PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Pecson, Brian M. AU - Darby, Emily AU - Haas, Charles N. AU - Amha, Yamrot AU - Bartolo, Mitchel AU - Danielson, Richard AU - Dearborn, Yeggie AU - Di Giovanni, George AU - Ferguson, Christobel AU - Fevig, Stephanie AU - Gaddis, Erica AU - Gray, Don AU - Lukasik, George AU - Mull, Bonnie AU - Olivas, Liana AU - Olivieri, Adam AU - Qu, Yan AU - , TI - Reproducibility and sensitivity of 36 methods to quantify the SARS-CoV-2 genetic signal in raw wastewater: findings from an interlaboratory methods evaluation in the U.S. AID - 10.1101/2020.11.02.20221622 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.11.02.20221622 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/04/2020.11.02.20221622.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/04/2020.11.02.20221622.full AB - In response to COVID-19, the international water community rapidly developed methods to quantify the SARS-CoV-2 genetic signal in untreated wastewater. Wastewater surveillance using such methods has the potential to complement clinical testing in assessing community health. This interlaboratory assessment evaluated the reproducibility and sensitivity of 36 standard operating procedures (SOPs), divided into eight method groups based on sample concentration approach and whether solids were removed. Two raw wastewater samples were collected in August 2020, amended with a matrix spike (betacoronavirus OC43), and distributed to 32 laboratories across the U.S. Replicate samples analyzed in accordance with the project’s quality assurance plan showed high reproducibility across the 36 SOPs: 80% of the recovery-corrected results fell within a band of +/- 1.15-log10 genome copies/L with higher reproducibility observed within a single SOP (standard deviation of 0.13-log10). The inclusion of a solids removal step and the selection of a concentration method did not show a clear, systematic impact on the recovery-corrected results. Other methodological variations (e.g., pasteurization, primer set selection, and use of RT-qPCR or RT-dPCR platforms) generally resulted in small differences compared to other sources of variability. These findings suggest that a variety of methods are capable of producing reproducible results, though the same SOP or laboratory should be selected to track SARS-CoV-2 trends at a given facility. The methods showed a 7-log10 range of recovery efficiency and limit of detection highlighting the importance of recovery correction and the need to consider method sensitivity when selecting methods for wastewater surveillance.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors would like to thank The Water Research Foundation (project No. 5089) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for funding this research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:There was no IRB/oversight bodyAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials