| Title |
Advances in explosives analysis—part II: photon and neutron methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-015-9043-1 |
| 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 dramatically since publication of the Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry special issue devoted to Explosives Analysis [Moore DS, Goodpaster JV, Anal Bioanal Chem 395:245-246, 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. Part I discussed methods based on animals, chemicals (including colorimetry, molecularly imprinted polymers, electrochemistry, and immunochemistry), ions (both ion-mobility spectrometry and mass spectrometry), and mechanical devices. This part, 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
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 4 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 24 | 69% |
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 15 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,542
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,313
of 289,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#88
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 289,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.