↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of Nanomaterials in Foods: Integrative Consideration of Challenges and Future Prospects

Overview of attention for article published in ACS Nano, March 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Measurement of Nanomaterials in Foods: Integrative Consideration of Challenges and Future Prospects
Published in
ACS Nano, March 2014
DOI 10.1021/nn501108g
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Szakal, Stephen M. Roberts, Paul Westerhoff, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Neil Buck, Ian Illuminato, Richard Canady, Michael Rogers

Abstract

The risks and benefits of nanomaterials in foods and food contact materials receive conflicting international attention across expert stakeholder groups as well as in news media coverage and published research. Current nanomaterial characterization is complicated by the lack of accepted approaches to measure exposure-relevant occurrences of suspected nanomaterials in food and by broad definitions related to food processing and additive materials. Therefore, to improve understanding of risk and benefit, analytical methods are needed to identify what materials, new or traditional, are "nanorelevant" with respect to biological interaction and/or uptake during alimentary tract transit. Challenges to method development in this arena include heterogeneity in nanomaterial composition and morphology, food matrix complexity, alimentary tract diversity, and analytical method limitations. Clear problem formulation is required to overcome these and other challenges and to improve understanding of biological fate in facilitating the assessment of nanomaterial safety or benefit, including sampling strategies relevant to food production/consumption and alimentary tract transit. In this Perspective, we discuss critical knowledge gaps that must be addressed so that measurement methods can better inform risk management and public policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 10 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 15%
Chemistry 20 15%
Engineering 15 11%
Materials Science 10 7%
Environmental Science 10 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 38 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 01 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,764,587
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from ACS Nano
#1,699
of 13,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,714
of 225,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACS Nano
#41
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 225,530 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 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.