Abstract
Wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be a valuable source of information regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission and COVID-19 cases. Though the method has been used for several decades to track other infectious diseases, there has not been a comprehensive review outlining all of the pathogens surveilled through wastewater. The aim of this study is to identify what infectious diseases have been previously studied via wastewater surveillance prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic and identify common characteristics between the studies, as well as identify current gaps in knowledge. Peer-reviewed articles published as of August 1, 2020 that examined wastewater for communicable and infectious human pathogens on 2 or more occasions were included in the study. Excluded from this list were all reviews and methods papers, single collection studies, and non-human pathogens. Infectious diseases and pathogens were identified in studies of wastewater surveillance, as well as themes of how wastewater surveillance and other measures of disease transmission were linked. This review did not include any numerical data from individual studies and thus no statistical analysis was done. 1005 articles were identified but only 100 were included in this review after applying the inclusion criteria. These studies came from 38 countries with concentration in certain countries including Italy, Israel, Brazil, Japan, and China. Twenty-five separate pathogen families were identified in the included studies, with the majority of studies examining pathogens from the family Picornaviridae, including polio and non-polio enteroviruses. Most studies of wastewater surveillance did not link what was found in the wastewater to other measures of disease transmission. Among those studies that did compare wastewater surveillance to other measures of disease transmission the value observed was dependent upon pathogen and varied by study. Wastewater surveillance has historically been used to assess water-borne and fecal-orally transmitted pathogens causing diarrheal disease. However, numerous other types of pathogens have been surveilled using wastewater and wastewater surveillance should be considered as a potential tool for many infectious diseases. Wastewater surveillance studies can be improved by incorporating other measures of disease transmission at the population-level including disease incidence and hospitalizations.
Introduction
Infectious disease surveillance is most commonly conducted at the health center or the hospital,1 either through passive reporting or active case finding.2 This type of event-based infectious disease surveillance monitors trends in morbidity and mortality, alerting health systems when a statistically improbable uptick of events occurs. In this way, the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from endemic infectious diseases such as malaria or influenza are tracked and the effectiveness of interventions such as mosquito control or vaccines can be monitored. Importantly, due to cost and non-representative access to molecular diagnostics, many pathogens under surveillance are characterized by their symptoms or syndromes, such as influenza-like illness. For emerging pathogens, event-based infectious disease surveillance may note an odd increase in some symptom or condition, notably as occurred with microcephaly and Zika,3,4 or pneumonia cases without a known cause as occurred with COVID-19.5 Event-based infectious disease surveillance requires a health system capable of observing an unexpected trend, a population with sufficient access to that health system, and a sufficiently large trend or cluster of odd cases to alert officials.
Environmental surveillance, on the other hand, is a broad category for systems that monitor the presence or absence of a pathogen in the environment. Their defining characteristic is the circumvention of human behavior and health systems, which reduces bias, while still providing information regarding risks to human health. For example, environmental surveillance may routinely test known vectors for pathogens,6 alerting the public to the detection of, or an increase in, the pathogen in the vector population.
Wastewater surveillance is a type of environmental surveillance that has historically been utilized to track water-borne or fecal-orally transmitted pathogens. The origins of wastewater surveillance hail back to the London cholera epidemic of the mid-1800’s, John Snow, and the Broad Street Pump, when a cesspool near a house with multiple cholera deaths was excavated and found to be leaking into the pump’s water supply.7 With the scientific evidence supporting germ theory, scientists began hunting sewage not only for cholera but also for other pathogens including salmonella typhi bacteria (typhoid),8,9 coxsackie viruses,10 and poliovirus.11 From the 1970’s onward, wastewater surveillance formed a critical component of the worldwide initiative to eradicate polio,12 and perhaps polio provides the best contrast between event-based and environmental surveillance systems. Whereas event-based polio surveillance relies on an unexpected increase in acute flaccid paralysis which occurs in only 0.5% of polio cases,13 wastewater surveillance can detect poliovirus circulating in a community before any paralysis occurs.14
The COVID-19 pandemic saw the broad adaptation of wastewater surveillance across the globe,15 as the limitations of event-based surveillance systems for an emerging pathogen were laid bare. Most interestingly, COVID-19 is a respiratory-transmitted pathogen, suggesting that a pathogen’s mode of transmission need not be fecal-oral or waterborne for wastewater surveillance to be useful. Could wastewater surveillance be a more widely applied tool, not only monitoring trends in waterborne or fecal-orally transmitted pathogens but also pathogens of pandemic potential and those causing the greatest burden of disease? SARS-CoV-2 is certainly the pathogen du jour, but as wastewater surveillance systems are erected should they also be incorporating other pathogens into their surveillance? Herein we present a systematic review of wastewater surveillance for infectious disease, reporting the documented successes of testing wastewater for infectious disease pathogens that circulate primarily in humans.
