↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity Going Nano: Ionic Versus Engineered Cu Nanoparticles Impacts on the Physiological Fitness of the Model Diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Marine Science, December 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Toxicity Going Nano: Ionic Versus Engineered Cu Nanoparticles Impacts on the Physiological Fitness of the Model Diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum
Published in
Frontiers in Marine Science, December 2020
DOI 10.3389/fmars.2020.539827
Authors

Marco Franzitta, Eduardo Feijão, Maria Teresa Cabrita, Carla Gameiro, Ana Rita Matos, João Carlos Marques, Johannes W. Goessling, Patrick Reis-Santos, Vanessa F. Fonseca, Carlo Pretti, Isabel Caçador, Bernardo Duarte

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 31%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Unspecified 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,178,117
of 23,270,775 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Marine Science
#2,620
of 8,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,655
of 504,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Marine Science
#120
of 372 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,270,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 504,409 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 372 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 67% of its contemporaries.