↓ Skip to main content

Association between risk of birth defects occurring level and arsenic concentrations in soils of Lvliang, Shanxi province of China

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Pollution, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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.
Title
Association between risk of birth defects occurring level and arsenic concentrations in soils of Lvliang, Shanxi province of China
Published in
Environmental Pollution, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.04.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jilei Wu, Chaosheng Zhang, Lijun Pei, Gong Chen, Xiaoying Zheng

Abstract

The risk of birth defects is generally accredited with genetic factors, environmental causes, but the contribution of environmental factors to birth defects is still inconclusive. With the hypothesis of associations of geochemical features distribution and birth defects risk, we collected birth records and measured the chemical components in soil samples from a high prevalence area of birth defects in Shanxi province, China. The relative risk levels among villages were estimated with conditional spatial autoregressive model and the relationships between the risk levels of the villages and the 15 types of chemical elements concentration in the cropland and woodland soils were explored. The results revealed that the arsenic levels in cropland soil showed a significant association with birth defects occurring risk in this area, which is consistent with existing evidences of arsenic as a teratogen and warrants further investigation on arsenic exposure routine to birth defect occurring risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Master 6 18%
Other 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Environmental Science 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,106,429
of 12,380,442 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Pollution
#856
of 4,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,713
of 197,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Pollution
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,380,442 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 197,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.