Identification and Quantification of Bioactive Compounds Suppressing SARS-CoV-2 Signals in Wastewater-based Epidemiology Surveillance

2.1. Materials

High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade methanol (MeOH), acetonitrile (ACN), and formic acid (FA) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). HPLC grade ammonium acetate was purchased from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA, USA). Analytical standards were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich unless otherwise mentioned. The TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix and TaqMan Probes were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific. The primers and probes used in the qPCR assay were purchased from Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. (Coralville, IA, USA).

2.2. Wastewater Sample Collection

From July-December 2020, more than fifty-seven wastewater treatment facilities across the state of Missouri, USA were monitored weekly for SARS-CoV-2. The wastewater samples were gathered from the influent of the wastewater treatment facilities (i.e., prior to primary treatment) (Table S1). Once per week, triplicate 50 mL subsamples were collected in polypropylene centrifuge tubes from the 24-hour composite wastewater samples. Subsamples kept chilled (between 0 and 3 °C) during transportation to the laboratory at the University of Missouri in Columbia. All the samples were stored at -20 °C until they were analyzed.

2.3. Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in Wastewater

2.4. Determination of Average Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load for Each Reported Patient to Identify the Facilities Exhibiting Suppression

In order to predict the average SARS-CoV-2 gene copies produced by each patient contributing to the sewershed as the benchmark for assessing the suppression rate for each facility. Fifty-seven facilities were monitored from July 6, 2020, to December 7, 2020. Wastewater samples were collected in triplicate from each facility once a week during that period. Flow rates information was collected by the wastewater operators, while the number of cases reported for each sewershed was provided by the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). To establish the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and case number, the total viral loads were calculated according to Eq. (1): where [N1, N2] (copies/µL) is the average SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the wastewater samples, determined by RT-qPCR. F is the extraction factor (350), that converts the units from copies/µL to copies/L. Q is the flow rate (L/day), and D is the number of days (161 days). The average viral load per diagnosed case was calculated by developing a regression relationship between the viral load and diagnosed case numbers.

2.5. Identifying the Facilities for Chemical Analysis

The facilities consistently showing low viral load per diagnosed case which are deviated from the established correlation between viral load and reported cases, suggests suppression of the viral genetic material from the sewershed, were identified. Thus, the viral load per diagnosed case for all the 57 tested facilities were ranked according to their standardized suppression rates.

To develop the relationship between suppression rates and the concentrations of each identified molecule, the facilities representing a gradient of suppression rates, including no suppression, moderately suppression and severely suppression, were selected for further chemical analysis. The chemical analysis in combination of the stepwise regression analysis were integrated to help identify the bioactive compounds that suppressed the SARS-CoV-2 signals.

2.6. Sample Preparation for Chemical Profiling and Targeted Analysis

The wastewater samples collected in 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes were vortexed (Vortex Genie 2, Fisher, NY, USA) for 10 sec before being transferred to smaller tubes. Then, 1.8 mL of the wastewater was transferred to 2 mL microcentrifuge tubes and centrifuged (Eppendorf 5415D, Hamburg, Germany) at 12,000 rpm for 15 min. After centrifugation, 1.5 mL of the wastewater supernatant and 1.5 mL MeOH were mixed in 5 mL glass tubes. The mixture was vortexed for 10 sec and 1.5 mL was filtered through 0.2 µm syringe filter (Acrodisc with PTFE membrane, Waters, MA, USA). Extracts were stored at -20 °C until analysis with the high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

2.7. Untargeted Metabolomics Global Chemical Profiling Analyses

Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) system coupled to a maXis impact quadrupole-time-of-flight high-resolution mass spectrometer (Q-TOF) (Bruker Co., Billerica, MA, United States) was used to analyze the wastewater extracts. The system was operated in either negative or positive electrospray ionization modes with the nebulization gas pressure at 43.5 psi, dry gas of 12 L/min, dry temperature of 250 C and a capillary voltage of 4000 V. The wastewater samples from 8 different locations were separated using Waters Acquity UHPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 × 0 mm, 1.7 mm particles size) at 60 C. The solvent system was 0.1% formic acid (FA) in water (A) and 100% acetonitrile (B). The gradient elution used started with a linear gradient of 95%: 5–30%: 70% (eluents A: B) in 30 min. Subsequently, the separation was followed by a linear wash gradient as follows 70–95% B, 95% B, 95–5% B, and 5% B at 30–33 min, 33– 35 min, 35–36 min, and 37–40 min, respectively. The flow rate was 0.56 mL/min. Mass spectral data were collected automatically using a scan range from 100 to 1,500 m/z and auto calibrated using sodium formate after data acquisition. Each wastewater sample and methanol blank (control) were analyzed in triplicate.

