↓ Skip to main content

Concentrations of Environmental Chemicals in Urine and Blood Samples of Children from San Luis Potosí, Mexico

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, June 2017
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 (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Concentrations of Environmental Chemicals in Urine and Blood Samples of Children from San Luis Potosí, Mexico
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00128-017-2130-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivan N. Perez-Maldonado, Angeles C. Ochoa-Martinez, Sandra T. Orta-Garcia, Tania Ruiz-Vera, Jose A. Varela-Silva

Abstract

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is an appreciated tool used to evaluate human exposure to environmental, occupational or lifestyle chemicals. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the exposure levels for environmental chemicals in urine and blood samples of children from San Luis Potosí, Mexico (SLP). This study identifies environmental chemicals of concern such as: arsenic (45.0 ± 15.0 µg/g creatinine), lead (5.40 ± 2.80 µg/dL), t,t-muconic acid (266 ± 220 µg/g creatinine), 1-hydroxypyrene (0.25 ± 0.15 µmol/mol creatinine), PBDEs (28.0 ± 15.0 ng/g lipid), and PCBs (33.0 ± 16.0 ng/g lipid). On the other hand, low mercury (1.25 ± 1.00 µg/L), hippuric acid (0.38 ± 0.15 µg/g creatinine) and total DDT (130 ± 35 ng/g lipid) exposure levels were found. This preliminary study showed the tool's utility, as the general findings revealed chemicals of concern. Moreover, this screening exhibited the need for HBM in the general population of SLP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Other 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 4 21%
Unspecified 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Chemistry 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Other 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,911,370
of 11,495,107 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#73
of 2,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,660
of 262,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,495,107 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 262,767 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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.