↓ Skip to main content

Formaldehyde Concentration in Discharge from Land Based Aquaculture Facilities in Atlantic Canada

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Formaldehyde Concentration in Discharge from Land Based Aquaculture Facilities in Atlantic Canada
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00128-015-1493-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benoit A. Lalonde, William Ernst, Christine Garron

Abstract

Formaldehyde is used in freshwater aquaculture facilities in the Maritimes region of Canada to prevent external parasites and is discharged without treatment to freshwater receiving environments. In this study, formaldehyde was measured at effluent outfalls and 100 m downstream of four land based aquaculture facilities at various post-treatment time intervals. Concentrations of formaldehyde ranged from 0.2 to 7.1 mg/L. Based on Environment Canada's environmental no effect value, all of the samples show a potential risk to aquatic life. Furthermore, based on a chronic aquatic life water quality criterion of 1.61 mg/L all but two of the samples had concentrations considered to be toxic to aquatic life. An acute water quality criteria was only exceeded once in all of the environmental measurements of formaldehyde. These results lead us to hypothesize that the discharge of formaldehyde from land-based facilities may cause adverse chronic impacts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 6 32%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 7 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Chemistry 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
#15,190,918
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,449
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,915
of 258,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#11
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 258,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.