↓ Skip to main content

Artificial sweeteners – a review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Food Science and Technology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 852)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
7 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
387 Mendeley
Title
Artificial sweeteners – a review
Published in
Journal of Food Science and Technology, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/s13197-011-0571-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanchari Chattopadhyay, Utpal Raychaudhuri, Runu Chakraborty

Abstract

Now a days sugar free food are very much popular because of their less calorie content. So food industry uses various artificial sweeteners which are low in calorie content instead of high calorie sugar. U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved aspartame, acesulfame-k, neotame, cyclamate and alitame for use as per acceptable daily intake (ADI) value. But till date, breakdown products of these sweeteners have controversial health and metabolic effects. On the other hand, rare sugars are monosaccharides and have no known health effects because it does not metabolize in our body, but shows same sweet taste and bulk property as sugar. Rare sugars have no such ADI value and are mainly produced by using bioreactor and so inspite of high demand, rare sugars cannot be produced in the desired quantities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 379 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 89 23%
Student > Bachelor 89 23%
Unspecified 55 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 13%
Researcher 35 9%
Other 68 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 87 22%
Unspecified 74 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 9%
Chemistry 34 9%
Other 104 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#485,050
of 13,500,063 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#21
of 852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,089
of 261,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 852 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 261,507 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.