Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link

Disclaimer: Early release articles are not considered as final versions. Any changes will be reflected in the online version in the month the article is officially released.

Volume 32, Supplement –Summer 2026

SUPPLEMENT ISSUE
Supplement

Evaluation of Detection Methods for Wastewater Surveillance of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria from Healthcare Facilities

Ean Warren, James VanDerslice, L. Scott Benson, William J. Brazelton, Windy Tanner, Amanda K. Lyons, Florence Whitehill, Angela Coulliette-Salmond, Sydney Fusco, and Jennifer WeidhaasComments to Author 
Author affiliation: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA (E. Warren, J. VanDerslice, L.S. Benson, W.J. Brazelton, W. Tanner, S. Fusco, J. Weidhaas); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (F. Whitehill, A. Coulliette-Salmond); US Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland, USA (A. Coulliette-Salmond)

Main Article

Table 1

Sample types, frequency of collection, numbers of samples, and handling methods for trend analysis over 16 months in study of detection methods for wastewater surveillance of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria from healthcare facilities*

Sample type Frequency of collection No. days of observations Replicates Total no. of samples, including replicates† Handling method‡
Composite Weekly or twice weekly 61 Primarily laboratory-split triplicates 297 40-mL concentrated for extraction
Sewer biofilm Weekly or monthly 16 Field duplicates 32 Sponge shaken in sterile 1X PBS for 10 min, supernatant concentrated for extraction
Passive Weekly or twice weekly 53 Primarily field duplicates 110 Tampon shaken in sterile 1X PBS for 10 min, supernatant concentrated for extraction

*PBS, phosphate-buffered saline. †Total number of samples includes days when more replicates were collected (e.g., 6 replicates rather than the typical 3 replicates). ‡All samples were stored at 4°C until processing, which occurred within 24 hours of collection. All samples were processed by concentration with polyethylene glycol/NaCl precipitation for 2 hours at 4°C, centrifugation at 31,400 × g, and then nucleic acids were extracted from the pellet (Appendix).

Main Article

Page created: May 26, 2026
Page updated: July 31, 2026
Page reviewed: July 31, 2026
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external