↓ Skip to main content

WATER FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES USED FOR THE IRRIGATION OF VEGETABLES TO BE MARKETED: RESEARCH ON Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., AND COLIFORMS IN PARANA, BRAZIL

Overview of attention for article published in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
WATER FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES USED FOR THE IRRIGATION OF VEGETABLES TO BE MARKETED: RESEARCH ON Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., AND COLIFORMS IN PARANA, BRAZIL
Published in
Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, August 2015
DOI 10.1590/s0036-46652015000400010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rogerio TIYO, Carla Zangari de SOUZA, Letícia NISHI, Camila Fernanda BRUSTOLIN, Bianca Altrão RATTI, Ana Lucia FALAVIGNA GUILHERME

Abstract

SUMMARYThe aim of this work was to compare, from a parasitological ( Cryptosporidiumspp. and Giardia duodenalis), bacteriological (total and thermotolerants coliforms) and physicochemical perspective, water sources used for drinking and irrigation of vegetables intended to be sold for human consumption. From January 2010 to May 2011, samples of different water sources from vegetable producing properties were collected; 100 liters for parasitological analysis, 200 mL for bacteriological analysis, and five liters for physicochemical analysis. Water samples were filtered under vacuum with a kit containing a cellulose acetate membrane filter, 1.2 µm (Millipore(r), Barueri, SP, Brazil). The material retained on the membrane was mechanically extracted and analyzed by direct immunofluorescence (Merifluor(r)kit). From 20 rural properties investigated, 10 had artesian wells (40 samples), 10 had common wells (40 samples), and one had a mine (four samples), the latter contaminated by Cryptosporidiumspp. In samples from artesian wells, 90 to 130 meters depth, 42.5% were positive for total coliforms and 5.0% were identified to have abnormal coloration. From the samples of common wells, 14 to 37 meters depth, 87.5% were contaminated with total coliforms, 82.5% were positive for thermotolerant coliforms, and 12.5% had color abnormalities. We did not detect the presence of Giardiaspp. or Cryptosporidiumspp. in artesian and common wells. The use of artesian or common wells is an important step in the control of the spreading of zoonoses, particularly Cryptosporidiumspp. and Giardiaspp., as well as artesian wells for coliform control in local production of vegetables to be marketed.

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 %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#10,045,365
of 12,556,257 outputs
Outputs from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
#225
of 251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,090
of 264,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,556,257 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 251 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 264,629 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them