MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292733225 · doi:10.1680/jees.14.00014

Ten-year monitoring of an ultraviolet disinfection plant for drinking water

2015· article· en· W2292733225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alois W. Schmalwieser, Alexander Cabaj, Georg Hirschmann, Regina Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal emittanceUltravioletIrradianceEnvironmental scienceRadiometerMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information about the capability and performance of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection plants for drinking water is mainly available from lab-scale evaluations or prototype testing. Information about these during operation is rare. In this paper, controlled onsite measurements over a period of 10 years are presented. Measurements were taken in a UV disinfection plant equipped with amalgam low-pressure, high-output lamps every 2 months over the whole period. From these, information about lamp ageing, emittance in dependence on water temperature and differences of emittance within one type of lamp was gained. The decrease of emittance follows an exponential decay. After 700 h of operation, the UV emission is reduced by 10% compared to a new lamp, after 1800 h by 20% and by 30% after 3200 h. Emittance of new lamps may differ by 10%. Further, the influence of water temperature on the UV emission of the lamps was estimated as 0·5%/°C. Our results (not statistically significant) suggest that on-off switches and low water temperature may shorten the lifetime of lamps. A comparison onsite has shown that measurements of UV irradiance by all types of certified reference radiometers according to ÖNORM M5873-1 agree within ±2·0%.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207