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 |
Outdoor environments and human pathogens in air
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-8-s1-s15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ka man Lai, Jean Emberlin, Ian Colbeck |
| Abstract |
Are pathogens in outdoor air a health issue at present or will they become a problem in the future? A working group called AirPath - Outdoor Environments and Human Pathogens in Air was set up in 2007 at University College London, UK with the aim of opening new discussion and creating a research network to investigate the science and impacts of outdoor pathogens. Our objective in this paper is to review and discuss the following areas: What is the source of human pathogens in outdoor air? What current, developing and future techniques do we need? Can we identify at-risk groups in relation to their activities and environments? How do we prepare for the anticipated challenges of environmental change and new and emerging diseases? And how can we control for and prevent pathogens in outdoor environments? We think that this work can benefit the wider research community and policy makers by providing a concise overview of various research aspects and considerations which may be important to their work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 8% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,364
of 1,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,333
of 172,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 172,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.