↓ Skip to main content

Nanosilver and Nano Zero-Valent Iron Exposure Affects Nutrient Exchange Across the Sediment–Water Interface

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Nanosilver and Nano Zero-Valent Iron Exposure Affects Nutrient Exchange Across the Sediment–Water Interface
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00128-015-1697-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert W. Buchkowski, Clayton J. Williams, Joel Kelly, Jonathan G. C. Veinot, Marguerite A. Xenopoulos

Abstract

To examine how nanoparticles influence biogeochemical cycles in streams, we studied the acute impact of nanosilver (nAg) and nanoparticulate zero-valent iron (nZVI) exposure on nutrient and oxygen exchange across the sediment-water interface of two streams (agricultural canal and wetland) that differed in their water quality and sediment characteristics. At the agricultural site, nAg increased oxygen consumption and decreased N2 flux rates from that observed in control incubations. nZVI caused sediment-water systems from both streams to go hypoxic within 1.5 h of exposure. N2 flux rates were at least an order of magnitude higher in nZVI treatments as compared to control. Water column nitrate and nitrite concentrations were not impacted by nZVI exposure but total dissolved phosphorus concentrations were higher in cores treated with nZVI. nAg and nZVI exposure to surface water ecosystems can disrupt ecological function across the sediment-water interface.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 16%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 6 32%
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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,371,088
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,634
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,444
of 395,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 395,605 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.