↓ Skip to main content

Multi-Year Microbial Source Tracking Study Characterizing Fecal Contamination in an Urban Watershed

Overview of attention for article published in Water Environment Research (10614303), February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Multi-Year Microbial Source Tracking Study Characterizing Fecal Contamination in an Urban Watershed
Published in
Water Environment Research (10614303), February 2017
DOI 10.2175/106143016x14798353399412
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca N. Bushon, Amie M.G. Brady, Eric D. Christensen, Erin A. Stelzer

Abstract

  Microbiological and hydrological data were used to rank tributary stream contributions of bacteria to the Little Blue River in Independence, Missouri. Concentrations, loadings and yields of E. coli and microbial source tracking (MST) markers, were characterized during base flow and storm events in five subbasins within Independence, as well as sources entering and leaving the city through the river. The E. coli water quality threshold was exceeded in 29% of base-flow and 89% of storm-event samples. The total contribution of E. coli and MST markers from tributaries within Independence to the Little Blue River, regardless of streamflow, did not significantly increase the median concentrations leaving the city. Daily loads and yields of E. coli and MST markers were used to rank the subbasins according to their contribution of each constituent to the river. The ranking methodology used in this study may prove useful in prioritizing remediation in the different subbasins.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 31%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 38%
Environmental Science 5 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,100,054
of 11,337,824 outputs
Outputs from Water Environment Research (10614303)
#78
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,335
of 319,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Environment Research (10614303)
#5
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,337,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 319,238 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 90% of its contemporaries.