The Corona Virus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading throughout
the world. Aerosol is a potential transmission route. We conducted
the quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) to evaluate the
aerosol transmission risk by using the South China Seafood Market
as an example. The key processes were integrated, including viral
shedding, dispersion, deposition in air, biologic decay, lung deposition,
and the infection risk based on the dose–response model. The
available hospital bed for COVID-19 treatment per capita (1.17 ×
10–3) in Wuhan was adopted as a reference for manageable
risk. The median risk of a customer to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection
via the aerosol route after 1 h of exposure in the market with one
infected shopkeeper was about 2.23 × 10–5 (95%
confidence interval: 1.90 × 10–6 to 2.34 ×
10–4). The upper bound could increase and become
close to the manageable risk with multiple infected shopkeepers. More
detailed risk assessment should be conducted in poorly ventilated
markets with multiple infected cases. The uncertainties were mainly
due to the limited information on the dose–response relation
and the viral shedding which need further studies. The risk rapidly
decreased outside the market due to the dilution by ambient air and
became below 10–6 at 5 m away from the exit.
The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to threaten public health. For developing countries where vaccines are still in shortage, cheaper alternative molecular methods for SARS-CoV-2 identification can be crucial to prevent the next wave. Therefore, 14 primer sets recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) was evaluated on testing both clinical patient and environmental samples with the gold standard diagnosis method, TaqMan-based RT-qPCR, and a cheaper alternative method, SYBR Green-based RT-qPCR. Using suitable primer sets, such as ORF1ab, 2019_nCoV_N1 and 2019_nCoV_N3, the performance of the SYBR Green approach was comparable or better than the TaqMan approach, even when considering the newly dominating or emerging variants, including Delta, Eta, Kappa, Lambda, Mu, and Omicron. ORF1ab and 2019_nCoV_N3 were the best combination for sensitive and reliable SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics due to their high sensitivity, specificity, and broad accessibility.
Key points
• With suitable primer sets, the SYBR Green method performs better than the TaqMan one.
• With suitable primer sets, both methods should still detect the new variants well.
• ORF1ab and 2019_nCoV_N3 were the best combination for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Airborne SARS-CoV-2 virus surveillance faces challenges in complicated biomarker enrichment, interferences from various non-specific matters and extremely low viral load in the urban ambient air, leading to difficulties in detecting SARS-CoV-2 bioaerosols. This work reports a highly specific bioanalysis platform, with an exceptionally low limit-of-detection (≤1 copy m −3 ) and good analytical accordance with RT-qPCR, relying on surface-mediated electrochemical signaling and enzyme-assisted signal amplification, enabling gene and signal amplification for accurate identification and quantitation of low doses human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E) and SARS-CoV-2 viruses in urban ambient air. This work provides a laboratory test using cultivated coronavirus to simulate the airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2, and validate that the platform could reliably detect airborne coronavirus and reveal the transmission characteristics. This bioassay conducts the quantitation of real-world HCoV-229E and SARS-CoV-2 in airborne particulate matters collected from road-side and residential areas in Bern and Zurich (Switzerland) and Wuhan (China), with resultant concentrations verified by RT-qPCR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.