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 |
Concentrations of Radioactive Cesium in Different Cuts of Beef
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3358/shokueishi.54.415 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiromi Nabeshi, Hiroyuki Kikuchi, Tomoaki Tsutsumi, Akiko Hachisuka, Rieko Matsuda |
| Abstract |
After the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant accident, high levels of radioactive cesium were detected in beef. Many prefectural governments decided to conduct blanket tests on meat from local beef cattle to prevent distribution of beef contaminated with radioactive cesium exceeding the provisional regulation value. In some cases, different concentrations of radioactive cesium were found in different cuts of beef from the same cows. These results raised questions about the reliability of the test results. Here, we investigated the reason for the differences in radioactive cesium concentration in different cuts of beef from the same cows. The concentrations of radioactive cesium in five different parts cuts of beef from three cows were negatively correlated with fat content, suggesting that the difference in radioactive cesium concentration is due to differences in fat content in the meat. In addition, our results showed that the concentration of radioactive cesium in muscle was more than 7-fold higher than that in fat in the same cow. These results suggested that it is necessary to use muscle for testing of radioactive cesium in cows. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 60% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 20% |
| Engineering | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,517,992
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#282
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,093
of 289,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 289,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.