Comparative Human Health Risk Analysis of Coastal Community Water and Waste Service Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a pilot approach to describe adverse human health effects from alternative decentralized community water systems compared to conventional centralized services (business-as-usual [BAU]), selected chemical and microbial hazards were assessed using disability adjusted life years (DALYs) as the common metric. The alternatives included: (1) composting toilets with septic system, (2) urine-diverting toilets with septic system, (3) low flush toilets with blackwater pressure sewer and on-site greywater collection and treatment for nonpotable reuse, and (4) alternative 3 with on-site rainwater treatment and use. Various pathogens (viral, bacterial, and protozoan) and chemicals (disinfection byproducts [DBPs]) were used as reference hazards. The exposure pathways for BAU included accidental ingestion of contaminated recreational water, ingestion of cross-connected sewage to drinking water, and shower exposures to DBPs. The alternative systems included ingestion of treated greywater from garden irrigation, toilet flushing, and crop consumption; and ingestion of treated rainwater while showering. The pathways with the highest health impact included the ingestion of cross-connected drinking water and ingestion of recreational water contaminated by septic seepage. These were also among the most uncertain when characterizing input parameters, particularly the scale of the cross-connection event, and the removal of pathogens during groundwater transport of septic seepage. A comparison of the health burdens indicated potential health benefits by switching from BAU to decentralized water and wastewater systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".