↓ Skip to main content

Organochlorine Chemical Residues in Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Eggs from Greater Washington, DC USA

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Organochlorine Chemical Residues in Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Eggs from Greater Washington, DC USA
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00128-018-2357-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher J. Schmitt, Kathy R. Echols, Paul H. Peterman, Carl E. Orazio, K. Christiana Grim, Shirlee Tan, Nora E. Diggs, Peter P. Marra

Abstract

Northern Cardinal eggs from six neighborhoods near Washington DC were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs. All compounds were detected more frequently and at higher concentrations in more heavily urbanized neighborhoods. DDT (mostly as p,p'-DDE) was detected in all neighborhoods. p,p'-DDT was typically 0.5‒16 ng/g (ww) in most suburban neighborhoods but was not detected (< 0.1 ng/g) in more rural areas; however, p,p'-DDT was 127‒1130 ng/g in eggs from two suburban Maryland nests and comprised 65.7% of total p,p'-DDT isomers in the most contaminated sample, indicating recent exposure to un-weathered DDT. Total chlordane (sum of 5 compounds) was 2‒70 ng/g; concentrations were greatest in older suburban neighborhoods. Total PCB (sum of detected congeners) was < 5‒21 ng/g. Congener patterns were similar in all neighborhoods and resembled those typical of weathered mixtures. Results indicate that wildlife remains exposed to low concentrations of legacy contaminants in suburban neighborhoods and that cardinal eggs can be used to monitor localized contamination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 38%
Other 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Librarian 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 25%
Arts and Humanities 1 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#11,536,083
of 12,979,316 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#2,112
of 2,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,244
of 271,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#21
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,979,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,881 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 271,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.