Monitoring the microparticle transfer process in wastewater treatment systems is crucial for improving treatment performance. Supervised deep learning methods show high performance to automatically detect particles, but they rely on vast amounts of labeled data for training. To overcome this issue, we proposed a semi-supervised learning (SSL) method based on the Simple framework for Contrastive Learning of visual Representations (SimCLR), to detect microparticles free from sludge and attached to sludge. First, we pre-trained a ResNet50 backbone by SimCLR, to extract features from much unlabeled data (1,000 images). Then, we constructed a Mask R-CNN architecture based on the pre-trained ResNet50, and fine-tuned it on a small quantity of labeled data (≈200 images with ≈600 annotated particles) in supervised learning fashion. We showcased its performance and practical applicability for microscopy images obtained from the water lab of TU Delft. The results demonstrate that the SSL methods obtain a significant improvement in mean average precision of up to 5% compared to the conventional supervised learning method, when a limited amount of labeled data is available (e.g., 91 labeled images). Furthermore, these methods improve the average precision for detecting attached particles by over 12%. With the detection results from the SSL methods, we measured the attachment efficiency of microparticles to sludge under varying mixed liquor suspended solids concentration and aeration intensity. The precise measurements demonstrate the effectiveness and practical applicability of the SSL method in facilitating long-term monitoring of particle transfer processes in biological wastewater treatment systems.

Leakage in water distribution systems is a significant problem worldwide, leading to wastage of water resources, compromised water quality and excess energy consumption. Leakage detection is essential to reduce the duration of leaks and data-driven methods are increasingly being used for this purpose. However, these models are data hungry and available observed data, especially leakage data, is limited in most cases. In addition, these data need to be manually processed to label whether leaks occur, which is time-consuming and costly. These are significant obstacles for the development and application of these methods. This article provides a comprehensive review of relevant journal papers, categorizing all data-driven methods into unsupervised anomaly detection, semi-supervised anomaly detection and supervised classification methods based on how the data are utilized for developing these methods. In addition, strategies to address data limitations are summarized from both data and model perspectives, including data creation, reduction of a model's data requirements and knowledge transfer. After detailing these strategies, research gaps are identified. Based on these, future research directions are suggested, highlighting the need for further research in data augmentation, development of semi-supervised classification methods, exploration of multi-classification methods with model updating mechanisms, and development of novel knowledge transfer methods.

The authors regret the implementation order of data augmentation and data splitting was incorrectly stated. Data augmentation should be implemented after data splitting. While the correct implementation order and its impacts on leakage detection performance were accurately discussed in Section 3.2 “Biased results caused by data leakage”, there were errors in the highlights, abstract, and conclusions sections. The corrections are as follows: 1. The second highlight should be corrected to “Data augmentation after splitting prevents biased results due to data leakage.”2. In the abstract, the corresponding sentence should be corrected to “Results indicate the importance of implementing data augmentation after data splitting to prevent data leakage and overly optimistic outcomes.”3. In the second paragraph of the conclusions, the first sentence should be corrected to “It is recommended to implement data augmentation after data splitting to avoid data leakage, which could lead to biased and overly optimistic results.”The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.