↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 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.
Article details
Title
Combining Measurements from Mobile Monitoring and a Reference Site To Develop Models of Ambient Ultrafine Particle Number Concentration at Residences
Published in
Environmental Science & Technology, May 2018
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.8b00292
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Significant spatial and temporal variation in ultrafine particle (UFP; <100 nanometers in diameter) concentrations creates challenges in developing predictive models for epidemiological investigations. We compared the performance of land-use regression models built by combining mobile and stationary measurements (hybrid model) with a regression model built using mobile measurements only (mobile model) in Chelsea and Boston, MA (USA). In each study area, particle number concentration (PNC; a proxy for UFP) was measured at a stationary reference site and with a mobile laboratory driven along a fixed route during a ~1-year monitoring period. In comparing PNC measured at 20 residences and PNC estimates from hybrid and mobile models, the hybrid model showed higher Pearson correlations of natural log-transformed PNC (r=0.73 vs. 0.51 in Chelsea; r=0.74 vs. 0.47 in Boston) and lower root-mean-square error in Chelsea (0.61 vs. 0.72) but no benefit in Boston (0.72 vs. 0.71). All models over-predicted log-transformed PNC by 3-6% at residences, yet the hybrid model reduced the standard deviation of the residuals by 15% in Chelsea and 31% in Boston with better tracking of overnight decreases in PNC. Overall, the hybrid model considerably outperformed the mobile model and could offer reduced exposure error for UFP epidemiology.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Other 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 9 17%
Engineering 7 13%
Computer Science 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Chemistry 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 23 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,712,543
of 27,396,316 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Technology
#8,879
of 22,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,907
of 345,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Technology
#125
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,396,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 345,176 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.