MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281624202 · doi:10.3390/agronomy12061397

Towards Sustainable Application of Wastewater in Agriculture: A Review on Reusability and Risk Assessment

2022· review· en· W4281624202 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, Sajjad Ahmad Siddiqi, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Qumer Iqbal, Shabbir A. Shahid, Muhammad Tahir Akram, Sadik Rahman, Waleed Al-Busaidi, İmran Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersSultan Qaboos University
KeywordsReclaimed waterEnvironmental scienceGroundwater rechargeWater qualityWater resource managementWater supplyAgriculturePopulationWater conservationWater resourcesWastewaterEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental engineeringGroundwaterAquiferEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of marginal-quality waters, not limited to brackish/saline and treated sewage effluent (TSE), is called reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is a sustainable source in the future for use in agriculture, essentially required to offset the food demand of a rapidly growing population. Moreover, the sustainable recovery of reclaimed water is essential for humanity to satisfy extreme sanitation and water-supply demands. To increase access to water supply, alternate water resources’ use, existing water resources’ degradation, and improved water-use efficiency are imperative. There is a high potential to address these factors by using reclaimed water as an alternative source. The reclaimed water treated at a tertiary level has the potential for use in crop production, especially for forage crops, irrigating urban landscapes, recreational and environmental activities, industry, and aquifer recharge to increase strategic water reserves in water-scarce countries. This way, we can save precious freshwater that can be utilized for other purposes. Eminently, freshwater applications for industrial and agronomic sectors account for 20% and 67%, respectively, depleting freshwater resources. The use of reclaimed water in agriculture can significantly reduce pressure on freshwater. However, if the quality of reclaimed water does not comply with international standards, it may cause serious health risks (diseases) and soil pollution (heavy metals).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207