High-resolution within-sewer SARS-CoV-2 surveillance facilitates informed intervention

Sample Locations

Twenty sample locations targeting the wastewater outfall captured within surface-accessible manholes were prioritized to discriminate the SARS-CoV-2 signals originating from the on-campus residential buildings at the University of Colorado Boulder (Figure 1 a, Supplemental Table 1). Twenty-three pumps (autosamplers) operated at these locations, with three sites discriminating two flows within a single manhole. Overall, then, 23 flows originating from 20 manhole locations were monitored. Each flow roughly corresponded to an individual residential structure. The university housed over 6,200 students in on-campus residential buildings during the semester, and each site on average accounted for the wastewater generated by 450 residents (range extending from 109 to 2,048 residents), with select residents being monitored at multiple sites. The targeted manholes ranged from approximately 1 to 7 m in depth. To protect the privacy of residents, the presented data was anonymized with a unique label assigned to each residential structure indicating its position and any other residential structure contributing to its associated flow in parentheses: A, B(A), C, D, E(CBA), F, G(FEDCBA), H, I(H), J, K, Admin, L(Admin), M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and Isolation.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

(a) Map of sample locations distributed across the University of Colorado Boulder’s campus. (b) Picture of the internal components of the composite autosampler design. (c) Picture of the composite autosampler in operation.

Composite Autosampler

The composite autosampler was assembled from readily available materials. The main components were a 24-V Stenner pump (E10VXG; Stenner Pump Company, Jacksonville, FL, USA; designed by DEWCO Pumps, Denver, CO, USA), a 300-Wh portable DC/AC power bank (R300; GoLabs Inc., Carrolton, TX, USA), a 5-gal jerrycan (Uline, Pleasant Prairie, WI, USA), a 9-gal cooler, gel ice packs, insulation, 1/4-in. O.D. PVC tubing, and exterior casing (Figure 1 b, Supplemental Figure 1, Supplemental Table 2). The samplers were positioned above ground and next to each manhole (Figure 1 c). The wastewater inflow and overflow tubing lines were fed through the D-pick of the manhole cover, and the inlet strainer that resided in the underground wastewater stream was constructed from either ¼-in. O.D. copper or ¼-in. O.D. steel tubing, with 0.157-in. holes drilled into the side.

The pumps were continuously operated at approximately 33% of full capacity, each scheduled to draw about 10 L of wastewater per day. The actual wastewater withdrawn was monitored at the time of sample collection by weighing the jerrycan mass with a luggage scale (Supplemental Figure 2, Supplemental Table 3). Collection occurred daily between 7 AM and 12 PM, with power banks replaced every 48 hours and ice packs replaced daily when ambient average temperatures exceeded 4°C. Samplers were only turned off for the following three events: a September blizzard, a supply chain disruption in October, and a cold event in October.

Sample Collection

Two 50-mL subsamples and one 40-mL subsample were collected from each sampler daily. One 50-mL subsample was collected for RNA extraction and viral detection, and the second 50-mL subsample was collected for determination of basic water quality parameters. The 40-mL subsample was collected as a backup sample. Subsamples were poured from the 5-gal jerrycan after swirling the contents. All samples were collected in pre-weighed sterile polypropylene tubes loaded with 500 μL of 10% Tween^™ 20 detergent (Thermo Fisher), which served to inactivate infectious agents for worker safety. Samples were stored on ice immediately after collection and during transport back to the laboratory. After sample collection at each sampler, 1/2-in. O.D. PVC tubing was connected to the jerrycan, fed through the D-pick of the manhole cover, and used to drain excess withdrawn wastewater. Emptied jerrycans were then briefly rinsed with dilute bleach solution and water before being repositioned to collect wastewater over the next 24 hours.

Sample Processing

All samples were processed in the laboratory the same day as collection. Samples that could not be processed upon immediate arrival at the laboratory were temporarily stored at 4°C. Backup and RNA extraction/viral detection samples were processed within 4 hours of arrival; water quality samples were processed within 9 hours of arrival. All samples were spiked with a known amount of bovine coronavirus (Bovilis® Coronavirus; Merck Animal Health, NJ, USA) serving as the internal process control.

SENB+ RT-qPCR Data Quality Control

Any amplification with a Ct value roughly 2 or more cycle numbers different than the Ct value of either of the other two amplifications in its triplicate was excluded from the dataset. Amplifications indistinguishable from background drift were excluded from the dataset. Standard dilutions were excluded from standard curve creation if any amplifications of a target observed in the negative controls on the same plate had a lower Ct value than any one of the target’s three standard dilution amplifications in triplicate. Standard dilutions were also excluded from standard curve creation if their amplifications were greatly displaced from their expected position. More specifically, ten-fold standard dilutions amplified with 100% efficiency should be spaced 3.32 cycle numbers apart. Let n represent the intervals between dilutions such that 10⁶ and 10⁵ dilutions are n = 1 interval apart and 10⁶ and 10⁴ dilutions are n = 2 intervals apart. A standard dilution was excluded from standard curve creation if the average Ct of its amplifications was either less than 2n or greater than 5n cycle numbers apart from the average Ct of the amplifications of the closest higher dilution accepted and positioned n before it.

