↓ Skip to main content

Aquatic zooremediation: deploying animals to remediate contaminated aquatic environments

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Biotechnology, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Aquatic zooremediation: deploying animals to remediate contaminated aquatic environments
Published in
Trends in Biotechnology, January 2007
DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.12.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gifford S, Dunstan RH, O'Connor W, Koller CE, MacFarlane GR

Abstract

The ability of animals to act in a bioremediative capacity is not widely known. Animals are rarely considered for bioremediation initiatives owing to ethical or human health concerns. Nonetheless, specific examples in the literature reveal that some animal species are effective remediators of heavy metals, microbial contaminants, hydrocarbons, nutrients and persistent organic pollutants, particularly in an aquatic environment. Recent examples include deploying pearl oysters to remove metals and nutrients from aquatic ecosystems and the harvest of fish to remove polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the Baltic. It is probable that many animal taxa will possess attributes amenable to bioremediation. We introduce zoological equivalents of the definitions used in phytoremediation literature (zooextraction, zootransformation, zoostabilization and animal hyperaccumulation), to serve as useful benchmarks in the evaluation of candidate animal species for zooremediation initiatives, and propose that recognition of the concept of zooremediation would act to stimulate discussion and future research in this area.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 86 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 11%
Other 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 57%
Environmental Science 23 25%
Unspecified 5 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 7 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,504,175
of 8,148,366 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#266
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,785
of 189,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,148,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 189,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 73% of its contemporaries.