↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Evaluation of an Inexpensive Growth Medium for Direct Detection of Escherichia coli in Temperate and Sub-Tropical Waters
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0140997
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The cost and complexity of traditional methods for the detection of faecal indicator bacteria, including E. coli, hinder widespread monitoring of drinking water quality, especially in low-income countries and outside controlled laboratory settings. In these settings the problem is exacerbated by the lack of inexpensive media for the detection of E. coli in drinking water. We developed a new low-cost growth medium, aquatest (AT), and validated its use for the direct detection of E. coli in temperate and sub-tropical drinking waters using IDEXX Quanti-Tray®. AT was compared with IDEXX Colilert-18® and either EC-MUG or MLSB for detecting low levels of E. coli from water samples from temperate (n = 140; Bristol, UK) and subtropical regions (n = 50, Pretoria/Tshwane, South Africa). Confirmatory testing (n = 418 and 588, respectively) and the comparison of quantitative results were used to assess performance. Sensitivity of AT was higher than Colilert-18® for water samples in the UK [98.0% vs. 86.9%; p<0.0001] and South Africa [99.5% vs. 93.2%; p = 0.0030]. There was no significant difference in specificity, which was high for both media (>95% in both settings). Quantitative results were comparable and within expected limits. AT is reliable and accurate for the detection of E. coli in temperate and subtropical drinking water. The composition of the new medium is reported herein and can be used freely.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 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 %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 27%
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Other 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 17%
Engineering 11 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#9,256,193
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#77,860
of 220,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,735
of 320,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,840
of 5,732 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 320,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,732 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.