↓ Skip to main content

Plant Response to Engineered Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

Overview of attention for article published in Nanoscale Research Letters, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Plant Response to Engineered Metal Oxide Nanoparticles
Published in
Nanoscale Research Letters, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s11671-017-1861-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khwaja Salahuddin Siddiqi, Azamal Husen

Abstract

All metal oxide nanoparticles influence the growth and development of plants. They generally enhance or reduce seed germination, shoot/root growth, biomass production and physiological and biochemical activities. Some plant species have not shown any physiological change, although significant variations in antioxidant enzyme activity and upregulation of heat shock protein have been observed. Plants have evolved antioxidant defence mechanism which involves enzymatic as well as non-enzymatic components to prevent oxidative damage and enhance plant resistance to metal oxide toxicity. The exact mechanism of plant defence against the toxicity of nanomaterials has not been fully explored. The absorption and translocation of metal oxide nanoparticles in different parts of the plant depend on their bioavailability, concentration, solubility and exposure time. Further, these nanoparticles may reach other organisms, animals and humans through food chain which may alter the entire biodiversity. This review attempts to summarize the plant response to a number of metal oxide nanoparticles and their translocation/distribution in root/shoot. The toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles has also been considered to see if they affect the production of seeds, fruits and the plant biomass as a whole.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 128 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 22%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 35%
Environmental Science 15 12%
Chemistry 11 9%
Engineering 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 27 21%

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 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,538,015
of 12,061,875 outputs
Outputs from Nanoscale Research Letters
#269
of 779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,358
of 284,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nanoscale Research Letters
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,061,875 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 779 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 284,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 66% of its contemporaries.