Journal of AOAC International
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1.7
SJR
0.393
CiteScore
3.1
Categories
Agronomy and Crop Science
Food Science
Analytical Chemistry
Environmental Chemistry
Pharmacology
Areas
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Environmental Science
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Years of issue
1993-2025
journal names
Journal of AOAC International
J AOAC INT
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Chromatography A
(3711 citations)

Food Chemistry
(3237 citations)

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
(3098 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Food and Drug Administration
(7058 publications)

Purdue University
(381 publications)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(216 publications)

Food and Drug Administration
(36 publications)

Cairo University
(35 publications)

Beni-Suef University
(17 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 611
Q1

Fish eDNA Composition Along a Gradient of Freshwater eDNA in an Estuarine Bay
Homma S., Hosokawa S., Komuro T.
ABSTRACTMetabarcoding of environmental DNA (eDNA) is becoming practically applied to fish monitoring and conservation surveys in estuaries. However, estuarine bays may be an unsuitable zone to use eDNA metabarcoding because they are affected by eDNA originating from upstream rivers. In this study, the transition of eDNA composition from river to bay was examined to investigate the influence of freshwater sources on the eDNA composition of the downstream bay. Samples were collected in a bay spanning around 1 km and an upstream river under high and low tide within 1 day in November and in January. The samples were analyzed by using eDNA metabarcoding for fish species and species‐specific quantitative analysis for the freshwater fish Cyprinus carpio. Our findings reveal that the eDNA of freshwater fishes was drastically diluted in the model estuarine bay. As a result, the relative‐read‐based composition clearly changed from riverine to marine environments, and the freshwater inflow had little effect on the relative‐read‐based composition at those sites. However, eDNA from freshwater fishes was widely detected in the bay by species‐specific and metabarcoding analysis, suggesting that fresh water may have a more significant impact when focusing on presence/absence‐based composition. Our study also found that the transition zone for the concentration of freshwater eDNA fluctuated spatiotemporally with tides, indicating that the degree of influence from the river varies with tide. Therefore, prior measurement of the distribution of freshwater fish eDNA at low tide would help to conservatively determine better sampling sites and design more reliable sampling in estuaries.
Q1

Unveiling Landscape‐Level Drivers of Freshwater Biodiversity Dynamics
Eastwood N., Watson A., Zhou J., Orsini L.
ABSTRACTHuman activities severely impact biodiversity, particularly in freshwater lakes. These habitats provide critical ecosystem services and, at the same time, suffer from river inflow, agricultural runoff, and urban discharge. DNA‐based techniques are preferred for monitoring biodiversity due to their effectiveness. However, pinpointing the causes of biodiversity decline across landscapes poses challenges due to the complex interactions between biodiversity and environmental drivers. In this study, we used an explainable multimodal machine learning approach that can integrate different types of data, such as biological, chemical, and physical data, to discover potential causes of biodiversity dynamics. This is done by identifying relationships between environmental drivers—plant protection products, physico‐chemical parameters and typology‐ and community biodiversity changes in 52 lake ecosystems. By analyzing benthic and pelagic lake communities, we found significant correlations between biodiversity and environmental drivers, such as plant protection products. Furthermore, our analysis allowed us to identify factors within these drivers responsible for biodiversity dynamics. Specifically, insecticides and fungicides were identified as the most important factors, followed by 43 physico‐chemical factors, including many heavy metals. Our holistic, data‐driven approach provides insights into large‐scale biodiversity changes and could inform conservation efforts and regulatory interventions to protect biodiversity from pollution.
Q1

Brown‐Vuillemin S., Bernatchez L., Normandeau E., Hernandez C., Chabot D., Tremblay R., Sirois P., Nozères C., Robert D.
ABSTRACTBeaked redfishes (Sebastes fasciatus and Sebastes mentella) of the northwest Atlantic have recently reached record abundance levels in the estuary and northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, dominated by Sebastes mentella. Knowledge of their diet composition is essential to understand the trophic role that these groundfish play in the ecosystem. The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of visual examination and DNA metabarcoding of stomach contents of the same individual redfish caught in the estuary and northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Using a universal metazoan mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) marker, we identified a total of 24 taxonomic groups, composed of 22 species and two genera in the content of 185 stomachs with DNA metabarcoding. We compared these results to the 25 prey types, eight identified at the genus and nine at the species level, obtained with visual stomach content analysis (SCA). While both techniques revealed a similar diet composition, our results showed that the SCA and DNA metabarcoding perform differently for particular prey categories, both in terms of detectability and taxonomic resolution, as well as in the estimated relative importance of weight and occurrence in the diet. The use of DNA metabarcoding along with SCA validates and improves the taxonomic resolution of visually determined prey, which supports the concept that both techniques provide useful complementary information on the diet of redfish and likely other fish species.
Q1

