↓ Skip to main content

Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward T. Furlong, Angela L. Batt, Susan T. Glassmeyer, Mary C. Noriega, Dana W. Kolpin, Heath Mash, Kathleen M. Schenck

Abstract

Mobile and persistent chemicals that are present in urban wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals, may survive on-site or municipal wastewater treatment and post-discharge environmental processes. These pharmaceuticals have the potential to reach surface and groundwaters, essential drinking-water sources. A joint, two-phase U.S. Geological Survey-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study examined source and treated waters from 25 drinking-water treatment plants from across the United States. Treatment plants that had probable wastewater inputs to their source waters were selected to assess the prevalence of pharmaceuticals in such source waters, and to identify which pharmaceuticals persist through drinking-water treatment. All samples were analyzed for 24 pharmaceuticals in Phase I and for 118 in Phase II. In Phase I, 11 pharmaceuticals were detected in all source-water samples, with a maximum of nine pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample. The median number of pharmaceuticals for all 25 samples was five. Quantifiable pharmaceutical detections were fewer, with a maximum of five pharmaceuticals in any one sample and a median for all samples of two. In Phase II, 47 different pharmaceuticals were detected in all source-water samples, with a maximum of 41 pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample. The median number of pharmaceuticals for all 25 samples was eight. For 37 quantifiable pharmaceuticals in Phase II, median concentrations in source water were below 113ng/L. For both Phase I and Phase II campaigns, substantially fewer pharmaceuticals were detected in treated water samples than in corresponding source-water samples. Seven different pharmaceuticals were detected in all Phase I treated water samples, with a maximum of four detections in any one sample and a median of two pharmaceuticals for all samples. In Phase II a total of 26 different pharmaceuticals were detected in all treated water samples, with a maximum of 20 pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample and a median of 2 pharmaceuticals detected for all 25 samples. Source-water type influences the presence of pharmaceuticals in source and treated water. Treatment processes appear effective in reducing concentrations of most pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals more consistently persisting through treatment include carbamazepine, bupropion, cotinine, metoprolol, and lithium. Pharmaceutical concentrations and compositions from this study provide an important base data set for further sublethal, long-term exposure assessments, and for understanding potential effects of these and other contaminants of emerging concern upon human and ecosystem health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 30 23%
Engineering 20 15%
Chemistry 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 36 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 190. 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 04 June 2021.
All research outputs
#124,161
of 18,800,073 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#85
of 18,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,335
of 402,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#5
of 552 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,800,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 402,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 552 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.