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 |
Electronic Noses and Tongues in Wine Industry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00081 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María L. Rodríguez-Méndez, José A. De Saja, Rocio González-Antón, Celia García-Hernández, Cristina Medina-Plaza, Cristina García-Cabezón, Fernando Martín-Pedrosa |
| Abstract |
The quality of wines is usually evaluated by a sensory panel formed of trained experts or traditional chemical analysis. Over the last few decades, electronic noses (e-noses) and electronic tongues have been developed to determine the quality of foods and beverages. They consist of arrays of sensors with cross-sensitivity, combined with pattern recognition software, which provide a fingerprint of the samples that can be used to discriminate or classify the samples. This holistic approach is inspired by the method used in mammals to recognize food through their senses. They have been widely applied to the analysis of wines, including quality control, aging control, or the detection of fraudulence, among others. In this paper, the current status of research and development in the field of e-noses and tongues applied to the analysis of wines is reviewed. Their potential applications in the wine industry are described. The review ends with a final comment about expected future developments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Singapore | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Cabo Verde | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Argentina | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 55 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 12% |
| Engineering | 16 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 70 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,726,022
of 23,946,786 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#185
of 7,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,759
of 317,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,946,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,513 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 317,478 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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.