Targeting Terrestrial Vertebrates With eDNA : Trends, Perspectives, and Considerations for Sampling
Newton J.P., Allentoft M.E., Bateman P.W., van der Heyde M., Nevill P.
ABSTRACTTerrestrial vertebrates are experiencing worldwide population declines and species extinctions. To effectively conserve remaining populations and species, rapid, cost‐effective, and scalable methods are needed to complement longstanding monitoring methods. Increasingly, environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based approaches are being used for terrestrial vertebrate biomonitoring within a range of environments. However, as we move eDNA biomonitoring onto land, we are presented with a new set of challenges. This necessitates the development of “best‐practice” eDNA sample collection guidelines for terrestrial systems with the purpose of detecting terrestrial vertebrates. To address these needs, we conducted a systematic literature review of 143 peer‐reviewed papers applying eDNA to terrestrial vertebrate monitoring (excluding Lissamphibia) that were published between 2012 and 2023. We summarize the use of eDNA for terrestrial vertebrate biomonitoring, focusing on study design and field techniques. Over the decade we observe a steady growth in the annual number of publications, with 3 in 2012 and 33 in 2023. The majority of the reviewed studies targeted terrestrial mammals within temperate forest regions. While an equal number of studies focused on a metabarcoding approach to assess community taxon composition and/or species‐specific eDNA detection methods, novel uses are increasingly published. These include studies of animal behavior and population genetics. We record three types of sampling strategies, eight different substrate types, and seven different preservation methods, suggesting that there is no “one size fits all” eDNA‐based sampling methodology when detecting terrestrial vertebrates. With a multitude of study aims, across different environments, and target organisms with different ecologies, the standardization of eDNA sampling approaches in terrestrial systems is extremely challenging. We summarize in a table known factors influencing eDNA detection within terrestrial environments. Furthermore, we identify five key considerations to be addressed when sampling for eDNA studies targeting terrestrial vertebrate species, with the aim of guiding decision making.
Q1

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sodium Hypochlorite for Genomic DNA Decontamination
de Silva Wijeyeratne A., Gweon H.S.
ABSTRACTEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) is an increasingly popular, sensitive, and cost‐efficient method for studying biodiversity and detecting species. This noninvasive approach involves collecting environmental samples that contain genetic material shed by organisms into their surroundings. Due to the method's sensitivity, robust decontamination strategies are crucial, with sodium hypochlorite, commonly known as bleach, frequently employed. Despite its widespread use, there is no consensus on the most effective bleach concentration, leading to inconsistencies in how the chemical is used in research. This study aimed to determine the minimum concentration of bleach needed for effective decontamination. Genomic DNA of signal crayfish was treated with various concentrations of bleach, ranging from 0.01% to 5% (w/w). Results were observed using Qubit High Sensitivity reagents, quantitative PCR, agarose gel electrophoresis, and the Agilent TapeStation. Our results indicate that a minimum concentration of 0.5% (w/w) bleach is sufficient to prevent the detection of genomic DNA by the techniques tested. These results provide important insights into the use of bleach for decontamination in eDNA research. Establishing a standard bleach concentration for decontamination protocols will help to reduce inconsistencies and enhance the reliability of eDNA studies.
Q1

Optimization of Wetland Environmental DNA Metabarcoding Protocols for Great Lakes Region Herpetofauna
Ruppert O.M., Homola J.J., Kanefsky J., Swinehart A., Scribner K.T., Robinson J.D.
ABSTRACTMany species of reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna) rely on wetlands that are being degraded and lost at a high rate. Characterization of herpetofauna diversity in different wetland types may help guide conservation strategies. However, traditional survey methods often involve sampling within small temporal windows, and the gear deployed may be taxonomically biased, thus, they may fail to accurately characterize species presence/absence and diversity. In contrast, environmental (e)DNA metabarcoding has been shown to effectively survey entire aquatic communities and can provide a useful complement to traditional surveys. The objective of this study was to design and optimize eDNA sampling and laboratory protocols for wetland herpetofauna. Protocols evaluated included different water sampling approaches (point versus transect sampling), seasonality of sampling, and choice of metabarcoding marker (mitochondrial 12S versus 16S rDNA). Samples collected from 10 sites across southern Michigan detected 17 amphibian and five reptile species, including four species of conservation concern (Ambystoma texanum, Clemmys guttata, Rana palustris, and Sternotherus odoratus). We observed no difference in the number of species detected between point and transect samples (p = 0.70), but point sampling required less time (p = 0.03) and allowed significantly larger volumes of water to be filtered (p = 1.13e‐5). No difference in species richness was observed between the 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA markers (p = 0.96). However, a greater number of taxa were identifiable at the species level when using the 16S locus. There was also a significant difference in the number of species detected between early and late summer sampling periods (more species detected in the earlier period; p = 6.31e‐6), and some species were only found in the early or late sampling period. Sampling during multiple periods to fully characterize species composition, the use of point sampling, and the 16S mtDNA marker for herpetofauna eDNA metabarcoding studies may increase efficiency and reliability of results.
Q1

