| Title |
Comparison of the mineral content of tap water and bottled waters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.04189.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arik Azoulay, Philippe Garzon, Mark J. Eisenberg |
| Abstract |
Because of growing concern that constituents of drinking water may have adverse health effects, consumption of tap water in North America has decreased and consumption of bottled water has increased. Our objectives were to 1) determine whether North American tap water contains clinically important levels of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), and sodium (Na+) and 2) determine whether differences in mineral content of tap water and commercially available bottled waters are clinically important. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 28% |
| Angola | 3 | 10% |
| Ireland | 2 | 7% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 93% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 295 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 90 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 12% |
| Researcher | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 13% |
| Unknown | 62 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 13% |
| Engineering | 39 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 27 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 75 | 25% |
| Unknown | 77 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 191. 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 24 March 2024.
All research outputs
#211,912
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#187
of 8,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84
of 42,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 42,724 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.