↓ Skip to main content

Portable air cleaners should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 1,438)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
37 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
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.
Title
Portable air cleaners should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke
Published in
Environmental Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0198-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prabjit K. Barn, Catherine T. Elliott, Ryan W. Allen, Tom Kosatsky, Karen Rideout, Sarah B. Henderson

Abstract

Landscape fires can produce large quantities of smoke that degrade air quality in both remote and urban communities. Smoke from these fires is a complex mixture of fine particulate matter and gases, exposure to which is associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The public health response to short-lived smoke events typically advises people to remain indoors with windows and doors closed, but does not emphasize the use of portable air cleaners (PAC) to create private or public clean air shelters. High efficiency particulate air filters and electrostatic precipitators can lower indoor concentrations of fine particulate matter and improve respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes. We argue that PACs should be at the forefront of the public health response to landscape fire smoke events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Engineering 10 11%
Unspecified 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 27 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 339. 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 03 July 2022.
All research outputs
#72,179
of 21,714,585 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#30
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,315
of 425,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#6
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,714,585 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 1,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 425,106 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 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.