World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
42
Citations
6527
World Ranking
7421
National Ranking
2642

William T. Foreman 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 William T. Foreman 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: 85 publications — 7th percentile

7% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

William T. Foreman 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 William T. Foreman 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: 42 D-Index — 25th percentile

25% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

William T. Foreman is affiliated with the United States Geological Survey in the United States. Their research work focuses on areas within Environmental Science and Agricultural and Biological Sciences.

Their primary research addresses topics related to Water Quality and Resources Studies as well as Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety. These areas highlight an emphasis on understanding water systems and the safety aspects pertaining to agricultural chemical residues.

Foreman has contributed to the subfields of Water Science and Technology and Food Science, indicating involvement in technical and applied research relevant to water management and food safety.

Their recent publication includes the paper titled "Comparison of detection limits estimated using single- and multi-concentration spike-based and blank-based procedures", published in 2021 in the journal Talanta. This work is among their documented contributions to scientific literature and has been cited in subsequent research.

Frequent coauthors working alongside Foreman include Teresa L. Williams, Edward T. Furlong, Dawn M. Hemmerle, Sarah J. Stetson, and Virendra K. Jha. Collaboration with these researchers suggests interdisciplinary engagement within the environmental and biological sciences communities.

Foreman's research has appeared primarily in the journal Talanta, reflecting engagement with venues specializing in analytical chemistry and related fields.

Best Publications

  • New reporting procedures based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-quality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory

    Carolyn J. Oblinger Childress;William T. Foreman;Brooke F. Connor;Thomas J. Maloney

  • METHODS OF ANALYSIS BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER QUALITY LABORATORY- DETERMINATION OF ORGANONITROGEN HERBICIDES IN WATER BY SOLID-PHASE EXTRACTION AND CAPILLARY-COLUMN GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS * SPECTROMETRY WITH SELECTED-ION MONITORING

    Mark W. Sandstrom;Duane S. Wydoski;Michael P. Schroeder;Jana L. Zamboni

  • Expanded Target-Chemical Analysis Reveals Extensive Mixed-Organic-Contaminant Exposure in U.S. Streams

    Paul M. Bradley;Celeste A. Journey;Kristin M. Romanok;Larry B. Barber

  • Determination of vapor pressures for nonpolar and semipolar organic compounds from gas chromatographic retention data

    Daniel A. Hinckley;Terry F. Bidleman;William T. Foreman;Jack R. Tuschall

  • Vapor-particle partitioning of semivolatile organic compounds: estimates from field collections.

    Terry F. Bidleman;W. Neil. Billings;William T. Foreman

  • African and Asian Dust: From Desert Soils to Coral Reefs

    Virginia H. Garrison;Eugene A. Shinn;William T. Foreman;Dale W. Griffin

  • Urban Stormwater: An Overlooked Pathway of Extensive Mixed Contaminants to Surface and Groundwaters in the United States.

    Jason R. Masoner;Dana W. Kolpin;Isabelle M. Cozzarelli;Larry B. Barber

  • Hormones and Pharmaceuticals in Groundwater Used As a Source of Drinking Water Across the United States

    Laura M. Bexfield;Patricia L. Toccalino;Kenneth Belitz;William T. Foreman

  • Combined Sewer Overflows: An Environmental Source of Hormones and Wastewater Micropollutants

    P. J. Phillips;A. T. Chalmers;J. L. Gray;D. W. Kolpin

  • Occurrence of pesticides in rain and air in urban and agricultural areas of Mississippi, April-September 1995.

    R.H. Coupe;M.A. Manning;W.T. Foreman;D.A. Goolsby

  • Chiral Pesticides: Identification, Description, and Environmental Implications

    Elin M. Ulrich;Candice N. Morrison;Candice N. Morrison;Michael R. Goldsmith;William T. Foreman

  • Concentrations of hormones, pharmaceuticals and other micropollutants in groundwater affected by septic systems in New England and New York

    Patrick J. Phillips;Christopher E. Schubert;Denise M. Argue;Irene J. Fisher

  • Pesticides in the atmosphere of the Mississippi River Valley, part I--rain.

    Michael S Majewski;William T Foreman;Donald A Goolsby

  • Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: A comparison between 1995 and 2007

    Michael S. Majewski;Richard H. Coupe;William T. Foreman;Paul D. Capel

  • Bioassay of estrogenicity and chemical analyses of estrogens in streams across the United States associated with livestock operations

    D.A. Alvarez;N.W. Shappell;L.O. Billey;D.S. Bermudez

  • Chemical contaminants in water and sediment near fish nesting sites in the Potomac River basin: Determining potential exposures to smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)

    Dana W. Kolpin;Vicki S. Blazer;James L. Gray;Michael J. Focazio

  • Riverbank filtration potential of pharmaceuticals in a wastewater-impacted stream.

    Paul M. Bradley;Larry B. Barber;Joseph W. Duris;William T. Foreman

  • Reproductive health indicators of fishes from Pennsylvania watersheds: association with chemicals of emerging concern

    V. S. Blazer;D. D. Iwanowicz;H. L. Walsh;A. J. Sperry

  • Airborne pesticide residues along the Mississippi River

    M.S. Majewski;W.T. Foreman;D.A. Goolsbys;N. Nakagaki

  • An experimental system for investigating vapor-particle partitioning of trace organic pollutants

    William T. Foreman;Terry F. Bidleman

  • Semivolatile organic compounds in the ambient air of Denver, Colorado

    Unknown

Frequent Co-Authors

Edward T. Furlong
Edward T. Furlong United States Geological Survey
Dana W. Kolpin
Dana W. Kolpin United States Geological Survey
Peter C. Van Metre
Peter C. Van Metre United States Geological Survey
Barbara J. Mahler
Barbara J. Mahler United States Geological Survey
Larry B. Barber
Larry B. Barber United States Geological Survey
Paul M. Bradley
Paul M. Bradley United States Geological Survey
Michael T. Meyer
Michael T. Meyer United States Geological Survey
Dale W. Griffin
Dale W. Griffin United States Geological Survey
Christopher C. Fuller
Christopher C. Fuller United States Geological Survey
Terry F. Bidleman
Terry F. Bidleman Umeå University

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

Exploring Environmental Sciences often leads students to consider related fields that complement or broaden their expertise. For those seeking flexible learning options, many institutions offer online programs tailored to various interests within the environmental sector. For instance, students interested in Earth's physical processes might explore online geology degrees that focus on geological formations and natural resources.

Another dynamic field linked to environmental studies is Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which plays a critical role in spatial data analysis. Several top-ranking schools provide specialized curricula in this area, making it worthwhile to review colleges with GIS programs for students interested in mapping and environmental data management.

For those concerned about balancing academic workload, insights into the what's the easiest bachelor's degree to get might help in choosing a path that fits personal strengths and career goals without overwhelming stress.

Beyond technical degrees, environmental professionals often benefit from leadership and policy skills. One-year intensive options such as the best online MPA programs equip students with public administration expertise, ideal for advancing careers in governmental or nonprofit sectors focused on sustainability.

Best Scientists Citing William T. Foreman

Trending Scientists