↓ Skip to main content

Use of handheld X-ray fluorescence as a non-invasive method to distinguish between Asian and African elephant tusks

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Use of handheld X-ray fluorescence as a non-invasive method to distinguish between Asian and African elephant tusks
Published in
Scientific Reports, April 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep24845
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kittisak Buddhachat, Chatchote Thitaram, Janine L. Brown, Sarisa Klinhom, Pakkanut Bansiddhi, Kitichaya Penchart, Kanita Ouitavon, Khanittha Sriaksorn, Chalermpol Pa-in, Budsabong Kanchanasaka, Chaleamchat Somgird, Korakot Nganvongpanit

Abstract

We describe the use of handheld X-ray fluorescence, for elephant tusk species identification. Asian (n = 72) and African (n = 85) elephant tusks were scanned and we utilized the species differences in elemental composition to develop a functional model differentiating between species with high precision. Spatially, the majority of measured elements (n = 26) exhibited a homogeneous distribution in cross-section, but a more heterologous pattern in the longitudinal direction. Twenty-one of twenty four elements differed between Asian and African samples. Data were subjected to hierarchical cluster analysis followed by a stepwise discriminant analysis, which identified elements for the functional equation. The best equation consisted of ratios of Si, S, Cl, Ti, Mn, Ag, Sb and W, with Zr as the denominator. Next, Bayesian binary regression model analysis was conducted to predict the probability that a tusk would be of African origin. A cut-off value was established to improve discrimination. This Bayesian hybrid classification model was then validated by scanning an additional 30 Asian and 41 African tusks, which showed high accuracy (94%) and precision (95%) rates. We conclude that handheld XRF is an accurate, non-invasive method to discriminate origin of elephant tusks provides rapid results applicable to use in the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,849,861
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#72,439
of 123,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,186
of 299,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,750
of 3,017 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 299,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,017 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.