To identify the molecules of interest that exhibited statistically significant differences in relative intensities among the wastewater treatment facilities, the CDF files obtained from UHPLC-MS analysis were uploaded and processed using XCMS Online (xcmsonline.scripps.edu). XCMS is a cloud-based informatics platform that can process and visualize mass-spectrometry-based untargeted metabolomic data and perform statistical analysis [22][23]. The data process includes spectra extraction, peak grouping, peak detection, and retention time alignment. Pair comparisons were used for two groups (i.e., wastewater extracts and MeOH control blanks). The XCMS data were processed using the following parameters: pairwise jobs between each wastewater extract and the control (methanol) were conducted in centWave mode for feature detection (minimum peak width = 5 s, 1 m/z = 10 ppm, and maximum peak width = 20 s), an obiwarp method was selected for retention time correction (profStep = 1), chromatogram alignment was set as minfrac = 0.5, bw = 5, mzwid = 0.015, max = 100, minsamp = 1, and adducts were optimized for UPLC/Bruker Q-TOF in both positive and negative ESI mode. An unpaired parametric Welch t-test was used for the statistical analysis. Metabolites of significant features (p < 0.001 and intensity ≥10,000) were putatively identified by the integration of the METLIN database with XCMS Online. To further characterize and visualize the differences in profiles of compounds among different facilities, partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was performed and heatmap was generated via the web-based tool MetaboAnalyst (Wishart Research Group, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada) [47].

2.8. Targeted Analyses for Confirmation and Quantification

The compounds identified through untargeted analysis were quantified using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The LC-MS/MS analyses were performed using an HPLC system (Water Alliance 2695, Water Co., Milford, MA, United States) coupled with a Waters Acquity TQ triple quadrupole mass spectrometer operated in negative and positive electrospray ionization modes with the nebulization gas pressure at 43.5 psi, dry gas of 12 L/min, dry temperature of 250 C and a capillary voltage of 1500 V. Compounds in the wastewater extracts (30 µL volume per injection) were separated using a Phenomenex Kinetex C18 reverse-phase column (100 × 4.6 mm; 2.6 mm particle size, Torrance, 4 CA, United States) at 40 C. The mobile phases were 0.1% formic acid and 10 mM ammonium acetate in water (A) and 100% acetonitrile (B). The elution gradient used was 2% B (0-0.5 min), 2–80% B (0.5–7 min), 80–98% B (7.0–9.0 min), 2% B (9.0–15.0 min) at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. MS detection was performed by MS/MS using the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. Waters IntelliStart optimization software was used to optimize collision and ionization energy, MRM and SIR (single ion recording) transition ions (molecular and product ions), capillary and cone voltage, and desolvation gas flow. Waters Empower 3 software was used to analyze data. Concentrations of the compounds found in wastewater extracts were determined based on a calibration curve for each analyte generated using standards of these compounds (purity > 95%, Sigma-Aldrich) at 8 concentrations (0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10 ppm) in triplicate. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) were calculated to assess the sensitivity of the analytical method. For each compound, the signal-to-noise ratios of three and ten were employed to calculate LOD and LOQ, respectively.

The compounds that could not be ionized or detected by the Waters Acquity TQ triple quadrupole, including 4-octylphenol, sodium tetradecyl sulfate, diethylene glycol, netilmicin and dicyclopentadiene, were quantified by a Waters Xevo TQ-S triple quadrupole mass spectrometer coupled to UHPLC system. A symmetry C18 column (2.1×100mm, 3.5µm, WAT058965) was used and compounds separated by gradient delivery (0.5 mL/min) of solvent. Initial conditions were 95%A and 5%C (Solvent A: 0.1% FA, 2mM ammonium acetate, in water; solvent B: acetonitrile with 0.1% FA; solvent C:0.1% FA, 2mM ammonium acetate, in methanol), which ramped to 30% B and 70% C over 3 min, and held at 30%B and 70%C over 3 min, followed by going back to the initial composition within 0.1 min, and being held at the initial conditions for 0.9 min. The total run time was 7 min. The column was heated to 30 °C and the samples were cooled to 20 °C in the autosampler.

