From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Body parts[edit]

  • I would remove physicology parts from the list --Melaen 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)  :-)
  • The inclusion comes from practical experience especially of sewage streams below slaughter houses. In one example the floor of the inlet channel was covered in eyes from slaughterd cattle because of poor management control at the slaughterhouse. However, I would be content if it was deleted.

Velela 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sewage merge to Wastewater[edit]

  • I have added a suggestion that this [= the article sewage ] be merged with wastewater. Think there's enough overlap for these to be treated in one article. Cphi 20:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added suggestion to merge the sewage entry into this one. In my experience sewage is defined as anything containing human waste, irrespective of other contents. There is therefore a huge degree of overlap with wastewater. The current sewage article is quite poor so it may simply be a matter of replacing it with a redirect. Cphi 20:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I did the merge. Anthony Appleyard 09:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose I disagree wastewater may have sewage as a constituent but it does not mean that it is the same thing. I am working on differentiation of different waste types and associated waste management practices.--Alex 13:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

UASB merge to Wastewater[edit]

UASB = Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket technology

Re the UASB merge to Wastewater:

  • Strong oppose. In its previous form, yes that's a fair suggestion. But it deserves its own article. I have begun work on it. --Singkong2005 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose. standing as an article in its own right, especially with a competent and willing author Singkong. Anlace 22:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since UASB is still quite short, perhaps merge it to Sewage treatment? Anthony Appleyard 09:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sewage treatment does make more sense than Wastewater. However, it's a great article now (thanks notably to Alex a.k.a. Vortexrealm). I think we can consider the discussion closed, with no merge. --Chriswaterguy talk 09:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (formerly Singkong2005)

Urine contaminant[edit]

A bit surprised that urine is presented as a contaminant at the same level as feces. Urine is sterile. ?? Thanks for explanation Basicdesign (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists - Remove related notices[edit]

The article containts two lists with a notice reading "This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (September 2007)"

Since then apparently nobody tried to convert the lists into prose for the good reason that the information would be lost.

I therefore suggest that the notices be removed and the content remain as lists. Is there anybody against this suggestion? Mregelsberger (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting contaminants?[edit]

Under the heading "Wastewater origin" one of the places waste water comes from is listed as:

Storm drains (almost anything, including cars, shopping trolleys, trees, cattle, etc.);

Cars... trees... cattle... in waste water? Doesn't sound right to me, but whatev's =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Flowrates from various sources[edit]

I am interested in learning about the flowrates of wastewater from various sources, such as per person, per city, per country, or worldwide. One source for that information may be: but it is difficult to evaluate what this applies to. Can a general treatment of wastewater flowrates be added to this article? Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful but would counsel extreme caution in the choice of references which such data would depend on. The quoted reference is from the USA where usage per head is greatly in excess of anywhere else in the world including European countries, Australia, New Zealand etc. An approximation of the high level figure can be adduced from looking at the dry water flow sizing of sewage treatment plants and the capita served by such plants. Even here major allowances have to be made for industrial input, low quality sewerage allowing ground-water into the system, sea-water ingress in coastal towns etc. Using volumes of water supplied is also inconclusive because much water is used for industrial purposes, public space and golf course watering etc. I suspect that the answer being sought can be found in the masses of data published by organisations taking a world view but is likely to be girt with very many caveats.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest against including flowrates in this article for the reasons Velella described. The variation in sewage per capita seems insignificant in comparison to the variation in industrial wastewater, cooling water, stormwater runoff, and irrigation return flows. Flowrates could better be included, with description of the reasons for variation, in articles devoted to a particular type of wastewater.Thewellman (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


In-line reference citations should be provided for each section, and preferably for each paragraph, to improve WikiProject Engineering quality classification.Thewellman (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Info on biological pollutants (pathogens)[edit]

I've just added information about pathogens that can be in wastewater; however, I have now added the same textblock also to the article on sewage and am now undecided if I should shorten it here (I don't like seeing exactly the same content in two articles...). Perhaps I should shorten it by taking out the examples of the different viruses, bacteria etc.? EMsmile (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Readability of Lead[edit]

The lead paragraphs started out at 25. I edited just now to clarifying points and reduce sentence length. It's now 37, not significantly better. I'll come back to this after getting some distance. As of now, however, it's hard to see more ways of raising that readability number. Some of the terms are multi-syllabic, which raises that Flesch number. Sanitation is 4. Wasterwater is 3. Conveyance does seem replaceable, but it's such a good word: I kept it. PlanetCare (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits, PlanetCare. Your work has inspired me to do some more. E.g. that sentence on stormwater was wrongly referenced with the Eawag Compendium. I am mindful that the lead should be a SUMMARY, that's why I added a sentence about pollutants and about reuse. A bit more could be done in that respect. However, I worry a bit that the lead now has too much emphasis on sewage and sanitation (including onsite sanitation) and not enough on other types of wastewater, e.g. industrial wastewater. - Then I also had a look at the article on sewage, and find the lead there much too long and detailed. We have to be really careful that the article on wastewater does not overlap/repeat too much with the article on sewage. Bit more work required on both articles... Which one is more important? Interestingly, both have about the same views per day, about 1000. EMsmile (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Good tip on looking for overlap. I do find that leads vary in how well they truly overview what's in the whole article. Some give too much detail, some not enough. I'll review again myself.PlanetCare (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

More photos would help this article[edit]

Note to self: good to look for a shot of a water treatment facility, or of a storm drain releasing directly into a body of water.PlanetCare (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)