Application of machine learning at wastewater treatment facilities: a review of the science, challenges and barriers by level of implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wastewater treatment facilities are complex environments with many unit treatment processes in series, in parallel, and connected by feedback loops. As such, addressing prediction, control, and optimisation problems within wastewater treatment facilities is challenging. Machine learning techniques provide powerful tools that can be applied to these challenges. Uncertainties of the treatment process can be quantified and navigated via probabilistic techniques inherent in machine learning. Despite the plethora of literature on the applications of ML techniques to many individual problems within wastewater treatment facilities, a paucity of information remains regarding how those applications can be organised. Hence, the objective of this paper is to provide a systematic review and novel break down of the organisation of ML applications into type and scope. Types of ML applications are classified as prediction, control, and optimisation, and each of these applications is further classified by scope of implementation, ranging from no ML (Level 0) to full facility (Level 4). Based on this analysis, the status of different types and scopes of ML applications is presented, and challenges and key knowledge gaps in ML applications for wastewater treatment facilities are identified. Results show that ML applications to date tend to be focused on prediction rather than control or optimisation, and that full facility applications are limited to prediction applications. However, this study also identified several control and optimisation applications that have demonstrated the ability of ML applications in these areas to balance optimisation of energy and chemical use with effluent quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".