↓ Skip to main content

Methods for and approaches to evaluating susceptibility of ecological systems to hazardous chemicals.

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health Perspectives, June 1997
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Article details
Title
Methods for and approaches to evaluating susceptibility of ecological systems to hazardous chemicals.
Published in
Environmental Health Perspectives, June 1997
DOI 10.1289/ehp.97105s4843
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Differences in genetic susceptibility to hazardous chemicals affect individuals of both human and nonhuman populations. In both cases, differences in response to chemicals or general ill health result as a function of these differences in genetic susceptibility. However, ecological systems are a compilation of hundreds or even thousands of different species, resulting in structural and functional characteristics that are themselves affected by differences in susceptibility. Although individual and population differences in susceptibility to hazardous chemicals underlie effects at the community and the ecosystem level, they do not account for all differences. I propose a two-tiered approach to evaluating susceptibility to ecological systems: a general susceptibility as a function of ecosystem type (based on structure and function of that system) and a differential in susceptibility within broad ecosystem types as a function of biotic and abiotic factors. In terrestrial ecosystems, the two factors that most affect overall susceptibility are species diversity and hydrology; evaluation of the effects of hazardous chemicals involves measuring species diversity and water movement. This same methodological approach can be applied to aquatic ecosystems and to highly altered ecosystems such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and urbanization.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 6%
Argentina 1 3%
Unknown 28 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 10 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 1999.
All research outputs
#9,347,257
of 27,265,746 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health Perspectives
#5,701
of 9,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,024
of 32,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health Perspectives
#27
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,265,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 32,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.