↓ Skip to main content

Identification of the sources of metal (lead) contamination in drinking waters in north-eastern Tasmania using lead isotopic compositions.

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Identification of the sources of metal (lead) contamination in drinking waters in north-eastern Tasmania using lead isotopic compositions.
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11356-015-4349-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. J. Harvey, H. K. Handley, M. P. Taylor

Abstract

This study utilises a range of scientific approaches, including lead isotopic compositions, to differentiate unknown sources of ongoing lead contamination of a drinking water supply in north-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Drinking water lead concentrations are elevated above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline (10 μg/L), reaching 540 μg/L in the supply network. Water lead isotopic compositions from the town of Pioneer ((208)Pb/(207)Pb 2.406, (206)Pb/(207)Pb 1.144 to (208)Pb/(207)Pb 2.360, (206)Pb/(207)Pb 1.094) and Ringarooma ((208)Pb/(207)Pb 2.398, (206)Pb/(207)Pb 1.117) are markedly different from the local bedrock ((208)Pb/(207)Pb 2.496, (206)Pb/(207)Pb 1.237). The data show that the lead in the local waters is sourced from a combination of dilapidated drinking water infrastructure, including lead jointed pipelines, end-of-life polyvinyl chloride pipes and household plumbing. Drinking water is being inadvertently contaminated by aging infrastructure, and it is an issue that warrants investigation to limit the burden of disease from lead exposure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 38 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 16 16%
Chemistry 11 11%
Engineering 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Chemical Engineering 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 39 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,149,425
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#508
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,802
of 268,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#16
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 268,527 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.