↓ Skip to main content

Wastewater Effluent Hydrocodone Concentrations as an Indicator of Drug Disposal Program Success

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Wastewater Effluent Hydrocodone Concentrations as an Indicator of Drug Disposal Program Success
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00128-015-1574-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. I. Stoddard, D. B. Huggett

Abstract

Drug disposal programs have been seen as a remedy to the concern of environmental contamination resulting from pharmaceutical disposal down the toilet or sink; however a thorough review of peer-reviewed literature and publicly available information on these programs indicates limited research has been conducted to validate the effectiveness of these programs at reducing pharmaceuticals in the environment. The purpose of this research was to determine if drug disposal programs could actually reduce pharmaceutical residues in the environment. The concentration of hydrocodone in wastewater effluent released from a wastewater treatment plant in Denton, Texas was monitored before and after a take back program called Denton Drug Disposal Day (D4). Data collected and analyzed suggests D4 events were successful in contributing to a reduction of pharmaceutical loading to the environment; however there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that D4 events were exclusively responsible for these improvements.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Engineering 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 31%
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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,827,358
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,483
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,154
of 268,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 268,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 73% of its contemporaries.