Evaluation of three full-scale stormwater treatment systems with respect to water yield, pathogen removal efficacy and human health risk from faecal pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, three full-scale, operational stormwater harvesting systems located in Melbourne, Australia were evaluated with respect to water yields; pathogen removal performance by analysis of native surrogate data (Escherichiacoli, somatic coliphages and Clostridium perfringens); and potential human health risk associated with exposures to faecal pathogens using Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA). The water yield assessment confirmed variation between design and measured yields. Faecal contamination of urban stormwater was site specific and variable. Different treatment removal performance was observed between each of the microbial surrogates and varied between event and baseline conditions, with negligible removal of viruses during event conditions. Open storages that provide a habitat for waterfowl may lead to elevated risk due to the potential for zoonotic transmission. Nevertheless, in the Australian urban setting studied, the potential for human faecal contamination of the separated stormwater system was a critical driver of risk. If the integrity of the sewerage system can be ensured, then predicted health risks are dramatically reduced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".