Intelligent Tools to Monitor, Control and Predict Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. AI-Powered DSS for Water Treatment
- Persistency Tier: the tier where all data are stored.
- Middle Tier: the intermediate tier, which is responsible for transforming/providing data to the enterprise tier and storing data in the Persistency Tier. It is also responsible for obtaining data from various third-party sensors.
- Enterprise Tier: the tier containing the provided DSS services of the solution.
- Presentation Tier: the tier responsible for presenting efficient views of the data obtained by the enterprise tier.
- The water quality prediction service. This is used to represent, assess and rate the quality of the water based on a set of input operational variables.
- Forecasting service. This service is used to forecast future values collected via sensors.
2.2. Water Quality Prediction Service
2.3. Sensor Forecasting Service
- To ensure that risks can be averted in time. For example, if, during processing, a variable reaches a critical level, it could negatively affect the entire pipeline.
- To provide the water quality prediction module for computing costs and optimum actions for the future, thus facilitating decision making, taking into account both current values and future trends. In this sense, the DSS can be used to find minima of cost values that take into account the future evolution of the system; these minima may be more efficient than local minima computed by taking into account only the current values, as these are recorded by sensors.
- Inspection of the exact sensor value at any given time step.
- Thumbnail of the entire time series.
- Arbitrary zoom in/out of the time series by controlling the rolling window of the thumbnail, which in turn affects the area displayed in the main graph.
- Fine-grained range control for the monitoring window. Default monitoring windows of 5, 10, 20, 30 and 60 min and even the complete graph are provided as options.
- Ability to download the graph as a PDF, CSV and PNG.
3. Results
- The extent to which important events could be extrapolated by the WTM and the underlying DSS alerting mechanisms.
- Automatic responses of the WTM when measuring variables that are outside the thresholds constituting normal operations.
- Validity of the DSS suggestions after evaluation of the end users.
3.1. Event Identification
3.2. Automatic Responses
3.3. DSS Suggestions
- Current aspect: in this aspect, the rules table is consulted and the recommendation is generated based on current values as these are inputs or measured directly from sensors.
- Prognostic aspect: In the prognostic aspect, forecast techniques are used to predict future evolution of time series data and the DSS offers the best recommendation, taking into account all future values to offer the best recommendation for the desired frame of reference. For evaluation purposes, a two-hour time frame was used; that is, the DSS recommended the best action based on estimation about the water contents and weather data over a two-hour period.
3.4. Overall Evaluation
- Event Identification: Whether the DSS correctly predicted imminent events (such as TOC1 disruptions, sudden pH increases, etc.). A value of “Yes” denotes correct prediction of upcoming event, “No” denotes that an event observed was not predicted by the DSS, and the label of “Irrelevant” corresponds to either false positives or predictions that came too late to be of practical importance. Analysis also showed that the multivariable approach led to an increase in accurate event identification by an overall factor of about 21.2% when compared to single-variable forecasting. This rough figure was not measured directly, since end users only used the prototypical algorithm of the multivariable forecasts, but it was projected retroactively, based on sample reconstructions of a small subset of events and the relevant forecasts using single-variable forecasts.
- Reaction Validation: whether the WTM reacted timely to observed or forecast pH values.
- DSS Suggestion: the extent to which the DSS produced recommendations deemed correct by the users, based on the current observed values
- DSS Forecast: the extent to which the DSS produced future recommendations that were deemed correct by the users.
- For the case of event identification, the DSS performed adequately, with most of the important events being correctly identified within the required timeframe. The “Irrelevant” responses correspond mainly to false positives, while around 13% of the events were not identified by the DSS. Post-experiment analysis of the data produced showed that some other combinations of variables for the multivariate forecast could produce better accuracy; this is an ongoing investigation whose results will undergo a second phase of early adopter evaluation.
- For the reaction validation, the majority of the cases were correctly anticipated by the DSS.
- For the DSS suggestion, the majority of recommendations were correct, with ~11% being wrong recommendations. This was anticipated, as the rules of the DSS are extracted from domain experience and the current state of the system is reliably represented by the sensor values and external parameters.
