The research topic of the article I chose examined effectiveness of onsite sewage treatment systems. The question focused on what is the percentage of four types of onsite treatment systems (aerobic and septic systems both with and without filters) that allow effluent to surface rather than be treated. The study was done under the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency in 2009. A single certified soil scientist was used to ensure consistency and to verify results. The outcome was a 12.7 to 19.7 percent failure rate among the categories of systems, or about 1 in 8 systems failing overall; no significant distinction between types of systems and failure rates was seen. I suppose expert knowledge could be a data type, because they needed a specific expert in soil sciences to conduct the investigation. However, I am choosing public and private records because the scientist was reporting on the failure of the treatment systems. I believe public and private records was collection method because as the scientist collected data, a record was created. The results were listed as “yes and no” answers to whether the effluent surfaced or not, therefore it is non-numerical data. I am lead to believe it is researcher-centered analysis because the researcher compared whether or not which systems failed and if any failed more than the others. The research was effective in terms of the question, though with the few number of investigations of filtered systems and the small area surveyed I’m not sure we come to a general conclusion as to whether onsite systems are failing to this degree everywhere as opposed to only in Ohio. It was interesting to note that 75% of all onsite treatment systems installed were filter-less anaerobic systems, which also accounted for the highest percentage of failure among each type of system.

Tumeo, M. A., Newland, J. (2009, September). Survey of Home Sewage Disposal Systems in Northeast Ohio. Journal of Environmental Health, 72(2), 17-22.