↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Concentration Methods for Quantitative Detection of Sewage-Associated Viral Markers in Environmental Waters

Overview of attention for article published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Concentration Methods for Quantitative Detection of Sewage-Associated Viral Markers in Environmental Waters
Published in
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2015
DOI 10.1128/aem.03851-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

W Ahmed, V J Harwood, P Gyawali, J P S Sidhu, S Toze

Abstract

Pathogenic human viruses cause over half of gastroenteritis cases associated with recreational water use worldwide. They are relatively difficult to concentrate from environmental waters due to typically low concentrations and their small size. Although rapid enumeration of viruses by quantitative PCR (qPCR) has the potential to greatly improve water quality analysis and risk assessment, the upstream steps of capturing and recovering viruses from environmental water sources along with removing PCR inhibitors from extracted nucleic acids remain formidable barriers to routine use. Here, we compared the efficiency of virus recovery for three rapid methods of concentrating two microbial source tracking (MST) viral markers human adenoviruses (HAdVs) and polyomaviruses (HPyVs) from one liter tap water and river water samples on HA membranes (90 mm diameter). Samples were spiked with raw sewage, and viral adsorption to membranes was promoted by acidification (Method A) or addition of MgCl2 (Methods B and C). Viral nucleic acid was extracted directly from membranes (Method A), or viruses were eluted with NaOH and concentrated by centrifugal ultrafiltration (Methods B and C). No inhibition of qPCR was observed for samples processed by Method A, but inhibition occurred in river samples processed by B and C. Recovery efficiencies of HAdVs and HPyVs were approximately ten-fold greater for Method A (31-78%) than B and C (2.4-12%). Further analysis of membranes from Method B revealed that the majority of viruses were not eluted from the membrane, resulting in poor recovery. The modification of the originally published Method A to include a larger diameter membrane and a nucleic acid extraction kit that could accommodate the membrane resulted in a rapid virus concentration method with good recovery and lack of inhibitory compounds. The frequently-used strategy of viral absorption with added cations (Mg(2+)) and elution with acid were inefficient and more prone to inhibition, and will result in underestimation of the prevalence and concentrations of HAdVs and HPyVs markers in environmental waters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 231 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 22%
Researcher 41 17%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 51 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 36 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 14%
Engineering 25 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 6%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 76 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,661,312
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
#3,853
of 19,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,367
of 362,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
#25
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.