BACKGROUND:

Many countries have applied the wastewater surveillance of the COVID-19 pandemic to their national public health monitoring measures. The most used methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater are quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and reverse transcriptase-droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (RT-ddPCR). Previous comparison studies have produced conflicting results, thus more research on the subject is required.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aims to compare RT-qPCR and RT-ddPCR for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. It also aimed to investigate the effect of changes in the analytical pipeline, including the RNA extraction kit, RT-PCR kit, and target gene assay, on the results. Another aim was to find a detection method for low-resource settings.

METHODS:

We compared 2 RT-qPCR kits, TaqMan RT-qPCR and QuantiTect RT-qPCR, and RT-ddPCR based on sensitivity, positivity rates, variability, and correlation of SARS-CoV-2 gene copy numbers in wastewater to the incidence of COVID-19. Furthermore, we compared 2 RNA extraction methods, column- and magnetic-bead-based. In addition, we assessed 2 target gene assays for RT-qPCR, N1 and N2, and 2 target gene assays for ddPCR N1 and E. Reverse transcription strand invasion-based amplification (RT-SIBA) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 from wastewater qualitatively.

RESULTS:

Our results indicated that the most sensitive method to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater was RT-ddPCR. It had the highest positivity rate (26/30), and its limit of detection was the lowest (0.06 gene copies/µL). However, we obtained the best correlation between COVID-19 incidence and SARS-CoV-2 gene copy number in wastewater using TaqMan RT-qPCR (correlation coefficient [CC]=0.697, P<.001). We found a significant difference in sensitivity between the TaqMan RT-qPCR kit and the QuantiTect RT-qPCR kit, the first having a significantly lower limit of detection and a higher positivity rate than the latter. Furthermore, the N1 target gene assay was the most sensitive for both RT-qPCR kits, while no significant difference was found between the gene targets using RT-ddPCR. In addition, the use of different RNA extraction kits affected the result when the TaqMan RT-qPCR kit was used. RT-SIBA was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater.

CONCLUSIONS:

As our study, as well as most of the previous studies, has shown RT-ddPCR to be more sensitive than RT-qPCR, its use in the wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 should be considered, especially if the amount of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the population was low. All the analysis steps must be optimized for wastewater surveillance as our study showed that all the analysis steps including the compatibility of the RNA extraction, the RT-PCR kit, and the target gene assay influence the results. In addition, our study showed that RT-SIBA could be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater if a qualitative result is sufficient.