↓ Skip to main content

Umami Taste Components and Their Sources in Asian Foods

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, November 2014
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
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.
Title
Umami Taste Components and Their Sources in Asian Foods
Published in
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, November 2014
DOI 10.1080/10408398.2012.678422
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Hajeb, S. Jinap

Abstract

Umami, the fifth basic taste, is the inimitable taste of Asian foods. Several traditional and locally prepared foods and condiments of Asia are rich in umami. In this part of world, umami is found in fermented animal-based products such as fermented and dried seafood, and plant-based products from beans and grains, dry and fresh mushrooms, and tea. In Southeast Asia, the most preferred seasonings containing umami are fish and seafood sauces, and also soybean sauces. In the East Asian region, soybean sauces are the main source of umami substance in the routine cooking. In Japan, the material used to obtain umami in dashi, the stock added to almost every Japanese soups and boiled dishes, is konbu or dried bonito. This review introduces foods and seasonings containing naturally high amount of umami substances of both animal and plant sources from different countries in Asia.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 18%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Chemistry 6 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 51 37%
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 15 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,334,493
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#500
of 2,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,874
of 361,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 361,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.