WATER / WASTEWATER


This has had direct implications for laboratories. They have needed to operate against varying standards depending on jurisdiction.


Under the new framework, harmonised positive lists, standardised testing approaches and clearer conformity assessment requirements will apply.


It also has practical implications for equipment selection. All components used during monitoring activities needing to comply with the same hygiene principles as permanent assets.


This may drive increased scrutiny of commonly used products.


As 2027 approaches and Article 11 requirements take effect, early engagement will be key.


Reviewing materials and equipment, understanding testing requirements and building capability now will help avoid last minute pressures later.


Skills, competence and consistency


As monitoring programmes become more sophisticated, the directive also implicitly raises expectations around competence.


Field technicians and laboratory analysts are increasingly required to understand not just how to take a sample or run an analysis, but why that data matters in a wider risk context.


There is renewed importance on training, method validation and quality assurance.


Accreditation to standards remains critical. But so too does the ability to interpret results, communicate uncertainty and support operational decision making.


Are we ready? Preparedness across the EU is mixed.


Many drinking water fi rms and laboratories are already well aligned with the intent of the directive. Particularly where risk based approaches and advanced monitoring are established.


However, for some, there is still work to do in aligning equipment, skills and processes with the new expectations.


The revised directive provides emphasis on transparency and consumer information.


Results published to customers or regulators must be robust, defensible and well explained.


This increases the importance of data management systems, audit trails and consistent reporting formats. These are areas where laboratory information management systems (LIMS) and digital fi eld data capture tools are becoming increasingly important.


For professionals involved in monitoring and analysing water, the revised Drinking Water Directive should be seen as a framework that elevates the value of their work.


High quality data, collected and interpreted well, sits at the heart of protecting public health.


A fi nal refl ection


Looking back, one of the biggest changes I have seen in water quality management is the growing recognition of the value of professional judgement.


Regulations and standards provide the framework. But it is the people collecting samples, validating results and questioning anomalies who give those frameworks meaning.


The revised Drinking Water Directive reinforces that role.


If it succeeds in encouraging us to use data not just to prove compliance, but to better understand and manage risk, then it will have delivered benefi ts far beyond regulatory alignment.


Kara Sadler, South Staffs and Cambridge Water KaraSadler@south-staffs-water.co.uk


Should water fi rms embrace continuous wastewater epidemiology? Talking Point


Heading Copy


Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) – the practice of analysing sewage for public health insights – has moved from the fringes of research into mainstream public health strategy.


xxxxx@reply-direct.com


During the COVID-19 pandemic, testing sewage for viral RNA provided an early warning of outbreaks when clinical testing missed many cases.


Now, as communities monitor sewage for everything from SARS-CoV-2 to polio and drug residues, a debate emerges: should water companies be required to conduct continuous wastewater epidemiology?


Advocates argue that round-the-clock sewage surveillance could transform disease detection and environmental protection, while others caution about practical challenges.


This feature explores emerging trends in WBE, technological advances in wastewater monitoring, and stakeholder perspectives on mandating continuous surveillance.


The rise of wastewater epidemiology


Long before COVID-19, scientists had tapped sewers for clues about community health.


For decades, public health programs monitored sewage for poliovirus circulation as part of eradication efforts, and researchers analysed wastewater to compare illicit drug use in different cities.


However, it was the pandemic that truly thrust WBE into the limelight.


“After being around for more than 15 years, wastewater-based epidemiology is fi nally getting the attention it deserves, thanks in no small part to the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Professor Rolf Halden, an early WBE pioneer.


During 2020, numerous countries launched sewage surveillance for SARS-CoV-2.


In the UK, national programmes in England, Scotland and Wales began regularly analysing wastewater at treatment works as an early warning system for COVID spikes.


In the U.S., the CDC created the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) in late 2020, which has grown to include over 1,200 testing sites monitoring wastewater for pathogens – covering roughly 130 million people.


Across Europe as well, “most countries in the European Union have established regular wastewater surveillance in their cities after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic”.


Not all regions have embraced WBE.


A recent study noted that countries like Japan still only have pilot programs in a handful of cities (fewer than 20) and remain hesitant to adopt national wastewater surveillance.


Nonetheless, global initiatives are underway to promote WBE.


In mid-2025 an international network called Wastewater Surveillance for Pandemic Prevention (WaSPP) was launched, backed by academia, NGOs, and industry partners across Africa, Asia, and Europe.


Their goal is to standardise methods for sewage monitoring of high-risk viruses – from coronaviruses to Ebola – as an early warning system for the next pandemic.


“Wastewater testing offers a sensitive, cost- effective tool for surveillance that could identify these infections… giving us a better chance at preventing future pandemics,” explains Professor Nicholas Grassly of Imperial College London.


How continuous wastewater monitoring works


Traditional wastewater epidemiology has relied on periodic sampling – for example, collecting 24-hour composite samples once or twice a week and sending them to labs for analysis.


Continuous monitoring, by contrast, envisions ongoing, high-frequency data collection from sewage in near real-time.


Recent technological advancements are rapidly closing the gap to make this possible.


Many programs still use laboratory-based RT- qPCR to quantify genetic material of viruses (like SARS-CoV-2) in wastewater samples.


These methods are sensitive, but sample processing and lab turnaround can take days, limiting how “continuous” the data fl ow is.


Emerging “smart sewer” technologies aim to automate and speed up detection.


Researchers are developing biosensors that can be deployed at treatment plants or in sewers to detect pathogens on-site.


Such sensors – often electrochemical or optical – can transmit data wirelessly in real-time.


A 2023 review highlighted that biosensors offer high sensitivity and specifi city and can deliver rapid results without the need for complex lab work, making them promising for real-time WBE.


These devices, integrated via the Internet of Things (IoT), could enable a network of continuous monitors feeding data to public health dashboards.


For instance, startup companies have prototyped portable instruments that replace lab tests with fi eld-deployable devices capable of detecting bacteria and viruses down to single-digit copies per millilitre.


Read the full story online:ilmt.co/TL/N4XA


WWW.ENVIROTECH-ONLINE.COM


37


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60