Effect of plant density and hydraulic retention time on phytoremediation of greywater using water hyacinth and validation of its optimized result using artificial neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water scarcity is a global issue and finding alternative ways to meet our water needs within available resources is becoming increasingly important. Repurposing greywater for non‐potable uses, such as irrigation and car washing, can help alleviate the demand for drinking water. Greywater recycling and reuse are viable options to combat water scarcity. This study investigated the treatment of greywater using phytoremediation, specifically focusing on the effect of water hyacinth density and hydraulic retention time (HRT). An artificial neural network was used to optimize these parameters in the treatment system. The experiment spanned over 7 weeks and consisted of two phases. In phase I, different water hyacinth densities (ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 kg/m 2 ) were tested, while phase II examined various HRTs (ranging from 12 to 48 h). The results indicated that the optimal conditions for greywater treatment were a water hyacinth density of 2 kg/m 2 and an HRT of 48 h. Under these optimal conditions, the treatment system achieved high removal efficiencies for turbidity (98.02 ± 0.75%), chemical oxygen demand (59.42 ± 5.64%), ammonium‐nitrogen (87.45 ± 7.29%), and phosphate (94.50 ± 2.19%). However, the removal of total suspended solids was relatively low at 43.98 ± 9.20%. These findings were confirmed using an artificial neural network, showing a strong correlation ( R > 0.99). The study concludes that phytoremediation using water hyacinth can be a viable option for greywater recycling and reuse, effectively addressing water scarcity. The recommended optimal conditions include a water hyacinth density of 2 kg/m 2 and an HRT of 48 h.
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".