Journal of Environmental Monitoring (J ENVIRON MONITOR)

Publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry (Great Britain), Royal Society of Chemistry

Journal description

Modern instrumentation has allowed us to push back the frontiers of detection such that we are able to determine incredibly small amounts of natural and anthropogenic pollutants and contaminants in our environment, whether they are in our homes, workplaces, cities, the countryside or the oceans. The fact that we can detect these pollutants in minuscule amounts does not necessarily mean that the levels present in the environment are harmful to our health or well being, but it does drive world-wide legislation on these substances. Therefore, there is a requirement to monitor, ascertain the sources, prevent the release, develop better detection methods and make properly assessed scientific judgements on the toxicity, exposure and risk assessment of the pollutants to which we are exposed in our daily lives. The Royal Society of Chemistry has recognised the importance of these 21st century requirements and that it is essential to promote and disseminate the knowledge of newly developed technologies for monitoring our various environments. Therefore, they have launched the Journal of Environmental Monitoring (JEM) which is dedicated to assessing exposure and health risks through the latest developments in measurement science. The first issue of the journal was published in February 1999 and subsequent issues will be published bimonthly thereafter. JEM is unique in that it aims to publish all the relevant information on this subject area in one source. This journal is intended for environmental and health professionals in industry and officials from governmental and regulatory agencies as well as research scientists interested in the environment.

Current impact factor: 2.18

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 2.179
2013 Impact Factor 2.109
2012 Impact Factor 2.085
2011 Impact Factor 1.991
2010 Impact Factor 1.81
2009 Impact Factor 2.225
2008 Impact Factor 1.989
2007 Impact Factor 1.833
2006 Impact Factor 1.523
2005 Impact Factor 1.578
2004 Impact Factor 1.366
2003 Impact Factor 1.186
2002 Impact Factor 1.348
2001 Impact Factor 1.055
2000 Impact Factor 1.068
1999 Impact Factor

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 2.46
Cited half-life 5.50
Immediacy index 0.32
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 0.71
Website Journal of Environmental Monitoring website
Other titles Journal of environmental monitoring, JEM
ISSN 1464-0325
OCLC 41043780
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Royal Society of Chemistry

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Pre-prints on non-commercial repositories and arXiv
    • Post-print on author's personal website
    • Author's post-print on institutional repository after 12 months from acceptance
    • Publisher's version/PDF may be used on author's personal website only
    • Publisher PDF will be supplied and may be used on author's personal website only
    • Publisher will deposit the authors post-print, if appropriate in non-commercial repositories, not limited to funder's repositories after 12 months
    • Restrictions on further re-use and further distribution to be noted
    • Publisher will deposit in Chemical Sciences Article Repository if requested, after 12 months
    • Publisher last reviewed on 21/07/2015
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nitrate pollution in aquatic systems caused by intensive agricultural activities is a serious problem in the Sanjiang Plain. In this study, a dual isotope approach (δ15N–NO3− and δ18O–NO3−) was employed to identify potential nitrate sources (atmospheric deposition, AD; NO3− derived from soil organic matter nitrification, NS; NO3− derived from chemical fertilizer nitrification, NF; and manure and sewage, M&S) and transformation processes occurring in the Abujiao River watershed located in the Sanjiang Plain. The Bayesian model (stable isotope analysis in R, SIAR) was utilized to apportion the contribution of the potential sources. In this watershed, the nitrate concentrations in the surface water were low (mean ± SD = 1.15 ± 0.84 mg L−1), and were greatly influenced by precipitation and land use conditions during the two sampling periods (the high flow period, September; the low flow period, November). On the contrary, in the ground water, high NO3− concentrations were observed (7.84 ± 5.83 mg L−1) and no significant temporal variation in NO3− was found during the sampling periods. The sampled water δ18O–NO3− values suggest that the nitrification process was not the main N cycling process, because most of the measured δ18O–NO3− values were above the expected δ18O–NO3− from nitrification throughout the sampling periods. Both the chemical and isotopic characteristics indicated that the signs of de-nitrification were absent in the surface water. However, significant de-nitrification processes were observed in the ground water for all sample periods. Results from the SIAR model showed that source contributions differed significantly during the two sampling periods. During the high flow period, chemical fertilizers and soil N fertilizer equally contributed to the major sources of nitrate in the surface water. In contrast, manure and sewage sources dominated the source contribution during the low flow period (November). This study suggested that with the assessment of the behaviors and sources of NO3−, effective nitrate reduction strategies and better management practices can be implemented to protect water quality.
    Journal of Environmental Monitoring 10/2014;

  • Journal of Environmental Monitoring 01/2011; DOI:10.1039/c2em10924g
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The interconversion of carbon in organic, inorganic and refractory carbon is still beyond the grasp of present environmentalists. The bacteria and their phages being the most abundant constituents of the aquatic environment, represents an ideal model for studing carbon regulation in aquatic system. The refractory dissolved organic carbon (DOC) a recently coined terminology from the microbe-driven conversion of bioavailable organic carbon into difficult-to-digest refractory DOC by microbial carbon pump (MCP) is suggested to have potential to revolutionize our view of carbon sequestration. It is estimated that about 95% of organic carbon is in the form of refractory DOC which is the largest pool of organic matter in the ocean. The refractory DOC is supposed to be the major factor in the global carbon cycle whose source is not yet well understood 1, 3, 4. A key element of the carbon cycle is the microbial conversion of dissolved organic carbon into inedible forms. The time studies of phage-host interaction under control conditions reveals their impact on the total carbon content of the source and their interconversion among organic, inorganic and other forms of carbon with respect to control source 1, 2, 3, 4. The TOC- analysis statistics stipulate increase in inorganic carbon content by 15-25 percent in the sample with phage as compared to sample without phage. The results signify 60-70 fold increase in inorganic carbon content in sample with phage, whereas, 50-55 fold in the case of sample without phages as compared with control. This increase in inorganic carbon content may be due to lysis of the host cell releasing its cellular constituents and utilization of carbon constituent for phage assembly and development. It also proves the role of phages in regulating the carbon flow in the aquatic systems like oceans where their concentration outnumbered other species.
    Journal of Environmental Monitoring 01/2011; DOI:10.1038/npre.2012.7059
  • Jie Fu · Ding YH · Li L · Sheng S · Wen T · Yu LJ · Chen W · An SQ · Zhu HL ·

    Journal of Environmental Monitoring 01/2011; 13(3):597-604.

  • Journal of Environmental Monitoring 01/2011; 13(1):19-19. DOI:10.1039/c0em90042g