↓ Skip to main content

Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: A review

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
330 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 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
Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: A review
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-8-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas AJ Kuhlbusch, Christof Asbach, Heinz Fissan, Daniel Göhler, Michael Stintz

Abstract

Risk, associated with nanomaterial use, is determined by exposure and hazard potential of these materials. Both topics cannot be evaluated absolutely independently. Realistic dose concentrations should be tested based on stringent exposure assessments for the corresponding nanomaterial taking into account also the environmental and product matrix. This review focuses on current available information from peer reviewed publications related to airborne nanomaterial exposure. Two approaches to derive realistic exposure values are differentiated and independently presented; those based on workplace measurements and the others based on simulations in laboratories. An assessment of the current available workplace measurement data using a matrix, which is related to nanomaterials and work processes, shows, that data are available on the likelihood of release and possible exposure. Laboratory studies are seen as an important complementary source of information on particle release processes and hence for possible exposure. In both cases, whether workplace measurements or laboratories studies, the issue of background particles is a major problem. From this review, major areas for future activities and focal points are identified.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 286 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 21%
Researcher 61 20%
Student > Master 44 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 49 16%
Unknown 43 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 47 16%
Engineering 37 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 12%
Chemistry 33 11%
Materials Science 17 6%
Other 73 24%
Unknown 60 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,356,484
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#93
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,853
of 295,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 295,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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