2.9 Stepwise-Regression Analysis for Identifying the Molecules Suppressing SARS-CoV-2 Signals in Wastewater

Stepwise linear regression models and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression models were utilized to identify the compounds that are positively correlated with the SARS-CoV-2 suppression rates. In all models, chemical signal intensities quantified by UHPLC-MS in positive or negative ion mode were the predictor variable and the viral suppression rate at selected WWTPs facilities was the response variable.

Four different statistical approaches were used to determine the positive correlation between the relative intensities of the compounds and suppression rate. The four approaches included: forward stepwise regression, backward stepwise regression, best subset linear regression, and LASSO. The regsubsets() function in the R package leaps (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/leaps/leaps.pdf) were utilized for forward, backward and best subset stepwise regression models. The forward selection began with a model without any predictor variables. The predictors were added to the model one by one until all of them were in the model. Conversely, backward selection began with the model with all predictors, followed by leaving one out at a time until no predictor was in the model [48]. The best subset regression model selected the subset model from all combinations of predictors based on the goodness-of-fit criteria [49]. In the end, the subset model with the highest adjusted R² out of all tree approaches was chosen. The linear regression model was then fitted with the chosen predictors, and the coefficients were examined.

To avoid overfitting the model, LASSO regression model was also used to examine the predictors. The glmnet() function in the R package glmnet package (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmnet/glmnet.pdf) was used to build the model. The shrinkage penalty (λ) was determined by cross validation. The coefficients of insignificant predictors with λ were shrunk to zero [50].

2.10 Suppression Study

The suppression experiments were carried out to investigate the effect of the identified molecules on SARS-CoV-2 genetic materials in the wastewater. Stock solutions of each identified compound were prepared with commercially available standards in 100% methanol at a concentration of 10,000 mg/L. A 20 mL wastewater sample with verified high SARS-CoV-2 concentrations was mixed with 20 mL ultrapure water (MilliQ system, 18.2 mΩ.cm at 25 Synergy® Water Purification System, MA, USA). The mixture was stirred gently for 5 min and transferred to 50 mL polypropylene tubes (SARSTEDT, Newton, NC, USA). Then, the diluted wastewater samples were spiked with 200 µL of 10,000 mg/L of each target compound to reach a final concentration of 50 mg/L. Another set of the control samples were spiked with 200 µL of methanol. The tubes were sealed, shaken, and sit on the bench at ambient temperature for 24 h. After 24 h, RNA was extracted immediately from raw samples, and viral concentrations were quantified by RT-qPCR.

The suppression rates (SR) were calculated using Eq. (2): where [N1]_A and [N1]_B (copies/ µL) are the SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the control (no chemical added) and in the treatment respectively.

3.1. Identification of the Facilities with High Suppression Rates

Between July 2020 and December 2020, more than fifty-seven wastewater treatment facilities across the state of Missouri, USA were monitored weekly for SARS-CoV-2. This extensive testing of wastewater treatment facilities has provided a comprehensive overview of signal intensity from COVID patients in wastewater. The long-term monitoring showed a clear correlation between the number of COVID patients in a sewershed and the level of viral load in the wastewater (Figure 1). However, there is also clear variability among treatment facilities. Specifically, some facilities consistently have lower recovery rates of SARS-CoV-2 load per diagnosed case, suggesting suppression of the genetic material in the sewershed.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Average SARS-CoV-2 gene copies per diagnosed case. Each data point represents a Missouri wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) from our study. Y-axis is the calculated RNA in the sewershed over the testing period using Eq. (1). X-axis equals the total number of COVID-19 patients identified in each sewershed over the same period.

