Effectiveness of Poliovirus Concentration and Recovery from Treated Wastewater by Two Electropositive Filter Methods

Soto-Beltrán, Marcela; Ikner, Luisa A.; Bright, Kelly R.

doi:10.1007/s12560-013-9104-6

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ViroCap and NanoCeram filters have been examined for their ability to concentrate viruses and bacteriophage from water, including adenovirus (Gibbons et al 2010 ), bacteriophage MS2 (Bennett et al 2010 ; Gibbons et al 2010 ; Ikner et al 2011 ), coxsackievirus B5 (Ikner et al 2011 ; Karim et al 2009 ), echovirus 1 (Ikner et al 2011 ), echovirus 7 (Karim et al 2009 ), norovirus (Karim et al 2009 ), and poliovirus (Bennett et al 2010 ; Fagnant et al 2014 ; Ikner et al 2011 ; Karim et al 2009 ). Viral recovery rates with ViroCap and NanoCeram filters are generally similar to or better than the recovery rates obtained using other electropositive filters, such as glass wool and 1 MDS filters (Bennett et al 2010 ; Fagnant et al 2014 ; Karim et al 2009 ; Soto-Beltran et al 2013 ). Finally, ViroCap filters are also economical, easy to use, and field deployable (Cashdollar and Wymer 2013 ; Fagnant et al 2014 ; Fagnant et al 2017b ).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Development of an elution device for ViroCap virus filters

Fagnant¹,

Toles²,

Zhou

et al. 2017

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental surveillance of waterborne pathogens is vital for monitoring the spread of diseases, and electropositive filters are frequently used for sampling wastewater and wastewater-impacted surface water. Viruses adsorbed to electropositive filters require elution prior to detection or quantification. Elution is typically facilitated by a peristaltic pump, although this requires a significant startup cost and does not include biosafety or cross-contamination considerations. These factors may pose a barrier for low-resource laboratories that aim to conduct environmental surveillance of viruses. The objective of this study was to develop a biologically enclosed, manually powered, low-cost device for effectively eluting from electropositive ViroCap™ virus filters. The elution device described here utilizes a non-electric bilge pump, instead of an electric peristaltic pump or a positive pressure vessel. The elution device also fully encloses liquids and aerosols that could contain biological organisms, thereby increasing biosafety. Moreover, all elution device components that are used in the biosafety cabinet are autoclavable, reducing cross-contamination potential. This device reduces costs of materials while maintaining convenience in terms of size and weight. With this new device, there is little sample volume loss due to device inefficiency, similar virus yields were demonstrated during seeded studies with poliovirus type 1, and the time to elute filters is similar to that required with the peristaltic pump. The efforts described here resulted in a novel, low-cost, manually powered elution device that can facilitate environmental surveillance of pathogens through effective virus recovery from ViroCap filters while maintaining the potential for adaptability to other cartridge filters.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10661-017-6258-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Development of an elution device for ViroCap virus filters

Fagnant¹,

Toles²,

Zhou

et al. 2017

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VIRADEL method has been widely used for large volumes of sample to be processed, notably river samples ( Hamza et al, 2009 ; Maunula et al, 2012 ), tap water samples ( Hill et al, 2009 ; Polaczyk et al, 2007 ), groundwater samples ( Lee et al, 2011 ), and coastal waters ( Fong et al, 2005 ; Goyal and Gerba, 1983 ; Katayama et al, 2002 ). Wastewater sample volumes ranging from 0.5 to 400 L were used in recent studies that applied VIRADEL as primary concentration method ( Falman et al, 2019 ; Kuo et al, 2010 ; Masclaux et al, 2013 ; Osuolale and Okoh, 2017 ; Prado et al, 2011 ; Soto-Beltran et al, 2013 ). However, the processing of large volumes of samples leads to the concentration of PCR inhibitors.…”

Section: Methods Of Pre-treatment Of Wastewater Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viruses in wastewater: occurrence, abundance and detection methods

Corpuz

Buonerba

Vigliottá

et al. 2020

Science of The Total Environment

228

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an updated and comprehensive review on the different methods used for detection and quantification of viruses in wastewater treatment systems. The analysis of viability of viruses in wastewater and sludge is another thrust of this review. Recent studies have mostly focused on determining the abundance and diversity of viruses in wastewater influents, in samples from primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment stages, and in final effluents. A few studies have also examined the occurrence and diversity of viruses in raw and digested sludge samples. Recent efforts to improve efficiency of virus detection and quantification methods in the complex wastewater and sludge matrices are highlighted in this review. A summary and a detailed comparison of the pre-treatment methods that have been utilized for wastewater and sludge samples are also presented. The role of metagenomics or sequencing analysis in monitoring wastewater systems to predict disease outbreaks, to conduct public health surveillance, to assess the efficiency of existing treatment systems in virus removal, and to re-evaluate current regulations regarding pathogenic viruses in wastewater is discussed in this paper. Challenges and future perspectives in the detection of viruses, including emerging and newly emerged viruses such as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in wastewater systems are discussed in this review.

show abstract

“…Research to date has typically focused on recovery of virus by modifying primary concentration (filters) steps, but little attention has been given to subsequent concentration procedures which could also influence virus recovery 18 . It has been demonstrated that different secondary concentration techniques can affect virus recoveries 6,13,19,20 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Small Volume Procedure for Viral Concentration from Water

McMinn¹,

Korajkic²

2015

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small-scale concentration of viruses (sample volumes 1-10 L, here simulated with spiked 100 ml water samples) is an efficient, costeffective way to identify optimal parameters for virus concentration. Viruses can be concentrated from water using filtration (electropositive, electronegative, glass wool or size exclusion), followed by secondary concentration with beef extract to release viruses from filter surfaces, and finally tertiary concentration resulting in a 5-30 ml volume virus concentrate. In order to identify optimal concentration procedures, two different electropositive filters were evaluated (a glass/cellulose filter [1MDS] and a nano-alumina/glass filter [NanoCeram]), as well as different secondary concentration techniques; the celite technique where three different celite particle sizes were evaluated (fine, medium and large) followed by comparing this technique with that of the established organic flocculation method. Various elution additives were also evaluated for their ability to enhance the release of adenovirus (AdV) particles from filter surfaces. Fine particle celite recovered similar levels of AdV40 and 41 to that of the established organic flocculation method when viral spikes were added during secondary concentration. The glass/cellulose filter recovered higher levels of both, AdV40 and 41, compared to that of a nano-alumina/glass fiber filter. Although not statistically significant, the addition of 0.1% sodium polyphosphate amended beef extract eluant recovered 10% more AdV particles compared to unamended beef extract. Video LinkThe video component of this article can be found at

show abstract

Effectiveness of Poliovirus Concentration and Recovery from Treated Wastewater by Two Electropositive Filter Methods

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

Development of an elution device for ViroCap virus filters

Development of an elution device for ViroCap virus filters

Viruses in wastewater: occurrence, abundance and detection methods

A Small Volume Procedure for Viral Concentration from Water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About