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
Volume 28, Number 9—September 2022
Research Letter

Correlation between Clinical and Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 Genomic Surveillance, Oregon, USA

Devrim Kaya, Rebecca Falender, Tyler Radniecki, Matthew Geniza, Paul Cieslak, Christine Kelly, Noah Lininger, and Melissa SuttonComments to Author 
Author affiliations: Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA (D. Kaya, T. Radniecki, M. Geniza, C. Kelly); Oregon Health Authority, Portland, Oregon, USA (R. Falender, P. Cieslak, N. Lininger, M. Sutton)

Cite This Article


SARS-CoV-2 variant proportions in a population can be estimated through genomic sequencing of clinical specimens or wastewater samples. We demonstrate strong pairwise correlation between statewide variant estimates in Oregon, USA, derived from both methods (correlation coefficient 0.97). Our results provide crucial evidence of the effectiveness of community-level genomic surveillance.

Genomic surveillance to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants has become a critical component of monitoring the virus over time. Both patient- and community-level surveillance through the sequencing of clinical specimens and wastewater samples can detect variants and estimate their proportions in a population. Sequencing wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 variants is an emerging science that offers several advantages over patient-level surveillance, including reduced cost and tracking of cases regardless of symptoms or testing access (1,2), but few data have demonstrated comparable effectiveness in estimating variant proportions over time (35). We describe the correlation between SARS-CoV-2 variant proportions detected through sequencing of wastewater samples and clinical specimens in Oregon, USA, during February 7, 2021–February 26, 2022.

In brief, 24-hour composite samples were collected >1 time each week from wastewater treatment facility influents for sequencing. We quantified SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations via droplet digital reverse transcription PCR and sequenced positive samples on a HiSeq 3000 or NextSeq 2000 sequencer (Illumina, by using the Swift Amplicon SARS-CoV-2 Panel and Swift Amplicon Combinatorial Dual indexed adapters (Integrated DNA Technologies [IDT] Swift Biosciences,, according to the manufacturers’ protocols, as previously described (6).

During each surveillance week of the study period, we used clinical specimen and wastewater sample data to estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 variants according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention variant of concern (VOC) designations (7). We defined the circulation period of each variant by its earliest and latest detections in either wastewater or clinical specimens; we included estimated proportions of 0 that fell within a variant’s circulation period in all analyses. To estimate variant proportions using clinical data, we divided the number of specimens for each variant by the total number of SARS-CoV-2–positive specimens from Oregon submitted to the GISAID database ( by surveillance week (8). To estimate variant proportions using wastewater data, we divided the statewide gene copies of each variant by the total gene copies of all variants by surveillance week. To derive the denominator, we normalized the SARS-CoV-2 concentration to wastewater influent flow at each facility and summed the values for all facilities by surveillance week. To derive the numerator, we multiplied the normalized SARS-CoV-2 concentration by the proportion of sequence reads for each SARS-CoV-2 variant detected at each facility and summed the values for all facilities by surveillance week.

We used the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to assess the relationship between the statewide weekly estimated proportions of each VOC detected in clinical specimens and wastewater samples. We used simple linear regression with a least-squares regression line to assess goodness of fit (R2) and considered p<0.05 statistically significant. We used Stata version 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, for all analyses.

Of 488,308 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Oregon during the study period, 38,386 (7.9%) clinical samples were sequenced and submitted to the GISAID database. Of 2,948 wastewater samples collected from 42 communities, 2,852 (97%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 2,749 (96%) were sequenced. We included 233 pairs of estimated proportions in the correlation analysis and rounded all estimates to 0.001.


Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence data from confirmed COVID-19 case clinical specimens and wastewater samples collected in Oregon, USA, February 6, 2021–February 26, 2022. A) Percentages of different SARS-CoV-2 variants detected during each epidemiologic week. B) Scatter plot comparing variant detection frequency by sample type. Clinical specimens were retrieved from the GISAID database (

Figure. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequence data from confirmed COVID-19 case clinical specimens and wastewater samples collected in Oregon, USA, February 6, 2021–February 26, 2022. A) Percentages of different SARS-CoV-2 variants...

