in the human gut and infects bacteroides intestinalis. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4781.
  63. Edwards, R.A.; Vega, A.A.; Norman, H.M.; Ohaeri, M.; Levi, K.; Dinsdale, E.A.; Cinek, O.; Aziz, R.K.; McNair, K.; Barr, J.J.; et al. Global Phylogeography and ancient evolution of the widespread human gut virus crassphage. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 1727–1736.
  64. Kongprajug, A.; Mongkolsuk, S.; Sirikanchana, K. Crassphage as a potential human sewage marker for microbial source tracking in Southeast Asia. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 159–164.
  65. García-Aljaro, C.; Ballesté, E.; Muniesa, M.; Jofre, J. Determination of crassphage in water samples and applicability for tracking human fecal pollution. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 1775–1780.
  66. Green, H.; Wilder, M.; Middleton, F.A.; Collins, M.; Fenty, A.; Gentile, K.; Kmush, B.; Zeng, T.; Larsen, D.A. Quantification of SARS-COV-2 and cross-assembly phage (crassphage) from wastewater to monitor coronavirus transmission within communities. medRxiv 2020.
  67. Farkas, K.; Adriaenssens, E.M.; Walker, D.I.; McDonald, J.E.; Malham, S.K.; Jones, D.L. Critical evaluation of crassphage as a molecular marker for human-derived wastewater contamination in the aquatic environment. Food Environ. Virol. 2019, 11, 113–119.
  68. Sangkaew, W.; Kongprajug, A.; Chyerochana, N.; Ahmed, W.; Mongkolsuk, S.; Sirikanchana, K. Superior performance of human wastewater-associated viral markers compared to bacterial markers in tropical environments. bioRxiv 2020.
  69. Ward, L.M.; Ghaju Shrestha, R.; Tandukar, S.; Shcerchand, J.B.; Haramoto, E.; Sherchan, S.P. Evaluation of CrAssphage Marker for Tracking Fecal Contamination in River Water in Nepal. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 282.
  70. Wu, Z.; Greaves, J.; Arp, L.; Stone, D.; Bibby, K. Comparative fate of crassphage with culturable and molecular fecal pollution indicators during activated sludge wastewater treatment. Environ. Int. 2020, 136, 105452.
  71. Fauquet, C.M.; Mayo, M.A.; Maniloff, J.; Desselberger, U.; Ball, L.A. Virus Taxonomy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 1258–1259.
  72. Rosario, K.; Symonds, E.M.; Sinigalliano, C.; Stewart, J.; Breitbart, M. Pepper mild mottle virus as an indicator of fecal pollution. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7261–7267.
  73. Kitajima, M.; Sassi, H.P.; Torrey, J.R. Pepper mild mottle virus as a water quality indicator. Npj Clean Water 2018, 1, 19.
  74. Paez-Espino, D.; Eloe-Fadrosh, E.A.; Pavlopoulos, G.A.; Thomas, A.D.; Huntemann, M.; Mikhailova, N.; Rubin, E.; Ivanova, N.N.; Kyrpides, N.C. Uncovering Earth’s virome. Nature 2016, 536, 425–430.
  75. Walker, P.J.; Siddell, S.G.; Lefkowitz, E.J.; Mushegian, A.R.; Adriaenssens, E.M.; Alfenas-Zerbini, P.; Davison, A.J.; Dempsey, D.M.; Dutilh, B.E.; García, M.L.; et al. Changes to virus taxonomy and to the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2021). Arch. Virol. 2021, 166, 2633–2648.
  76. Anthony, S.J.; Epstein, J.H.; Murray, K.A.; Navarrete-Macias, I.; Zambrana-Torrelio, C.M.; Solovyov, A.; Ojeda-Flores, R.; Arrigo, N.C.; Islam, A.; Ali Khan, S.; et al. A strategy to estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals. MBio 2013, 4, e00598-e13.
  77. Aw, T.G.; Howe, A.; Rose, J.B. Metagenomic approaches for direct and cell culture evaluation of the virological quality of wastewater. J. Virol. Methods 2014, 210, 15–21.
  78. Bibby, K.; Peccia, J. Identification of viral pathogen diversity in sewage sludge by metagenome analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1945–1951.
  79. Fernandez-Cassi, X.; Timoneda, N.; Martínez-Puchol, S.; Rusiñol, M.; Rodriguez-Manzano, J.; Figuerola, N.; Bofill-Mas, S.; Abril, J.F.; Girones, R. Metagenomics for the study of viruses in urban sewage as a tool for public health surveillance. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 870–880.
  80. O’Brien, E.; Nakyazze, J.; Wu, H.; Kiwanuka, N.; Cunningham, W.; Kaneene, J.B.; Xagoraraki, I. Viral diversity and abundance in polluted waters in Kampala, Uganda. Water Res. 2017, 127, 41–49.
  81. Hjelmsø, M.H.; Mollerup, S.; Jensen, R.H.; Pietroni, C.; Lukjancenko, O.; Schultz, A.C.; Aarestrup, F.M.; Hansen, A.J. Metagenomic analysis of viruses in toilet waste from long distance flights—A new procedure for Global Infectious Disease Surveillance. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210368.
  82. Ng, T.F.; Marine, R.; Wang, C.; Simmonds, P.; Kapusinszky, B.; Bodhidatta, L.; Oderinde, B.S.; Wommack, K.E.; Delwart, E. High variety of known and new RNA and DNA viruses of diverse origins in untreated sewage. J. Virol. 2012, 86, 12161–12175.
  83. Karthikeyan, S.; Levy, J.I.; De Hoff, P.; Humphrey, G.; Birmingham, A.; Jepsen, K.; Farmer, S.; Tubb, H.M.; Valles, T.; Tribelhorn, C.E.; et al. Wastewater sequencing uncovers early, cryptic SARS-CoV-2 variant transmission. medRxiv 2021.
  84. Baaijens, J.A.; Zulli, A.; Ott, I.M.; Petrone, M.E.; Alpert, T.; Fauver, J.R.; Kalinich, C.C.; Vogels, C.B.F.; Breban, M.I.; Duvallet, C.; et al. Variant abundance estimation for SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater using RNA-Seq quantification. medRxiv 2021.
  85. Pipes, L.; Chen, Z.; Afanaseva, S.; Nielsen, R. Estimating the relative proportions of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wastewater samples. medRxiv 2022.
  86. Cantalupo, P.G.; Calgua, B.; Zhao, G.; Hundesa, A.; Wier, A.D.; Katz, J.P.; Grabe, M.; Hendrix, R.W.; Girones, R.; Wang, D.; et al. Raw sewage harbors diverse viral populations. MBio 2011, 2, e00180-11.
  87. Tamaki, H.; Zhang, R.; Angly, F.E.; Nakamura, S.; Hong, P.-Y.; Yasunaga, T.; Kamagata, Y.; Liu, W.-T. Metagenomic analysis of DNA viruses in a wastewater treatment plant in tropical climate. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 14, 441–452.
  88. Dutilh, B.E.; Cassman, N.; McNair, K.; Sanchez, S.E.; Silva, G.G.; Boling, L.; Barr, J.J.; Speth, D.R.; Seguritan, V.; Aziz, R.K.; et al. A highly abundant bacteriophage discovered in the unknown sequences of human fecal metagenomes. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4498.
  89. Stachler, E.; Bibby, K. Metagenomic evaluation of the highly abundant human gut bacteriophage crassphage for source tracking of human fecal pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1, 405–409.
  90. Victoria, J.G.; Kapoor, A.; Li, L.; Blinkova, O.; Slikas, B.; Wang, C.; Naeem, A.; Zaidi, S.; Delwart, E. Metagenomic analyses of viruses in stool samples from children with acute flaccid paralysis. J. Virol. 2009, 83, 4642–4651.
  91. Zhang, T.; Breitbart, M.; Lee, W.H.; Run, J.-Q.; Wei, C.L.; Soh, S.W.; Hibberd, M.L.; Liu, E.T.; Rohwer, F.; Ruan, Y. RNA viral community in human feces: Prevalence of plant pathogenic viruses. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e0040003.
  92. Fujioka, T.; Makabe, R.; Mori, N.; Snyder, S.A.; Leddy, M. Assessment of online bacterial particle counts for monitoring the performance of reverse osmosis membrane process in potable reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 667, 540–544.
  93. Tchobanoglous, G.; Leverenz, H.; Nellor, M.; Crook, J. Direct Potable Reuse—A Path Forward; Project 11-00; WateReuse Research Foundation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2011; Available online: https://watereuse.org/watereuse-research/11-00-direct-potable-reuse-a-path-forward/ (accessed on 30 March 2022).
