SARS-CoV-2 Testing of Aircraft Wastewater Shows That Mandatory Tests and Vaccination Pass before Boarding Did Not Prevent Massive Importation of Omicron Variant into Europe

  1. Lorlane Le Targa
  2. Nathalie Wurtz
  3. Alexandre Lacoste
  4. Gwilherm Penant
  5. Priscilla Jardot
  6. Alexandre Annessi
  7. Philippe Colson
  8. Bernard La Scola
  9. Sarah Aherfi

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: Most new SARS-CoV-2 epidemics in France occurred following the importation from abroad of emerging viral variants. Currently, the risk of new variants being imported is controlled based on a negative screening test (PCR or antigenic) and proof of up-to-date vaccine status, such as the International Air Transport Association travel pass. Methods: The wastewater from two planes arriving in Marseille (France) from Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) in December 2021 was tested by RT-PCR to detect SARS-CoV2 and screen for variants. These tests were carried out between landing and customs clearance and were then sequenced by MiSeq Illumina. Antigenic tests and sequencing by NovaSeq were carried out on respiratory samples collected from the 56 passengers on the second flight. Results: SARS-CoV-2 RNA suspected of being from the Omicron BA.1 variant was detected in the aircraft’s wastewater. SARS-CoV2 RNA was detected in 11 [20%) passengers and the Omicron BA.1 variant was identified. Conclusion: Our work shows the efficiency of aircraft wastewater testing to detect SARS-CoV-2 cases among travellers and to identify the viral genotype. It also highlights the low efficacy of the current control strategy for flights entering France from outside Europe, which combines a requirement to produce a vaccine pass and proof of a negative test before boarding.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v14071511
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.19.22274028: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.19.22274028v1 on medRxiv