Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 15;754:142329. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142329

Table 3.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 RNA abundance during various wastewater treatment processes.

Country City Evaluated wastewater treatment methods and wastewater type Virus concentration method RT-(q)PCR target region Before treatment (gc/L) After treatment (gc/L) Log reduction References
India Ahmedabad UASB PEG precipitation of centrifugated supernatant ORF1ab
N gene
S gene
3.5 × 103 <LOQ >1.3 Present study
Aeration pond ORF1ab 1.5 × 102
(<LOQ)
Not detected Present study
France Paris Municipal wastewater treatment (treatment methods not provided) Ultracentrifugation E gene 1 × 103–1 × 105 <10 × 103 2 Wurtzer et al., 2020b
China Septic tank treatment (details not provided) of hospital effluent PEG precipitation of centrifugated supernatant ORF1
N gene
Not detected 0.05–1.87 × 103 Zhang et al., 2020
Spain Murcia Secondary treatment (activated sludge/A2O/extended aeration), disinfection, NaClO/UV for municipal sewage treatment Aluminium flocculation – beef extract precipitation N gene N1: 1.4 × 103
N2: 3.4 × 103
N3: 3.1 × 103
(Averaged values)
<2.5 × 103 N1: >0.6
N2: >0.1
N3: >0.8
Randazzo et al., 2020b
Ourense Primary settler, secondary treatment of municipal sewage Amicon ultrafiltration of centrifugated supernatant N gene
E gene
RdRp gene
7.5 × 103–1.5 × 104 Not detected Balboa et al., 2020
Valencia Municipal wastewater treatment (treatment methods not provided) Aluminium flocculation – beef extract precipitation N gene N1: 1.0 × 103–1 × 104

(Averaged values)
Not detected Randazzo et al., 2020a medrxiv