Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
[Preprint]. 2023 Jun 14:2023.06.12.23291231.
doi: 10.1101/2023.06.12.23291231.

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing

Affiliations

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing

Devin A Bowes et al. medRxiv. .

Update in

  • Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing in Support of Public Health.
    Bowes DA, Darling A, Driver EM, Kaya D, Maal-Bared R, Lee LM, Goodman K, Adhikari S, Aggarwal S, Bivins A, Bohrerova Z, Cohen A, Duvallet C, Elnimeiry RA, Hutchison JM, Kapoor V, Keenum I, Ling F, Sills D, Tiwari A, Vikesland P, Ziels R, Mansfeldt C. Bowes DA, et al. Environ Sci Technol. 2023 Sep 5;57(35):12969-12980. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c04529. Epub 2023 Aug 23. Environ Sci Technol. 2023. PMID: 37611169 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of the field blurred the boundary between measuring biomarkers for research activities and for pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process (or associated data management safeguards), introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary group developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11-questions derived from primarily public health guidance because of the common exemption of wastewater samples to human subject research considerations. This study retrospectively applied the set of questions to peer- reviewed published reports on SARS-CoV-2 monitoring campaigns covering the emergent phase of the pandemic from March 2020 to February 2022 (n=53). Overall, 43% of the responses to the questions were unable to be assessed because of lack of reported information. It is therefore hypothesized that a systematic framework would at a minimum improve the communication of key ethical considerations for the application of WBT. Consistent application of a standardized ethical review will also assist in developing an engaged practice of critically applying and updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and being monitored by WBT supported campaigns.

Synopsis: Development of a structured ethical review facilitates retrospective analysis of published studies and drafted scenarios in the context of wastewater-based testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The distribution of assigned flags (“minimal review required”, “review suggested”, “review strongly suggested”, “not available in the main text”, “not applicable”) for the top 11 categories in the structured ethical review, represented as a fraction percent of all publications analyzed (n=53) with multiple reviewers providing reports for select individual studies, resulting in more reviews than studies (n=79) ,–,–. In total, 56 publications were represented by these studies, with 3 having two publications describing the same monitoring campaign and were considered in concert. The categories are sorted by ascending proportion of “minimal review required”.

References

    1. Doorn N. Wastewater Research and Surveillance: An Ethical Exploration. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2022, 8 (11), 2431–2438. 10.1039/D2EW00127F. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ivanova O. E.; Yarmolskaya M. S.; Eremeeva T. P.; Babkina G. M.; Baykova O. Y.; Akhmadishina L. V.; Krasota A. Y.; Kozlovskaya L. I.; Lukashev A. N. Environmental Surveillance for Poliovirus and Other Enteroviruses: Long-Term Experience in Moscow, Russian Federation, 2004–2017. Viruses 2019, 11 (5), 424. 10.3390/v11050424. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Más Lago P.; Gary H. E.; Pérez L. S.; Cáceres V.; Olivera J. B.; Puentes R. P.; Corredor M. B.; Jímenez P.; Pallansch M. A.; Cruz R. G. Poliovirus Detection in Wastewater and Stools Following an Immunization Campaign in Havana, Cuba. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 32 (5), 772–777. 10.1093/ije/dyg185. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chavarria-Miró G.; Anfruns-Estrada E.; Martínez-Velázquez A.; Vázquez-Portero M.; Guix S.; Paraira M.; Galofré B.; Sánchez G.; Pintó R. M.; Bosch A. Time Evolution of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wastewater during the First Pandemic Wave of COVID-19 in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, Spain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87 (7), e02750–20. 10.1128/AEM.02750-20. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crits-Christoph A.; Kantor R. S.; Olm M. R.; Whitney O. N.; Al-Shayeb B.; Lou Y. C.; Flamholz A.; Kennedy L. C.; Greenwald H.; Hinkle A.; Hetzel J.; Spitzer S.; Koble J.; Tan A.; Hyde F.; Schroth G.; Kuersten S.; Banfield J. F.; Nelson K. L. Genome Sequencing of Sewage Detects Regionally Prevalent SARS-CoV-2 Variants. mBio 2021, 12 (1), e02703–20. 10.1128/mBio.02703-20. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types