Environmental DNA Haplotyping Reveals Dispersal Patterns of Invasive Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in Japan
Wakimura K., Yonekura R., Yamanaka H., Uchii K.
ABSTRACTBiological invasions represent a significant threat to global biodiversity. Population genetics plays a crucial role in addressing the invasion history of invasive species, as information on the genetic structure of local populations of invasive species is useful in estimating their source and dispersal. This study aimed to demonstrate the potential of an environmental DNA (eDNA)‐based approach for estimating the dispersal patterns of invasive species, using bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), a freshwater fish introduced to Japan in 1960. We developed an eDNA haplotyping assay based on high‐throughput sequencing and validated its ability to reproduce the haplotype distribution of bluegill sunfish in Japan, which had previously been determined through DNA analysis of individual fish. We also detected a negative relationship between the number of detected haplotypes and the geographic distance from Lake Biwa, one of the initial introduction sites, to each study site. This genetic pattern can occur in introduced species as a result of serial founder events during their range expansion. Our results suggested that Lake Biwa is the source of bluegill sunfish distribution in Japan, which is consistent with the invasion records of this species. We demonstrated the potential of the eDNA haplotyping assay for estimating the dispersal patterns of invasive species, which would aid the preparation of countermeasures against emerging biological invasions by simultaneously enabling the early detection and tracking of invasive species.
Q1

Estimating Rapid Diversity Changes During Acute Herbicide Contamination Using Environmental DNA
Loria A., Tournayre O., Hébert M., da Costa N.B., Fugère V., Barrett R.D., Beisner B.E., Gonzalez A., Cristescu M.E.
ABSTRACTThe biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems globally is facing severe threats due to various anthropogenic stressors, such as habitat degradation, introduction of invasive species, and pollution. Assessing the effects of human‐induced environmental stressors on population and community persistence requires accurate biodiversity estimates. While environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding has emerged as a promising tool, its effectiveness in capturing rapid biodiversity responses to acute stressors across levels of biological organization (community, population, and intra‐specific levels) remains to be investigated. In this study, we tested the efficacy of eDNA metabarcoding in assessing rapid changes in aquatic zooplankton and insect communities by conducting a two‐month mesocosm experiment with pulses of glyphosate‐based herbicide under contrasting nutrient levels (mesotrophic and eutrophic). We examined the effects of treatments on community assemblages, family richness, and intraspecific diversity, and compared our findings with those obtained through a microscopy approach. Metabarcoding revealed partially congruent ecological findings with microscopy, indicating its potential in assessing rapid community changes. The herbicide induced shifts in community composition and differentially impacted zooplankton and insect family richness (increase in insects, and decrease in crustaceans and rotifers), suggesting a gradient of tolerance to the herbicide among taxa and potential top‐down regulation by insect larvae that may counteract the advantage gained by herbicide‐tolerant zooplankton. Finally, we showed that nutrient enrichment exacerbated the negative effects of the herbicide on intraspecific diversity, highlighting concerns about genetic erosion. Our findings underscore the complexity of responses to herbicide and nutrient enrichment in freshwater ecosystems. We conclude that eDNA metabarcoding can not only be used to estimate rapid changes in invertebrate communities but also provides additional value by offering a broader perspective on diversity dynamics and potential cascading effects at different scales of biological organization.
Q1

Persistence of Reptile DNA in a Terrestrial Substrate: A Case Study Using the Eastern Indigo Snake
Samuels L.R., Chandler H.C., Hoffman M., Kronenberger J.A., Elmore M., Aldredge R., Stegenga B.S., Bogan J.E., Davis M.A., Hertz S., Schwartz M.K., Wilcox T.
ABSTRACTEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) analysis of terrestrial substrates, such as soil and sand, is a rapid and potentially cost‐effective way to monitor rare wildlife species. A promising use‐case in the southeastern United States is provided by the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), for which accurate monitoring has been challenging due to large home ranges and low‐density populations. However, knowledge gaps regarding eDNA deposition and persistence in this system currently limit our ability to apply eDNA sampling effectively at the landscape scale. To overcome some of these gaps, we used an optimized soil and sand eDNA extraction protocol and species‐specific qPCR assay to conduct a full factorial experiment of eastern indigo snake DNA detection in sand as a function of the duration of snake presence and time since snake removal. We then used these data and a generalized linear mixed model to predict detection probability. Of the 224 total experimental samples, 68 (30.4%) tested positive for eastern indigo snake eDNA. Our model predicted that, with long periods in the enclosure and sampling soon after snake removal, eastern indigo snake eDNA is detectable 68.7% of the time. Eastern indigo snake DNA was detectable in as little as 100 s of snake presence in the enclosure (Pr = 21.1%) and for as long as 10 days after snake presence (Pr = 27.7%). These results suggest that DNA sampling in terrestrial systems may be an effective tool for increasing the temporal window of rare snake detection and a useful complement to existing sampling methods for eastern indigo snakes.
Q1

