↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 419)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
834 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
559 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
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-3-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul JA Borm, David Robbins, Stephan Haubold, Thomas Kuhlbusch, Heinz Fissan, Ken Donaldson, Roel Schins, Vicki Stone, Wolfgang Kreyling, Jurgen Lademann, Jean Krutmann, David Warheit, Eva Oberdorster

Abstract

During the last few years, research on toxicologically relevant properties of engineered nanoparticles has increased tremendously. A number of international research projects and additional activities are ongoing in the EU and the US, nourishing the expectation that more relevant technical and toxicological data will be published. Their widespread use allows for potential exposure to engineered nanoparticles during the whole lifecycle of a variety of products. When looking at possible exposure routes for manufactured Nanoparticles, inhalation, dermal and oral exposure are the most obvious, depending on the type of product in which Nanoparticles are used. This review shows that (1) Nanoparticles can deposit in the respiratory tract after inhalation. For a number of nanoparticles, oxidative stress-related inflammatory reactions have been observed. Tumour-related effects have only been observed in rats, and might be related to overload conditions. There are also a few reports that indicate uptake of nanoparticles in the brain via the olfactory epithelium. Nanoparticle translocation into the systemic circulation may occur after inhalation but conflicting evidence is present on the extent of translocation. These findings urge the need for additional studies to further elucidate these findings and to characterize the physiological impact. (2) There is currently little evidence from skin penetration studies that dermal applications of metal oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens lead to systemic exposure. However, the question has been raised whether the usual testing with healthy, intact skin will be sufficient. (3) Uptake of nanoparticles in the gastrointestinal tract after oral uptake is a known phenomenon, of which use is intentionally made in the design of food and pharmacological components. Finally, this review indicates that only few specific nanoparticles have been investigated in a limited number of test systems and extrapolation of this data to other materials is not possible. Air pollution studies have generated indirect evidence for the role of combustion derived nanoparticles (CDNP) in driving adverse health effects in susceptible groups. Experimental studies with some bulk nanoparticles (carbon black, titanium dioxide, iron oxides) that have been used for decades suggest various adverse effects. However, engineered nanomaterials with new chemical and physical properties are being produced constantly and the toxicity of these is unknown. Therefore, despite the existing database on nanoparticles, no blanket statements about human toxicity can be given at this time. In addition, limited ecotoxicological data for nanomaterials precludes a systematic assessment of the impact of Nanoparticles on ecosystems.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
United States 4 <1%
India 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Other 15 3%
Unknown 510 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 147 26%
Researcher 116 21%
Student > Master 96 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 7%
Student > Bachelor 40 7%
Other 82 15%
Unknown 38 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 125 22%
Chemistry 78 14%
Environmental Science 68 12%
Engineering 39 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 7%
Other 147 26%
Unknown 63 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 14 July 2019.
All research outputs
#885,531
of 14,122,258 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#20
of 419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,925
of 122,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,122,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 122,535 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 94% 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