4.7 Review

Progresses and emerging trends of arsenic research in the past 120 years

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2020.1752611

关键词

Arsenic; arsenic application; health risk

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21876180, 21822605, 21677068]
  2. Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan Projects [201710010173]
  3. National Key Fund [21637002]
  4. Overseas Postdoc Recruitment Plan of Guangdong Province
  5. 100 Talents Project of Guangzhou University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a scientometric-based review of arsenic research in the past 120 years, identifying emerging trends in recent years and emphasizing the health risks posed by arsenic, arsenic applications, and their interaction. The information summarized in this study will help in better understanding the use of arsenic, which can be a double-edged sword in human health.
Arsenic has been used for various purposes throughout human history, such as medicinal and industrial applications, while its health risks have only been gradually recognized in the 20(th) century and have raised global concerns since the 1990s. Reviewing the progress of arsenic research from a scientometric viewpoint is of great value and importance to predict future trends in arsenic studies. Unfortunately, such review is lacking, which could possibly lead to a biased understanding of the role of arsenic in human health. In this study, we collected 61,988 published literatures on arsenic research in the past 120 years from Web of Science, on which scientometric analysis using CiteSpace and subsequent review were conducted. Our scientometric-based review demonstrated the progress in the past 120 years of arsenic research and identified emerging trends in recent years, emphasizing the health risks posed by arsenic, arsenic applications, and their interaction. The information summarized in this study will shed light on the wise and extensive use of arsenic, which could be a double-edged sword in human health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据