With data available from MoDNR and DHSS (including reported case numbers), flow rates, along with RT-qPCR results, the average quantity of SARS-CoV-2 load per patient that contributing to the sewershed was calculated (Figure 1). The results showed that on average, there are around 5 × 10¹¹ SARS-CoV-2 viral load per reported case. Although the amount of SARS-CoV-2 contributed per case varies among communities, there were clear outlier communities that produce little or no genetic material in the wastewater despite the presence of known outbreaks.

Figure 2 presents the average SARS-CoV-2 viral load per diagnosed case among all the facilities included in this study. According to the results, sewersheds can be divided into three major zones based on SARS-Cov-2 signal suppression (Figure 2): Zone 1 includes all the facilities with average viral load/case lower than 5×10¹¹ ± 10% variations. These facilities consistently have low recovery rates of viral load per diagnosed case, which suggests viral genetic material suppression in the wastewater. Suppression of viral genetic material in the wastewater could explain the results of Ahmed et al [51], in which no correlation was found between viral genetic material and daily reported cases.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Average SARS-CoV-2 gene copies /case among wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs). Zone 1 represents facilities with signal suppression; Zone 2 represents the facilities within the average SARS-CoV-2 gene copies/case; Zone 3 represents the facilities with underestimated case number. The abbreviation for each facility are listed in the Table S1.

Zone 2 consists of the facilities within the average SARS-CoV-2 load/case (no suppression or signal enhancement). Finally, Zone 3 is comprised of the facilities that have higher numbers of average viral load/case than the predicted values, indicating a likely underestimate in the number of COVID patients. Unreported cases are considered one of the major reasons for average SARS-CoV-2 gene copies being higher than the corresponding case number. During the early phase of the pandemic, clinical testing was limited to multiple criteria, including symptoms and close contacts with a positive case [51]. From these results, among the 57 ranked facilities according to their suppression rates, eight facilities with different suppression rates were chosen for untargeted and targeted analysis (Figure 3, and Table 1). Six facilities with a range of suppression rates were chosen, including Macon WWTP (MACON), MSD Missouri River WWTP (MSDMR), MSD Fenton WWTP (MSDFN), Independence Rock Creek WWTP (INDRC), Joplin Turkey Creek WWTP (JOPTC), and MSD Bissell Point WWTP (MSDBP). Furthermore, two other facilities with no suppression were included in this study and used as a control: Columbia WWTP (COLUMB) and MSD Grand Glaize WWTP (MSDGG).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Location of wastewater treatment facilities included in the suppression study.

3.2. Untargeted Analyses for Wastewater Extracts

The total ion chromatograms as well as the spectra of active compounds in the wastewater extracts were captured from liquid chromatography-high resolution MS (LC-HRMS) studies. The raw data were processed with the XCMS online platform and the features were annotated using the METLIN library, which resulted in the putative identification of 30 compounds (Table 2). These compounds are used for a variety of products such as surfactants, bleaching agents, emulsifiers, and stabilizers (Table 3). Heatmap visualization of the clustering of chemical profiles is based on the 30 most significant compounds identified by using a t-test (p < 0.001) (Figure 4). Twenty-three compounds exhibited higher relative intensities in suppressed facilities compared to control facilities, contributing significantly to the distinction between control (non-suppression) and suppression facilities (Figure 4). Contribution of the variables was determined by examining the variable importance in projection (VIP) score, calculated from the weighted sum of the square for each partial least squares (PLS) loading of each compound [52]. From the top ten compounds identified by VIP, palmitelaidic acid (PAMA), 4-octylphenol (OCPH), N-undecylbenzenesulfonic acid (NUDS), aluminium dodecanoate (ALDO), and 2-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (DCBS) were identified as important compounds that significantly contributed to both control and suppression facilities (Figure 5A). To further characterize the differences in the relative intensities, partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), a supervised regression technique for classifying groups from multidimensional data, was performed using MetaboAnalyst. PLS-DA analysis with two principal components (PCs) covered 85% of the total variability of the data (Figure 5B), indicating significant differences in chemical profiles in control and suppression facilities. The first principal component (PC1) explained 63.9% of the data variability, whereas the second principal component (PC2) accounted for 21.1% of the total variability of the data set.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Heatmap of the relative intensities of the identified bioactive found in different locations. Blue represents low relative intensity, whereas red represents high relative intensity. Heatmap features the top thirty metabolite features as identified by t-test analysis (p < 0.001 and intensity ≥10,000). Distance measure is by Euclidean correlation and clusterin is determined using the Ward algorithm. The abbreviations of the chemicals are listed in the Table 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

