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 |
Essential Oils as Feed Additives—Future Perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecules, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3390/molecules23071717 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zora Dajić Stevanović, Jasna Bošnjak-Neumüller, Ivana Pajić-Lijaković, Jog Raj, Marko Vasiljević |
| Abstract |
The inconsistency of phytogenic feed additives' (PFA) effects on the livestock industry poses a risk for their use as a replacement for antibiotic growth promoters. The livestock market is being encouraged to use natural growth promotors, but information is limited about the PFA mode of action. The aim of this paper is to present the complexity of compounds present in essential oils (EOs) and factors that influence biological effects of PFA. In this paper, we highlight various controls and optimization parameters that influence the processes for the standardization of these products. The chemical composition of EOs depends on plant genetics, growth conditions, development stage at harvest, and processes of extracting active compounds. Their biological effects are further influenced by the interaction of phytochemicals and their bioavailability in the gastrointestinal tract of animals. PFA effects on animal health and production are also complex due to various EO antibiotic, antioxidant, anti-quorum sensing, anti-inflammatory, and digestive fluids stimulating activities. Research must focus on reliable methods to identify and control the quality and effects of EOs. In this study, we focused on available microencapsulation techniques of EOs to increase the bioavailability of active compounds, as well as their application in the animal feed additive industry. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 259 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
| Researcher | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 16% |
| Unknown | 97 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 29% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 29 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Unknown | 106 | 41% |
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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,234,609
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Molecules
#8,778
of 19,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,409
of 325,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecules
#199
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,266 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 325,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.