Methods
Systematic Literature Review
Following PRISMA guidelines16, we searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct and Google Scholar for studies looking at wastewater-based surveillance of infectious diseases (both viral and bacterial) in human populations and published before August 1st, 2020. For the databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, and Science Direct), search terms included Mesh headings, MeSH terms, and text words and synonyms, including “Wastewater”, “Waste water”, “Sewage”, “Sewer”, “Environmental”, “Surveillance”, “Disease”, “Feces”, “wastewater-based epidemiology”, “Environmental surveillance”, “Environmental Epidemiology “, “Wastewater Surveillance “, “Environmental Monitoring”, “Wastewater Monitoring”, “Virus”, “Bacteria”. These terms were combined using the boolean terms “AND” and “OR” when applicable. Similar terms were used but with filters on Google Scholar to limit the search to material of interest. The filters included the inclusion of the characters “doi” to look for a Digital Object Identifier to ensure that it was a published work, and the exclusion of the terms “systematic review”, “literature review”, “meta-analysis”, and “review” in the title. The boolean term “NOT” was used to aid in excluding these terms. All sources, databases and Google Scholar, were filtered to look for texts in the English language. The search string used for each individual database and Google Scholar, as well as the filters used, can be found in Appendix 1.
Once article lists were pulled from their respective sources, duplicates were removed, using Microsoft Excel’s built-in remove duplicated function, using both title and authors as the reference for removal. Reviewers (Pruthvi Kilaru and Dustin Hill) screened titles and abstracts for remaining articles, retrieved articles for full-text review, and assessed full-text articles based on eligibility criteria.
Eligibility Criteria
We included published studies which tested wastewater for communicable and/or infectious human diseases on more than one occasion and during two or more time periods. Non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes and obesity, were excluded. As we defined surveillance as having the requirement of testing over time, all articles which tested wastewater only once and/or on a single day were excluded. Articles which discussed diseases not related to humans or not in the context of humans (e.g. influenza virus in pigs), were also excluded. Peer-reviewed journal articles were included as long as they were not reviews, systematic reviews, literature reviews, or meta-analyses. Non-peer reviewed journal articles such as research notes, research letters, and short communications were excluded. Methods papers that looked purely at and compared different techniques of drawing and sampling wastewater were also excluded if they did not offer analysis of pathogens naturally present in the wastewater. This included studies that spike wastewater with a pathogen only to look at recovery in the context of comparing methods of sampling. Lastly, we excluded all papers which reported the surveillance of SARS-CoV0-2. This determination was made to support the utility of environmental surveillance outside of emergency/pandemic situations, to determine what and where disease surveillance has been conducted in the past, and to support expansion and extension of surveillance to other pathogens and regions.
Data Extraction
We initially extracted the following information from the articles meeting the eligibility criteria: period of sampling, country the sampling occurred in, pathogen(s)/disease(s) being monitored, number of samples pulled, amount of sample pulled, sample type (grab, composite, other), method of detection, overall findings, was genetic typing done, and did the researchers connect their findings to population health. The primary information of interest were the disease(s) being monitored, method of detection, and if the authors connected their findings to population health.
Role of the funding source
There was no funding source for this study.
Results
Literature searches initially identified 1005 entries (after removing duplicates), of which 159 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. After review of the articles, 100 scientific papers were included (Figure 1, Table 1).
Across the 100 included articles, studies were conducted in 38 countries with the most studies conducted in Italy (10 studies), China (8 studies), Japan (7 studies), Israel (7 studies), and Brazil (7 studies). These 5 countries accounted for 39% (39/100) of the studies conducted across all articles.
