Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35619732›Full record

ArticleWater resources research2022

Linking Water Quality to Drinking Water Treatment Costs Using Time Series Analysis: Examining the Effect of a Treatment Plant Upgrade in Ohio.

Matthew T Heberling, James I Price, Christopher T Nietch, Michael Elovitz, Nathan J Smucker, Donald A Schupp, Amr Safwat, Tim Neyer

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Water resources research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthew T HeberlingUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
James I PriceUniversity of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, School of Freshwater Sciences, Milwaukee, WI 53204, USA.
Christopher T NietchUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Michael ElovitzUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Nathan J SmuckerUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Donald A SchuppAptim Federal Services, LLC, Cincinnati, OH 45212, USA.
Amr SafwatAptim Federal Services, LLC, Cincinnati, OH 45212, USA.
Tim NeyerClermont County Water Resources Department, Batavia, OH 45103, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Minas Gerais · BRClermont County Public Library · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We estimate a cost function for a water treatment plant in Ohio to assess the avoided-treatment costs resulting from improved source water quality. Regulations and source water concerns motivated the treatment plant to upgrade its treatment process by adding a granular activated carbon building in 2012. The cost function uses daily observations from 2013 to 2016; this allows us to compare the results to a cost function estimated for 2007-2011 for the same plant. Both models focus on understanding the relationship between treatment costs per 1,000 gallons (per 3.79 m3) of produced drinking water and predictor variables such as turbidity, pH, total organic carbon, deviations from target pool elevation, final production, and seasonal variables. Different from the 2007-2011 model, the 2013-2016 model includes a harmful algal bloom toxin variable. We find that the new treatment process leads to a different cost model than the one that covers 2007-2011. Both total organic carbon and algal toxin are important drivers for the 2013-2016 treatment costs. This reflects a significant increase in cyanobacteria cell densities capable of producing toxins in the source water between time periods. The 2013-2016 model also reveals that positive and negative shocks to treatment costs affect volatility, the changes in the variance of costs through time, differently. Positive shocks, or increased costs, lead to higher volatility compared to negative shocks, or decreased costs, of similar magnitude. After quantifying the changes in treatment costs due to changes in source water quality, we discuss how the study results inform policy-relevant decisions.

Indexed as

Drinking waterEconomic analysisSource waterTime series analysisTreatment costsWater qualityWatershed managementWater supply

Identifiers

PMID35619732
PMCPMC9127783
OpenAlexW4225254102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.