Methods for Virus Recovery in Water

Gibson, Kristen E.; Borchardt, Mark A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30723-7_10

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 24 , 34 In UF concentration method, the sample is separated based on the size exclusion, i.e., the virion larger than membrane pore size was retained, and the smaller particles and PWW are filtered. 35 , 36 According to previous studies, 10 and 30 kDa have been more frequently used to recover enveloped and non-enveloped viruses. 24 , 32 , 37 The type of membrane used in this study was polyether sulphone (PES) with a 10 kDa molecular weight cutoff (MWCO).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination of paper membrane-based filtration and ultrafiltration to enhance the detection of MNV, HAV, and HCoV from soil-rich post-washing water

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination of paper membrane-based filtration and ultrafiltration to enhance the detection of MNV, HAV, and HCoV from soil-rich post-washing water

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Equation (11) assumes that virus adsorption onto the membrane is not limited by the membrane's capacity for virus uptake. Substituting Equation (2) and Equation (11) into Equation ( 10) and recalling that…”

Section: Model For Instantaneous Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concentration and recovery of viruses from large water samples to volumes amenable to rapid assays is a critical first step in virus quantification. [1][2][3][4] Adsorptive losses of viruses during the sample concentration stage result in virus recoveries that are unacceptably low, poorly reproducible, or both. These problems often prohibit definitive association of waterborne viruses with specific disease outbreaks and hinder efforts in emerging fields such as wastewater epidemiology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virus recovery by tangential flow filtration: A model to guide the design of a sample concentration process

Lasareishvili

Shi

Wang

et al. 2020

Biotechnology Progress

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A simple model is developed to describe the instantaneous (r v) and cumulative (R v) recovery of viruses from water during sample concentration by tangential flow filtration in the regime of constant water recovery, r. A figure of merit, M = r v r, is proposed as an aggregate performance metric that captures both the efficiency of virus recovery and the speed of sample concentration. We derive an expression for virus concentration in the sample as a function of filtration time with the rate-normalized virus loss, η = 1− rv r , as a parameter. A practically relevant case is considered when the rate of virus loss is proportional to the permeation-driven mass flux of viruses to the membrane: dm ad dt Q p C f Q p C p. In this scenario, the instantaneous recovery is constant, the cumulative recovery is decreasing as a power function of time, R v = 1− Q p V 0 t η , η mediates the trade-off between r and r v , and M is maximized at r = r opt = 1 2 η. The proposed model can guide the design of the sample concentration process and serve as a framework for quantification and interlaboratory comparison of experimental data on virus recovery.

show abstract

“…The presence of these proteinaceous and other colloidal substances (suspended-mineral colloids or low-density phytoplankton) competing with viruses for adsorption sites may adversely affect the efficiency of virus recovery and concentration from complex 6 water matrices such as recycled water. Studies have shown that the filter surface charge and surface area can also influence virus adsorption capacity, with larger filter surface areas providing more adsorption sites per unit area (Gibson and Borchardt, 2016). Features of the NanoCeram and 1MDS cartridge filters have been previously described and relatively high recovery efficiencies for enteroviruses (from 30 to 70%) in tap water have been reported (Karim et al 2009;Ikner et al 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%