Within the included articles, the most prevalent pathogens found were viruses from the families Picornaviridae, Calciviridae, Adenoviridae, Reoviridae, and Hepeviridae (Figure 3). Of the most prevalent families, three of them are known to have pathogens contributing to diarrheal diseases (Picornaviridae, Caliciviridae, and Reoviridae) and make up 57.5% of the pathogens studied across all articles. Within the Piconaviridae family, the most prevalent genus studied was enteroviruses, with poliovirus being the most popular among that genus. Enteroviruses made up 32.5% (52 instances) of pathogens found in all of the articles. Additionally, there were 20 other families of pathogens that appeared between 1 - 9 times within our literature review, with a mean of 2.2 appearances and a median of 2 appearances each. Considering the global burden of disease (Figure 4), diarrheal diseases were the most represented among studies of wastewater surveillance, with other infectious diseases with a great burden not found in this systematic review. Infectious diseases of international concern were better represented, with only influenza and HIV/AIDS not represented among studies of wastewater surveillance (Figure 4).
A number of studies correlated the level of an infectious disease pathogen found in wastewater to relevant measures of transmission such as population-level incidence, without reporting if public health action or policy was influenced by wastewater surveillance or not. Studies have linked the level of norovirus in wastewater to incidence of gastroenteritis,17 levels of hepatitis E virus in wastewater to incidence of hepatitis E,18 and level of enteric viruses in wastewater to the incidence of acute diarrhea.19 Other studies compared population seroprevalence to the level of hepatitis A virus20 and hepatitis E virus21 found in wastewater. In comparison with the incidence of clinical cases, wastewater surveillance provided early warning of hepatitis A virus and norovirus outbreaks in Sweden.22 However, in the Netherlands wastewater surveillance did not serve well in an early warning capacity for a variety of enteroviruses.23 Wastewater surveillance correlated well with outbreaks of enterovirus,24 hepatitis A virus,25 and Salmonella enterica.26,27 In Russia, outbreaks of aseptic meningitis caused by echovirus type 6 correlated with levels in wastewater, but outbreaks of aseptic meningitis caused by echovirus type 30 did not.28 A few studies directly compared the sensitivity of surveillance for the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis (a type of non-specific clinical surveillance) to wastewater surveillance for poliovirus, finding that wastewater surveillance was more sensitive and combining the two systems was optimal.29–32 The most common type of comparison of wastewater surveillance with clinical cases linked the genetic diversity of bacteria or viral strains found in wastewater surveillance back to samples from clinical cases of meningitis, gastroenteritis, or diarrhea-related illness.33–53 These studies did not examine the use of wastewater surveillance to inform of outbreaks or correlate levels of the pathogens found in wastewater to trends in population-level incidence over time.
A handful of publications documented the utility of wastewater surveillance to assess the impact of public health interventions. Wastewater surveillance was able to confirm the cessation of the transmission of vaccine-derived poliovirus following a transition from oral poliovirus vaccine to inactivated poliovirus vaccine in numerous studies.54–57 Wastewater surveillance was also used to assess the impact of rotavirus vaccine deployment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.58
When considering the use of wastewater surveillance to inform public health action or policy, the most common reported application was to document the elimination of wildtype poliovirus transmission.59–65 In countries with circulation of wildtype poliovirus, wastewater surveillance has been used to guide vaccination efforts. In Nigeria, directed vaccine efforts based on results from wastewater surveillance interrupted polio transmission in numerous areas.66 In Mumbai, India, wastewater surveillance was used to alert importation of wild-type poliovirus and inform subsequent vaccine distributions.67 And in Israel, the importation of wildtype poliovirus was detected using wastewater surveillance which then led to an expansion of wastewater surveillance and vaccination campaigns to prevent re-establishment of poliovirus transmission.68 No articles were identified that documented the use of wastewater surveillance to inform public health action for any other pathogen than poliovirus.
The majority of articles reporting on wastewater surveillance included no comparison to other measures of transmission such as clinical cases of disease. Some articles assessed the presence of poliovirus,69–72 either wildtype or vaccine-derived, including potential neurovirulence of vaccine-derived poliovirus.73–75 Many articles documented the diversity of non-polio enteroviruses found in wastewater, 73,76–92 with a variety of focuses including rotavirus,93–97 norovirus,88,92,98–100 astrovirus,101,102 polyomavirus,103 Saffold virus,104 hepatitis A virus,85 hepatitis E virus,105 mastadenovirus,106 Aichi virus,107 and human bocavirus.107 Surveillance of Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium was also documented.108,109 Other studies examined the extent of antimicrobial resistance,110,111 or virulence genes,112 in Escherichia coli or Salmonella bacteria.
