MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037889090 · doi:10.1139/s04-028

Regulations in the United States: requirements and guidance for ultraviolet disinfection of drinking water

2005· article· en· W2037889090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Cotton, Laurel Passantino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater disinfectionUltravioletAgency (philosophy)Environmental scienceRegulatory agencyBusinessEnvironmental engineeringPolitical sciencePublic administrationMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published a proposed regulation, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR), which included requirements pertaining to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. In addition the USEPA released the proposed UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM) that provides implementation guidelines for UV disinfection. Since July 2003, USEPA has revised several elements, which are also described. This paper summarizes proposed regulatory requirements in the United States (US) that pertain to disinfection of drinking water using UV light and the recommendations in USEPA's UVDGM. Although this paper does not provide the detailed UVDGM recommendations, it highlights important elements of the proposed regulation and guidance, including required UV doses, UV facility design and operation, and UV reactor validation. The US regulations and guidance do not directly affect the implementation of UV facilities in other countries; however, the information provided in this paper provides a different perspective for worldwide facilities and regulatory agencies to consider. Key words: ultraviolet, disinfection, regulations, guidance, UV facility design, validation, UV dose.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207