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 |
Efficiency of conventional drinking-water-treatment processes in removal of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science of the Total Environment, March 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.01.095 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul E. Stackelberg, Jacob Gibs, Edward T. Furlong, Michael T. Meyer, Steven D. Zaugg, R. Lee Lippincott |
| Abstract |
Samples of water and sediment from a conventional drinking-water-treatment (DWT) plant were analyzed for 113 organic compounds (OCs) that included pharmaceuticals, detergent degradates, flame retardants and plasticizers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), fragrances and flavorants, pesticides and an insect repellent, and plant and animal steroids. 45 of these compounds were detected in samples of source water and 34 were detected in samples of settled sludge and (or) filter-backwash sediments. The average percent removal of these compounds was calculated from their average concentration in time-composited water samples collected after clarification, disinfection (chlorination), and granular-activated-carbon (GAC) filtration. In general, GAC filtration accounted for 53% of the removal of these compounds from the aqueous phase; disinfection accounted for 32%, and clarification accounted for 15%. The effectiveness of these treatments varied widely within and among classes of compounds; some hydrophobic compounds were strongly oxidized by free chlorine, and some hydrophilic compounds were partly removed through adsorption processes. The detection of 21 of the compounds in 1 or more samples of finished water, and of 3 to 13 compounds in every finished-water sample, indicates substantial but incomplete degradation or removal of OCs through the conventional DWT process used at this plant. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 776 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| India | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Burkina Faso | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 756 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 155 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 148 | 19% |
| Researcher | 82 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 79 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 50 | 6% |
| Other | 107 | 14% |
| Unknown | 155 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 178 | 23% |
| Engineering | 132 | 17% |
| Chemistry | 118 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 48 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 38 | 5% |
| Other | 59 | 8% |
| Unknown | 203 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 January 2015.
All research outputs
#8,738,892
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#11,705
of 30,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,688
of 91,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#22
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 91,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.