| Title |
Healing and edible clays: a review of basic concepts, benefits and risks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Geochemistry and Health, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10653-016-9903-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Celso de Sousa Figueiredo Gomes |
| Abstract |
The use of clay by humans for medicinal and wellness purposes is most probably as old as mankind. Within minerals, due to its ubiquitous occurrence in nature and easy availability, clay was the first to be used and is still used worldwide. Healing clays have been traditionally used by man for therapeutic, nutritional and skin care purposes, but they could impart some important health and skin care risks. For instance, clay particles could adsorb and make available for elimination or excretion any potential toxic elements or toxins being ingested or produced, but they could adsorb and make available for incorporation, through ingestion or through dermal absorption, toxic elements, e.g. heavy metals. Edible clays, a particular case of healing clays, have been traditionally used by man for nutritional and therapeutic purposes. Geophagy, the deliberate soil eating, earth eating, clay eating and pica (medical condition or eating disorder shown by individuals addicted to eat earth substances), has been observed in all parts of the world since antiquity, reflecting cultural practice, religious belief and physiological needs, be they nutritional (dietary supplementation) or as a remedy for disease. This paper pretends to review historical data, basic concepts and functions, as well as benefits and risks of the use of healing clays, in general, for therapeutic and cosmetic purposes, and of edible clays, in particular, for therapeutic purposes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 26% |
| Unknown | 42 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 29 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,735,219
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Geochemistry and Health
#34
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,588
of 427,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Geochemistry and Health
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 427,030 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.