Regenerative Systems Atlas
Explore the connected wastewater-to-regeneration system.
Eighteen research domains, each with three subtopics, linked by explained relationships. The domains are an editorial taxonomy, not performance ratings of any utility. Relationships are original synthesis. Related sources are shown for context and do not prove a relationship.
Directory of domains
The same 18 domains as a list. Works without hover or the graph.
Domain H / Cross-cutting
Contaminant fate
Capture, transfer, transformation and verified destruction are different outcomes that must not be conflated.
Subtopics
- PFAS and emerging contaminants. Treat each contaminant class and exposure route with current evidence.
- Metals, pathogens and organics. Track different forms of hazard with material-specific testing.
- Fate, mass balance and verification. Distinguish capture, transfer, immobilisation and destruction.
Where a decision here travels
Domains reached by following the selected relationship types, by number of steps. Structural reach only; it does not show material flow or size of effect.
Downstream
- 1 step: ;
- 2 steps: ; ;
- 3 steps: ;
Upstream
- 1 step: ; ;
Feedback loops through this domain (0)
No closed loop passes through this domain in the register.
Relationships (5)
- Dependency
Source identification and acceptance to PFAS and emerging contaminants: Known source and acceptance determine contaminant risk across downstream materials.
Question raised: Which decisions in A Source control or H Contaminant fate must be settled before the other can be treated as fixed?
Why connected? (R01)
- Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
- Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
- What remains uncertain
- How strongly one side depends on the other depends on the site, the technology and the regulatory context. No magnitude is asserted.
- Direct supporting evidence
- None registered.
- Qualifying or contradictory evidence
- None registered.
- Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)
Draft analysis (not reviewed)
Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.
- 1. Relationship and direction
- Dependency: Source identification and acceptance (domain A) to PFAS and emerging contaminants (domain H).
- 2. Proposed mechanism
- What a utility knows about who discharges to the sewer, and what it agrees to accept, may set which contaminants can reach the solids and liquids. Inputs that are not screened leave the contaminant profile uncertain.
- 3. Why it matters
- It affects how much testing a downstream material may need before any use is considered.
- 4. What it could change
- Upstream: Discharger screening and acceptance criteria. Downstream: Testing scope, product qualification and destination options.
- 5. Source support
- None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
- 6. Limits and alternatives
- Source control does not remove contaminants already in the network or arriving from diffuse household sources, and it does not replace measuring the actual material.
- 7. What would settle it
- Catchment discharger records compared with measured PFAS in influent and solids over time.
- Evidence required
Gas, char and residual handling to Fate, mass balance and verification: Fate proof must include all important process output streams.
Question raised: What would have to be shown in G Pyrolysis and thermal processing before a claim in H Contaminant fate can be made?
Why connected? (R16)
- Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
- Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
- What remains uncertain
- What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
- Direct supporting evidence
- None registered.
- Qualifying or contradictory evidence
- None registered.
- Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)
- SRC-002 Guidelines for environmental management: Biosolids land application (Publication 943) (unreviewed)
- SRC-003 PFAS National Environmental Management Plan 3.1 (unreviewed)
- SRC-006 Wodonga wastewater treatment plant upgrade / Resource Recovery Hub (unreviewed)
- SRC-007 Price Submission 2026–2031 (unreviewed)
Draft analysis (not reviewed)
Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.
- 1. Relationship and direction
- Evidence required: Gas, char and residual handling (domain G) to Fate, mass balance and verification (domain H).
- 2. Proposed mechanism
- A claim about what happens to a contaminant needs measurement across all significant output streams. Capture in one stream is not the same as destruction.
- 3. Why it matters
- It separates demonstrated fate from assumed fate.
- 4. What it could change
- Upstream: Sampling of every output stream. Downstream: Any claim about contaminant fate.
- 5. Source support
- None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
- 6. Limits and alternatives
- Analytical methods for some contaminants are still developing, and mass-balance closure may not be achievable.