(A) Variable importance in projection (VIP), (B) Partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). In the VIP score plot, the colored boxes indicate the relative intensities of the corresponding compounds in the control and suppression samples. Red represents higher relative abundance, while blue represents lower relative abundance in the VIP score plot. In the PLS-DA plot, the same-colored circles represent replicates of metabolic profiles for each group. The colored ellipses indicate 95% confidence regions of each group.

3.3. Targeted Analyses for Confirmation and Quantification

The molecules tentatively identified through global metabolomic profiling analysis were further confirmed and quantified by LC-MS/MS targeted analyses. Authentic reference standards were used for unambiguous confirmation of compounds and the absolute quantification of the concentrations for each compound identified in the untargeted analysis approach. Due to the limitations of the instrument and limited availability of chemical references standards, fourteen compounds out of thirty were detected and quantified (Table 4) and (Table 5). Table 4 summarizes the molecular ions, product ions, retention times, and ionization modes for targeted LC-MSMS analysis of these compounds. The results showed that most of the bioactive compounds had higher concentrations in the wastewater of facilities exhibiting SARS-CoV-2 signal suppression than the control facilities. Four compounds had much higher concentrations in the suppression facilities than the control facilities. In particular, 4-nonylphenol, palmitelaidic acid, sodium oleate, and polyethyleneglycol dioleate exhibited concentrations that were 73.3%, 35.3%, 54%, and 58.8% higher in the suppression facilities than the control facilities, respectively (Figure 6). These compounds are mainly used in the production of surfactants and detergents in various industries [53, 54]

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

The concentration of the compounds in each facility. (A) 4-nonylphenol; (B) palmitelaidic acid; (C) sodium oleate; (D) polyethylene glycol dioleate

The concentrations of 4-nonylphenol in the urban wastewaters were determined in Japan, China, and USA. The concentrations were about 190 µg/L [55], 2 µg/L [56], and 400 µg/L [57], respectively. In this study, average concentrations of 4-nonylphenol were 1169 ± 13.3 µg/L and 2025.7 ± 247 µg/L in the control and suppression facilities, respectively. No information was found regarding the concentrations of the other three compounds in wastewater. Palmitelaidic acid was reported to be used to produce cosmetics, soaps, and industrial mold release agents [58]. and the average concentrations were 353.4 ± 51.2 µg/L and 478.2 ± 62 µg/L in the control and suppression facilities, respectively. According to the Consumer Product Information Database (CPID), polyethylene glycol dioleate (PEDG) is used as surface active agent and lubricant additive in different kinds of household and commercial products (e.g., stainless steel cleaner & polish, wood polish)[59]. The average concentration of PEGD in the control facilities was 689.3 ± 58.4 µg/L, while the average concentration in the suppression facilities was 1095.2 ±189.2 µg/L. Finally, sodium oleate is one of the major ingredients of metal polishes and is also used as an emulsifier in the polymerization of different compounds, according to Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB)[60]. The observed concentrations of sodium oleate were 314.2 ± 37 µg/L and 485 ± 183 µg/L in the control and suppression facilities, respectively.

The presence of different industries in the sewersheds served by the suppression facilities might be the reason behind the high concentrations of these surfactants in the wastewater (Table 6). For example, the majority of the sewersheds contain food processing, cleaning products, plastics, and fabrics, and metal finishing industries which can significantly contribute chemicals to the wastewater received by the investigated facilities. Several studies have been done on the monitoring of wastewater for different compounds used as surfactants and detergents [31,37,61– 64]. However, there was no study on the effect of these compounds on SARS-CoV-2 in the wastewater. Thus, in the next section, the stability of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in wastewater in the presence of four compounds is discussed.

3.4. Identification of the Bioactive Molecules Associated with Suppression of SARS-CoV-2 Signals

To further characterize the findings from the metabolomic approach, stepwise regression models and LASSO regression models were used to determine the significant predictor variables (i.e., compounds’ relative intensities) which are positively correlated with the response variable (i.e., SARS-CoV-2 suppression rate). Results from positive and negative ion modes were analyzed separately.

