↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing fish sampling for fish–mercury bioaccumulation factors

Overview of attention for article published in Chemosphere, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Optimizing fish sampling for fish–mercury bioaccumulation factors
Published in
Chemosphere, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara C. Scudder Eikenberry, Karen Riva-Murray, Christopher D. Knightes, Celeste A. Journey, Lia C. Chasar, Mark E. Brigham, Paul M. Bradley

Abstract

Fish Bioaccumulation Factors (BAFs; ratios of mercury (Hg) in fish (Hgfish) and water (Hgwater)) are used to develop total maximum daily load and water quality criteria for Hg-impaired waters. Both applications require representative Hgfish estimates and, thus, are sensitive to sampling and data-treatment methods. Data collected by fixed protocol from 11 streams in 5 states distributed across the US were used to assess the effects of Hgfish normalization/standardization methods and fish-sample numbers on BAF estimates. Fish length, followed by weight, was most correlated to adult top-predator Hgfish. Site-specific BAFs based on length-normalized and standardized Hgfish estimates demonstrated up to 50% less variability than those based on non-normalized Hgfish. Permutation analysis indicated that length-normalized and standardized Hgfish estimates based on at least 8 trout or 5 bass resulted in mean Hgfish coefficients of variation less than 20%. These results are intended to support regulatory mercury monitoring and load-reduction program improvements.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 27%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Unspecified 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 29%
Unspecified 8 15%
Chemistry 7 13%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 5%

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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,609,180
of 12,241,269 outputs
Outputs from Chemosphere
#3,246
of 5,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,093
of 271,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemosphere
#37
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,241,269 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 271,399 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.