Preservation of Aquatic Environmental DNA Using Cationic Detergents
Thamke V., Bezabhe Y.H., Jass J., Olsson P.
ABSTRACTEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) analysis is a powerful tool for quantifying and assessing the diversity of organisms in the environment. Unfortunately, isolating eDNA from aquatic environments is challenging due to the difficulties associated with water collection, preservation of samples during transportation, and onsite filtration. These processes are expensive and time‐consuming and can lead to eDNA degradation. These difficulties can be addressed by preserving eDNA in the collected water. In this study, we assessed the effect of short‐ and long‐term water storage using three different cationic surfactants on the half‐life of zebrafish (Danio rerio) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in mesocosm water. The surfactants used were benzalkonium chloride (BAC), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB). We observed that CPC and CTAB treatment extended the half‐life of mtDNA by 3–5 times. Analysis by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) demonstrated a mtDNA retention rate of 17.6%, 26.3%, and 2.2% for CPC, CTAB, and BAC, respectively, compared to 0.1% in untreated water after 30 days. The preservation of mtDNA by cationic surfactants was attributed to their bactericidal and cytotoxic properties as well as their electrostatic interaction with DNA molecules, as observed by spectrofluorometric analysis and subsequent precipitation. Our results demonstrated an inexpensive and convenient method to protect eDNA in water and improve its extraction.
Q1

Roaming the Seas—Assessing Marine Invertebrate Biodiversity Along Salinity Gradients With Zooplankton and eDNA Metabarcoding
Ohnesorge A., John U., Kuczynski L., Neuhaus S., Beng K.C., Krock B., Laakmann S.
ABSTRACTMarine metazoan biodiversity is accretively being explored through environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of seawater. However, knowledge gaps in the use of eDNA to study changes in diversity resulting from changing abiotic conditions still do exist. In order to address these gaps, we analyzed patterns of marine invertebrate biodiversity based on eDNA from water and sediment samples along a decreasing salinity gradient from the North Sea toward the Baltic Sea. eDNA was collected from surface (SW) and bottom (BW) water, and from the uppermost sediment layer (SE). To supplement the eDNA approach, we conducted parallel zooplankton (ZP) metabarcoding and morphological identification. DNA was extracted from eDNA and ZP samples, amplified using two universal primers that target of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) and the nuclear ribosomal 18S rRNA genes, and paired‐end sequenced on Illumina Miseq. Metabarcoding detected 279 metazoan species (from 16 phyla) of which > 87% are known from the study area or adjacent regions. Communities identified in SW eDNA were a subset of communities identified in ZP metabarcoding. BW eDNA had additional benthic (mainly bivalve) species. Communities identified in SE eDNA were distinct from those in water eDNA and ZP metabarcoding, and mainly represented by in‐ and meiofauna. Out of all approaches, only ZP metabarcoding uncovered the expected decrease in species richness toward brackish conditions. Neither salinity nor spatial distance had a significant effect on species composition. All approaches revealed regional differences of which SE eDNA was least informative. The detection of holoplanktonic species from SE eDNA provided evidence for sinking of eDNA particles, dead organisms or the presence of resting eggs. Our study confirms the value of metabarcoding to identify the North Sea and Baltic Sea invertebrates and underscores the importance of combining multiple approaches to understand invertebrate biodiversity and its change in the marine realm.
Q1

Temporal Study of Environmental DNA and Acoustic Data Reveals Coexistence of Sympatric Bat Species in a North American Ecosystem
Suresh V.M., Hébert T., Verster K.I., Hadly E.A.
ABSTRACTBats are a species‐rich mammalian order that provide a host of ecosystem services, but presently face threats from habitat loss, disease, climate change, and insect declines. Bat species often co‐occur with other ecologically similar bats, making them a suitable group in which to study niche overlap and partitioning. This study aimed to compare different non‐invasive sources of data on wildlife populations, while examining dietary, temporal, and spatial partitioning patterns among sympatric bat species. We used two different methods to assess niche partitioning among insectivorous bats at a site in the San Francisco Bay Area, California: (1) eDNA sequencing of bat feces that were collected weekly from a bat roost, and (2) nightly acoustic recordings of ultrasonic bat calls from recorders at multiple sites. Both the eDNA and acoustic data were collected over the course of an entire roosting season in 2020. We hypothesized that the insectivorous bats at this site would rely on one or more niche partitioning mechanisms to promote interspecific coexistence and limit competition. We found evidence of fine‐scale spatial partitioning of the broad community of bat species in our study area based on acoustic data, as well as temporal differences in activity of different species. The two species using the roosting site, Tadarida brasiliensis and Eptesicus fuscus, displayed some differences in the identities and relative abundances of prey species consumed, but both ultimately exhibited a strong reliance on dipterans and aquatic‐dependent insects. We demonstrate differences between the acoustic data and eDNA data, which has implications for how such datasets may be interpreted in future research. The study finds evidence of some types of niche partitioning in this community and characterizes baseline interactions between species, providing a foundation for future efforts to non‐invasively monitor for unexpected biological change in local ecosystems.
Q1

