↓ Skip to main content

Genotoxicity studies on permethrin, DEET and diazinon in primary human nasal mucosal cells

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, January 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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Genotoxicity studies on permethrin, DEET and diazinon in primary human nasal mucosal cells
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s004050100406
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Tisch, P. Schmezer, M. Faulde, A. Groh, Heinz Maier

Abstract

Possible genotoxic effects exerted by three widely used pesticides, permethrin, N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and diazinon, in primary human nasal mucosal cells were investigated. Primary nasal mucosa cells were prepared from tissue biopsies taken from 21 patients who underwent nasal surgery. Cells were exposed to 0.5-1.0 mM concentrations of permethrin, DEET and diazinon for 60 min. Genotoxic effects were detected by the alkaline microgel electrophoresis assay ("comet assay"). Within the concentration range, no significant cytotoxic effects were observed, but all three tested pesticides showed a significant genotoxic response that was concentration dependent. More pronounced genotoxic effects were observed in mucosal cells from the middle turbinate than in the inferior turbinate. The results provide some evidence for the potential carcinogenicity of these agents to human nasal mucosal cells. This should be further investigated.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,101,899
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#158
of 3,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,837
of 307,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,064 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 307,118 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 97% of its contemporaries.