Unveiling indicator, enteric, and respiratory viruses in aircraft lavatory wastewater using adsorption-extraction and Nanotrap® Microbiome A Particles workflows

The effective detection of viruses in aircraft wastewater is crucial to establish surveillance programs for monitoring virus spread via aircraft passengers. This study aimed to compare the performance of two virus concentration workflows, adsorption-extraction (AE) and Nanotrap® Microbiome A Particles (NMAP), in detecting the prevalence and concentrations of 15 endogenous viruses including ssDNA, dsDNA, ssRNA in 24 aircraft lavatory wastewater samples. The viruses tested included two indicator viruses, four enteric viruses, and nine respiratory viruses. The results showed that cross-assembly phage (crAssphage), human polyomavirus (HPyV), rhinovirus A (RhV A), and rhinovirus B (RhV B) were detected in all wastewater samples using both workflows. However, enterovirus (EV), human norovirus GII (HNoV GII), human adenovirus (HAdV), bocavirus (BoV), parechovirus (PeV), epstein-barr virus (EBV). Influenza A virus (IAV), and respiratory syncytial virus B (RsV B) were infrequently detected by both workflows, and hepatitis A virus (HAV), influenza B virus (IBV), and respiratory syncytial virus B (RsV A) were not detected in any samples. The NMAP workflow had greater detection rates of RNA viruses (EV, PeV, and RsV B) than the AE workflow, while the AE workflow had greater detection rates of DNA viruses (HAdV, BoV, and EBV) than the NMAP workflow. The concentration of each virus was also analyzed, and the results showed that crAssphage had the highest mean concentration (6.76 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL) followed by HPyV (5.46 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL using the AE workflow, while the mean concentrations of enteric and respiratory viruses ranged from 2.48 to 3.63 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL. Using the NMAP workflow, the mean concentration of crAssphage was 5.18 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL and the mean concentration of HPyV was 4.20 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL, while mean concentrations of enteric and respiratory viruses ranged from 2.55 to 3.74 log₁₀ GC/12.5 mL. Significantly higher (p < 0.05) mean concentrations of crAssphage and HPyV were observed when employing the AE workflow in comparison to the NMAP workflow. Conversely, the NMAP workflow yielded significantly greater (p < 0.05) concentrations of RhV A, and RhV B compared to the AE workflow. The findings of this study can aid in the selection of an appropriate concentration workflow for virus surveillance studies and contribute to the development of efficient virus detection methods.