↓ Skip to main content

Use of chemometric analyses to assess biological wastewater treatment plants by protozoa and metazoa monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Use of chemometric analyses to assess biological wastewater treatment plants by protozoa and metazoa monitoring
Published in
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10661-018-6882-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Luís Amaral, Cristiano S. Leal, A. Isabel Vaz, J. Carvalho Vieira, Andreia C. Quinteiro, M. Lourdes Costa, L. Miguel Castro

Abstract

Protozoa and metazoa biota communities in biological wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are known to be dependent of both the plant type (oxidation ditch, trickling filter, conventional activated sludge, among others) and the working operational conditions (incoming effluent characteristics, toxics presence, organic load, aeration, hydraulic and sludge retention times, nitrification occurrence, etc.). Thus, for analogous WWTP operating in equivalent operating conditions, similar protozoa and metazoa communities can be found. Indeed, the protozoa and metazoa biota monitoring can be considered a quite useful tool for assessing the functioning of biological WWTP. Furthermore, the use of chemometric techniques in WWTP monitoring is becoming widespread to enlighten interrelationships within the plant, especially when a large collection of data can be obtained. In the current study, the protozoa and metazoa communities of three different types of WWTP, comprising one oxidation ditch, four trickling filters, and three conventional activated sludge plants, were monitored. For that purpose, metazoa, as well as the main protozoa groups (flagellates, free-swimming, crawling and sessile ciliates, and testate amoeba) were determined in terms of contents and relative abundance. The collected data was further processed by chemometric techniques, such as cross-correlation, principal components, multivariate ANOVA, and decision trees analyses, allowing to successfully identify, and characterize, the different studied WWTP, and thus, being able to help monitoring and diagnosing operational problems.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Unspecified 5 16%
Researcher 5 16%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 25%
Unspecified 5 16%
Environmental Science 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
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 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,699,725
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#1,797
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,865
of 333,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#23
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 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 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 333,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.