Concentration of Virus Particles from Environmental Water and Wastewater Samples Using Skimmed Milk Flocculation and Ultrafiltration

Summary

Virus concentration from environmental water and wastewater samples is a challenging task, carried out primarily for the identification and quantification of viruses. While several virus concentration methods have been developed and tested, we demonstrate here the effectiveness of ultrafiltration and skimmed milk flocculation for RNA viruses with different sample types.

Abstract

Water and wastewater-based epidemiology have emerged as alternative methods to monitor and predict the course of outbreaks in communities. The recovery of microbial fractions, including viruses, bacteria, and microeukaryotes from wastewater and environmental water samples is one of the challenging steps in these approaches. In this study, we focused on the recovery efficiency of sequential ultrafiltration and skimmed milk flocculation (SMF) methods using Armored RNA as a test virus, which is also used as a control by some other studies. Prefiltration with 0.45 µm and 0.2 µm membrane disc filters were applied to eliminate solid particles before ultrafiltration to prevent the clogging of ultrafiltration devices. Test samples, processed with the sequential ultrafiltration method, were centrifuged at two different speeds. An increased speed resulted in lower recovery and positivity rates of Armored RNA. On the other hand, SMF resulted in relatively consistent recovery and positivity rates of Armored RNA. Additional tests conducted with environmental water samples demonstrated the utility of SMF to concentrate other microbial fractions. The partitioning of viruses into solid particles might have an impact on the overall recovery rates, considering the prefiltration step applied before the ultrafiltration of wastewater samples. SMF with prefiltration performed better when applied to environmental water samples due to lower solid concentrations in the samples and thus lower partitioning rates to solids. In the present study, the idea of using a sequential ultrafiltration method arose from the necessity to decrease the final volume of the viral concentrates during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the supply of the commonly used ultrafiltration devices was limited, and there was a need for the development of alternative viral concentration methods.

Introduction

Determining the effective concentration of microorganisms in surface and wastewater samples for microbial community analysis and epidemiology studies, is one of the important steps for monitoring and predicting the course of outbreaks in communities^1,2. The COVID-19 pandemic, unfolded the importance of improving concentration methods. COVID-19 emerged in late 2019 and, as of March 2023, still poses a threat to human health, social life, and the economy. Effective surveillance and control strategies to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19 outbreaks in communities have become an important research topic, as new waves and variants of COVID-19 have been emerging in addition to the rapid transmission and spread of the virus, as well as unreported and undiagnosed asymptomatic cases^3,4,5. The use of wastewater-based epidemiology for COVID-19 by civil society organizations, government agencies, and public or private utilities has been helpful in providing rapid outbreak-related information and mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 outbreaks^6,7,8,9. However, the concentration of SARS-CoV-2, an enveloped RNA virus, in wastewater samples still poses challenges¹⁰. For example, one of these challenges is the partitioning of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater solids, which may impact recovery when the solids are eliminated during concentration¹¹. If this is the case, the focus of quantification/assessment should be on both solid and aqueous phases of environmental water samples, rather than the aqueous phase only. Furthermore, the choice of concentration method can be modified based on downstream tests and analyses. The concentration of virus particles and pathogens from environmental samples has become an urgent research topic with developments in sequencing and microbiome fields.

Various virus concentration methods have been applied in the field of virus concentration from environmental water and wastewater samples. Some commonly used methods are filtration, skimmed milk flocculation (SMF), adsorption/elution, and polyethylene glycol precipitation^12–17. Among them, SMF has been considered a cheap and effective method, successfully tested, and applied for recovering viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, from wastewater and surface waters^12,15,16,18. The SMF procedure is a relatively new approach that has gained increased recognition among many environmental studies as an appropriate methodology to simultaneously recover a broad array of microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, and protozoans from all types of water samples, namely sludge, raw sewage, wastewater, and effluent samples¹⁹. When compared to other known methodologies to recover viruses from environmental samples such as ultrafiltration and glycine-alkaline elution, lyophilization-based approach, or ultracentrifugation and glycine-alkaline elution, SMF has been reported as the most efficient method with higher viral recovery and detection rates^18,20. In the present study, we used Armored RNA as a test virus to assess the recovery efficiency of virus concentration methods, including tests for assessing SARS-CoV-2 recovery^21,22.

Here, we tested wastewater and environmental water samples to demonstrate the utility of SMF and a sequential ultrafiltration method to concentrate microbial fractions for quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), sequence-based metagenomics, and deep-amplicon sequencing. SMF is a relatively cheaper method and optimal for a larger volume of samples compared to ultrafiltration methods. The idea of using a sequential ultrafiltration method arose from the necessity to decrease the final volume of the viral concentrates during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the supply of the commonly used ultrafiltration devices was limited, and there was a need for the development of alternative viral concentration methods.

