VRCRI
Explore the system

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 I / Processing

Nutrient recovery

Nutrients can be recovered from several streams; total content is not the same as availability.

Subtopics

  • Nitrogen and phosphorus partitioning. Map nutrient flows through water, sludge, gas and residuals.
  • Liquid side-stream recovery. Investigate struvite, ammonia and other defined recovery routes.
  • Nutrient availability and release. Separate total nutrient content from plant-available fractions.

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. 1 step: ;
  2. 2 steps: ;
  3. 3 steps: ; ;

Upstream

  1. 1 step:
  2. 2 steps: ;

Feedback loops through this domain (0)

No closed loop passes through this domain in the register.

Relationships (3)

  • Dependency

    Biological nutrient processes to Nitrogen and phosphorus partitioning: Biological/chemical nutrient removal determines later nutrient partitioning.

    Question raised: Which decisions in C Wastewater treatment or I Nutrient recovery must be settled before the other can be treated as fixed?

    Why connected? (R06)
    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: Biological nutrient processes (domain C) to Nitrogen and phosphorus partitioning (domain I).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    How a plant removes nitrogen and phosphorus moves those nutrients between water, gas and sludge, so process choice may affect how much nutrient ends up in solids.
    3. Why it matters
    It determines nutrient recovery potential and the nutrient balance of any product.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Process design and operation, including chemical dosing. Downstream: Nutrient content of solids and liquors, and recovery routes.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 2 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Partitioning is plant-specific and chemical dosing can change the nutrient forms.
    7. What would settle it
    A nitrogen and phosphorus mass balance across the plant for a defined period.
  • Material flow

    Liquid side-stream recovery to Material conditioning and blending: Recovered nutrient side streams may be candidates for controlled formulation.

    Question raised: How does a change in I Nutrient recovery alter the amount or character of what reaches J Product formulation and quality assurance?

    Why connected? (R19)
    Basis: Research hypothesis requiring investigation
    Stated as a plausible connection that requires investigation. No source is registered as direct support.
    What remains uncertain
    Which streams actually move, in what amounts and with what composition, depends on the facility. No quantities are asserted.
    Direct supporting evidence
    None registered.
    Qualifying or contradictory evidence
    None registered.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Material flow: Liquid side-stream recovery (domain I) to Material conditioning and blending (domain J).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Hypothesis: nutrients recovered from liquid side streams might be used as an input to product conditioning. This has not been demonstrated.
    3. Why it matters
    If it held, it could offer a route to nutrient products.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Side-stream processing. Downstream: Product blends.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 3 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    A hypothesis. Recovery performance, product quality and regulatory status are all unestablished.
    7. What would settle it
    Pilot recovery measurements and product analysis.
  • Evidence required

    Nutrient availability and release to Controlled agronomic comparison: Agronomic trials must separate total from available nutrient response.

    Question raised: What would have to be shown in I Nutrient recovery before a claim in K Agricultural use can be made?

    Why connected? (R20)
    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.

    Draft analysis (not reviewed)

    Written to be checked, not relied on. No source supports it yet.

    1. Relationship and direction
    Evidence required: Nutrient availability and release (domain I) to Controlled agronomic comparison (domain K).
    2. Proposed mechanism
    Total nutrient content does not show how much is available to plants, so response needs to be tested against comparable controls.
    3. Why it matters
    It prevents benefit being inferred from nutrient totals.
    4. What it could change
    Upstream: Analysis of nutrient forms. Downstream: Trial design.
    5. Source support
    None reviewed. 4 unchecked research leads are queued for review. Leads are not support.
    6. Limits and alternatives
    Response varies with soil, crop and season.
    7. What would settle it
    Replicated trials with controls on the target soils.

Claim status: Interpretation. This is original synthesis, not measured data or a performance rating.