↓ Skip to main content

Environmental implications of the use of sulfidic back-bay sediments for dune reconstruction — Lessons learned post Hurricane Sandy

Overview of attention for article published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Environmental implications of the use of sulfidic back-bay sediments for dune reconstruction — Lessons learned post Hurricane Sandy
Published in
Marine Pollution Bulletin, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey S. Plumlee, William M. Benzel, Todd M. Hoefen, Philip L. Hageman, Suzette A. Morman, Timothy J. Reilly, Monique Adams, Cyrus J. Berry, Jeffrey M. Fischer, Irene Fisher

Abstract

Some barrier-island dunes damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy's storm surges in October 2012 have been reconstructed using sediments dredged from back bays. These sand-, clay-, and iron sulfide-rich sediments were used to make berm-like cores for the reconstructed dunes, which were then covered by beach sand. In November 2013, we sampled and analyzed partially weathered materials collected from the cores of reconstructed dunes. There are generally low levels of metal toxicants in the reconstructed dune materials. However oxidation of reactive iron sulfides by percolating rainwater produces acid-sulfate pore waters, which evaporate during dry periods to produce efflorescent gypsum and sodium jarosite salts. The results suggest use of sulfidic sediments in dune reconstruction has both drawbacks (e.g., potential to generate acid runoff from dune cores following rainfall, enhanced corrosion of steel bulwarks) and possible benefits (e.g., efflorescent salts may enhance structural integrity).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%

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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#10,890,175
of 12,288,060 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#2,924
of 4,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,044
of 275,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#80
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,288,060 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 4,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. 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 275,350 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 146 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.