World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
47
Citations
7730
World Ranking
5830
National Ranking
76

Nina Cedergreen publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nina Cedergreen sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 283 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 25 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 18 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–686 publications: 3 scientists 687+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 687+

This scientist: 118 publications — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 687 publications or more.

Nina Cedergreen D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nina Cedergreen sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 199 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 19 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 125+

This scientist: 47 D-Index — 42nd percentile

42% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 125 D-Index or more.

Best Publications

  • Quantifying Synergy: A Systematic Review of Mixture Toxicity Studies within Environmental Toxicology

    Unknown

  • Guidance on harmonised methodologies for human health, animal health and ecological risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals

    Simon John More;Vasileios Bampidis;Diane Benford

  • A review of independent action compared to concentration addition as reference models for mixtures of compounds with different molecular target sites.

    Nina Cedergreen;Anne M. Christensen;Anja Kamper;Per Kudsk

  • Sources of nutrients to rooted submerged macrophytes growing in a nutrient‐rich stream

    Tom Vindbæk Madsen;Nina Cedergreen

  • Improved empirical models describing hormesis

    Unknown

  • Nitrogen uptake by the floating macrophyte Lemna minor

    Nina Cedergreen;Tom Vindbæk Madsen

  • The toxicity of herbicides to non-target aquatic plants and algae: assessment of predictive factors and hazard.

    Unknown

  • The legacy of pesticide pollution: An overlooked factor in current risk assessments of freshwater systems.

    Jes Jessen Rasmussen;Peter Wiberg-Larsen;Annette Baattrup-Pedersen;Nina Cedergreen

  • Scientific Opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) effect models for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic organisms

    Colin Ockleford;Paulien Adriaanse;Philippe Berny;Theodorus Brock

  • Herbicides can stimulate plant growth

    Unknown

  • Soil pH effects on the comparative toxicity of dissolved zinc, non-nano and nano ZnO to the earthworm Eisenia fetida

    Laura R. Heggelund;Maria Diez-Ortiz;Stephen Lofts;Elma Lahive

  • Pesticide cocktails can interact synergistically on aquatic crustaceans

    Unknown

  • Is prochloraz a potent synergist across aquatic species? A study on bacteria, daphnia, algae and higher plants.

    Unknown

  • Can glyphosate stimulate photosynthesis

    Unknown

  • Mixture toxicity of three toxicants with similar and dissimilar modes of action to Daphnia magna

    Kristian Syberg;Anders Elleby;Henrik Pedersen;Nina Cedergreen

  • Can the choice of endpoint lead to contradictory results of mixture-toxicity experiments?

    Unknown

  • An isobole-based statistical model and test for synergism/antagonism in binary mixture toxicity experiments

    Unknown

  • Reproducibility of binary-mixture toxicity studies.

    Nina Cedergreen;Per Kudsk;Solvejg Kopp Mathiassen;Helle Sørensen

  • Does the effect of herbicide pulse exposure on aquatic plants depend on Kow or mode of action

    Unknown

  • Nitrate: An Environmental Endocrine Disruptor? A Review of Evidence and Research Needs.

    Unknown

Frequent Co-Authors

Claus Svendsen
Claus Svendsen Imperial College London
David J. Spurgeon
David J. Spurgeon University of Reading
Stephen O. Duke
Stephen O. Duke University of Mississippi
Tom Vindbæk Madsen
Tom Vindbæk Madsen Aarhus University
Per Kudsk
Per Kudsk Aarhus University
Philipp Mayer
Philipp Mayer Technical University of Denmark
Kristian K. Brandt
Kristian K. Brandt University of Copenhagen
Ryszard Laskowski
Ryszard Laskowski Jagiellonian University
Hans Christian Bruun Hansen
Hans Christian Bruun Hansen University of Copenhagen
Jakob Magid
Jakob Magid University of Copenhagen

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For those interested in expanding their expertise beyond Environmental Sciences, several online degree options offer flexible pathways for career advancement. An online eds to edd bridge program is ideal for educators and researchers who want to deepen their leadership skills while focusing on environmental education or sustainability policy development.

Those pursuing roles in community engagement or social work related to environmental justice may consider dsw programs online. These programs prepare students for advanced practice and leadership in social services, often intersecting with environmental advocacy.

If you're seeking a more affordable or multidisciplinary option, an affordable online general studies degree allows students to customize coursework across various fields, including environmental policy, science, and communication, providing a broad skill set for diverse careers.

Alternatively, for those new to higher education or seeking simpler entry points, exploring the easiest bachelor's degree pathways can help build foundational knowledge and credentials in relevant disciplines at a manageable pace.

Best Scientists Citing Nina Cedergreen

Recently Published Articles