MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283777754 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24527

Performance evaluation of different macrophytes in small‐scale vertical flow constructed wetlands for greywater treatment using principal component analysis

2022· article· en· W4283777754 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anudeep Nema, Rajnikant Prasad, Dayanand Sharma, Kunwar D. Yadav, Robin A. Christian, Hussameldin Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhragmitesMacrophyteConstructed wetlandEnvironmental scienceAquatic plantColocasia esculentaChemical oxygen demandEffluentEnvironmental engineeringWetlandSewage treatmentBotanyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The scarcity of water is perceived as a systematic global risk due to increasing water demand. Vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW) is proposed as an energetically efficient and economical process to treat greywater (GW) for non‐potable purposes. Macrophyte contributes a significant amount to the treatment process, and it depends on species, and their ecology. In this study, four single‐stage VFCW systems were planted with locally available plant species named Hymenocallis littoralis as Plant 1, Phragmites australis as Plant 2, Canna indica Plant as 3, and Colocasia as Plant 4, which were used for the treatment of GW. The mean removal efficiencies associated with Plant 1, Plant 2, Plant 3, and Plant 4 are 55.13%, 48.11%, 52.53%, and 56.39% for chemical oxygen demand (COD); 45.35%, 35.36%, 64.10%, and 56.39% for ammonia; and 32.97%, 20.85%, 71.57%, and 33.40% for phosphate, respectively. All systems show significant removal efficiency (more than 40%) of all pollutants, except TDS and pH. Among all the observed plants, C. indica achieved the highest removal efficiency for COD, ammonia, and phosphate. The obtained results were analyzed for the dependency of correlations with effluent, influent, and macrophytes used in the treatment system. The principal component analysis (PCA) identified two principal components from 13 variables and explained 50.25%, 47.47%, and 45.62% variance of normalized datasets in VFCW. The PCA also shows significant correlations of plant species with different targeted effluent parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentFrench-language works237,207