Cited by 6Water Treatment and DisinfectionUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsWastewater Treatment and Reuse

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Alternative disinfection technology demonstrates advantages for wet weather applications–a pilot study of powdered bromine technology

Moffa, Peter E., Davis, Daniel P., Somerlot, Chris, Sharek, Dan, Gresser, Brian, Smith, Tom·2006·Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2175/193864706783749512

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Moffa, P. E., Davis, D. P., Somerlot, C., Sharek, D., Gresser, B., & Smith, T.
Venue
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
2006
Issue
12
Pages
1202-1218
ISSN
1938-6478 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993860765
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Keywords
disinfection, rainy weather, drinking water treatment, pilot study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review