Comparison of five virus enrichment methods for drinking water
10.3760/cma.j.cn112866-20240730-00114
- VernacularTitle:生活饮用水中五种病毒富集方法的比较
- Author:
Mengdi TAN
1
;
Zhiyong GAO
;
Jiachen ZHAO
;
Hanqiu YAN
;
Weihong LI
;
Daitao ZHANG
;
Quanyi WANG
;
Weixian SHI
Author Information
1. 中国医科大学公共卫生学院，沈阳 110122
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Virus enrichment;
Ultrafiltration;
Aluminum salt precipitation;
PEG precipitation;
Anion membrane adsorption-elution method
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Virology
2025;39(1):102-108
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the enrichment effects of ultrafiltration, polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, aluminum salt precipitation, and anionic membrane adsorption-elution on viruses in drinking water.Methods:Using phage MS2 as the target virus, three different concentrations of drinking water samples were prepared, and the samples were enriched by ultrafiltration 1, ultrafiltration 2, PEG precipitation, aluminum salt precipitation, and anionic membrane adsorption-elution method, respectively. Real-time fluorescence quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) was used to quantify MS2 nucleic acid in pre and post concentrated samples and the recovery rates of MS2 in samples with high, medium and low concentrations were compared among the five methods.Results:Comparing the MS2 enrichment recovery rates of individual enrichment method in water samples of different concentrations, ultrafiltration method 1, PEG precipitation method, aluminum salt precipitation method, and membrane adsorption-elution method were not affected by the sample concentration, and the differences of the recovery rates for the three concentration water samples among the four methods were not statistically significant ( P>0.05). The MS2 enrichment recovery rates of the five enrichment methods were significantly different in all concentration samples ( P<0.05). The recovery rates of ultrafiltration method 1 were higher in all three concentration samples, followed by aluminum salt precipitation and anionic membrane adsorption-elution, PEG precipitation were higher in high concentration samples, but lower in low and medium concentration samples, and the recovery rates of ultrafiltration method 2 were the lowest in all three concentration samples. Comparing the Ct values of MS2 in the enriched samples by five methods, the Ct values of ultrafiltration method 1 were the smallest in the three concentration water samples. There was no statistically significant difference in MS2 Ct values among the five enrichment methods in the medium and high concentration water samples ( P>0.05). In low concentration simulated water samples, only the difference of MS2 Ct value between ultrafiltration method 1 and ultrafiltration method 2 was statistically significant ( Z=16.000, P=0.016). Conclusions:Considering the operation simplicity, operation time and virus recovery rate after enrichment, ultrafiltration was the most effective method for virus enrichment in drinking water.