Data Normalization

SARS-CoV-2 data from SURV1 was normalized by subtracting the RNaseP Ct value from the SARS-CoV-2 E Ct value because these values are logarithmic in nature. The N gene was utilized to confirm trends. Data from SENB+ was processed by calculating copies per liter of wastewater using the recorded masses of sample concentrated and eluted (Supplemental Table 10) and the following equation:

The bovine coronavirus and F+ bacteriophage signals were used to track sample variability but not to transform the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The bovine coronavirus recovery efficiency was determined by comparing the RT-qPCR-obtained concentration value to the extracted RNA concentration of the spiked-in control. Throughout the campaign, the recovery efficiency averaged 53 +/- 30% S.D. October 2nd samples are masked from this analysis because they were frozen prior to extraction and a key intermediate weight was not recorded.

Incorporation of Medical Services and Isolation Space Utilization Data

On-campus medical services in Wardenburg Health performed nasal-swab Lyra® Direct SARS-CoV-2 assays (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) to confirm suspected cases within the community. These data are considered as “positive detections” within the residential structures, and the date of each positive is used to denote the case (though that date is not the date of actual infection) (Supplemental Table 11). Isolation space utilization tracks the number of beds in designated isolation spaces occupied on a given day (Supplemental Table 12).

Performance of the Composite Samplers

In general, the composite samplers performed well, reliably withdrawing sample mass. The design achieved the objectives and provided an economical sampling unit. Additionally, if a source of electricity is near the sample point, then the cost decreases with removing the necessity of the power bank. Throughout the campaign, concerns were noted over (1) leakage through the small sampling port on the jerrycan and (2) the inlet strainer either clogging or being knocked offline because of toilet paper accumulation during low-flow conditions. To prevent further leakage, a short PVC tube was epoxied to the small sampling port and positioned such that the free end of the tube sat (with a removable cap) above the jerrycan. Several redesigns of the inlet strainer suffered similar issues as the primary design, exacerbated by the increasing prevalence of “flushable” wipes. Manually unclogging and redeploying the inlet strainers remained the primary maintenance demand. Future surveillance campaigns may consider more permanent modifications to the flow path to enable ease of sample collection.

Dataset Summary

Prior to resumption of on-campus activities, incoming on-campus residents were required to test five days prior to the scheduled move-in (August 17^th -21^st), establishing the baseline. An initial surge in SARS-CoV-2 RNA wastewater concentrations was detected at the beginning of the campaign (Figure 2). This event fell two weeks after the Labor Day holiday in the USA, with many traced large off-campus gatherings. The wastewater concentrations plateaued the week of September 15^th and were in decline prior to Boulder County enacting aggressive social distancing policies on September 24^th (Figure 2 a). That concentrations were already decreasing before these policies were enacted likely reflects the success of on-campus testing, tracing, and isolation efforts. The September 24^th orders were enforced until October 13^th and prohibited (1) anyone aged 18 to 22 years old in the City of Boulder from engaging in gatherings and (2) residents in 36 nearby off-campus buildings from leaving their place of residence to the maximum extent possible (“stay-at-home” order) (54). Those 36 buildings were identified as likely large-gathering areas. The higher SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations noted on September 27^th appear to be a true signal, with both the bovine coronavirus and F+ bacteriophage targets displaying similar abundance ranges to surrounding dates, highlighting the need and utility of multiplexed controls. This peak occurred on a Sunday 24 hours after the identification and isolation of numerous cases at the end of the September surge (Figure 2 f, h) and is notable when isolation building inputs are excluded from the wastewater concentration data.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

(a) Median SARS-CoV-2 E copies/L wastewater as determined by the SENB+ pipeline. (b) Heatmap displaying the SENB+ SARS-CoV-2 E copies/L on a log scale; grey indicates no detectable amplifications. (c) Per capita average SENB+ SARS-CoV-2 E copies/L over the sampling campaign distributed per sampled wastewater flow, indicating the overall temporal prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within a single structure. (d) Heatmap displaying the ratio of SARS-CoV-2 E copies/L to the human RNaseP copies/L as determined by the SURV1 pipeline on a log scale; grey indicates no detectable amplifications. SARS-CoV-2 N concentrations confirm the displayed trends (Supplemental Figure 10). (e) Population served by each sampler. (f) Heatmap displaying the confirmed medical services positives mapped to each sampler. (g) Prevalence, measured by the total number of SARS-CoV-2 infections detected among a population served by a sampler divided by the total number of that population. (h) Sum of confirmed positives per day.