- 7. What would settle it
- A balance across all outputs, with documented analytical methods.
- Constraint
PFAS and emerging contaminants to Batch testing and qualified use: Contaminant profile constrains product qualification and lawful use.
Question raised: Which limits in H Contaminant fate narrow what J Product formulation and quality assurance can do?
Why connected? (R17)
- Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
- Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
- What remains uncertain
- Which limits apply and what their values are depends on jurisdiction and site. No limit values are asserted.
- Direct supporting evidence
- None registered.
- Qualifying or contradictory evidence
- None registered.
- Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)
Draft analysis (not reviewed)
Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.
- 1. Relationship and direction
- Constraint: PFAS and emerging contaminants (domain H) to Batch testing and qualified use (domain J).
- 2. Proposed mechanism
- The measured contaminant profile of a batch determines whether it meets the criteria for a particular use.
- 3. Why it matters
- Eligibility for a use depends on testing, not on the process alone.
- 4. What it could change
- Upstream: Sampling and analytical suites. Downstream: Eligible uses and restrictions.
- 5. Source support
- None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review; SRC-002, SRC-003 in the register may be relevant context. Leads are not support.
- 6. Limits and alternatives
- Criteria and methods are changing, and rules vary by jurisdiction.
- 7. What would settle it
- Batch analyses compared with the current regulatory criteria.
- Evidence required
Fate, mass balance and verification to Evidence, provenance and audit: Destruction claims require documented mass-balance and test records.
Question raised: What would have to be shown in H Contaminant fate before a claim in R Governance and evidence can be made?
Why connected? (R18)
- Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
- Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
- What remains uncertain
- What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
- Direct supporting evidence
- None registered.
- Qualifying or contradictory evidence
- None registered.
- Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)
Draft analysis (not reviewed)
Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.
- 1. Relationship and direction
- Evidence required: Fate, mass balance and verification (domain H) to Evidence, provenance and audit (domain R).
- 2. Proposed mechanism
- A fate claim is only as strong as the records behind it. Audit needs traceable data, methods and mass balances.
- 3. Why it matters
- It determines whether a removal or destruction claim can be defended.
- 4. What it could change
- Upstream: The measurement programme. Downstream: The audit trail.
- 5. Source support
- None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
- 6. Limits and alternatives
- Audit expectations depend on the claim being made.
- 7. What would settle it
- A recorded method and dataset that a third party can check.
- Evidence required
Filtration or adsorbent media to Fate, mass balance and verification: Spent sorbent fate matters even if an inlet stream was cleaned.
Question raised: What would have to be shown in L Other land uses before a claim in H Contaminant fate can be made?
Why connected? (R26)
- Basis: Editorial systems synthesis
- Editorial systems synthesis supplied in the VRCRI relationship register. No source is registered as direct support, and none is registered as qualifying or contrary.
- What remains uncertain
- What counts as sufficient evidence is set by the relevant regulator, scheme or study design. None is specified here.
- Direct supporting evidence
- None registered.
- Qualifying or contradictory evidence
- None registered.
- Contextual references (do not establish this relationship)
Draft analysis (not reviewed)
Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.
- 1. Relationship and direction
- Evidence required: Filtration or adsorbent media (domain L) to Fate, mass balance and verification (domain H).
- 2. Proposed mechanism
- Spent media concentrates what it captures, so the fate of the spent media determines the final fate of the substance.
- 3. Why it matters
- Cleaning one stream does not settle where the substance goes.
- 4. What it could change
- Upstream: Media selection and loading. Downstream: Regeneration, disposal and fate claims.
- 5. Source support
- None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
- 6. Limits and alternatives
- Fate depends on how the spent media is managed.
- 7. What would settle it
- Records of spent media quantity, contaminant content and destination.
Claim status: Interpretation. This is original synthesis, not measured data or a performance rating.