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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Microbial Interaction as a Determinant of the Quality of Supply Drinking Water: A Conceptual Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00184 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Syeda T. Towhid |
| Abstract |
This conceptual analysis elucidates the microbial interaction inside municipal distribution pipes, subsequent deterioration in the quality of the supply water, and its impacts on public health. Literature review involved a total of 21 original reports on microbiological events inside the water distribution system were studied, summarizing the current knowledge about the build-up of microbes in treated municipal water at various points of the distribution system. Next, original reports from the microbiological analysis of supply water from Bangladesh were collected to enlist the types of bacteria found growing actively. A schematic diagram of microbial interaction among the genera was constructed with respect to the physical, chemical, and microbiological quality of the supply water. Finally latest guidelines and expert opinions from public health authorities around the world are reviewed to keep up with using cutting-edge molecular technology to ensure safe and good quality drinking water for municipal supply. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,952
of 10,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,208
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#67
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 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 10,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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.