| Title |
The Role of Nanomaterials and Nanotechnologies in Wastewater Treatment: a Bibliometric Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Discover Nano, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s11671-018-2649-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meng Jiang, Yun Qi, Huan Liu, Yinguang Chen |
| Abstract |
Nanomaterials and nanotechnologies (NNs) have been shaping the wastewater treatment process unprecedentedly. Bibliometric methods are regarded as an indispensable light to guide direction in scientific domain. The present study aims to investigate the role of NNs in wastewater treatment with bibliometric techniques based on SCI databases from 1997 to 2016. Results showed that China (962), USA (324) and Iran (140) are the most productive countries. Chinese Academy of Sciences (149), Tongji University (49), and Harbin Institute of Technology (40) from China are the most contributive institutions. China and USA played central roles in cross-national cooperation, but the top three Chinese institutions displayed limited vitality in overseas communication. Rsc Advances (108) was the most productive journal followed by Desalination (97) and Desalination and Water Treatment (96). The research direction of NNs in wastewater treatment was bound up with new NNs. Novel preparation methods and nanostructures were powerful impetus for its progress. Nanomaterials like graphene, nanotube, magnetic nanoparticle, and silver nanoparticle were hotpots in this field. Current and potential application of NNs in wastewater treatment as well as challenges were reviewed based on bibliometric results. This study also provided researchers future-minded advice about research topic selection. |
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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 134 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 19 | 14% |
| Chemical Engineering | 13 | 10% |
| Engineering | 11 | 8% |
| Materials Science | 8 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 58 | 43% |
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 13 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Discover Nano
#542
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,052
of 341,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Discover Nano
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 341,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.