| Title |
Single Particle ICP-MS: Advances toward routine analysis of nanomaterials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-016-9676-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manuel D. Montaño, John W. Olesik, Angela G. Barber, Katie Challis, James F. Ranville |
| Abstract |
From its early beginnings in characterizing aerosol particles to its recent applications for investigating natural waters and waste streams, single particle inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (spICP-MS) has proven to be a powerful technique for the detection and characterization of aqueous dispersions of metal-containing nanomaterials. Combining the high-throughput of an ensemble technique with the specificity of a single particle counting technique and the elemental specificity of ICP-MS, spICP-MS is capable of rapidly providing researchers with information pertaining to size, size distribution, particle number concentration, and major elemental composition with minimal sample perturbation. Recently, advances in data acquisition, signal processing, and the implementation of alternative mass analyzers (e.g., time-of-flight) has resulted in a wider breadth of particle analyses and made significant progress toward overcoming many of the challenges in the quantitative analysis of nanoparticles. This review provides an overview of spICP-MS development from a niche technique to application for routine analysis, a discussion of the key issues for quantitative analysis, and examples of its further advancement for analysis of increasingly complex environmental and biological samples. Graphical Abstract Single particle ICP-MS workflow for the analysis of suspended nanoparticles. |
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 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 320 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 71 | 22% |
| Researcher | 40 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 53 | 17% |
| Unknown | 78 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 120 | 37% |
| Environmental Science | 26 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Engineering | 8 | 2% |
| Materials Science | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 42 | 13% |
| Unknown | 109 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#8,270,860
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#1,979
of 9,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,959
of 368,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#23
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 well, scoring higher than 77% 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 368,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.