Lee B., Milne G.A., Freedman C., Miksis‐Olds J., Brown B.L.
ABSTRACTEcosystems in coastal waters of Gulf of Maine (GOM) are undergoing environmental challenges in response to climate change and anthropogenic stressors. eDNA metabarcoding, a powerful tool for assessing the fish community structure, was used to identify fish communities in three types of GOM aquatic environments (sand, macroalgae, and eelgrass) in Maine and New Hampshire, USA. The available 12S rRNA fish universal primer analysis system (MiFish and 12S‐V5) was modified using nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to improve targeting of fish products and reduce non‐target products. The nested PCR strategy allowed successful amplification of 12S rRNA genes in fishes without production of non‐target products and identified 28 fish groups at the genus level. Presence/Absence data and Relative Abundance showed significant differences among locales but not among habitats. Myoxocephalus sp. were found at all sampling sites. Relative Abundance data revealed that Menidia menidia and Brevoortia sp. were statistical indicator species in Goosefare, Maine, and New castle, New Hampshire, respectively. Although beta diversity indicated that fish communities were not different across habitats, statistical analysis found that Pholis sp. and Ammodytes sp. were dominant species in macroalgae and sand, respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first metabarcoding study to assess fish communities in the Western Atlantic region using the MiFish primer set, and the study suggests that metabarcoding is useful for mapping geographic and temporal marine fish diversity.
Q1

Unraveling Community Potential Interactions by Environmental DNA in the Hong Kong Coastal Waters
Lee S.S., Xu Z., Li Y., Zhang X., Cheng J., Liu H.
ABSTRACTTraditional approaches for studying potential interactions in marine ecosystems often struggle to fully capture all taxa in a community, especially rare species. This issue is particularly challenging in coastal waters with high biodiversity and spatiotemporal dynamics. In this study, we employed environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding, utilizing multiple marker genes, to comprehensively investigate interspecific interactions across various domains in the subtropical coastal waters of Hong Kong. The southern and eastern regions of Hong Kong waters exhibit distinct environmental seasonality, and our investigation focused on comparing the potential interaction networks and the keystone taxa between these two regions. The putative species interaction networks across various groups (i.e., bacteria, protists, and metazoans) were revealed by using weighted correlation network analysis (WGCNA). Our results showed that primary consumers, mainly dinoflagellates and ciliates, were the dominant actors within the interaction networks, although their distributions varied between the two regions. Bacterial taxa from the Pseudomonadota groups primarily constituted saprobes in the southern region, while exhibiting an even distribution in the eastern region. The interaction network in the southern region was larger but less stable compared to the eastern region. This could be attributed to the stronger responses of keystone taxa to environmental variations and the relatively higher number of connectors (e.g., Akashiwo and Protoperidinium within Dinophyceae) in the eastern region. Our findings highlight the versatility of eDNA metabarcoding for studying potential species interactions, providing critical insights into ecosystem structure and stability, and offering suggestions for marine biodiversity conservation.
Q1