Well after the expiration of those public health orders, another increase in wastewater concentrations was detected after October 31st (the Halloween holiday in the USA). Clinical services detected fewer cases on-campus during this event as compared to the September event, and this lower prevalence was reflected in the lower SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations. The similar dynamics emphasize a quantitative relationship, not simply a presence or absence of viral RNA correlation, between the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and the wastewater concentrations. Finally, students vacated campus prior to November 23^rd for the scheduled end of in-person instruction. The SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentration averages taken over the monitoring campaign (Figure 2 c) largely reflected on-campus prevalence (Figure 2 g) (number of reported infections within a residential structure divided by the initial census data, Figure 2 e) when masking those sample sites that were activated later in the semester.

Both the SURV1 data and the SENB+ data reflected the medical services data throughout the campaign (Figure 2 b, d; Supplemental Tables 8, 9). Overall, the data from the SURV1 and SENB+ pipelines are consistent, suggesting that a single technical replicate (the SURV1 dataset) is admissible when performing a daily monitoring campaign and when resources become limited resulting from either supply chain disruptions or rapid campaign expansions designed to meet the pace of emerging pandemics. Technical replicates are still recommended when available (the SENB+ dataset), though, to avoid false reporting. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 E and N2 targets displayed a linear correlation of 0.97 in the SENB+ data (Supplemental Figure 10), confirming that both are suitable to track the prevalence of the virus. However, especially considering the detection of SARS-CoV-2 variants in wastewater (55), continuing to track multiple locations along the SARS-CoV-2 genome provides critical robustness against false negative and positive events. The quantitative range of the predicted concentrations (in terms of genome copies per liter of wastewater) was also similar for both targets. The E target, however, reported fewer non-detects and thus displayed a higher sensitivity than the N2 target. The E target was therefore utilized as the primary dataset considered daily, with the N2 target serving a confirmatory function.

Relating the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater to the medical services data was importantly influenced by the isolation strategy used on campus. The majority of positive individuals received temporary housing in the primary isolation building up until September 18^th and after October 6^th and were assigned to a secondary building between September 18^th and October 5^th (Figure 3). However, select students were allowed to isolate in place (structures A and B). Isolation in these alternate structures complicated the signal in their associated wastewater flows as well as in the combined G(FEDCBA) flow (the E2(CBA) flow is not noted given the sampler serving that structure primarily operated after October 5^th). Additionally, such combined flows bias the median data (Figure 2 a), with the contribution of a single infection potentially detected in, at the maximum, four sites. This complication emphasizes the importance of quantifying the signal for these locations rather than relying on binary presence/absence of virus determinations. Quantification enables the detection of temporal trends such as increasing SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations above the expected baseline. Additionally, students do not proceed through the entire course of infection profiled within a given residence and shift their contribution to the isolation structures (Figure 3). A similar behavior must be accounted for within broader wastewater networks, in which movement of individuals seeking medical services and requiring longer stays within hospitals and long-term care facilities potentially decouples the wastewater signal from the served residential units.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Residency reported (bars) versus SENB+ SARS-CoV-2 E copies/L wastewater (points) detected for the primary (red) and backup (C[Backup Isolation], blue) isolation structures.

The primary isolation building maintained a unique wastewater in which the flow did not represent a fluctuating proportion of infected individuals amongst non-infected individuals. The building was instead occupied entirely by individuals progressing through the course of the viral infection, remaining empty otherwise. The wastewater concentrations from this building peaked in mid-September and again in mid-November at approximately 10⁷ SARS-CoV-2 copies/L wastewater (Figure 3). These peaks resulted from the co-occurrence of disease progression and virus/viral RNA shedding in stool, explaining the two peaks’ nearly identical wastewater concentrations despite substantially different infected resident numbers. In this building, the viral wastewater inputs of a smaller number of infected individuals were not more diluted by the inputs of a corresponding larger proportion of non-infected residents; the isolated individuals’ wastewater mixed only with idle plumbing and appliance flows. The peaks noted over October reflect the progression of viral shedding from individual contributions. Although this value will vary with the underlying characteristics of the idle flow emanating from each building, from the presented data, the expected maximum concentrations of detectable SARS-CoV-2 within domestic wastewater in the USA should be near 10⁷ genome copies/L. Considering that individuals in residences are expected to produce between 100-250 L of wastewater per day, the maximum shedding per person is on the order of 10¹⁰ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies/day, in agreement with Schmitz et al. (56). This number additionally aligns with the upper-end of identified fecal concentration ranges, suggesting that individuals within these structures likely produce between 100-1,000 mL of feces per day (5×10³–10^7.6 copies/mL feces) (57). The campus additionally relied on a secondary isolation building during the peak of infections in September (Figure 3). Notably, this structure displayed a similar maximum SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentration.

