Sustainability analysis of primary wastewater treatment by willow plantations in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wastewater treatment is a necessary step to avoid environmental impacts of water consumption and usage. Traditional approaches are expensive and are limited to developed countries. Phytofiltration using fast-growing trees and shrubs like willows potentially offer an alternative. This paper aims to determine if wastewater treatment using phytofiltration can provide complementary environmental and economic benefits for rural communities in a Nordic climate such as the province of Québec, Canada. It looks at different perspectives of the wastewater treatment solution in a local and rural context. Based on life cycle analysis (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCC), we found that, for an exemplar Québec municipality, the conventional wastewater treatment scenario impacted more on climate change, ecosystem quality and human health than the two phytofiltration of wastewater scenarios studied, where impact is highly dependant on the biomass valorization. The net present cost of the phytofiltration scenarios were lower than typical conventional treatment in Québec. For a biomass producer, conventional biomass production had the highest environmental impact on ecosystem quality, while biomass production from phytofiltration had the highest environmental impact on climate change, human health, and resources. We demonstrate that the phytofiltration is a viable and multifunctional technology that could provide good incentives for a local biomass value chain. it allows to both alleviate wastewater treatment burden and provide affordable biomass for bioenergy development for rural communities. Mobilizing local stakeholders will be key to make phytofiltration an alternative solution for both environmental burden alleviation and rural economic development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".