Reliability of on-site greywater treatment systems in Mediterranean and arid environments – a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-site greywater (GW) treatment and reuse is gaining popularity. However, a main point of concern is that inadequate treatment of such water may lead to negative environmental and health effects. Maintenance of single-family home GW systems is usually performed by home owners with limited professional support. Therefore, unless GW systems are reliable, environmental and public health might be compromised. This study is aimed at investigating the reliability of on-site recirculated vertical flow constructed wetlands (RVFCW) in 20 single-family homes. In order to ensure reliability, the failure-tree approach was adopted during the design and construction of the systems. The performance of the systems was monitored for 1.5 years, by evaluating treated GW flow and quality, and by recording all malfunctions and maintenance work. Only 39 failures occurred during this period, of which four caused irrigation with impaired quality GW, while the rest led to no irrigation. The mean time between failures (MTBF) was 305 days; two out of the 20 systems suffered from seven malfunctions (each), while nine systems did not fail at all. Thus, it can be postulated that if on-site GW treatment systems are designed with the right controls, and if scheduled (basic and relatively infrequent) maintenance is performed, GW reuse can be safe to the environment and human health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".