The concentration of fecal matter becomes more critical when considering wider communities with industrial, infiltration, and other diluting contributions to wastewater. In initial attempts to normalize to the varying concentrations of fecal matter within the wastewater samples, the genogroup II F+ bacteriophage was selected as an internal reference marker for the fall campaign to align with other sampling efforts ongoing within Colorado. At the micro-sewershed level, the F+ bacteriophage signal displayed inconsistent geographical and temporal trends (Figure 4). Select sites (e.g., R, Q, and O) displayed consistently low signals, within the range of 10⁴ to 10⁶ copies/L, whereas other sites (e.g., G(FEDCBA), J, and L(Admin)) displayed signals often approaching 10⁹ copies/L. Even more concerning, sites such as C, F, H, M, and N display inconsistent temporal trends, fluctuating over five orders of magnitude during the fall campaign. These shifts potentially result from changes in resident diet or interpersonal fluctuations in the gut virome (58). The F+ bacteriophage was therefore replaced by the pepper mild mottle virus (PMMoV) for the spring 2021 monitoring campaign Error! Reference source not found..

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Heatmap of the F+ bacteriophage copies/L wastewater detected on a log scale. Darker shades of orange indicate higher concentrations, with grey indicating no detectable amplifications.

Utility and Consideration of the Data

Throughout the fall monitoring campaign, the interpretation and utility of the data varied with the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within the community. Considering six scenarios in which the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 is (1) absent, (2) low and stable, (3) low and increasing, (4) high and increasing/stable, (5) high and decreasing, and (6) decreasing to absent, the daily monitoring campaign provided varying levels of support to the pandemic response. The utility as an early warning signal is primarily experienced in scenarios (1), (2), and (3), in which early detections are the most critical for preventing or halting community spread. This prevention requires a robust and well-connected testing, contact tracing, and isolation infrastructure. When entering either scenario (4) or (5), the primary utility in WBE is in monitoring the effectiveness of public health intervention strategies employed. The fall campaign provided an example, in which the peak in SARS-CoV-2 wastewater concentrations occurred before the social distancing order imposed by the county. Therefore, the on-campus mechanism of testing, tracing, and isolation was demonstrated as effective prior to a more robust and stringent social distancing order being put in-place. This monitoring better equips public health officials to determine appropriate responses with the infrastructure at hand, with more stringent control measures likely leading to migration from campus and potentially transporting viral infections further abroad and/or allowing reentry of the virus from broader community-acquired infections when social distancing requirements ease. After the public health orders were enacted in Boulder, Wi-Fi connections within residence halls decreased by 33%. Additionally, clinical testing data later in the semester identified cases with low viral loads without an active infection, highlighting cases in which progression through the disease profile occurred off campus. Finally, during scenario (6), wastewater data also effectively monitors individuals as they exit the infectious period but may still be shedding viral RNA. On campus, students were permitted to leave the isolation structure and return to their residences after ten days. These reentry events could be detected in the wastewater (e.g., see site O, Figure 2). Reentries thus must also be taken into consideration to prevent shifts in policy based on a true detected signal that is not reflective of a case of concern.

Conclusions

With the wide range of fluctuations in daily habits surrounding toilet flushes and personal hygiene behaviors combined with rapid changes in viral loads, daily monitoring becomes critical to track the prevalence of pathogens within building-scale wastewater. The presented monitoring campaign is distinguished by high temporal and geographical resolution over a university campus. However, a tradeoff emerges considering the commitment of resources versus the action items taken surrounding the usage and monitoring of the data. The demonstrated monitoring campaign informed on the emergence of likely new infections within given residential structures, notably during the first two weeks of operation, and the effectiveness of on-campus interventions. The utility of these data relied on being in concert with robust medical services and monitoring testing data, providing the ability to translate from community monitoring to intervention. Across university campuses scattered globally, and reported within this study, the utility of wastewater monitoring to support public health has been demonstrated. This study concluded that (1) economical solutions are readily assembled for operating composite samplers, (2) daily samples enable informed decisions and monitoring of the success of interventions on-campus, and (3) wastewater data provides substantial and unique benefit when surveying community health at multiple stages in a disease outbreak. Combined, wastewater monitoring provides a flexible and effective public-health technique when deployed at the building-level scale.