DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS IN SMALL ALBERTA COMMUNITY DRINKING-WATER SUPPLIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complacent attitudes toward drinking-water quality can lead to compromised disinfection practices, as noted in such episodes as Walkerton and North Battleford. The first priority for drinking-water providers must be to ensure microbial safety. However, it is recognized that effective disinfection may not be risk free. Consequently, drinking-water guidelines seek to balance the certain danger posed by microbial pathogens with the potential adverse health hazards that may arise from disinfection by-products (DBPs). Providers of drinking water in small communities often do not have the means to reduce concentrations of DBPs, compared to utilities in larger municipalities. A significant portion of Alberta's population receives drinking water from smaller scale treatment plants or from private wells. A survey of selected DBPs was conducted in 11 rural Alberta communities, with populations ranging from 60 to 2300. The objectives were to evaluate source water quality, as measured by total organic carbon, and to measure representative concentrations of trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) at a point within each distribution system as well as within each water treatment plant. During the 5-wk study, our data show: (1) averages of THM3 (chloroform, bromodichloromethane, chloro dibromomethane) concentrations often exceed 100 microg/L (Health Canada's running annual average guideline for total THMs); (2) source waters with the highest TOC concentrations (15 mg/L) had the highest average THM3 concentrations (200 microg/L); and (3) poor source water quality may necessitate using alternative disinfection options to ensure compliance with microbial and chemical drinking-water guidelines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".