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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Screening of the antibacterial effects of a variety of essential oils on respiratory tract pathogens, using a modified dilution assay method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Infection & Chemotherapy, January 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s101560170022 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shigeharu Inouye, Hideyo Yamaguchi, Toshio Takizawa |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to examine the antibacterial effects of a wide variety of essential oils on major respiratory tract pathogens. The antibacterial activity of 14 essential oils and their major components was evaluated by agar-plate dilution assay under sealed conditions, with agar used as a stabilizer for homogeneous dispersion. Of the selected strains of four major bacteria causing respiratory tract infection, Haemophilus influenzae was most susceptible to the essential oils, followed by Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes. Staphylococcus aureus was less susceptible. No cross-resistance was observed between penicillin-sensitive and penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae. Escherichia coli, used as a control bacterium, showed the lowest susceptibility. Essential oils containing aldehyde or phenol as a major component showed the highest antibacterial activity, followed by the essential oils containing terpene alcohols. Other essential oils, containing terpene ketone, or ether, had much weaker activity, and an oil containing terpene hydrocarbon was inactive. Based on these findings, thyme (wild, red, and geraniol types), cinnamon bark, lemongrass, perilla, and peppermint oils were selected for further evaluation of their effects on respiratory tract infection. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Algeria | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 37 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,561,046
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Infection & Chemotherapy
#119
of 1,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,498
of 114,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Infection & Chemotherapy
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 114,345 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them