You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
[Do liquid wastes from automated instruments in medical laboratories have their proper microbicide effect?]
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annales de Biologie Clinique, June 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1684/abc.2019.1431 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Camille Kolenda, Alice Monteix, Linda Houhamdi, Pascale Preynat-Boucher, Jean-Marc Giannoli, Vanessa Escuret, Frédéric Laurent, Florence Morfin |
| Abstract |
Liquid wastes from clinical biology automated systems are currently evacuated in the urban network after chemical treatment to eliminate a possible risk of infection. Since these wastes are ecotoxic because of the presence of numerous chemical reagents, we studied their intrinsic microbicidal power towards a selection of infectious agents widely found in clinical specimens. The objective was to determine if an additional anti-infectious treatment before elimination is necessary. Thus, we evaluated the bactericidal effect of liquid wastes of several automated systems towards four bacterial species (Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis) and their virucidal activity against a non-enveloped virus, resistant in the environment (adenovirus). This effect was determined for different exposure times. Our results showed that the antibacterial activity was highly variable depending on the waste-bacteria pair considered (varying from no activity to complete sterilization of a strong bacterial inoculum). The liquid wastes were on the other hand globally inactive towards adenovirus. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 2 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#20,667,544
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Annales de Biologie Clinique
#139
of 272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,348
of 363,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annales de Biologie Clinique
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 272 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 363,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.