↓ Skip to main content

Contaminants of emerging concern in urban stormwater: Spatiotemporal patterns and removal by iron-enhanced sand filters (IESFs)

Overview of attention for article published in Water Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Contaminants of emerging concern in urban stormwater: Spatiotemporal patterns and removal by iron-enhanced sand filters (IESFs)
Published in
Water Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Fairbairn, Sarah M. Elliott, Richard L. Kiesling, Heiko L. Schoenfuss, Mark L. Ferrey, Benjamin M. Westerhoff

Abstract

Numerous contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) typically occur in urban rivers. Wastewater effluents are a major source of many CECs. Urban runoff (stormwater) is a major urban water budget component and may constitute another major CEC pathway. Yet, stormwater-based CEC field studies are rare. This research investigated 384 CECs in 36 stormwater samples in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Nine sampling sites included three large stormwater conveyances (pipes) and three paired iron-enhanced sand filters (IESFs; untreated inlets and treated outlets). The 123 detected compounds included commercial-consumer compounds, veterinary and human pharmaceuticals, lifestyle and personal care compounds, pesticides, and others. Thirty-one CECs were detected in ≥50% of samples. Individual samples contained a median of 35 targeted CECs (range: 18-54). Overall, median concentrations were ≥10 ng/L for 25 CECs and ≥100 ng/L for 9 CECs. Ranked, hierarchical linear modeling indicated significant seasonal- and site type-based concentration variability for 53 and 30 CECs, respectively, with observed patterns corresponding to CEC type, source, usage, and seasonal hydrology. A primarily warm-weather, diffuse, runoff-based profile included many herbicides. A second profile encompassed winter and/or late summer samples enriched with some recalcitrant, hydrophobic compounds (e.g., PAHs), especially at pipes, suggesting conservative, less runoff-dependent sources (e.g., sediments). A third profile, indicative of mixed conservative/non-runoff, runoff, and/or atmospheric sources and transport that collectively affect a variety of conditions, included various fungicides, lifestyle, non-prescription, and commercial-consumer CECs. Generally, pipe sites had large, diverse land-use catchments, and showed more frequent detections of diverse CECs, but often at lower concentrations; while untreated sites (with smaller, more residential-catchments) demonstrated greater detections of "pseudo-persistent" and other ubiquitous or residentially-associated CECs. Although untreated stormwater transports an array of CECs to receiving waters, IESF treatment significantly removed concentrations of 14 (29%) of the 48 most detected CECs; for these, median removal efficiencies were 26%-100%. Efficient removal of some hydrophobic (e.g., PAHs, bisphenol A) and polar-hydrophilic (e.g., caffeine, nicotine) compounds indicated particulate-bound contaminant filtration and for certain dissolved contaminants, sorption.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 20%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 63 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 20%
Engineering 27 15%
Chemistry 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 68 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,169,998
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#1,146
of 11,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,176
of 341,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#36
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 341,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.