↓ Skip to main content

Respective contributions of diet and medium to the bioaccumulation of pharmaceutical compounds in the first levels of an aquatic trophic web

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Respective contributions of diet and medium to the bioaccumulation of pharmaceutical compounds in the first levels of an aquatic trophic web
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11356-015-5243-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frédéric Orias, Laurent Simon, Yves Perrodin

Abstract

Nowadays, pharmaceuticals (PCs) are ubiquitous in aquatic ecosystems. It is known that these compounds have ecotoxic effects on aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Moreover, some of them can bioaccumulate inside organisms or trophic webs exposed at environmental concentrations and amplify ecotoxic impacts. PCs can bioaccumulate in two ways: exposure to a medium (e.g., respiration, diffusion, etc.) and/or through the dietary route. Here, we try to assess the respective contributions of these two forms of contamination of the first two levels of an aquatic trophic web. We exposed Daphnia magna for 5 days to 0, 5, and 50 μg/L (15)N-tamoxifen and then fed them with control and contaminated diets. We used an isotopic method to measure the tamoxifen content inside the daphnids after several minutes' exposure and every day before and after feeding. We found that tamoxifen is very bioaccumulative inside daphnids (BCF up to 12,000) and that the dietary route has a significant impact on contamination by tamoxifen (BAF up to 22,000), especially at low concentrations in medium.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Professor 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 31%
Environmental Science 5 19%
Chemistry 3 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
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 August 2015.
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
#197,654
of 270,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#78
of 173 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 270,923 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 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.