MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in chlorine and DOX Concentrations in Distribution Systems

2001· article· en· W1559209067 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Hélène Baribeau, Michèle Prévost, R. L. Desjardins, Pierre Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsChlorineChemistryEnvironmental chemistryHalogenWater treatmentResidence time (fluid dynamics)Environmental engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fate of disinfectants and disinfection by‐products (DBPs) has been studied in laboratories under a variety of controlled, constant conditions, but limited information is available about their fate in full‐scale distribution systems. A study of the City of Laval (Québec) distribution system examined changes in the concentrations of chlorine and dissolved organic halogens (DOX) as the water flows through the distribution system. Water was collected in small‐ and large‐diameter pipes with respect to the residence time (RT) of each sampling point. Free and total chlorine concentrations decreased with increasing RT in the distribution system. The influence of pipes on chlorine decay was particularly important in warm water; at similar RTs, chlorine concentrations were lowest in the small‐diameter pipes, greater in the main pipes, and greatest in the batch incubations. The presence of corrosion by‐products in pipes appeared to be the major factor influencing chlorine decay in the distribution system. DOX concentrations generally increased with increasing RT in the presence of free chlorine and decreased when free chlorine concentrations were below the method detection limit. Results point to significant pipe influence on DOX concentrations. DOX decay seemed to be attributable to the chemical instability of some DBPs and the presence of microbial biomass.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Water Works AssociationSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207