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 |
A critical review of the current knowledge regarding the biological impact of nanocellulose
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12951-016-0230-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Endes, S. Camarero-Espinosa, S. Mueller, E. J. Foster, A. Petri-Fink, B. Rothen-Rutishauser, C. Weder, M. J. D. Clift |
| Abstract |
Several forms of nanocellulose, notably cellulose nanocrystals and nanofibrillated cellulose, exhibit attractive property matrices and are potentially useful for a large number of industrial applications. These include the paper and cardboard industry, use as reinforcing filler in polymer composites, basis for low-density foams, additive in adhesives and paints, as well as a wide variety of food, hygiene, cosmetic, and medical products. Although the commercial exploitation of nanocellulose has already commenced, little is known as to the potential biological impact of nanocellulose, particularly in its raw form. This review provides a comprehensive and critical review of the current state of knowledge of nanocellulose in this format. Overall, the data seems to suggest that when investigated under realistic doses and exposure scenarios, nanocellulose has a limited associated toxic potential, albeit certain forms of nanocellulose can be associated with more hazardous biological behavior due to their specific physical characteristics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 355 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 68 | 19% |
| Researcher | 63 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 42 | 12% |
| Unknown | 92 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 52 | 15% |
| Engineering | 47 | 13% |
| Materials Science | 37 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 22 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 55 | 15% |
| Unknown | 126 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,123,410
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#265
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,215
of 420,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanobiotechnology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 420,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.