↓ Skip to main content

Pathogen Decay during Managed Aquifer Recharge at Four Sites with Different Geochemical Characteristics and Recharge Water Sources

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Quality, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Pathogen Decay during Managed Aquifer Recharge at Four Sites with Different Geochemical Characteristics and Recharge Water Sources
Published in
Journal of Environmental Quality, January 2015
DOI 10.2134/jeq2015.03.0118
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. P. S. Sidhu, S. Toze, L. Hodgers, K. Barry, D. Page, Y. Li, P. Dillon

Abstract

Recycling of stormwater water and treated effluent via managed aquifer recharge (MAR) has often been hampered because of perceptions of low microbiological quality of recovered water and associated health risks. The goal of this study was to assess the removal of selected pathogens in four large-scale MAR schemes and to determine the influence of aquifer characteristics, geochemistry, and type of recharge water on the pathogen survival times. Bacterial pathogens tested in this study had the shortest one log removal time (, <3 d), followed by oocysts (, <120 d), with enteric viruses having the biggest variability in removal times (, 18 to >200 d). Human adenovirus and rotavirus were relatively persistent under anaerobic conditions (, >200 d). Human adenovirus survived longer than all the other enteric virus tested in the study and hence could be used as a conservative indicator for virus removal in groundwater during MAR. The results suggest that site-specific subsurface conditions such as groundwater chemistry can have considerable influence on the decay rates of enteric pathogens and that viruses are likely to be the critical pathogens from a public health perspective.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Other 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 12 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Engineering 5 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Other 2 6%

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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,812,298
of 6,507,444 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Quality
#333
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,921
of 206,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Quality
#31
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,507,444 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 206,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.