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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Carbon Nanomaterials in Agriculture: A Critical Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Plant Science, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpls.2016.00172 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arnab Mukherjee, Sanghamitra Majumdar, Alia D. Servin, Luca Pagano, Om Parkash Dhankher, Jason C. White |
| Abstract |
There has been great interest in the use of carbon nano-materials (CNMs) in agriculture. However, the existing literature reveals mixed effects from CNM exposure on plants, ranging from enhanced crop yield to acute cytotoxicity and genetic alteration. These seemingly inconsistent research-outcomes, taken with the current technological limitations for in situ CNM detection, present significant hurdles to the wide scale use of CNMs in agriculture. The objective of this review is to evaluate the current literature, including studies with both positive and negative effects of different CNMs (e.g., carbon nano-tubes, fullerenes, carbon nanoparticles, and carbon nano-horns, among others) on terrestrial plants and associated soil-dwelling microbes. The effects of CNMs on the uptake of various co-contaminants will also be discussed. Last, we highlight critical knowledge gaps, including the need for more soil-based investigations under environmentally relevant conditions. In addition, efforts need to be focused on better understanding of the underlying mechanism of CNM-plant interactions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 320 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 10% |
| Researcher | 26 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 47 | 15% |
| Unknown | 83 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 23% |
| Chemistry | 27 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 24 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 44 | 14% |
| Unknown | 112 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,762,088
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#1,294
of 19,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,589
of 298,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#21
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,991 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 298,619 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.