| Literature DB >> 35886204 |
Mayerlin Sandoval Herazo1,2, Graciela Nani1,2, Florentina Zurita3, Carlos Nakase4, Sergio Zamora5, Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo2, Erick Arturo Betanzo-Torres6.
Abstract
The appearance of SARS-CoV-2 represented a new health threat to humanity and affected millions of people; the transmission of this virus occurs through different routes, and one of them recently under debate in the international community is its possible incorporation and spread by sewage. Therefore, the present work's research objectives are to review the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater throughout the world and to analyze the coverage of wastewater treatment in Mexico to determine if there is a correlation between the positive cases of COVID-19 and the percentages of treated wastewater in Mexico as well as to investigate the evidence of possible transmission by aerosol sand untreated wastewater. Methodologically, a quick search of scientific literature was performed to identify evidence the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (ribonucleic acid) in wastewater in four international databases. The statistical information of the positive cases of COVID-19 was obtained from data from the Health Secretary of the Mexican Government and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The information from the wastewater treatment plants in Mexico was obtained from official information of the National Water Commission of Mexico. The results showed sufficient evidence that SARS-CoV-2 remains alive in municipal wastewater in Mexico. Our analysis indicates that there is a low but significant correlation between the percentage of treated water and positive cases of coronavirus r = -0.385, with IC (95%) = (-0.647, -0.042) and p = 0.030; this result should be taken with caution because wastewater is not a transmission mechanism, but this finding is useful to highlight the need to increase the percentage of treated wastewater and to do it efficiently. In conclusions, the virus is present in untreated wastewater, and the early detection of SAR-CoV-2 could serve as a bioindicator method of the presence of the virus. This could be of great help to establish surveillance measures by zones to take preventive actions, which to date have not been considered by the Mexican health authorities. Unfortunately, wastewater treatment systems in Mexico are very fragile, and coverage is limited to urban areas and non-existent in rural areas. Furthermore, although the probability of contagion is relatively low, it can be a risk for wastewater treatment plant workers and people who are close to them.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; epidemiology of wastewater; municipal wastewater; risks of transmission; virus transmission
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886204 PMCID: PMC9324675 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Flowchart of the methodology used in the research.
Studies carried out in 14 countries and show that the virus is incorporated into wastewater.
| Economic Status | Country | Type of Water | Technique | >SARS-CoV-2 Concentration | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developed | Netherlands | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 26–1800 gc/mL. | [ |
| Germany | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 30.0 and 20.0 gc/mL inflow. | [ | |
| United States of America | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 57 to 303 gc/mL. | [ | |
| Australia | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 1.9 to 12 gc/100 mL. | [ | |
| France | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 106 eq/L gc/L. | [ | |
| United Arab Emirates | Wastewater | RT-qPCR | Wastewater influents: 7.50 × 102 and 3.40 × 104 cg/L, | [ | |
| China | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | (14.7 ± 2.2) × 103 and (7.5 ± 2.8) × 103 gc/L in the effluents. | [ | |
| Japanese | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | Influent (4.0 × 103–8.2 × 104 cg/L), | [ | |
| Japanese | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 1.2 × 103–4.4 × 103 gc/L. | [ | |
| United States America | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 3.0 × 104 gc/L. | [ | |
| Emerging | Spain | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | Of 5.22 and 5.99 log10 gc/L. | [ |
| Spain | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 5.4 ± 0.2 log10 gc/L on average. | [ | |
| Spain | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 9 gc/mL rising to more than 20 gc/mL. | [ | |
| Israel | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | Ct of 33 to 33.6. | [ | |
| Italy | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 50% of the samples showed positive. | [ | |
| Underdeveloped | Mexico | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | From 0.12 to 4 and 0.37–73 gc/mL. | [ |
| Turkey | Untreated wastewater | RT-qPCR | 1.17 × 104 y 4.02 × 104 gc/L. | [ | |
| Ecuador | Urban streams with low sanitation | RT-qPCR | 2.84 × 105 to 3.19 × 106 and 2.07 × 105 to 2.23 × 106 gc/L. | [ | |
| Ecuador | Lagoon systems | PCR | In GEN N1 36.44, GEN N2 38.99; GEN N1 36.80 GEN N2 38.72. | [ |
Countries where evidence of SARS-CoV-2 was found in wastewater and confirmed cases of COVID-19 and world ranking.
| Economic Status | Confirmed Cases | World Ranking | Country | Cases Number/100,000 Inhabitants’ Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developed | 8,118,400 | 15 | Netherlands | 10,754 |
| 27,124,689 | 5 * | Germany | 4542 | |
| 85,007,630 | 1 * | United States of America | 10,577 | |
| 7,719,719 | 16 | Australia | 137 | |
| 29,114,200 | 4 * | France | 9286 | |
| 921,566 | 52 | United Arab Emirates | 6931 | |
| 4,127,625 | 29 | China | 8 | |
| 9,108,323 | 14 | Japan | 756 | |
| 12,551,142 | 11 | Spain | 9556 | |
| Emerging | 4,216,009 | 27 | Israel | 10,224 |
| 17,773,764 | 9 * | Italy | 7316 | |
| 5,843,190 | 21 | Mexico | 2219 | |
| Underdeveloped | 15,085,742 | 10 * | Turkey | 6872 |
| 891,064 | 56 | Ecuador | 2764 |
Elaborated with data from World Health Organization [9], as of 17 June 2022. * Top ten ranked worldwide.
