| Title |
International cross-validation of a BOD5 surrogate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-014-3202-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathieu Muller, Sihem Bouguelia, Romy-Alice Goy, Alison Yoris, Jeanne Berlin, Perrine Meche, Vincent Rocher, Sharon Mertens, Yves Dudal |
| Abstract |
BOD5 dates back to 1912 when the Royal Commission decided to use the mean residence time of water in the rivers of England, 5 days, as a standard to measure the biochemical oxygen demand. Initially designed to protect the quality of river waters from extensive sewage discharge, the use of BOD5 has been quickly extended to waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) to monitor their efficiency on a daily basis. The measurement has been automatized but remains a tedious, time- and resource-consuming analysis. We have cross-validated a surrogate BOD5 method on two sites in France and in the USA with a total of 109 samples. This method uses a fluorescent redox indicator on a 96-well microplate to measure microbial catabolic activity for a large number of samples simultaneously. Three statistical tests were used to compare surrogate and reference methods and showed robust equivalence. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
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 15 August 2014.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#5,443
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,621
of 231,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#57
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 231,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.