↓ Skip to main content

Carbon nanotube dosimetry: from workplace exposure assessment to inhalation toxicology

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 520)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Carbon nanotube dosimetry: from workplace exposure assessment to inhalation toxicology
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-10-53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Erdely, Matthew Dahm, Bean T Chen, Patti C Zeidler-Erdely, Joseph E Fernback, M Birch, Douglas E Evans, Michael L Kashon, James A Deddens, Tracy Hulderman, Suzan A Bilgesu, Lori Battelli, Diane Schwegler-Berry, Howard D Leonard, Walter McKinney, David G Frazer, James M Antonini, Dale W Porter, Vincent Castranova, Mary K Schubauer-Berigan

Abstract

Dosimetry for toxicology studies involving carbon nanotubes (CNT) is challenging because of a lack of detailed occupational exposure assessments. Therefore, exposure assessment findings, measuring the mass concentration of elemental carbon from personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples, from 8 U.S.-based multi-walled CNT (MWCNT) manufacturers and users were extrapolated to results of an inhalation study in mice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 16%
Engineering 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Chemistry 5 7%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 19 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,061,924
of 19,891,915 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#27
of 520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,106
of 206,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,891,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 206,217 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.