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 |
Contamination of nanoparticles by endotoxin: evaluation of different test methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-8977-9-41 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stijn Smulders, Jean-Pierre Kaiser, Stefano Zuin, Kirsten L Van Landuyt, Luana Golanski, Jeroen Vanoirbeek, Peter Wick, Peter HM Hoet |
| Abstract |
Nanomaterials can be contaminated with endotoxin (lipopolysaccharides, LPS) during production or handling. In this study, we searched for a convenient in vitro method to evaluate endotoxin contamination in nanoparticle samples. We assessed the reliability of the commonly used limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay and an alternative method based on toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 reporter cells when applied with particles (TiO(2), Ag, CaCO(3) and SiO(2)), or after extraction of the endotoxin as described in the ISO norm 29701. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 365 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 43 | 12% |
| Australia | 28 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 3% |
| Canada | 6 | 2% |
| Japan | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Comoros | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 20 | 5% |
| Unknown | 242 | 66% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 335 | 92% |
| Scientists | 16 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 19% |
| Researcher | 24 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 21% |
| Unknown | 15 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 29 | 23% |
| Chemistry | 15 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 219. 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 11 April 2024.
All research outputs
#180,040
of 25,816,430 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#11
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#831
of 197,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,816,430 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 197,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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