↓ Skip to main content

Baseline aquatic contamination and endocrine status in a resident fish of Biscayne National Park

Overview of attention for article published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Baseline aquatic contamination and endocrine status in a resident fish of Biscayne National Park
Published in
Marine Pollution Bulletin, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy A. Bargar, Kevin R.T. Whelan, David Alvarez, Kathy Echols, Paul H. Peterman

Abstract

Surface water, sediment, and fish from Biscayne Bay, coastal wetlands adjacent to the Bay, and canals discharging into the Bay were sampled for determination of baseline contamination in Biscayne National Park. While the number of contaminants detected in canal waters was greater during the wet season than the dry season, no seasonal difference was evident for Biscayne Bay or coastal wetland waters. Estrogen equivalency (as 17β-estradiol equivalents), as predicted by the Yeast Estrogen Screen, for extracts of passive water samplers deployed in canals and wetlands was elevated during the wet relative to the dry season. Generally, contamination in water, sediments, and fish was greater in the canals than in Biscayne Bay and the wetlands. Guideline levels for sediment contaminant were exceeded most frequently in canals relative to the coastal wetlands and the Bay. Further investigation is necessary to better understand the impact of contaminants in Biscayne National Park.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 36%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%

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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,120,801
of 12,617,609 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#2,089
of 4,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,554
of 253,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#47
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,617,609 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 253,035 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 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 69% of its contemporaries.