Discussion
We found that wastewater surveillance has been used extensively to guide public health policy and interventions to eliminate and eradicate poliovirus, but we found no reports of wastewater surveillance being used proactively for other pathogens. With the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater surveillance has been proactively used by a variety of organizations, including institutions of higher education,113 local health departments, and national governments. Linking wastewater surveillance to public health interventions, however, can be challenging. From our review, the most obvious link between wastewater surveillance and public health policy/intervention was the confirmation of the absence of transmission of polio, as well as early notification or confirmation of outbreaks. Linking wastewater surveillance to population-level incidence should also be straightforward, but we found relatively few studies doing so. There certainly is difficulty in obtaining incidence rates for a variety of pathogens, but this should not prevent scientists from comparing wastewater surveillance to syndromic surveillance, e.g. incidence of diarrhea, gastroenteritis, or pneumonia. Increased collaboration between epidemiologists, microbiologists, and environmental engineers is needed to maximize the knowledge gained from studies of wastewater surveillance.
As evidenced in this review, epidemiologists have typically thought of wastewater surveillance only as a tool to surveil pathogens that are either waterborne or fecal-orally transmitted. For example, a recent textbook highlights the potential for wastewater surveillance for waterborne pathogens, but completely ignores pathogens of other transmission types.114 This narrow focus overlooks the potential utility of wastewater surveillance for sexually-transmitted, respiratory-transmitted, and vector-borne diseases of pandemic potential.115,116 Indeed, only one of the six times that the World Health Organization has declared a public health emergency of international concern (a term conceptualized in 2005) has the pathogen been waterborne or fecal-orally transmitted (poliovirus compared to H1N1 influenza, ebola twice, Zika, and COVID-19).117 In addition, the only pandemics in the 20th century were caused by influenza and HIV/AIDS.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown wastewater surveillance to be an effective tool for a respiratory-transmitted pathogen.118 Given the low cost and population-level representation that a single wastewater sample provides, further research into the utility of wastewater surveillance for infectious diseases in general is needed. Among other pathogens that are not waterborne nor fecal-orally transmitted, we found reports of Zika and Ebola virus in wastewater, suggesting that they could be potential targets of continuous wastewater surveillance. Wastewater surveillance could be useful for other high-burden infectious diseases as well. Evidence from the 1990’s suggests HIV can be detected in wastewater,119 although this systematic review found no reports of surveilling HIV in wastewater. Tuberculosis can also be found in wastewater,120 even to the extent of endangering sewage workers.121 But again this systematic review found no reports of surveilling tuberculosis in wastewater. Bearing in mind that wastewater surveillance is useful for tracking antimicrobial resistance122 should wastewater be useful for surveilling tuberculosis, then it could potentially be used to surveil multi-drug resistant tuberculosis as well. Malaria can be easily diagnosed in human feces,123 which leaves us to speculate the possibility for finding and surveilling this pathogen in wastewater. Numerous groups are currently assessing the capacity to find influenza in wastewater, but H1N1 influenza was not found in the wastewater of the Netherlands during the 2009 pandemic.124
Wastewater surveillance should be considered a general tool for public health going forward. In order to maximize its utility, further understanding of what pathogens can and cannot be surveilled using wastewater is needed. A variety of factors affect the probability that a pathogen will be found in wastewater and then documented in the scientific literature.
Publication bias certainly plays a role, with numerous pathogens neglected in the scientific literature,125 as well as negative results not being published. Along these lines different types of studies are needed including studies of load shedding dynamics, pathogens’ persistence in wastewater, and the relationship between levels of a pathogen found in wastewater and other measures of transmission such as population-level incidence. Perhaps most important for public health, more studies are needed that assess the utility of wastewater surveillance to guide policy and public health intervention.
Data Availability
Data in the article is available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Contributors
Conceptualization: DAL
Data curation: PK
Formal analysis: N/A
Funding acquisition: N/A
Investigation: PK, DH
Methodology: KA, MBC, HG, BLK, DAL
Project administration: DAL
Resources: N/A
Software: N/A
Supervision: DAL, MBC
Validation: N/A
Visualization: PK, DH, MBC, DAL
Writing - original draft: PK, DAL
Writing - reviewing and editing: PK, DH, KA, MBC, HG, BLK, DAL
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Data sharing
No data were collected as part of this study.
Acknowledgements
None.