↓ Skip to main content

Characterization of occupational exposures to cleaning products used for common cleaning tasks-a pilot study of hospital cleaners

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, March 2009
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Characterization of occupational exposures to cleaning products used for common cleaning tasks-a pilot study of hospital cleaners
Published in
Environmental Health, March 2009
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-8-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anila Bello, Margaret M Quinn, Melissa J Perry, Donald K Milton

Abstract

In recent years, cleaning has been identified as an occupational risk because of an increased incidence of reported respiratory effects, such as asthma and asthma-like symptoms among cleaning workers. Due to the lack of systematic occupational hygiene analyses and workplace exposure data, it is not clear which cleaning-related exposures induce or aggravate asthma and other respiratory effects. Currently, there is a need for systematic evaluation of cleaning products ingredients and their exposures in the workplace. The objectives of this work were to: a) identify cleaning products' ingredients of concern with respect to respiratory and skin irritation and sensitization; and b) assess the potential for inhalation and dermal exposures to these ingredients during common cleaning tasks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 131 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 19%
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Other 11 8%
Other 34 24%
Unknown 13 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 26%
Environmental Science 30 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Chemistry 6 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 18 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,331,762
of 15,572,940 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#298
of 1,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,611
of 288,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,572,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 288,326 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them