Enteric viruses in municipal wastewater effluent before and after disinfection with chlorine and ultraviolet light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Ontario, Canada, information is lacking on chlorine and ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection performance against enteric viruses in wastewater. We enumerated enteroviruses and noroviruses, coliphages, and Escherichia coli per USEPA methods 1615, 1602, and membrane filtration, respectively, in pre- and post-disinfection effluent at five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), with full-year monthly sampling, and calculated log10 reductions (LRs) while WWTPs complied with their monthly geometric mean limit of 200 E. coli/100 mL. Modeling of densities by left-censored estimation and Bayesian inference gave very similar results. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-detected enteroviruses and noroviruses were abundant in post-disinfection effluent (mean concentrations of 2.1 × 10+4–7.2 × 10+5 and 2.7 × 10+4–3.6 × 10+5 gene copies (GC)/L, respectively). Chlorine or UV disinfection produced modest LRs for culture- (0.3–0.9) and PCR-detected enteroviruses (0.3–1.3), as well as noroviruses GI + GII (0.5–0.8). Coliphages and E. coli were more susceptible, with LRs of 0.8–3.0 and 2.5, respectively. Sand-filtered effluent produced significantly higher enteric virus LRs (except cultured enteroviruses). Coliphage and human enteric virus densities gave significantly positive correlations using Kendall's Tau test. Enteric viruses are abundant in wastewater effluent following routine chlorine or UV disinfection processes that target E. coli. Coliphages appear to be good indicators for evaluating wastewater disinfection of enteric viruses.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".