| Title |
Cost-Effective Live Cell Density Determination of Liquid Cultured Microorganisms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Microbiology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00284-017-1370-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Kutschera, Jacob J. Lamb |
| Abstract |
Live monitoring of microorganisms growth in liquid medium is a desired parameter for many research fields. A wildly used approach for determining microbial liquid growth quantification is based on light scattering as the result of the physical interaction of light with microbial cells. These measurements are generally achieved using costly table-top instruments; however, a live, reliable, and straight forward instrument constructed using parts that are inexpensive may provide opportunities for many researchers. Here, such an instrument has been constructed and tested. It consists of modular test tube holding chambers, each with a low power monochromatic light-emitting diode, and a monolithic photodiode. A microcontroller connects to all modular chambers to control the diodes, and send the live data to either an LCD screen, or a computer. This work demonstrate that this modular instrument can determine precise cell concentrations for the bacteria Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000, as well as Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 7 | 26% |
| United States | 3 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| China | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 52% |
| Scientists | 13 | 48% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Engineering | 3 | 14% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,713,738
of 23,907,431 outputs
Outputs from Current Microbiology
#24
of 2,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,449
of 327,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Microbiology
#1
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,907,431 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 2,506 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 327,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 99% of its contemporaries.