The relationships among chemical signal intensities (generated from UPLC-MS positive ion mode analysis) and SARS-CoV-2 RNA suppression rate were examined using four different statistical approaches. According to the forward and backward stepwise regression models, the signal intensities of 13 out of 21 compounds were positively correlated with the viral suppression rate (Table S2). Best subsets regression also identified the signal intensities of 13 out of 21 compounds as being positively correlated with the viral suppression rate (Table S3). The signal intensities of eight out of 21 compounds were kept in the lasso regression model and obtained positive estimated coefficients (Table S4). Palmitelaidic acid, 4-nonylphenol, dicyclopentadiene, tetrabutylammonium and sodium oleate signal intensities were positively correlated with the viral suppression rate among all four statistical approaches (Table S2-S4). Furthermore, using the same statistical approaches, polyoxyethylene glycol dioleate and 4-nonylphenol appeared to be positive correlated to vial suppression rate among all four approaches when the signal intensities from negative ion mode were analyzed (Table S5 and S6). In conclusion, only the signal intensity of 4-nonylphenol was positively correlated with the viral suppression rate for both positive and negative ion modes.

3.5. Suppression Experiments

The results from the statistical approaches suggested that the signal intensities of 4-nonylphenol, palmitelaidic acid, sodium oleate, and polyethylene glycol dioleate are positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 suppression rates (Table S2-S6). Therefore, the suppression of these compounds on SARS-CoV-2 were tested in incubation studies using real wastewater. A wastewater with known high viral copy numbers from “non-suppressed” facilities was used in these experiments. Figure 7 shows the suppression rates (SR) of the compounds tested. After reacting for 24h, the SR (%) were 57.2%, 35%, 43.3%, and 78.2% when adding PEGD, NOPH, SOOE, and PAMA, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7.

Chemical effect on the SARS-CoV-2 signals in the wastewater. Samples from different batches were treated with 50 mg/L PEGD (polyethylene glycol dioleate), NOPH (4-nonylphenol), SOOE (sodium oleate), and PAMA (palmitelaidic acid). Wastewater samples were reacted with each chemical individually for 24 h at room temperature. Error bars represent standard deviation.

Enveloped viruses like SARS-CoV-2 have a variety of sites on the lipid membrane/envelop embedded with proteins where surfactants (nonionic, anionic, and cationic surfactants) can bind and interact [65]. In general, surfactants are well known to bind to proteins, with the main mechanisms being hydrophobic, electrostatic, and H-bonding. The binding of the surfactants often leads to denaturation of the protein, either by the formation of protein-surfactant complexes or by unfolding [65, 66].

For enveloped viruses, a major point of attraction to surfactant molecules is the lipid bilayer in which hydrophobic interaction may become the main driving force. In addition to hydrophobic interactions, electrostatics may also play a role, especially if the surfactant was oppositely charged [65]. Some surfactants might be bound within the lipid bilayer and this binding will raise the chemical potential of the surfactant in the bilayer, leading to thermodynamic instability[67]. The four compounds tested were considered hydrophobic because their partitioning coefficient (logP) ranges between 5.6-15, demonstrating that hydrophobic interaction plays an important role in the interaction between surfactants and lipid bilayers.

The suppression of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater over time was also investigated. The experiments were conducted at room temperature. Spiked wastewaters (with 50 mg/L of each compound) were collected at the following times: 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 96 hrs. Samples were immediately extracted and processed by RT-qPCR. Figure 8 shows the kinetic experimental results for both palmitelaidic acid (PAMA) and polyethylene glycol dioleate (PEGD). For both figures (A and B), the data are normalized by the number of RNA copies/µL in the control samples at time zero. PAMA and PEGD suppressed 70% and 65% of SARS-CoV-2 RNA for the first 6 hrs of the experiment, respectively. From our observation, the two compounds immediately suppressed the genetic material in the wastewater, and as such, the existence of these two compounds at 50 mg/L will dramatically decrease the COVID-19 signals in wastewater. It is therefore critical to determine the real concentrations of the compounds that reduce the stability of the genetic material signals in wastewater. Based on the known concentrations, correction factors may be developed to achieve more reliable and unbiased surveillance results for wastewater treatment facilities receiving wastewater from industries.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8.