Mapping Biodiversity Coast‐to‐Coast‐to‐Coast Across Canada's Three Oceans Using eDNA Metabarcoding
Jacquemot L., Hunt B.P., Li S., Schulze A.D., Deeg C.M., Sutherland B.J., Tabata A., Lovejoy C., Miller K.M.
ABSTRACTMarine biodiversity worldwide is rapidly declining, and nowhere is this more evident than in coastal ecosystems where the impacts of climate change and anthropogenic activities concentrate. The ongoing biodiversity crisis affects all components of the marine food web, but data required to monitor biodiversity shifts at continental scales are scarce and taxonomically and spatially heterogeneous. The application of environmental DNA metabarcoding can complement traditional approaches to monitoring marine biodiversity, but its efficiency in detecting large‐scale biogeographic breaks remains to be tested. Using 86 coastal surface water samples collected during the Canada C3 expedition in the summer of 2017, we investigated metazoan biodiversity across Canada's three oceans—North Pacific, Arctic and North Atlantic—using multi‐marker eDNA metabarcoding. The resulting dataset, combining information from seven separate amplicons, identified 1477 unique species ranging from zooplankton to marine mammals. We found that marine coastal biodiversity around Canada separated into four clusters that overlapped with known marine ecoregions, indicating a higher connectivity between the Arctic and Atlantic than between the Arctic and Pacific clusters. However, the detection of Pacific salmon eDNA in the Canadian Arctic suggests that these species may be extending their Pacific distribution range poleward. By comparing the distribution of eDNA with species occurrence recorded in the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) for Canada and Alaska coastal waters, we identified 324 “unexpected” species. These results demonstrate the importance of primer selection for species‐specific applications of eDNA metabarcoding and provide a benchmark for further work aimed at validating species identification and map species distribution at large spatial scale. Our results showed that eDNA metabarcoding is a powerful method for monitoring biodiversity shifts at an interoceanic scale. Integrating eDNA into monitoring programs can provide valuable insights into biodiversity changes associated with climate change and contribute to filling gaps in the distribution of species‐at‐risk.
Top-100
Citing journals
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
|
|
Journal of Chromatography A
3711 citations, 3.49%
|
|
Food Chemistry
3237 citations, 3.04%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
3098 citations, 2.91%
|
|
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
1820 citations, 1.71%
|
|
Foods
1307 citations, 1.23%
|
|
Analytica Chimica Acta
1284 citations, 1.21%
|
|
Food Control
1279 citations, 1.2%
|
|
Food Additives and Contaminants - Part A Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment
1258 citations, 1.18%
|
|
Molecules
1125 citations, 1.06%
|
|
Food Analytical Methods
1084 citations, 1.02%
|
|
Journal of AOAC International
929 citations, 0.87%
|
|
Journal of Dairy Science
909 citations, 0.85%
|
|
Microchemical Journal
898 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Analytical Methods
896 citations, 0.84%
|
|
Journal of Separation Science
894 citations, 0.84%
|
|
![]() Journal of Chromatography B: Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences
863 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis
841 citations, 0.79%
|
|
Talanta
823 citations, 0.77%
|
|
Toxins
790 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis
705 citations, 0.66%
|
|
Journal of Food Science
685 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Chromatographia
681 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Analytical Chemistry
678 citations, 0.64%
|
|
Journal of Food Protection
649 citations, 0.61%
|
|
Food Additives & Contaminants
637 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Food Research International
630 citations, 0.59%
|
|
Journal of Liquid Chromatography and Related Technologies
619 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
599 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Journal of Animal Science
562 citations, 0.53%
|
|
LWT - Food Science and Technology
551 citations, 0.52%
|
|
European Food Research and Technology
545 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Spectrochimica Acta - Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
544 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Analytical Letters
517 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi. Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
472 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Toxicon
460 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
459 citations, 0.43%
|
|
TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry
449 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Nutrients
427 citations, 0.4%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry
425 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
418 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Scientific Reports
395 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Animal Feed Science and Technology
394 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Food and Chemical Toxicology
385 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Poultry Science
352 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Chromatographic Science
346 citations, 0.33%
|
|
Journal of Planar Chromatography - Modern TLC
343 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry
342 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Biomedical Chromatography
332 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Chemosphere
328 citations, 0.31%
|
|
EFSA Journal
321 citations, 0.3%
|
|
World Mycotoxin Journal
320 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry
316 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
313 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Mass Spectrometry
311 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Meat Science
310 citations, 0.29%
|
|
International Journal of Food Microbiology
309 citations, 0.29%
|
|
PLoS ONE
309 citations, 0.29%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
301 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Phytochemical Analysis
292 citations, 0.27%
|
|
International Journal of Food Science and Technology
289 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part B Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes
288 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry
274 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Harmful Algae
258 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry
254 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Mycotoxin Research
251 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Marine Drugs
240 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Trends in Food Science and Technology
231 citations, 0.22%
|
|
JAOCS, Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society
230 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical
228 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
221 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
221 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
221 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Analytical Sciences
216 citations, 0.2%
|
|
RSC Advances
213 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Antioxidants
212 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Frontiers in Nutrition
210 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Animals
207 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Analytical Chemistry
205 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Electrophoresis
205 citations, 0.19%
|
|
International Dairy Journal
201 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
200 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Plants
195 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
187 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Aquaculture
185 citations, 0.17%
|
|
The Analyst
182 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Food Science and Technology
179 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Food and Function
178 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Sensors
177 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Food and Agricultural Immunology
175 citations, 0.16%
|
|
British Journal of Nutrition
174 citations, 0.16%
|
|
European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology
170 citations, 0.16%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
170 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Environmental Science & Technology
167 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Separations
166 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Cereal Chemistry
160 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation
160 citations, 0.15%
|
|
BMC Chemistry
159 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
158 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Luminescence
155 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
155 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
|
Citing publishers
