Table 6.
Quantification of the RT-qPCR results in the available studies.
| Reference The papers marked with an asterisk (*) were not certified by peer review (preprints) |
Location | Quantification of targets (yes/no) | Units of reporting | Positive sample Ct values and quantification results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [34] | Australia | Yes | Ct values | 37.5 Ct = 12 copies/100 mL of WW 39 Ct = 1.9 copies/100 mL of WW (1 sample positive for N_Sarbeco and 1 positive for NIID_2019-nCOV_N) |
| [35] | Australia | Yes | Copies/MHV recovered | Recovery efficiency: Method C > Method B > Method D > Method F > Method G > Method E > Method A |
| [4] | Australia | Yes | Ct values Copies/100 mL | 4/5 aircraft samples positive for N or E target Both concentration methods recovered SARS-CoV-2 RNA from aircraft wastewater (N_Sarbeco and E_Sarbeco) Cq values of positive samples: 36-39 CDC N1, N2 and NIID_2019-nCoV N assays did not provide any positive results 7/21 cruise ship samples were positive for all assays 14/21 samples were positive for at least one assay |
| [7]* | Brazil | No | Ct values Genome copies/L |
1 log increase observed from November 2020 to March 2020 5.49 log10 genome copies/L (November 2019) to 6.68 log10 genome copies/L (March 2020) |
| [25]* | France | Yes | Ct values RNA copies/100 mL |
No direct temporal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 detection and epidemiological features of COVID-19 |
| [6]* | France | Yes | Genome units/L | 5.4 × 104 – 3 × 106 genome units/L |
| [32]* | India | Yes | Ct values Copies/L |
27.92-29.52 Ct 2.42 × 108 copies/L |
| [27]* | Israel | No | Ct values | 32.76-38.5 Ct |
| [22] | Italy | No | Ct values | 4/8 days positive signals in plant A 4/8 days positive signals in plant B 2/8 days positive signals in plant C1 2/8 days positive signals in plant C2 |
| [24]* | Italy | Yes | Genomic copies/μL | 15/40 samples positive signals LOD to 5.9 × 103 genomic copies/L to 5.6 × 104 genomic copies/L |
| [9]* | Italy | No | Ct values | ORF1ab, N and E positive signal in raw influent No positive signal in treated wastewater |
| [33]* | Japan | Yes | Copies/L | 1/5 secondary treated WW were positive 0/5 influent samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 |
| [26] | Spain | Yes | Ct values Genomic copies/L |
35/42 influent positive samples for at least one gene target 2/18 secondary treated positive samples for at least one gene target Concentration: 5.1-5.5 log10 genomic copies/L |
| [21]*, [38] | The Netherlands | Yes (N1-N3) No (E) |
Ct values Gene copies/mL |
Concentration of N1, N2 and N3: 1.2 × 101 genome copies/mL E: 18/29 UWTPs positive signals |
| [28]* | Turkey | Yes | Ct values Copies/L |
34.67-39.54 Ct 3.11 × 102 – 7.78 × 103 copies/L |
| [29]* | USA | Yes | Copies/mL | 18/22 positive samples 42.7 ± 32.9-112.35 ± 8.01 genomes/mL |
| [30] | USA | Yes | Ct values Copies/L |
Positive samples during April (Method A) 2.5-3.2 log10 copies/L |
| [31]* | USA | No | Ct values | 33.87-38.39 Ct (southern-filtrate and northern-unfiltered samples positive for N1, N2 and N3, and N1 and N3 respectively) |
| [8]* | USA | Yes | Viral genomes/L | Not provided |