↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Monitoring Schemes for Wastewater-Based Epidemiology to Identify Drug Use Trends Using Cocaine, Methamphetamine, MDMA and Methadone

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Technology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of Monitoring Schemes for Wastewater-Based Epidemiology to Identify Drug Use Trends Using Cocaine, Methamphetamine, MDMA and Methadone
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, April 2016
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.5b06126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa A. Humphries, Raimondo Bruno, Foon Yin Lai, Phong K. Thai, Barbara R. Holland, Jake W. O’Brien, Christoph Ort, Jochen F. Mueller

Abstract

Wastewater-based epidemiology is increasingly being used as a tool to monitor drug use trends. To minimize costs, studies have typically monitored a small number of days. However, cycles of drug use may display weekly and seasonal trends that affect the accuracy of monthly or annual drug use estimates based on a limited number of samples. This study aimed to rationalize sampling methods for minimizing the number of samples required while maximizing information about temporal trends. A range of sampling strategies were examined: i) targeted days (e.g. weekends), ii) completely random or stratified random sampling, and iii) a number of sampling strategies informed by known weekly cycles in drug use data. Using a time-series approach, analysis was performed for four drugs (MDMA, methamphetamine, cocaine, methadone) collected through a continuous sampling program over 14 months. Results showed, for drugs with weekly cycles (MDMA, methamphetamine and cocaine in this sample), sampling strategies which made use of those weekly cycles required fewer samples to obtain similar information as sampling five days per week and had better accuracy than stratified random sampling techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Environmental Science 4 9%
Chemistry 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 19 44%
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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,404,780
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#15,695
of 21,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,867
of 316,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#141
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 316,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.