↓ Skip to main content

Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring at a Great Lakes National Park

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Quality, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring at a Great Lakes National Park
Published in
Journal of Environmental Quality, January 2018
DOI 10.2134/jeq2017.11.0462
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muruleedhara N. Byappanahalli, Meredith B. Nevers, Dawn A. Shively, Ashley Spoljaric, Christopher Otto

Abstract

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was used by the USEPA to establish new recreational water quality criteria in 2012 using the indicator bacteria enterococci. The application of this method has been limited, but resource managers are interested in more timely monitoring results. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of qPCR as a rapid, alternative method to the time-consuming membrane filtration (MF) method for monitoring water at select beaches and rivers of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Empire, MI. Water samples were collected from four locations (Esch Road Beach, Otter Creek, Platte Point Bay, and Platte River outlet) in 2014 and analyzed for culture-based (MF) and non-culture-based (i.e., qPCR) endpoints using and enterococci bacteria. The MF and qPCR enterococci results were significantly, positively correlated overall ( = 0.686, < 0.0001, = 98) and at individual locations as well, except at the Platte River outlet location: Esch Road Beach ( = 0.441, = 0.031, = 24), Otter Creek ( = 0.592, = 0.002, = 24), and Platte Point Bay ( = 0.571, = 0.004, = 24). Similarly, MF and qPCR results were significantly, positively correlated ( = 0.469, < 0.0001, = 95), overall but not at individual locations. Water quality standard exceedances based on enterococci levels by qPCR were lower than by MF method: 3 and 16, respectively. Based on our findings, we conclude that qPCR may be a viable alternative to the culture-based method for monitoring water quality on public lands. Rapid, same-day results are achievable by the qPCR method, which greatly improves protection of the public from water-related illnesses.

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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 1 100%

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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#9,803,038
of 12,271,192 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Quality
#1,408
of 1,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,921
of 260,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Quality
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,271,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,694 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 260,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.