Protocol

1. Comparison of serial ultrafiltration and skimmed milk flocculation to concentrate viruses in wastewater samples Sample preparation Collect 2 L of 24 h flow-proportional composite raw (influent) wastewater samples. Samples were collected from the three major wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Winnipeg, Canada, during the summer and fall of 2020 (Table 1). Transport the samples to the laboratory in light-proof bottles in an icebox and process them …

Representative Results

Evaluation of viral RNA concentration methods All six samples processed with UF-3k x g were positive and resulted in a 13.38% ± 8.14% recovery (Figure 1). Only one sample was positive when the samples were processed with UF-7.5k x g. All samples processed with SMF were positive and resulted in a 15.27% ± 2.65% recovery (Figure 1). The average recovery rates of UF-3K x g and SMF were significantly and co…

Discussion

One of the critical steps in this study is the elimination of solid particles by applying a prefiltration step with 0.2 µm and 0.45 µm membrane filters. Considering the partitioning of viruses into solid particles, especially enveloped viruses, prefiltration can cause a significant loss in viral recovery³⁰. While a prefiltration step for ultrafiltration methods is almost always necessary for environmental and wastewater samples to prevent ultrafiltration devices from clogging, prefiltrat…

Materials

0.2 M sodium phosphate buffer with a pH 7.5	Alfa Aesar	J62041AP	Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA
0.2 μm 47-mm Supor-200 membrane disc filters	VWR	66234	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
0.45 μm 47-mm Supor-200 membrane disc filters	VWR	60043	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
4X TaqMan Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix	Thermo Fisher Scientific	4444432	Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA
Armored RNA Quant IPC-1 Processing Control	Asuragen	49650	Asuragen, Austin, TX, USA
Brand A, Jumbosep Centrifugal Device, 30-kDa	Pall	OD030C65	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
Brand B, Microsep Advance Centrifugal Device, 30-kDa	Pall	MCP010C46	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
Centrifuge tubes (50 ml)	Nalgene	3119-0050PK	Thermo Fisher Scientific
DNAse I	Invitrogen	18047019	Thermo Fisher Scientific
Dyna Mag-2	Invitrogen	12027	Thermo Fisher Scientific
GWV High Capacity Groundwater Sampling Capsules – 0.45 µm	Pall	12179	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
Hydrochloric acid, 1N standard solution	Thermo Fisher Scientific	AC124210025	Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA
MagMAX Microbiome Ultra Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit	Applied biosystems	A42358	Thermo Fisher Scientific
Nuclease free water	Promega	P1197	Promega Corporation, Fitchburg, WI, USA
Peristaltic pump	Masterflex, Cole-Parmer instrument	7553-20	Thermo Fisher Scientific
pH meter	Denver instrument	RK-59503-25	Cole-Parmer. This product has been discontinued
Phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol 25:24:1	Invitrogen	15593031	Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA
Primers and probe sets	IDT		Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, IA, USA
Qiagen All-prep DNA/RNA power microbiome kit	Qiagen		Qiagen Sciences, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA
QuantStudio 5 Real-Time PCR System	Thermo Fisher Scientific	A34322	Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA
Qubit 1X dsDNA High Sensitivity (HS) assay kit	Invitrogen	Q33231	Thermo Fisher Scientific
Qubit 4 Fluorometer, with WiFi	Invitrogen	Q33238	Thermo Fisher Scientific
Qubit RNA High Sensitivity (HS) assay kit	Invitrogen	Q32855	Thermo Fisher Scientific
RNAse A	Invitrogen	EN0531	Thermo Fisher Scientific
RNeasy PowerMicrobiome Kit	Qiagen	26000-50	Qiagen Sciences, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA
Skim milk powder	Difco (BD Life Sciences)	DF0032173	Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA
Sodium phosphate buffer	Alfa Aesar		Alfa Aesar, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Synthetic seawater	VWR	RC8363-1	RICCA chemical company
Synthetic single-stranded DNA gBlock	IDT		Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc., Coralville, IA, USA
VacuCap 90 Vacuum Filtration Devices – 0.1 µm, 90 mm, gamma-irradiated	Pall	4621	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
VacuCap 90 Vacuum Filtration Devices – 0.2 µm, 90 mm, gamma-irradiated	Pall	4622	Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI
β-mercaptoethanol	Gibco	21985023	Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA