Background Coronavirus disease 2019 is a pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that emerged in late 2019 and has activated an ongoing international public health emergency. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and rapidly spread to other cities and countries. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests have relied heavily on detecting viral genes, antigens, and human antibodies. Hence, this review discusses and analyses the existing screening and confirmation tests for SARS-CoV-2, including the real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Main body The illustrations of each testing were presented to provide the readers with an understanding of the scientific principles behind the testing methods. The comparison was made by highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each testing. ELISA is ideal for performing the maximum population screening to determine immunological capacity, although its inability to provide reliable results on the status of the infection. Recently, LFIA has been approved as a quicker way of determining whether a patient is infected at the analysis time without using particular instruments and non-laboratory settings. RT-PCR is the gold-standard approach in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Conclusion However, the combination of LFIA or ELISA with RT-PCR is also proposed in this review to obtain an adequate level of sensitivity and specificity. Graphic Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a highly sensitive and cost‐effective tool that is increasingly being applied to studies of biodiversity and species detection. This non‐invasive method relies on the collection of environmental samples that contain genetic material being shed into surrounding environment by the target organism/s. While forensic science has a long history of using molecular tools for collecting DNA from the environment, the detection of human DNA from environmental water samples has been limited. This study investigated the detection and degradation rates of human eDNA in water samples under controlled laboratory conditions. Using a human‐specific qPCR assay targeting the ND1 region of human mitochondrial DNA, eDNA degradation over time in water spiked with human blood was assessed. Recovery of nuclear DNA was investigated by determining if routine DNA short tandem repeat (STR) profiles of the blood source could be generated. Results demonstrated that human eDNA remains detectable for up to 11 days under laboratory conditions in environmental water and up to 35 days in distilled water. Partial STR profiles could be recovered from environmental water only up to 24 h, while, in distilled water, partial profiles continued to be recovered up to 840 h. These findings demonstrate that sampling human eDNA from aquatic samples can provide reliable human DNA detection within relatively short time windows, assisting law enforcement agencies by providing information about the potential time an individual may have been present in an area or assisting in the detection and location of a body or remains in aquatic environments.