First comparison of conventional activated sludge versus root-zone treatment for SARS-CoV-2 RNA removal from wastewaters: Statistical and temporal significance.
First comparison of conventional activated sludge versus root-zone treatment for SARS-CoV-2 RNA removal from wastewaters: Statistical and temporal significance.
复制标题
传统活性污泥与根区处理从废水中去除 SARS-CoV-2 RNA 的首次比较：统计和时间意义。
DOI：
10.1016/j.cej.2021.130635
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Barcelo D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kumar M;Kuroda K;Joshi M;Bhattacharya P;Barcelo D
据报道，在大流行初期，废水处理设施的废水大多不含严重急性呼吸道冠状病毒 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA，因此传统的废水处理通常被认为是有效的。然而，缺乏以下方面的第一手数据：i) 各种处理工艺去除 SARS-CoV-2 RNA 的效果比较； ii) 在活跃的 COVID-19 病例背景下，给定治疗过程的去除效果随时间变化。这项工作基于为期两个月的每周废水监测数据（由 44 个样本组成），对传统活性污泥 (CAS) 和根区处理 (RZT) 的去除效果进行了比较。位于 Sargasan 区的基于 CAS 的废水处理厂 (WWTP) 入口处的平均基因组浓度（1.25 × 103 拷贝/升）高于印度古吉拉特邦甘地讷格尔学术机构园区基于 RZT 的污水处理厂 (WWTP) 的平均基因组浓度（7.07 × 102 拷贝/升）。 ORF 1ab 和 S 基因似乎对治疗更敏感，即比 N 基因 (p > 0.05) 显着减少 (p < 0.05)。 CAS 处理表现出比 RZT (p = 0.032) 更好的 RNA 去除效果 (p = 0.014)。多变量分析表明，有效基因组浓度应根据多个基因的存在/不存在来计算。本研究强调，处理后的污水并不总是不含 SARS-CoV-2 RNA，并且由于附近活跃的 COVID-19 病例的变化以及遗传物质随时间的积累，给定污水处理厂的去除效果很容易表现出时间变异性。对于去除 SARS-CoV-2，消毒似乎不如吸附和凝固过程有效。结果强调需要进一步研究通过考虑固液分配的各种处理过程去除 SARS-CoV-2 的机制。
In the initial pandemic phase, effluents from wastewater treatment facilities were reported mostly free from Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA, and thus conventional wastewater treatments were generally considered effective. However, there is a lack of first-hand data on i) comparative efficacy of various treatment processes for SARS-CoV-2 RNA removal; and ii) temporal variations in the removal efficacy of a given treatment process in the backdrop of active COVID-19 cases. This work provides a comparative account of the removal efficacy of conventional activated sludge (CAS) and root zone treatments (RZT) based on weekly wastewater surveillance data, consisting of forty-four samples, during a two-month period. The average genome concentration was higher in the inlets of CAS-based wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the Sargasan ward (1.25 × 103 copies/ L), than that of RZT-based WWTP (7.07 × 102 copies/ L) in an academic institution campus of Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. ORF 1ab and S genes appeared to be more sensitive to treatment i.e., significantly reduced (p < 0.05) than N genes (p > 0.05). CAS treatment exhibited better RNA removal efficacy (p = 0.014) than RZT (p = 0.032). Multivariate analyses suggested that the effective genome concentration should be calculated based on the presence/absence of multiple genes. The present study stresses that treated effluents are not always free from SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and the removal efficacy of a given WWTP is prone to exhibit temporal variability owing to variations in active COVID-19 cases in the vicinity and genetic material accumulation over the time. Disinfection seems less effective than the adsorption and coagulation processes for SARS-CoV-2 removal. Results stress the need for further research on mechanistic insight on SARS-CoV-2 removal through various treatment processes taking solid–liquid partitioning into account.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
11.4
作者：
Borchardt, Mark A.;Bradbury, Kenneth R.;Parker, Beth L.
通讯作者：
Parker, Beth L.
DOI：
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143578
发表时间：
2021-03-01
期刊：
The Science of the total environment
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hata A;Hara-Yamamura H;Meuchi Y;Imai S;Honda R
通讯作者：
Honda R
影响因子：
8.3
作者：
Kumar M;Joshi M;Patel AK;Joshi CG
通讯作者：
Joshi CG
DOI：
10.1093/infdis/jiu384
发表时间：
2014-11-01
期刊：
The Journal of infectious diseases
影响因子：
--
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
11.4
作者：
Kumar, Manish;Kuroda, Keisuke;Kitajima, Masaaki
通讯作者：
Kitajima, Masaaki