Figure 2Treated municipal wastewater flow rate by 32 states in Mexico based on CONAGUA data [8] and the National inventory of municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment plants in operation [70].
Shows the data on the positive cases of COVID-19 in Mexico and the information on the existing treatment plants with the relevant data on their operation.
| No. | States | Accumulated Positive Cases | Estimated Assets | No. Plants | Installed Capacity (L−1/s) | Treated Flow (L−1/s) (b) | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ciudad de México | 621,287 | 9156 | 29 | 5604.50 | 2451.50 | 43.74 |
| 2 | Estado de México | 237,961 | 2526 | 131 | 9744.70 | 6400.10 | 65.68 |
| 3 | Guanajuato | 129,001 | 774 | 64 | 7560.80 | 5221.20 | 69.06 |
| 4 | Nuevo León | 120,840 | 721 | 55 | 16,157.00 | 12,590.40 | 77.93 |
| 5 | Jalisco | 83,685 | 660 | 122 | 15,245.20 | 12,346.20 | 80.98 |
| 6 | Puebla | 80,504 | 974 | 85 | 3516.90 | 3592.50 | 102.15 |
| 7 | Sonora | 71,456 | 540 | 109 | 7394.10 | 6115.90 | 82.71 |
| 8 | Coahuila | 67,231 | 253 | 26 | 5680.00 | 4516.00 | 79.51 |
| 9 | Queretaro | 66,253 | 1072 | 51 | 2449.40 | 1892.40 | 77.26 |
| 10 | Tabasco | 62,195 | 885 | 99 | 2969.90 | 2665.00 | 89.73 |
| 11 | San Luis Potosi | 61,150 | 572 | 40 | 2572.70 | 2101.00 | 81.67 |
| 12 | Veracruz | 58,559 | 391 | 108 | 7014.80 | 4711.90 | 67.17 |
| 13 | Tamaulipas | 55,239 | 352 | 47 | 7369.20 | 4096.40 | 55.59 |
| 14 | Chihuahua | 48,596 | 1099 | 185 | 10,263.10 | 7031.70 | 68.51 |
| 15 | Baja California | 46,969 | 280 | Four. Five | 7882.60 | 5977.80 | 75.84 |
| 16 | Michoacan | 45,936 | 410 | 46 | 4145.50 | 3175.40 | 76.6 |
| 17 | Oaxaca | 44,639 | 373 | 76 | 1817.60 | 1291.20 | 71.04 |
| 18 | Guerrero | 38,373 | 500 | 67 | 4428.30 | 3755.50 | 84.81 |
| 19 | Hidalgo | 37,259 | 409 | 56 | 23,826.80 | 22,133.90 | 92.89 |
| 22 | Sinaloa | 36,821 | 406 | 279 | 6496.70 | 5837.20 | 89.85 |
| 21 | Yucatan | 35,856 | 576 | 28 | 448.70 | 231.50 | 51.59 |
| 22 | Durango | 32,765 | 355 | 220 | 4638.70 | 3496.10 | 75.37 |
| 23 | Morelos | 30,996 | 459 | 52 | 2769.70 | 1276.40 | 46.08 |
| 24 | Zacatecas | 29,300 | 252 | 65 | 2012.40 | 1616.00 | 80.3 |
| 25 | Baja California Sur | 29,081 | 616 | 31 | 2051.30 | 1626.50 | 79.29 |
| 26 | Aguascalientes | 25,341 | 273 | 135 | 4840.00 | 2982.70 | 61.63 |
| 27 | Quintana Roo | 21,783 | 405 | 31 | 2685.00 | 1780.20 | 66.3 |
| 28 | Tlaxcala | 18,954 | 197 | 55 | 1481.80 | 1049.60 | 70.83 |
| 29 | Nayarit | 114,283 | 137 | 70 | 3493.80 | 2510.30 | 71.85 |
| 30 | Colima | 7601 | 102 | 82 | 2434.90 | 1739.80 | 71.45 |
| 31 | Chiapas | 6574 | 99 | 3. 4 | 2001.20 | 1343.60 | 67.14 |
| 32 | Campeche | 6016 | 67 | 17 | 155.00 | 142.80 | 92.13 |
| 2,372,504 | 25,891 | 2540 | 181,152 | 137,699 |
Source: Official figures from the Ministry of Health of 11 April 2021 [11] and National inventory of municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment plants in operation [69].
Figure 3Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test chart.
Figure 4Correlation results between positive cases of COVID-19 and percentage of treated wastewater in Mexico, a significant negative correlation (r = −0.385) was found between both variables (p = 0.030).
Figure 5(a) Graphic correlation between positive cases of COVID-19 and percentage of treated wastewater in Mexico. (b) Grubbs test to determine outliers of positive cases of COVID-19 and percentage of treated wastewater in Mexico.
Figure 6Diagram of relationships within the results of the investigation.