Analisis Kinerja IPAL PT X Jawa Timur dalam Menurunkan Parameter Pencemar Menggunakan Pendekatan Water Quality Index (WQI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plastic recycling industry generates wastewater that poses a potential threat to aquatic environments if not managed optimally. Performance evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) is typically conducted partially by comparing outlet parameters against effluent standards, often failing to depict water quality conditions holistically. Therefore, this study employs the Water Quality Index (WQI) approach using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) method to evaluate the performance of PT X's WWTP in East Java. This research utilized secondary data from inlet and outlet wastewater quality tests over 23 months (January 2024–November 2025), covering 10 parameters. Analysis was conducted by calculating removal efficiency and determining factors F1 (scope), F2 (frequency), and F3 (amplitude) as the basis for the WQI-CCME calculation. The results indicate that the WWTP achieved high efficiency (>80%) in reducing dominant parameters such as TSS, TDS, BOD, and COD. However, violations of effluent standards were still observed in certain parameters. The obtained WQI-CCME value was 69,30, categorized as "Fair" with a moderate level of violation. These findings demonstrate that although the WWTP meets regulatory standards, the WQI-CCME approach provides a more comprehensive assessment of performance. Optimization of advanced treatment units is recommended to improve effluent quality and sustainable WWTP performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".