↓ Skip to main content

A pilot survey of 39 Victorian WWTP effluents using a high speed luminescent umu test in conjunction with a novel GC-MS-database technique for automatic identification of micropollutants.

Overview of attention for article published in Water Science & Technology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
A pilot survey of 39 Victorian WWTP effluents using a high speed luminescent umu test in conjunction with a novel GC-MS-database technique for automatic identification of micropollutants.
Published in
Water Science & Technology, January 2012
DOI 10.2166/wst.2012.242
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mayumi Allinson, Shiho Kageyama, Daisuke Nakajima, Ryo Kamata, Fujio Shiraishi, Sumio Goto, Scott Andrew Salzman, Graeme Allinson, Allinson M, Kageyama S, Nakajima D, Kamata R, Shiraishi F, Goto S, Salzman SA, Allinson G

Abstract

In 2007, samples of treated effluent were collected at point of discharge to the environment from 39 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located across Victoria, Australia grouped by treatment type. Sample genotoxicity was assessed with a high-throughput luminescent umu test method using Salmonella typhimurium TL210 strain, with and without addition of a commercially available metabolic activation system. Samples were also screened using a gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric mass-structure database recognition method. A genotoxic response was observed in half of the samples tested without metabolic activation system (<LOR - 0.19 μg/L 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide equivalents). On addition of metabolic activation system, 75% of samples elicited a genotoxic response, the majority of responses were stronger than without metabolic activation (<LOR - 2.97 μg/L benzo[a]pyrene equivalents). The type of WWTP had no effect on genotoxicity. A large number of chemicals were identified in the effluents, although none could be unambiguously tied to the genotoxicity observed. Chemicals observed in one or more effluents included food additives (e.g. dibenzylether), various alkyl phenols, tyre leachates (e.g. 2(3H)-benzothiazolone), antioxidants, flame retardants (e.g. tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate), insect repellents (e.g. diethyltoluamide), stimulants (e.g. caffeine) and anticonvulsants (e.g. carbamazepine). Of the 451 pesticides screened, carbamate insecticides (e.g. bendiocarb, propoxur), plant growth regulators (e.g. propham) and herbicides (e.g. atrazine, metolachlor, simazine) were amongst the compounds observed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 7 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Computer Science 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
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 08 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,015,243
of 3,633,255 outputs
Outputs from Water Science & Technology
#63
of 290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,187
of 94,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Science & Technology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,633,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 290 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. 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 94,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.