Kinetic experiments. (A) 50 mg/L of palmitelaidic acid spiked into wastewater with known SARS-CoV-2 gene copies. (B) 50 mg/L of polyethylene glycol dioleate spiked into wastewater with known SARS-CoV-2 gene copies. The wastewaters were from two different batches. All the experiments were conducted at room temperature. The collected samples were immediately extracted and processed by RT-qPCR.

In order to calculate the rate constant of the reaction (k) and the half-life of the viral RNA (t_1/2), the data from Figure 8 was used to determine the order of the reaction. Zero-order, first-order, and second-order were tested and the results showed that all the data fit the second-order reaction (Figure 9). This meant that the rate of the reaction increases by the square of the increased concentration of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the wastewater. The calculated half-lives were compared to the results from 24 h (Figure 7). The SARS-CoV-2 RNA were suppressed by 78.2% and 57.2% when adding PEGD and PAMA, respectively. The calculated t_1/2 (the time when SARS-CoV-2 concentrations drop to its half value) were 8.5 h and 2.2 h for PEGD and PAMA respectively (Figure 9). In an effort to evaluate the role that well-shaking plays in the half-life calculation, another experiment was conducted on the rocker at room temperature. Samples were continuously agitated during the experiment period. The constant agitation on the rocker (Fisherbrand^TM Nutating Mixers, PA, USA) at 10 rpm was supposed to provide a homogenous mixture and allow the compounds to interact with SARS-CoV-2. The data from mixing experiments were also fit the second-order reaction (Figure 11). The 24 h results showed that the suppression rates for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were 39.2% and 45% and the calculated t_1/2 were 16.4 h and 10.3 h, when PEGD and PAMA were added, respectively. Surprisingly, the calculated t_1/2 in the mixing experiments for both compounds were higher than the sitting condition. During the agitation, the suspended solids in the wastewater were competing for the reactive chemicals, and as a result, a lower concentration is available to interact with SARS-CoV-2, leading to longer times to reach t_1/2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9.

Rate constant and half-life of the reaction. (A) Control for PAMA. (B) Palmitelaidic acid (PAMA). (C) Control for PEGD. (D) Polyethylene glycol dioleate (PEGD). The wastewaters were from two different batches. All the experiments were conducted at room temperature. All samples were sitting still on the bench and no agitating was involved.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 10.

Kinetic experiments for control samples. No chemicals were spiked. The wastewaters were from two different batches. The data were normalized by the gene copies/µL at time zero. All the experiments were conducted at room temperature. The collected samples were immediately extracted and processed by RT-qPCR.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 11.

Rate constant and half-life of the reaction. (A) Control. (B) Palmitelaidic acid (PAMA). (C) Polyethylene glycol dioleate (PEGD). The wastewater waw from one batch. All the experiments were conducted at room temperature. All the samples were continuously agitated on the rocker.

It is also important to mention that SARS-CoV-2 in the control samples was less stable when agitating over time compared to sitting samples (Figure 10). The half-life of the viral RNA reflected this observation, the average t_1/2 for the control samples with no agitating was 163 h and was about 69 h when the control samples were continuously agitated (Figure 11). The main reason that could explain this observation is that the agitating process will allow the chemicals present in wastewater to interact with SARS-CoV-2, resulting in a shorter half-life. Furthermore, this finding might explain the conflicted findings reported among different studies. For example, Robinson et al [68](Missouri team), the Ohio State [69], and the team at University of Notre Dame [70] reported constant stability of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater at room temperature for at least 5-7 days, while the findings reported by Weidhaas et al [27] (team from Utah) suggest rapid degradation of the SARS-CoV-2 signal following a first order decay constant at both 4 C, 10 C, or 35 C within 24 h, with the virus signal not being detectable after 12 h of storage at 35 °C. Similar susceptibility to decay and degradation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by increasing temperature in wastewater were also reported by Ahmed et al. [71]. The accelerated transfer of energy resulting from the mixing process has demonstrated the similar temperature effects on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 signals.