↓ Skip to main content

Advances in explosives analysis—part I: animal, chemical, ion, and mechanical methods

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, October 2015
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Advances in explosives analysis—part I: animal, chemical, ion, and mechanical methods
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00216-015-9040-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn E. Brown, Margo T. Greenfield, Shawn D. McGrane, David S. Moore

Abstract

The number and capability of explosives detection and analysis methods have increased substantially since the publication of the Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry special issue devoted to Explosives Analysis (Moore and Goodpaster, Anal Bioanal Chem 395(2):245-246, 2009). Here we review and critically evaluate the latest (the past five years) important advances in explosives detection, with details of the improvements over previous methods, and suggest possible avenues towards further advances in, e.g., stand-off distance, detection limit, selectivity, and penetration through camouflage or packaging. The review consists of two parts. This part, Part I, reviews methods based on animals, chemicals (including colorimetry, molecularly imprinted polymers, electrochemistry, and immunochemistry), ions (both ion-mobility spectrometry and mass spectrometry), and mechanical devices. Part II will review methods based on photons, from very energetic photons including X-rays and gamma rays down to the terahertz range, and neutrons.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 16 31%
Materials Science 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,813,829
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#229
of 9,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,057
of 291,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#4
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,624 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 291,380 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 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.