↓ Skip to main content

Antibacterial surfaces: the quest for a new generation of biomaterials

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Biotechnology, May 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
477 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
844 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Antibacterial surfaces: the quest for a new generation of biomaterials
Published in
Trends in Biotechnology, May 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.01.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jafar Hasan, Russell J. Crawford, Elena P. Ivanova

Abstract

In this review we attempt to clarify the notion of what is meant by the term antibacterial surfaces and categorise the approaches that are commonly used in the design of antibacterial surfaces. Application of surface coatings and the modification of the surface chemistry of substrata are generally considered to be a chemical approach to surface modification (as are surface polymerisation, functionalisation, and derivatisation), whereas, modification of the surface architecture of a substrate can be considered a physical approach. Here, the antifouling and bactericidal effects of antibacterial surfaces are briefly discussed. Finally, several recent efforts to design a new generation of antibacterial surfaces, which are based on mimicking the surface nanotopography of natural surfaces, are considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 844 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Other 7 <1%
Unknown 815 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 230 27%
Student > Master 150 18%
Researcher 111 13%
Student > Bachelor 98 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 53 6%
Other 132 16%
Unknown 70 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 154 18%
Engineering 147 17%
Materials Science 138 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 108 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 5%
Other 130 15%
Unknown 128 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,141,048
of 15,248,235 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#158
of 2,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,100
of 151,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,248,235 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 151,994 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.