  94. Lin, J.; Ganesh, A. Water quality indicators: Bacteria, coliphages, enteric viruses. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2013, 23, 484–506.
  95. Papp, K.; Moser, D.; Gerrity, D. Viral surrogates in potable reuse applications: Evaluation of a membrane bioreactor and full advanced treatment. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146, 04019103.
  96. National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens; National Academies Press: Washington DC, USA, 2004.
  97. Bartram, J.; Cotruvo, J.; Exner, M.; Fricker, C.; Glasmacher, A. Heterotrophic Plate Counts and Drinking-water Safety: The Significance of HPCs for Water Quality and Human Health; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2013.
  98. Safford, H.R.; Bischel, H.N. Flow cytometry applications in water treatment, distribution, and Reuse: A Review. Water Res. 2019, 151, 110–133.
  99. Buysschaert, B.; Vermijs, L.; Naka, A.; Boon, N.; De Gusseme, B. Online flow cytometric monitoring of microbial water quality in a full-scale water treatment plant. Npj Clean Water 2018, 1, 16.
  100. Olivieri, A.W.; Crook, J.; Anderson, M.A.; Bull, R.J.; Drewes, J.E.; Hass, C.N.; Jakubowski, W.; McCarty, P.L.; Nelson, K.L.; Rose, J.B.; et al. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse; National Water Research Institute (NWRI) for the State Water Resources Control Board: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/rw_dpr_criteria/app_a_ep_rpt.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  101. Fujioka, R.; Sian-Denton, C.; Borja, M.; Castro, J.; Morphew, K. Soil: The environmental source of Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Guam’s streams. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1998, 85 (Suppl. 1), 83S–89S.
  102. Fujioka, R.S. Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore-forming bacteria of fecal and soil origin to determine point from non-point source pollution. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 181–188.
  103. Hardina, C.M.; Fujioka, R.S. Soil: The environmental source of escherichia coli and enterococci in Hawaii’s streams. Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual. 1991, 6, 185–195.
  104. Hazen, T.C.; Santiago-Mercado, J.; Toranzos, G.A.; Bermudez, M. What does the presence of fecal coliforms indicate in the waters of Puerto Rico? A review. Bol. Puerto Rico Med. Assoc. 1987, 79, 189–193.
  105. Byappanahalli, M.N.; Whitman, R.L.; Shively, D.A.; Sadowsky, M.J.; Ishii, S. Population structure, persistence, and seasonality of autochthonous escherichia coli in temperate, coastal forest soil from a Great Lakes Watershed. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 504–513.
  106. Whitman, R.L.; Nevers, M.B. Foreshore Sand as a source of escherichia coli in nearshore water of a lake michigan beach. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 5555–5562.
  107. Fujioka, R.S.; Shizumura, L.K. Clostridium Perfringens, a Reliable Indicator of Stream Water Quality. J. Water Pollut. Control. Fed. 1985, 57, 986–992. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25042767 (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  108. Klein, G. Taxonomy, ecology and antibiotic resistance of enterococci from food and the gastro-intestinal tract. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 88, 123–131.
  109. SLMB (Schweizerische Lebensmittelbuch). Determining the Total Cell Count and Ratios of High and Low Nucleic Acid Content Cells in Freshwater Using Flow Cytometry; Swiss Federal Office of Public Health: Bern, Switzerland, 2012.
  110. Huang, X.; Zhao, Z.; Hernandez, D.; Jiang, S. Near real-time flow cytometry monitoring of bacterial and viral removal efficiencies during water reclamation processes. Water 2016, 8, 464.
  111. Ma, L.; Mao, G.; Liu, J.; Yu, H.; Gao, G.; Wang, Y. Rapid quantification of bacteria and viruses in influent, settled water, activated sludge and effluent from a wastewater treatment plant using flow cytometry. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 1763–1769.
  112. Dlusskaya, E.; Dey, R.; Pollard, P.C.; Ashbolt, N. Outer Limits of Flow Cytometry to Quantify Viruses in Water. ACS EST Water 2021, 1, 1127–1135.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Environmental
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Sunny Jiang
,
Helena Solo-Gabriele
,
Heather Bischel
,
Ramesh Goel
,
Diego Rosso
,
Samendra Sherchan
,
View Times: 580
Entry Collection: Wastewater Treatment
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback