↓ Skip to main content

Precipitation collector bias and its effects on temporal trends and spatial variability in National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network data

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Pollution, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Precipitation collector bias and its effects on temporal trends and spatial variability in National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network data
Published in
Environmental Pollution, April 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory A. Wetherbee

Abstract

Precipitation samples have been collected by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's (NADP) National Trends Network (NTN) using the Aerochem Metrics Model 301 (ACM) collector since 1978. Approximately one-third of the NTN ACM collectors have been replaced with N-CON Systems, Inc. Model ADS 00-120 (NCON) collectors. Concurrent data were collected over 6 years at 12 NTN sites using colocated ACM and NCON collectors in various precipitation regimes. Linear regression models of the colocated data were used to adjust for relative bias between the collectors. Replacement of ACM collectors with NCON collectors resulted in shifts in 10-year seasonal precipitation-weighted mean concentration (PWMC) trend slopes for: cations (-0.001 to -0.007 mgL(-1)yr(-1)), anions (-0.009 to -0.028 mgL(-1)yr(-1)), and hydrogen ion (+0.689 meqL-(1)yr(-1)). Larger shifts in NO3(-) and SO4(-2) seasonal PWMC trend slopes were observed in the Midwest and Northeast US, where concentrations are generally higher than in other regions. Geospatial analysis of interpolated concentration rasters indicated regions of accentuated variability introduced by incorporation of NCON collectors into the NTN.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 38%
Researcher 3 38%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 38%
Unspecified 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#10,883,445
of 12,279,872 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Pollution
#2,847
of 3,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,122
of 258,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Pollution
#70
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,279,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 258,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.