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
|
|
Elsevier
34299 citations, 32.24%
|
|
Springer Nature
12583 citations, 11.83%
|
|
Wiley
11412 citations, 10.73%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
8230 citations, 7.74%
|
|
MDPI
7832 citations, 7.36%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
4932 citations, 4.64%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
2221 citations, 2.09%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
1168 citations, 1.1%
|
|
Oxford University Press
995 citations, 0.94%
|
|
AOAC International
872 citations, 0.82%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
772 citations, 0.73%
|
|
International Association for Food Protection
651 citations, 0.61%
|
|
American Society of Animal Science
576 citations, 0.54%
|
|
SAGE
560 citations, 0.53%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
531 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
490 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Wageningen Academic Publishers
408 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
393 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
385 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
351 citations, 0.33%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
308 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
307 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry
300 citations, 0.28%
|
|
IOP Publishing
262 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Japanese Society for Food Hygiene and Safety
262 citations, 0.25%
|
|
245 citations, 0.23%
|
|
American Society for Nutrition
237 citations, 0.22%
|
|
SciELO
219 citations, 0.21%
|
|
King Saud University
208 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
201 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
184 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
159 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
158 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
145 citations, 0.14%
|
|
IntechOpen
139 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
137 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
129 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Korean Society of Food Science and Technology
120 citations, 0.11%
|
|
EDP Sciences
112 citations, 0.11%
|
|
AIP Publishing
93 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Environmental Health Perspectives
93 citations, 0.09%
|
|
A and V Publications
87 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Society for Horticultural Science
85 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Sociedade Brasileira de Ciencia e Tecnologia de Alimentos
82 citations, 0.08%
|
|
American Public Health Association
80 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Crop Science Society of America
77 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Japanese Association of Mycotoxicology
76 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Emerald
75 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Trans Tech Publications
74 citations, 0.07%
|
|
The Electrochemical Society
74 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
73 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Scientific Societies
73 citations, 0.07%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
71 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Microbiology Society
69 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Japanese Society for Food Science and Technology
68 citations, 0.06%
|
|
66 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Science Alert
64 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition
61 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia
59 citations, 0.06%
|
|
American Dairy Science Association
59 citations, 0.06%
|
|
International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
56 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
56 citations, 0.05%
|
|
IOS Press
52 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Xi'an Jiaotong University
52 citations, 0.05%
|
|
52 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Pesticide Science Society of Japan
51 citations, 0.05%
|
|
49 citations, 0.05%
|
|
PeerJ
47 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Japan Oil Chemists' Society
47 citations, 0.04%
|
|
S. Karger AG
46 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
45 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources
44 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Asian Network for Scientific Information
43 citations, 0.04%
|
|
IWA Publishing
43 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Society of Forensic Toxicologists
42 citations, 0.04%
|
|
HACCP Consulting
41 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Tsinghua University Press
41 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Annual Reviews
41 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
38 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Royal Society
37 citations, 0.03%
|
|
European Journal of Chemistry
37 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Japan Society of Colour Material
36 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Veterinary Medical Association
35 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society of Brewing Chemists
35 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IGI Global
35 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Veterinary World
33 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Publications Office of the European Union
32 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Instituto de Tecnologia do Parana
31 citations, 0.03%
|
|
BMJ
31 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
31 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Society of Industrial Engineering Chemistry
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
30 citations, 0.03%
|
|
28 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc.
28 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Center for Academic Publications Japan
28 citations, 0.03%
|
|
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
27 citations, 0.03%
|
|
F1000 Research
26 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Spandidos Publications
25 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
24 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
|
Publishing organizations
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
|
Food and Drug Administration
7058 publications, 27.17%
|
|
Purdue University
381 publications, 1.47%
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
216 publications, 0.83%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
164 publications, 0.63%
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
150 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Cairo University
140 publications, 0.54%
|
|
Cornell University
100 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Tennessee
96 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
87 publications, 0.33%
|
|
Texas A&M University
83 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
73 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Guelph
67 publications, 0.26%
|
|
North Carolina State University
65 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
59 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Alexandria University
55 publications, 0.21%
|
|
University of Kentucky
53 publications, 0.2%
|
|
Michigan State University
50 publications, 0.19%
|
|
Hoffmann-La Roche
50 publications, 0.19%
|
|
King Saud University
46 publications, 0.18%
|
|
Oregon State University
44 publications, 0.17%
|
|
Kansas State University
43 publications, 0.17%
|
|
University of Florida
42 publications, 0.16%
|
|
University of California, Davis
40 publications, 0.15%
|
|
Central Food Technological Research Institute
39 publications, 0.15%
|
|
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
37 publications, 0.14%
|
|
Louisiana State University
35 publications, 0.13%
|
|
China Agricultural University
33 publications, 0.13%
|
|
National Institute of Health Sciences
33 publications, 0.13%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
33 publications, 0.13%
|
|
Ain Shams University
32 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Beni-Suef University
32 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Auburn University
31 publications, 0.12%
|
|
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
31 publications, 0.12%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
30 publications, 0.12%
|
|
National Research Council Canada
30 publications, 0.12%
|
|
Erciyes University
29 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of Sindh
29 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
29 publications, 0.11%
|
|
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
28 publications, 0.11%
|
|
University of Almería
27 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Valencia
27 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
27 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Ghent University
26 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Iowa State University
26 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Arizona
26 publications, 0.1%
|
|
University of Minnesota
26 publications, 0.1%
|
|
North Dakota State University
