↓ Skip to main content

Sources of airborne microorganisms in the built environment

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
44 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
281 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
566 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
Sources of airborne microorganisms in the built environment
Published in
Microbiome, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40168-015-0144-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron J. Prussin, Linsey C. Marr

Abstract

Each day people are exposed to millions of bioaerosols, including whole microorganisms, which can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. The next chapter in understanding the airborne microbiome of the built environment is characterizing the various sources of airborne microorganisms and the relative contribution of each. We have identified the following eight major categories of sources of airborne bacteria, viruses, and fungi in the built environment: humans; pets; plants; plumbing systems; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems; mold; dust resuspension; and the outdoor environment. Certain species are associated with certain sources, but the full potential of source characterization and source apportionment has not yet been realized. Ideally, future studies will quantify detailed emission rates of microorganisms from each source and will identify the relative contribution of each source to the indoor air microbiome. This information could then be used to probe fundamental relationships between specific sources and human health, to design interventions to improve building health and human health, or even to provide evidence for forensic investigations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 566 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Unknown 562 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 16%
Student > Bachelor 81 14%
Researcher 67 12%
Student > Master 65 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 5%
Other 91 16%
Unknown 142 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 13%
Environmental Science 75 13%
Engineering 64 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 6%
Other 94 17%
Unknown 165 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 103. 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 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#411,597
of 25,519,924 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#101
of 1,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,809
of 397,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,519,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. 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 397,262 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.