Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 February 2021 | Story ANDRE DAMONS | Photo Supplied
Prof Maxim Finkelstein, distinguished Professor at the Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science at the UFS has become the only researcher with an A1-rating in South Africa (awarded by NRF) in Probability, Statistics and Operations Research.

A professor in the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS) has become the only researcher with an A1-rating in Probability, Statistics and Operations Research in South Africa after being awarded this prestigious rating by the National Research Foundation (NRF).

This is the second time Prof Maxim Finkelstein, the distinguished Professor at the Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science in the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, has been awarded with an A-rating. The first was in 2015.

The goal is to produce quality research

According to Prof Finkelstein, the rating should not be a goal as such for a researcher but should produce a quality research that is recognised by peers and that, above all, brings a real satisfaction in life. Prof Finkelstein says: “The rating is just a consequence of what one, as a researcher, has achieved in the past eight years and, actually, during the whole professional life as well. South Africa is the only country in the world that is able to perform this rigorous internationally sound rating process for individual researchers. ‘Scientifically large’ countries just cannot do it, technically.”

Prof Finkelstein’s area of expertise is the modelling of random events and quantifying probabilities of their occurrences. He explains: “For instance, in industry, people are interested in probabilities that a machine or process or mission will accomplish its task without failure or accident. In order to assess the probabilities of interest, one must have an adequate mathematical/stochastic model that should be properly developed. 

“Thus, I am developing such models that can be rather advanced because they should take into account numerous factors, e.g., that the object is operating in a random environment, that its structure could change, that there can be human errors affecting the outcome, that an object interacts with other objects, etc. This is usually done in the framework of mathematical reliability theory that considers operation of technical devices.” 

The only A-rating at NAS

“I am quite excited to get the A-rating for the second time, especially because it is the only A-rating in Probability, Statistics and Operations Research in South Africa. It is also the only A-rating at our Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.

“The fact that it is an A1 and not A2, as previously, does not, in fact, mean too much to me. What matters really is that it is the A-category defined by the reviewers’ opinions that the applicant is a world leader in his discipline,” says Prof Finkelstein.

During his numerous visits as a research professor to the Max Planck Institute of Demographic Research in Germany, he jointly with the colleagues from this institute, were applying the developed stochastic approaches to modelling lifespans of organisms as well. 

One of Prof Finkelstein’s evolving interests is in the area of healthcare engineering when, for instance, monitoring the key health parameters of a patient, some optimal cost-wise decisions can be made on preventive treatments and interventions. 

“I want also to stress that, in general, international collaboration is very important for emerging and established researchers, especially in ‘remote’ South Africa, although nowadays the term ‘remote’ is obviously outdated,” says Prof Finkelstein.

He also collaborates with numerous colleagues around the globe. Apart from the visiting position in the Max Planck Institute he held for many years, Prof Finkelstein regularly visits the ITMO University in St Petersburg, Russia, and is also now establishing a Visiting Professor position at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept