↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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 comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations
Published in
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/etc.3884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Cleveland, William G. Brumbaugh, Donald D. MacDonald

Abstract

Evaluations of sediment quality conditions are commonly conducted using whole sediment chemistry analyses, but can be enhanced by evaluating multiple lines of evidence, including measures of the bioavailable forms of contaminants. In particular, pore water chemistry data provide information that is directly relevant for interpreting sediment toxicity data. Various methods for sampling pore water for trace metals and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is an important moderator of metal bioavailability, have been employed. The present paper compares the peeper, push point, centrifugation, and diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) methods for the quantification of 6 metals and DOC. The methods were evaluated at low and high concentrations of metals in 3 sediments having different concentrations of total organic carbon and acid volatile sulfide, and different particle-size distributions. At low metals concentrations, centrifugation and push point sampling resulted in up to 100 times higher concentrations of metals and DOC in pore water compared to peepers and DGTs. At elevated metals levels, the measured concentrations were in better agreement among the four sampling techniques. These results indicate that there can be marked differences among operationally different pore water sampling methods, and it is unclear if there is a definitive best method for sampling metals and DOC in pore water. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 6 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 21%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%

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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#10,705,568
of 18,156,586 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#3,195
of 4,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,543
of 280,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry
#43
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,156,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,987 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 280,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 56% of its contemporaries.