A study of operational ultraviolet disinfection equipment at secondary treatment plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection of potable and industrial water has been practiced for several years; however, its use in disin fecting effluents from secondary wastewater treatment plants has been much more recent. Only since the 1979 publication of a national symposium on wastewater disinfection1 has the ap plication of UV disinfection increased at U. S. and Canadian secondary wastewater treatment plants. The principal forces be hind the use of UV as a substitute for chlorination include efforts to protect sensitive species in receiving waters from the effects of chlorine compounds, and to reduce the possibility of injury to persons from accidental exposure to chlorine gas. Other rea sons often cited to support UV disinfection include: lower life cycle costs, superior ability to kill viruses at typical dosages, the propensity of chlorine to form undesirable byproducts, and ease of operation and maintenance of UV equipment. UV disinfec tion of secondary effluent was boosted significantly when the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the technique as an innovative/alternative (I/A) treatment technol ogy in several cases.2 Venosa3 summarized some of the more significant studies that contributed to the recent development of UV technology. To determine the success of the UV systems financed through the I/A program, EPA undertook a project to evaluate the per formance of representative operational UV disinfection systems. The project identified UV facilities throughout Canada and the U. S. and involved site visits to six selected systems. These site visits provided information on how UV technology was being applied in the field, and are the basis for many of the recom mendations made in this paper. Two objectives of this study were to report the principal observations of the site visits and to make practical recommendations to design engineers. These practical considerations should allow more effective future ap plications of UV disinfection technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".