| Title |
Past, present, and future of environmental specimen banks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, August 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12199-009-0101-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akio Koizumi, Kouji H. Harada, Kayoko Inoue, Toshiaki Hitomi, Hye-Ran Yang, Chan-Seok Moon, Peiyu Wang, Nguyen Ngoc Hung, Takao Watanabe, Shinichiro Shimbo, Masayuki Ikeda |
| Abstract |
Environmental specimen banks are an essential part of the infrastructure of environmental sciences. They have various functions: (1) evaluation of governmental environmental policy-making and regulations; (2) a resource for animal health evaluation; (3) research tools to investigate time trends in ecosystems; (4) detection of newly emerging chemicals in the time trends; (5) validations of computer models for environmental phenomena; (6) source identification of contaminants; (7) a tool for food safety; (8) evaluation of genetic selection pressure due to environmental changes. In this review paper, we present a detailed description of the Kyoto University Human Specimen Bank (history, protocol and questionnaires) and provide brief outlines of other representative environmental specimen banks. We then review two illustrative cases in which environmental specimen banks have unveiled insidious contaminations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctanoic acids. Finally, we give a perspective of new functions for environmental specimen banks in the next 20 years. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 November 2011.
All research outputs
#15,238,442
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
#299
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,128
of 110,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 110,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.