| Title |
Removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in rural wastewater by an integrated constructed wetland
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-014-2800-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Chen, You-Sheng Liu, Hao-Chang Su, Guang-Guo Ying, Feng Liu, Shuang-Shuang Liu, Liang-Ying He, Zhi-Feng Chen, Yong-Qiang Yang, Fan-Rong Chen |
| Abstract |
Integrated constructed wetlands (ICWs) are regarded as one of the most important removal technology for pollutants in rural domestic wastewaters. This study investigated the efficiency of an ICW consisting of a regulating pool, four surface and subsurface flow-constructed wetlands, and a stabilization unit for removing antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) from rural domestic wastewaters. The results showed that antibiotics leucomycin, ofloxacin, lincomycin, and sulfamethazine, and ARGs sul1, sul2, tetM, and tetO were the predominant antibiotics and ARGs in the influent, respectively. The ICW system could significantly reduce most of the detected antibiotics and ARGs with their aqueous removal rates of 78 to 100 % and >99 %, respectively. Based on the measured concentrations, the total pollution loadings of antibiotics were 3,479 μg/day in the influent and 199 μg/day in the final effluent. Therefore, constructed wetlands could be a promising technology for rural wastewater in removing contaminants such as antibiotics and ARGs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 135 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Unknown | 49 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 28 | 20% |
| Engineering | 12 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 61 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#5,072
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,623
of 229,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#32
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 229,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.