The fate of SARS-CoV-2 in WWTPs points out the sludge line as a suitable spot for monitoring

Wastewater and sludge samples

Wastewater and sludge samples were taken from Ourense WWTP in north-western Spain (characteristics and sampling points in Table 1). The 250 ml samples were taken twice a week from April 6 to April 21 2020, kept at 4°C before being sent in less than 24 h to the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC) facilities to be concentrated.

For the water line, 24-h composite samples were taken and characterised in terms of pH, conductivity, total and volatile suspended solids (Standard Methods 2540), chemical oxygen demand (spectrophotometry, Standard Methods 5220-D), ammonium (spectrophotometry, Standard Methods 4500-F), nitrate (kit equivalent to DIN 38405-9), total nitrogen (kit equivalent to ISO 11905-1) and phosphorus (spectrophotometry, 4500-P).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Simplified description of Ourense WWTP layout and sampling points in the water and sludge line

Sample processing

Water samples were concentrated by ultrafiltration. Briefly, 100 ml were gently centrifuged to remove large particles at 4600 xg during 30 min. Supernatants were concentrated by filtration using Amicon 15 ml 10 K centrifugal devices and buffer was exchanged to phosphate buffer saline (PBS) pH 7.4.

Sludge samples were concentrated by precipitation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) according to Hjelmso et al. (2017). Then, 1:8 (v/v) of Glycin buffer (0.05 M glycine, 3% beef extract) was added to 50 ml of sludge, incubated for 2h at 4°C to detach viruses bound to organic material. Samples were then centrifuged at 8 000 xg during 30 min and filtered through a 0.45 μm polyethersulfone (PES) membrane to remove eurkaryotic and prokaryotic cells. Then, viruses were precipitated by adding 1:5 (v/v) of PEG 8000 (80g/L) and NaCl (17.5 g/L) during an overnight shacking (150 rpm) at 4°C and a centrifugation at 13 000 xg during 90 min. Samples were then resuspended in PBS buffer pH 7.4 and stored at -80°C for further analysis. Concentration control was performed with bacteriophage MS2, by inoculating each sample with 250 μl the virus (5.5 × 10⁶ viral particles/ml).

RNA extraction and RT-qPCR detection

RNA extraction and RT-qPCR was carried out at the department of Microbiology of Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo. Nucleic acid extraction from both water and sludge concentrated samples was performed using MicrolabStarlet IVD using the STARMag 96 × 4 Universal Cartridge Kit (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) according to manufacturer specifications.

Viral RNA was detected and quantified by a one-step multiplex RT-qPCR Allplex system™ 2019-nCoV (Seegene, Seoul, South Korea). The assay is designed to detect RNA-dependent polymerase (RdRP) and nucleocapsid (N) genes specific to SARS-CoV-2, and a region conserved in the E gene of the structural protein envelope for the detection of pan-Sarbecoviruses including SARS-CoV-2. The test uses internal RNA control for sample preparation and control of the PCR amplification process. For the RT-PCR, the CFX96 system was used ™ (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). The analysis of the results was performed using the specific Seegene viewer software 2019-nCoV. In parallel, a SARS-CoV-2 EDX standard (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA) containing synthetic RNA transcripts of five SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets (genes E, N, ORF1ab, RdRp and S) of known concentration was used to establish a linear regression curve and obtain the concentration in copies/ml.

Wastewater Physicochemical Characterization

The characterisation of the sample in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids and, for water samples, total nitrogen is shown in Table 2. It can be seen how the influent has a very variable composition, which is most probably caused by precipitation events.

Indeed, the influence of rain on sewerage streams is a hurdle to the use of the WWTP influent as an epidemiological indicator. However, the sludge streams tend to have a more steady content of biosolids as it reflects the mass flow of solids and COD entering the WWTP. Particularly, solid concentration in thickeners seems to be much more stable than the characteristics of the primary influent.

Presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in water and sludge

A total of 15 samples of water and 35 samples of sludge collected from April 6 to April 21 (2020) were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. All samples were positive for our internal control, bacteriophage MS2, although with variable efficiency (33.3 % ± 15.6). Such a variation has been described before (Petterson et al., 2015; Silva-Sales et al., 2020), probably due to the complexity and variability of sewage samples.

The interpretation of results in Table 3 (complete samples in table A1) was based on considering a positive sample when the cycle threshold took place below cycle 40, for either RNA-dependent polymerase (RdRP) and nucleocapsid (N) SARS-CoV-2 specific genes. Sole detection of gene E, characteristic of pan-Sarbecoviruses prompted for repeating the analysis for confirmation and usually led to a negative result. For most entries in table 3, both specific genes were detected, suggesting that non-specific amplification is unlikely. Yet and being complex samples, sequencing the product of PCR would rule out this risk and confirm the validity of the method for wastewater and sludge. Focusing on the viral loadings, it is important to bear in mind that the most of the cycle thresholds are close to 40, hence close to the limit of detection in the current experimental configuration

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 particles in water and sludge line WWTP

Following the presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material along the WWTP allows inferring its fate in the different processes. For that purpose, samples were quantified using commercial standards, as explained in M&M section, leading to the results shown in Table 4.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was systematically detected in the influent to the primary settler (between 7.5 and 15 cp/ml) but not in the secondary treatment effluent, confirming that the effluent is safe for reuse and discharge to water bodies, as other studies have also reported (Randazzo et al., 2020b). Another potential mechanism of transmission of airborne is the production of aerosol in secondary treatment, particularly if aeration is provided by horizontal rotors or surface turbines (Gotkowska-Pƚachta et al., 2013; Sánchez-Monedero et al., 2008). Given the rare occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the inflow to the secondary treatment, the potential of dispersion by aerosols created during aeration can be ruled out.

As for the sludge line, it appears that SARS-CoV-2 RNA is mainly retained at the primary settler (10 - 40 cp/ml) and only detected in one occasion in the biological sludge (7.5-10 cp/ml), which suggest that, as hypothesized, the virus particles have a higher affinity for the sludge and therefore, it is mostly diverted to the sludge line. Interestingly, its concentration increases in the thickeners which have a longer retention time, (approximately 24 hours) and a higher solid content.

However, no genetic material is detected in the digested sludge, which is surely related both to the severe temperature undergone during thermal hydrolysis and to the long residence time in the anaerobic digesters. Therefore, the results confirm the safety of the sludge after thermal treatment and anaerobic digestion. However, in smaller WWTPs is only treated by volume reduction methods with no thermal treatment, the safety of sludge disposal remains to be verified.

Primary and/or thickened sludge as indicators of incidence

It is seen that the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material is systematically higher in some sludge sampling spots (particularly at primary sludge and thickened sludge) compared to the influent samples (Table 4). This result confirms one of the hypothesis of this work, namely that the affinity of virus particles for biosolids would divert the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 towards the sludge line. Although the number of samples analysed in this work is limited and replication in other WWTPs is required, this finding suggests that monitoring COVID-19 incidence in the population in the sludge might have a higher sensitivity than in the wastewater. In this WWTP, the primary settler and the sludge thickeners would act in effect as "concentrators" of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material. Furthermore, the retention times in sludge thickeners (~24h) are usually higher than in primary settlers (~1-2 h). This higher retention time results in dampening the potential variations of SARS-CoV-2 particles in wastewater in an even more effective way than taking composite samples. Such a buffering is not helpful when the phenomenon to be monitored has fast dynamics, but in the case of COVID-19 population incidence, the desired monitoring dynamics would be in the order of days, making it a suitable sampling spot.