Critical Review: Surface Water and Stormwater Quality Impacts of Cured‐In‐Place Pipe Repairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cured‐in‐place pipe (CIPP) technology has been used to rehabilitate sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and drinking water pipes. However, utilities, regulators, and health officials have raised environmental, occupational, and public health concerns regarding chemical emissions into air and water. To better understand emissions into water, available literature was reviewed. Water contamination has been documented in 10 states and Canada because of the release of uncured resin, solvents, manufacturing byproducts, and wastes during and after construction. Odor, fish kill, and drinking water contamination incidents have been reported. The few field‐ and bench‐scale studies available show that a variety of volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds have been released into water and contamination was detected for several months. CIPP waste was acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. Chemical release is likely influenced by formulation, installation, and environmental conditions. CIPP installation and inspection recommendations were suggested. Studies are needed to develop evidence‐based construction and monitoring practices to minimize risks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".