↓ Skip to main content

Hits and misses in research trends to monitor contaminants in foods

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Hits and misses in research trends to monitor contaminants in foods
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1195-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Lehotay, Yibai Chen

Abstract

Monitoring of chemicals of toxicological concern in food is commonly needed for many purposes, which include (in part) food safety, regulatory enforcement, risk assessment, international food trade, label claims, environmental protection, industry needs, academic research, and consumer confidence. Chemicals of current concern include a variety of toxins, pesticides, veterinary drugs, growth promoters, environmental contaminants, toxic metals, allergens, endocrine disruptors, genetically modified organisms, melamine, acrylamide, furans, nitrosamines, food additives, packaging components, and miscellaneous other chemicals. In light of past crises, the potential harm from known or unknown chemicals not currently monitored are a source of additional concern by the food industry, regulators, scientists, and consumers. As global food trade has expanded and detection techniques have improved, chemical contaminant analysis of foods has also increased in importance and activity. This critical review article is aimed to highlight current trends in the literature, including neglected research needs, on the analysis of chemicals of toxicological concern in foods. Graphical abstract.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 32 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 16 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 16%
Engineering 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 39 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,073,220
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#4,995
of 9,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,907
of 342,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#68
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.