Overall, statewide weekly estimated percentages of each SARS-CoV-2 variant detected in clinical specimens were strongly associated with those from wastewater samples; r was 0.97 for all variants (p<0.0001) (Figure). However, r fluctuated by SARS-CoV-2 variant, from 0.61 for Beta to 0.98 for Delta, and we noted a general increasing trend in r as total variant proportions increased (Table). A scatter plot demonstrated a linear relationship between estimated percentages of each variant derived from clinical specimens and wastewater samples (Figure, panel B). The conditional SD was greatest for proportion estimates of 0.2–0.6. Simple linear regression demonstrated a strong linear relationship between estimated proportions derived from both genomic surveillance data sources (R2 = 0.94; p<0.0001).

Our pairwise correlation analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of wastewater sequencing for estimating SARS-CoV-2 variant proportions at the statewide level over time and at varying prevalences. Overall, the association between estimates of variant proportions produced from clinical specimens and wastewater samples was strong. However, correlations varied by VOC and were weakest for the least prevalent variants.

A limitation of wastewater surveillance is that it excludes populations without access to municipal sewer service (i.e., those with septic systems); therefore, it might not be generalizable to all populations within a state. However, for other areas, leveraging wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance offers several advantages over estimating variant proportions from clinical specimens. Because wastewater surveillance does not rely on healthcare access, testing acceptance, and molecular testing availability, it likely provides more robust and less biased estimates than sequencing of clinical specimens. Thus, wastewater genomic surveillance could prove valuable in surveillance for many other pathogens of public health concern.

Dr. Kaya is a faculty research associate in the School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. Her primary research interests include wastewater surveillance for communicable diseases and environmental surveillance and bioremediation of emerging contaminant of concerns.



We thank all the Oregon wastewater utilities that participated in the statewide wastewater SARS-CoV-2 surveillance program and all Oregon State University staff and students involved in this program for their help and assistance in the management and logistics of the sample collection and analysis.



  1. Hart  OE, Halden  RU. Computational analysis of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 surveillance by wastewater-based epidemiology locally and globally: Feasibility, economy, opportunities and challenges. Sci Total Environ. 2020;730:138875. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Daughton  CG. Wastewater surveillance for population-wide Covid-19: The present and future. Sci Total Environ. 2020;736:139631. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Crits-Christoph  A, Kantor  RS, Olm  MR, Whitney  ON, Al-Shayeb  B, Lou  YC, et al. Genome sequencing of sewage detects regionally prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants. MBio. 2021;12:e0270320. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal  S, Orschler  L, Schubert  S, Zachmann  K, Heijnen  L, Tavazzi  S, et al. Prevalence and circulation patterns of SARS-CoV-2 variants in European sewage mirror clinical data of 54 European cities. Water Res. 2022;214:118162. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rios  G, Lacoux  C, Leclercq  V, Diamant  A, Lebrigand  K, Lazuka  A, et al. Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 variants alterations in Nice neighborhoods by wastewater nanopore sequencing. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021;10:100202. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sutton  M, Radniecki  TS, Kaya  D, Alegre  D, Geniza  M, Girard  A-M, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351 (Beta) variant through wastewater surveillance before case detection in a community, Oregon, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022;28:11019. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. SARS-CoV-2 variant classifications and definitions 2022 Apr 26 [cited 2022 Apr 29].
  8. Elbe  S, Buckland-Merrett  G. Data, disease and diplomacy: GISAID’s innovative contribution to global health. Glob Chall. 2017;1:3346. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2809.220938

Original Publication Date: July 15, 2022

Table of Contents – Volume 28, Number 9—September 2022

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Melissa Sutton, Public Health Division, Oregon Health Authority, 800 NE Oregon St, Ste 772, Portland, OR 97232, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: July 11, 2022
Page updated: August 19, 2022
Page reviewed: August 19, 2022
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.