↓ Skip to main content

Comments on the article by A. J. Lecloux (J Nanopart Res (2015) 17:447) regarding the use of volume-specific surface area (VSSA) to classify nanomaterials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nanoparticle Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Comments on the article by A. J. Lecloux (J Nanopart Res (2015) 17:447) regarding the use of volume-specific surface area (VSSA) to classify nanomaterials
Published in
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11051-016-3507-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil Gibson, Hubert Rauscher, Gert Roebben

Abstract

In November 2015, an article by A. J. Lecloux was published in this journal (J Nanopart Res, 17:447, 2015). The article focused on the use of volume-specific surface area (VSSA) for the implementation of the European Commission's recommended definition of "nanomaterial". In that paper, VSSA values were calculated for polydisperse particulate materials using a particle number-based averaging method which do not agree with earlier results of VSSA simulations of polydisperse materials reported in 2014 by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC). In this contribution, we explain the difference between traditional view of VSSA which was used by the JRC and the proposed model of Lecloux. Through the use of some simple examples for polydisperse materials, it is demonstrated that the latter produces values which neither correspond to the generally accepted definition of VSSA nor relate to the commonly used experimental methods for determining VSSA using gas adsorption. Lecloux's model therefore does not constitute a basis for practical implementation of the EC's definition of nanomaterial using gas adsorption techniques.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bulgaria 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Unspecified 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 40%
Computer Science 1 10%
Unspecified 1 10%
Materials Science 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,383,207
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#705
of 906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,916
of 342,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nanoparticle Research
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 906 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 342,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.