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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Opportunistic pathogens in roof-captured rainwater samples, determined using quantitative PCR
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Water Research, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.021 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
W. Ahmed, H. Brandes, P. Gyawali, J.P.S. Sidhu, S. Toze |
| Abstract |
In this study, quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used for the detection of four opportunistic bacterial pathogens in water samples collected from 72 rainwater tanks in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Tank water samples were also tested for fecal indicator bacteria (Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp.) using culture-based methods. Among the 72 tank water samples tested, 74% and 94% samples contained E. coli and Enterococcus spp., respectively, and the numbers of E. coli and Enterococcus spp. in tank water samples ranged from 0.3 to 3.7 log₁₀ colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL of water. In all, 29%, 15%, 13%, and 6% of tank water samples contained Aeromonas hydrophila, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Legionella pneumophila, respectively. The genomic units (GU) of opportunistic pathogens in tank water samples ranged from 1.5 to 4.6 log₁₀ GU per 100 mL of water. A significant correlation was found between E. coli and Enterococcus spp. numbers in pooled tank water samples data (Spearman's rs = 0.50; P < 0.001). In contrast, fecal indicator bacteria numbers did not correlate with the presence/absence of opportunistic pathogens tested in this study. Based on the results of this study, it would be prudent, to undertake a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) analysis of opportunistic pathogens to determine associated health risks for potable and nonpotable uses of tank water. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 17% |
| Researcher | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 21 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 21 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#3,025
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,208
of 318,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#11
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 318,831 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.