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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Biota monitoring and the Water Framework Directive—can normalization overcome shortcomings in sampling strategies?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-016-7442-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annette Fliedner, Heinz Rüdel, Diana Teubner, Georgia Buchmeier, Jaqueline Lowis, Christiane Heiss, Jörg Wellmitz, Jan Koschorreck |
| Abstract |
We compare the results of different monitoring programs regarding spatial and temporal trends of priority hazardous substances of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). Fish monitoring data for hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mercury (Hg), and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) sampled in German freshwaters between the mid-1990s and 2014 were evaluated according to the recommendations of the 2014 adopted WFD guidance document on biota monitoring, i.e., normalization to 5 % lipid content (HCB) or 26 % dry mass (Hg, PFOS) and adjustment to trophic level (TL) 4. Data of the German Environmental Specimen Bank (ESB) (annual pooled samples of bream) were compared to monitoring data of the German federal states (FS), which refer to individual fish of different species. Significant decreasing trends (p < 0.01) were detected for Hg in bream (Abramis brama) sampled by both, the ESB and the FS between 1993 and 2013 but not for FS samples comprising different fish species. Data for HCB and PFOS were more heterogeneous due to a smaller database and gave no consistent results. Obviously, normalization could not compensate differences in sampling strategies. The results suggest that the data treatment procedure proposed in the guidance document has shortcomings and emphasize the importance of highly standardized sampling programs in trend monitoring or whenever results between sites have to be compared. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 28% |
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 8 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
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 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#8,166
of 10,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,133
of 354,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#131
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,868 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 354,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.