↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of Genetic Markers for Tracking the Sources of Human Wastewater Associated Escherichia coli in Environmental Waters

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Technology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Assessment of Genetic Markers for Tracking the Sources of Human Wastewater Associated Escherichia coli in Environmental Waters
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, July 2015
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.5b02163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Warish, Cheryl Triplett, Ryota Gomi, Pradip Gyawali, Leonie Hodgers, Simon Toze

Abstract

In this study, we have evaluated the performance characteristics (host-specificity and -sensitivity) of four human wastewater-associated Escherichia coli (E. coli) genetic markers (H8, H12, H14 and H24) in ten target (human) and non-target (cat, cattle, deer, dog, emu, goat, horse, kangaroo and possum) host groups in Southeast Queensland, Australia. The overall host-sensitivity values of the tested markers in human wastewater samples were 1.0. The overall host-specificity values of these markers to differentiate between human and animal host groups were 0.94, 0.85, 0.72, and 0.57 for H8, H12, H24 and H14, respectively. Based on the higher host-specificity values, H8 and H12 markers were chosen for a validation environmental study. The prevalence of the H8 and H12 markers was determined among human wastewater E. coli isolates collected from a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Among the 97 isolates tested, 44 (45%) and 14 (14%) were positive for the H8 and H12 markers, respectively. A total of 307 E. coli isolates were tested from environmental water samples collected in Brisbane, of which 7% and 20% were also positive for the H8 and H12 markers, respectively. Based on our results, we recommend that these markers could be useful when it is important to identify the source(s) of E. coli (whether they originated from human wastewater or not) in environmental waters.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 24%
Student > Master 4 19%
Researcher 4 19%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 38%
Environmental Science 4 19%
Engineering 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 3 14%

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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#10,911,781
of 12,313,065 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#11,803
of 12,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,756
of 239,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#259
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,313,065 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 12,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. 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 239,528 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 280 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.