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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessment of Sewer Source Contamination of Drinking Water Wells Using Tracers and Human Enteric Viruses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science & Technology, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1021/es100698m |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Randall J. Hunt, Mark A. Borchardt, Kevin D. Richards, Susan K. Spencer |
| Abstract |
This study investigated the source, transport, and occurrence of human enteric viruses in municipal well water, focusing on sanitary sewer sources. A total of 33 wells from 14 communities were sampled once for wastewater tracers and viruses. Wastewater tracers were detected in four of these wells, and five wells were virus- positive by qRT-PCR. These results, along with exclusion of wells with surface water sources, were used to select three wells for additional investigation. Viruses and wastewater tracers were found in the groundwater at all sites. Some wastewater tracers, such as ionic detergents, flame retardants, and cholesterol, were considered unambiguous evidence of wastewater. Sampling at any given time may not show concurrent virus and tracer presence; however, given sufficient sampling over time, a relation between wastewater tracers and virus occurrence was identified. Presence of infectious viruses at the wellhead demonstrates that high-capacity pumping induced sufficiently short travel times for the transport of infectious viruses. Therefore, drinking-water wells are vulnerable to contaminants that travel along fast groundwater flowpaths even if they contribute a small amount of virus-laden water to the well. These results suggest that vulnerability assessments require characterization of "low yield-fast transport" in addition to traditional "high yield-slow transport", pathways. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 23% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 22% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 16 | 20% |
| Engineering | 16 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 18% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 May 2012.
All research outputs
#3,343,679
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#3,917
of 20,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,120
of 104,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#24
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 104,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.