- For the DSS forecast, which was expected to improve upon the current predictions based on the DSS suggestion aspect, the overall accuracy of ~71% was significantly lower. Although this is a negative result, we have observed that from the wrong responses of the DSS suggestion module, a total of ~70% were correctly classified by the DSS forecast module.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Acronym | Description |
AI | artificial intelligence |
ANN | artificial neural network |
AOU | advanced oxidation unit |
DSS | decision support system |
IDSS | intelligent decision support system |
pH | potential of hydrogen |
SUVA254 | specific UV absorbance at 254 nm |
TOC | total organic carbon |
TSS | total suspended solids |
VAC | value-added compounds |
WTM | water treatment module |
WWT | wastewater treatment |
WWTP | wastewater treatment plant |
References
- Delacamera, G.; Psomas, A.; de Paoli, G.; Farmer, A.; European Commission; Directorate-General for Environment; Cherrier, V.; Farmer, A.; Jarrit, N.; Cherrier, V.; et al. EU-Level Instruments on Water Reuse: Final Report to Support the Commission’s Impact Assessment; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Chhipi-Shrestha, G.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Fit-for-purpose wastewater treatment: Conceptualization to development of decision support tool (I). Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607–608, 600–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angelakis, A.N.; Gikas, P. Water Reuse: Overview of Current Practices and Trends in the World with Emphasis on EU States. Water Util. J. 2014, 8, 78. [Google Scholar]
- Compton, M.; Willis, S.; Rezaie, B.; Humes, K. Food processing industry energy and water consumption in the Pacific northwest. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 47, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Towards a Water and Food Secure Future: Critical Perspectives for Policy-Makers; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy; World Water Council: Marseille, France, 2015.
- Mohamed, H.; Shah, A.M.; Song, Y. Chapter 10: Conversion of Agro-Industrial Wastes into Value-Added Products. In Conversion of Renewable Biomass into Bioproducts; American Chemical Society Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; pp. 197–217. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, J.-Q. The role of coagulation in water treatment. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2015, 8, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbera, M.; Gurnari, G. Wastewater Treatments for the Food Industry: Biological Systems. In Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Food Industry; Barbera, M., Gurnari, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Tekerlekopoulou, A.G.; Economou, C.N.; Tatoulis, T.I.; Akratos, C.S.; Vayenas, D.V. 8—Wastewater treatment and water reuse in the food industry. In The Interaction of Food Industry and Environment; Galanakis, C., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 245–280. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, C.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Analysing, completing, and generating influent data for WWTP modelling: A critical review. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 60, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gibert, K.; Spate, J.; Sànchez-Marrè, M.; Athanasiadis, I.N.; Comas, J. Chapter Twelve Data Mining for Environmental Systems. In Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment; Jakeman, A.J., Voinov, A.A., Rizzoli, A.E., Chen, S.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 205–228. [Google Scholar]
- Dellana, S.A.; West, D. Predictive modeling for wastewater applications: Linear and nonlinear approaches. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liukkonen, M.; Laakso, I.; Hiltunen, Y. Advanced monitoring platform for industrial wastewater treatment: Multivariable approach using the self-organizing map. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 48, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prat, P.; Benedetti, L.; Corominas, L.; Comas, J.; Poch, M. Model-based knowledge acquisition in environmental decision support system for wastewater integrated management. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 65, 1123–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, G.; Ihsanullah, I.; Naushad, M.; Sillanpää, M. Applications of artificial intelligence in water treatment for optimization and automation of adsorption processes: Recent advances and prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 427, 130011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, M.; Hu, J.; Cao, R.; Ruan, W.; Wei, X. A review on experimental design for pollutants removal in water treatment with the aid of artificial intelligence. Chemosphere 2018, 200, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mannina, G.; Rebouças, T.F.; Cosenza, A.; Sànchez-Marrè, M.; Gibert, K. Decision support systems (DSS) for wastewater treatment plants—A review of the state of the art. