ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning enhanced aeration systems for optimizing oxygen transfer efficiency for sustainable and safe wastewater management.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study models oxygen-transfer efficiency (OTE) in circular solid-jet aerators using a laboratory dataset of 320 observations collected under controlled conditions. Experiments varied jet count (1-8), opening area (49.24-124.03 mm²), jet length (170-470 mm), and discharge (1.05-3.04 l s⁻¹); dissolved oxygen was measured, and OTE was computed and standardized to 20 °C. Five regressors-Linear Regression (LR), M5P, Random Tree (RT), Reduced Error Pruning (REP) Tree, and Random Forest (RF)-were trained with a 70/30 train-test split and evaluated using CC, RMSE, MAE, NSE, and SI. Residual histograms with kernel-density overlays and an uncertainty summary (U95, bounds) indicated compact, slightly negative-centered errors for the tree-based models and broader, heavy-tailed errors for LR; a Taylor diagram and a Spearman heatmap supported these patterns. Among all models, RF achieved the highest test performance and the lowest errors, with results statistically superior to alternatives by paired t-tests on residuals (α = 0.05); the Spearman heatmap also showed the strongest concordance between RF predictions and observations, while a leave-one-input-out sensitivity analysis identified discharge (Q) as the dominant driver. Taken together, the results identify RF as the most accurate and generalizable predictor across the tested operating envelope, providing a practical basis for the design and optimization of aeration systems in water and wastewater treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.