↓ 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
376 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
766 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 766 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 7 <1%
Unknown 738 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 212 28%
Student > Master 135 18%
Researcher 108 14%
Student > Bachelor 89 12%
Unspecified 54 7%
Other 168 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 144 19%
Engineering 135 18%
Materials Science 121 16%
Unspecified 109 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 14%
Other 151 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#971,061
of 12,365,836 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#164
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,660
of 144,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,365,836 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 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 144,135 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 91% 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 77% of its contemporaries.