Science communication for resilient cities: monitoring digital communication to be weather-ready

International audienceThe quality of science and technology communication has become more challenging due to the fact that access to information has hugely increased in terms of variety and quantity. This is a consequence of different factors, among others the development of public relations by research institutes and the pervasive role of digital media (Bucchi 2013; Trench 2008). A key question is how can we objectively assess science and technology communication? Relatively few studies have been dedicated to the definition of pertinent indicators and (Neresini and Bucchi 2011). This research aims to understand how communication strategies, addressed to the general public, can optimise the impact of research findings in hydrology for resilient cities and how this can be assessed. Indeed urban resilience to extreme weather events relies both on engineering solutions and increased awareness of urban communities as it was highlighted by the FP7 SMARTesT project and the experiences carried out in the framework of TOMACS (Tokyo Metropolitan Area Convective Studies for Resilient Cities) and CASA (Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptative Sensing of the Atmosphere, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation). The research will greatly benefit from the development of automated analysis of unstructured Big Data that allows the exploration of huge amounts of digital communication data: blogs, social networks postings, press articles... Furthermore, these techniques facilitate the comparison of socioeconomic trends with physical-environmental trends. We will also investigate case studies corresponding to several research projects under the umbrella of the Chair " Hydrology for resilient cities " : for example the Interreg NWE IVB RAINGAIN project, the KIC Climate Blue Green Dream project and worldwide collaborations such as TOMACS. All these projects involve awareness raising and capacity building activities aimed to stimulate cooperation between scientists, professionals (e.g. water managers, urban planners) and beneficiaries (e.g. concerned citizens, policy makers)

Biofiltration vs conventional activated sludge plants: what about priority and emerging pollutants removal?

International audience: This paper compares the removal performances of two complete wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for all priority substances listed in the Water Framework Directive and additional compounds of interest including flame retardants, surfactants, pesticides, and personal care products (PCPs) (n = 104). First, primary treatments such as physicochemical lamellar settling (PCLS) and primary settling (PS) are compared. Similarly, biofiltration (BF) and conventional activated sludge (CAS) are then examined. Finally, the removal efficiency per unit of nitrogen removed of both WWTPs for micropollutants is discussed, as nitrogenous pollution treatment results in a special design of processes and operational conditions. For primary treatments, hydrophobic pollutants (log K ow > 4) are well removed (>70 %) for both systems despite high variations of removal. PCLS allows an obvious gain of about 20 % regarding pollutant removals, as a result of better suspended solids elimination and possible coagulant impact on soluble compounds. For biological treatments, variations of removal are much weaker, and the majority of pollutants are comparably removed within both systems. Hydrophobic and volatile compounds are well (>60 %) or very well removed (>80 %) by sorption and volatilization. Some readily biodegradable molecules are better removed by CAS, indicating a better biodegradation. A better sorption of pollutants on activated sludge could be also expected considering the differences of characteristics between a biofilm and flocs. Finally, comparison of global processes efficiency using removals of micropollutants load normalized to nitrogen shows that PCLS + BF is as efficient as PS + CAS despite a higher compactness and a shorter hydraulic retention time (HRT). Only some groups of pollutants seem better removed by PS + CAS like alkylphenols, flame retardants, or di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), thanks to better biodegradation and sorption resulting from HRT and biomass characteristics. For both processes, and out of the 68 molecules found in raw water, only half of them are still detected in the water discharged, most of the time close to their detection limit. However, some of them are detected at higher concentrations (>1 μg/L and/or lower than environmental quality standards), which is problematic as they represent a threat for aquatic environment

Les micropolluants dans le système urbain. De quels polluants parle-t-on ?,

International audienc

Impact environnemental et sanitaire des polluants émergents : focus sur les produits cosmétiques

International audienc

Impact sanitaire potentiel des retardateurs de flemmes de type polybromés diphényles éthers (PBDE) en Région Île-de-France

Impact sanitaire potentiel des retardateurs de flemmes de type polybromés diphényles éthers (PBDE) en Région Île-de-Franc

Source reduction of personal care products in the urban water cycle of Paris conurbation

International audienc