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 290, 121814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arroyo, P.; Molinos-Senante, M. Selecting appropriate wastewater treatment technologies using a choosing-by-advantages approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ullah, A.; Hussain, S.; Wasim, A.; Jahanzaib, M. Development of a decision support system for the selection of wastewater treatment technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 139158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Castillo, A.; Porro, J.; Garrido-Baserba, M.; Rosso, D.; Renzi, D.; Fatone, F.; Gómez, V.; Comas, J.; Poch, M. Validation of a decision support tool for wastewater treatment selection. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bottero, M.; Comino, E.; Riggio, V. Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 1211–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo, A.; Cheali, P.; Gómez, V.; Comas, J.; Poch, M.; Sin, G. An integrated knowledge-based and optimization tool for the sustainable selection of wastewater treatment process concepts. Environ. Model. Softw. 2016, 84, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gibert, K.; Horsburgh, J.S.; Athanasiadis, I.N.; Holmes, G. Environmental Data Science. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 106, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corominas, L.; Garrido-Baserba, M.; Villez, K.; Olsson, G.; Cortés, U.; Poch, M. Transforming data into knowledge for improved wastewater treatment operation: A critical review of techniques. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 106, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alferes, J.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Efficient automated quality assessment: Dealing with faulty on-line water quality sensors. AI Commun. 2016, 29, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.; Laak, T.T.; Bronders, J.; Desmet, N.; Christoffels, E.; van Wezel, A.; van der Hoek, J.P. Decision support for water quality management of contaminants of emerging concern. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, H.; Zhang, H.; Tian, J.; Shi, J.; Linhardt, R.J.; Ye, T.D.X.; Chen, S. Recovery of High Value-Added Nutrients from Fruit and Vegetable Industrial Wastewater. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1388–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Digicirc Accelerator Programme. Circular Cities. 2021. Available online: https://digicirc.eu/circular-cities/ (accessed on 3 December 2021).
- Wright, R.E. Logistic Regression, Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 217–244. [Google Scholar]
- Skope Rules. Available online: https://github.com/scikit-learn-contrib/skope-rules (accessed on 3 December 2021).
- Myles, A.J.; Feudale, R.N.; Liu, Y.; Woody, N.A.; Brown, S.D. An introduction to decision tree modeling. J. Chemom. 2004, 18, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, T.; Horvath, S. Unsupervised Learning with Random Forest Predictors. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 2006, 15, 118–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.-F.; Wang, W.-M.; Huang, C.-M. Analysis of an adaptive time-series autoregressive moving-average (ARMA) model for short-term load forecasting. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 1995, 34, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zivot, E.; Wang, J. Vector Autoregressive Models for Multivariate Time Series. In Modeling Financial Time Series with S-PLUS®; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 385–429. [Google Scholar]
Flow Rate (m3/h) AND/OR TOC3 (mg/L C) | Selling Price of Treated Water/m3 | Usage Cost/m3 Drilling Water | Accum. Rainfall Last 48 h (mm) | Nitrogen Content mg/L | Field Moisture Content (%) | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
>1 AND <6.6 | <0.7 | >0.7 | <1 | 0–1000 | <15 | Irrigation of nearby fields |
>0.2 AND (1–20) | <0.7 | >0.7 | 0–1000 | >10 | 0–100 | Irrigation of greenhouses |
<100AND (5–10) | <0.5 | 0.5–0.7 | >10–1000 | <10 | 0–100 | Reuse by company (cooling) |
(any) AND (10–30) | <0.5 | 0.5–0.7 | >10–1000 | <10 | 0–100 | Reuse by company (washing) |
(any) and (6.6–500) | <0.5 | 0.5–0.7 | >10–1000 | 1–10 | 0–100 | Regional biological treatment |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ntalaperas, D.; Christophoridis, C.; Angelidis, I.; Iossifidis, D.; Touloupi, M.-F.; Vergeti, D.; Politi, E. Intelligent Tools to Monitor, Control and Predict Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Sensors 2022, 22, 3068. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22083068
Ntalaperas D, Christophoridis C, Angelidis I, Iossifidis D, Touloupi M-F, Vergeti D, Politi E. Intelligent Tools to Monitor, Control and Predict Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Sensors. 2022; 22(8):3068. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22083068
Chicago/Turabian StyleNtalaperas, Dimitris, Christophoros Christophoridis, Iosif Angelidis, Dimitri Iossifidis, Myrto-Foteini Touloupi, Danai Vergeti, and Elena Politi. 2022. "Intelligent Tools to Monitor, Control and Predict Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse" Sensors 22, no. 8: 3068. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22083068
APA StyleNtalaperas, D., Christophoridis, C., Angelidis, I., Iossifidis, D., Touloupi, M.-F., Vergeti, D., & Politi, E. (2022). Intelligent Tools to Monitor, Control and Predict Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Sensors, 22(8), 3068. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22083068