↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity Assessment of Sediments from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal in Northwestern Indiana, USA

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, October 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Toxicity Assessment of Sediments from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal in Northwestern Indiana, USA
Published in
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, October 2001
DOI 10.1007/s00244-001-0051-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. G. Ingersoll, D. D. MacDonald, W. G. Brumbaugh, B. T. Johnson, N. E. Kemble, J. L. Kunz, T. W. May, N. Wang, J. R. Smith, D. W. Sparks, D. S. Ireland

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the toxicity of sediments from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal located in northwestern Indiana, USA. Toxicity tests used in this assessment included 10-day sediment exposures with the amphipod Hyalella azteca, 31-day sediment exposures with the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus, and the Microtox Solid-Phase Sediment Toxicity Test. A total of 30 sampling stations were selected in locations that had limited historic matching toxicity and chemistry data. Toxic effects on amphipod survival were observed in 60% of the samples from the assessment area. Results of a toxicity test with oligochaetes indicated that sediments from the assessment area were too toxic to be used in proposed bioaccumulation testing. Measurement of amphipod length after the 10-day exposures did not provide useful information beyond that provided by the survival endpoint. Seven of the 15 samples that were identified as toxic in the amphipod tests were not identified as toxic in the Microtox test, indicating that the 10-day H. azteca test was more sensitive than the Microtox test. Samples that were toxic tended to have the highest concentrations of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The toxic samples often had an excess of simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) relative to acid volatile sulfide (AVS) and had multiple exceedances of probable effect concentrations (PECs). Metals may have contributed to the toxicity of samples that had both an excess molar concentration of SEM relative to AVS and elevated concentrations of metals in pore water. However, of the samples that had an excess of SEM relative to AVS, only 38% of these samples had elevated concentration of metals in pore water. The lack of correspondence between SEM-AVS and pore water metals indicates that there are variables in addition to AVS controlling the concentrations of metals in pore water. A mean PEC quotient of 3.4 (based on concentrations of metals, PAHs, and PCBs) was exceeded in 33% of the sediment samples and a mean quotient of 0.63 was exceeded in 70% of the thirty sediment samples from the assessment area. A 50% incidence of toxicity has been previously reported in a database for sediment tests with H. azteca at a mean quotient of 3.4 in 10-day exposures and at a mean quotient of 0.63 in 28-day exposures. Among the Indiana Harbor samples, most of the samples with a mean PEC quotient above 0.63 ( i.e., 15 of 21; 71%) and above 3.4 ( i.e., 10 of 10; 100%) were toxic to amphipods. Results of this study and previous studies demonstrate that sediments from this assessment area are among the most contaminated and toxic that have ever been reported.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Argentina 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 15 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2015.
All research outputs
#2,417,776
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#74
of 2,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,353
of 44,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 44,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.