↓ Skip to main content

Future water quality monitoring — Adapting tools to deal with mixtures of pollutants in water resource management

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
258 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
614 Mendeley
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
Future water quality monitoring — Adapting tools to deal with mixtures of pollutants in water resource management
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rolf Altenburger, Selim Ait-Aissa, Philipp Antczak, Thomas Backhaus, Damià Barceló, Thomas-Benjamin Seiler, Francois Brion, Wibke Busch, Kevin Chipman, Miren López de Alda, Gisela de Aragão Umbuzeiro, Beate I Escher, Francesco Falciani, Michael Faust, Andreas Focks, Klara Hilscherova, Juliane Hollender, Henner Hollert, Felix Jäger, Annika Jahnke, Andreas Kortenkamp, Martin Krauss, Gregory F Lemkine, John Munthe, Steffen Neumann, Emma L Schymanski, Mark Scrimshaw, Helmut Segner, Jaroslav Slobodnik, Foppe Smedes, Subramaniam Kughathas, Ivana Teodorovic, Andrew J Tindall, Knut Erik Tollefsen, Karl-Heinz Walz, Tim D Williams, Paul J Van den Brink, Jos van Gils, Branislav Vrana, Xiaowei Zhang, Werner Brack

Abstract

Environmental quality monitoring of water resources is challenged with providing the basis for safeguarding the environment against adverse biological effects of anthropogenic chemical contamination from diffuse and point sources. While current regulatory efforts focus on monitoring and assessing a few legacy chemicals, many more anthropogenic chemicals can be detected simultaneously in our aquatic resources. However, exposure to chemical mixtures does not necessarily translate into adverse biological effects nor clearly shows whether mitigation measures are needed. Thus, the question which mixtures are present and which have associated combined effects becomes central for defining adequate monitoring and assessment strategies. Here we describe the vision of the international, EU-funded project SOLUTIONS, where three routes are explored to link the occurrence of chemical mixtures at specific sites to the assessment of adverse biological combination effects. First of all, multi-residue target and non-target screening techniques covering a broader range of anticipated chemicals co-occurring in the environment are being developed. By improving sensitivity and detection limits for known bioactive compounds of concern, new analytical chemistry data for multiple components can be obtained and used to characterise priority mixtures. This information on chemical occurrence will be used to predict mixture toxicity and to derive combined effect estimates suitable for advancing environmental quality standards. Secondly, bioanalytical tools will be explored to provide aggregate bioactivity measures integrating all components that produce common (adverse) outcomes even for mixtures of varying compositions. The ambition is to provide comprehensive arrays of effect-based tools and trait-based field observations that link multiple chemical exposures to various environmental protection goals more directly and to provide improved in situ observations for impact assessment of mixtures. Thirdly, effect-directed analysis (EDA) will be applied to identify major drivers of mixture toxicity. Refinements of EDA include the use of statistical approaches with monitoring information for guidance of experimental EDA studies. These three approaches will be explored using case studies at the Danube and Rhine river basins as well as rivers of the Iberian Peninsula. The synthesis of findings will be organised to provide guidance for future solution-oriented environmental monitoring and explore more systematic ways to assess mixture exposures and combination effects in future water quality monitoring.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 614 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Yemen 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 591 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 117 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 102 17%
Student > Master 93 15%
Student > Bachelor 47 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 5%
Other 100 16%
Unknown 122 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 184 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 11%
Engineering 59 10%
Chemistry 44 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 4%
Other 71 12%
Unknown 167 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 February 2015.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#22,300
of 29,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,045
of 361,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#103
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 29,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 361,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.