25 publications, 0.1%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
23 publications, 0.09%
|
|
University of Granada
23 publications, 0.09%
|
|
Virginia Tech
22 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of Alabama
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
University of New Hampshire
21 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Clemson University
20 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Jagiellonian University
20 publications, 0.08%
|
|
Yildiz Technical University
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Royal Philips
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Santiago de Compostela
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Belgrade
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Suez Canal University
19 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Istituto Superiore di Sanità
18 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Saskatchewan
18 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Sichuan University
17 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
17 publications, 0.07%
|
|
University of Buenos Aires
17 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Mansoura University
17 publications, 0.07%
|
|
Taif University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Istanbul University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Regina Elena National Cancer Institute
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Zagazig University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Mississippi State University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Cincinnati
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Assiut University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Egyptian Russian University
16 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Jamia Hamdard
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Gaziosmanpasa University
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Sapienza University of Rome
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Washington
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
University of Barcelona
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
École de Technologie Supérieure
15 publications, 0.06%
|
|
Ankara University
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Payame Noor University
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Al-Balqa Applied University
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Cawthron Institute
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
University of Alberta
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
University of Manitoba
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
University of Rhode Island
14 publications, 0.05%
|
|
University of Geneva
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Johns Hopkins University
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Massey University
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Federal University of Goiás
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
University of Vigo
13 publications, 0.05%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
|
Food and Drug Administration
36 publications, 4.19%
|
|
Cairo University
35 publications, 4.07%
|
|
Beni-Suef University
17 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Egyptian Russian University
16 publications, 1.86%
|
|
Taif University
15 publications, 1.74%
|
|
Jamia Hamdard
15 publications, 1.74%
|
|
Federal University of Goiás
13 publications, 1.51%
|
|
Ahram Canadian University
11 publications, 1.28%
|
|
Ain Shams University
10 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
10 publications, 1.16%
|
|
Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management
8 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Zagazig University
8 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
8 publications, 0.93%
|
|
Yildiz Technical University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Sichuan University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Damanhour University
7 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Charotar University of Science and Technology
6 publications, 0.7%
|
|
Hebei University
6 publications, 0.7%
|
|
Future University in Egypt
6 publications, 0.7%
|
|
King Saud University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
National Institute of Health Sciences
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Alexandria University
5 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
China Pharmaceutical University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Al-Balqa Applied University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Anhui University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
West Anhui University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Anhui University
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
National Institute of Standards and Technology
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Queen's University Belfast
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
University of Guelph
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Université Sultan Moulay Slimane
4 publications, 0.47%
|
|
Jamia Millia Islamia
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Indian Institute of Chemical Technology
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
National Botanical Research Institute
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Zhejiang University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Zhejiang University of Technology
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Central Institute of Fisheries Education
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Nigde Omer Halisdemir University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ghent University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
China Agricultural University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Cawthron Institute
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Oregon State University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of California, Davis
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Hunan University of Chinese Medicine
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ohio University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Namur
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Pharos University in Alexandria
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Menoufia University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Suez Canal University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Nahda University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Helwan University
3 publications, 0.35%
|
|
King Khalid University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Tehran
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Aligarh Muslim University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Punjab Agricultural University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
SRM Institute of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
North Maharashtra University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology & Research
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Manipal Academy of Higher Education
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Trakya University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Liège
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Nanjing University of Finance and Economics
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Beijing University of Chemical Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Nankai University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Hebei Medical University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Jiangsu Ocean University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Beijing Technology and Business University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shaanxi Normal University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
East China University of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Nanchang University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Turin
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shanghai University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Southwest Medical University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Hefei University of Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Qingdao University of Science and Technology
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Qingdao University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Ningbo University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
China Jiliang University
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Tasmania
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
University of Hassan II Casablanca
2 publications, 0.23%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
|
Publishing countries
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
|
USA
|
USA, 15822, 60.91%
USA
15822 publications, 60.91%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 1481, 5.7%
Canada
1481 publications, 5.7%
|
China
|
China, 586, 2.26%
China
586 publications, 2.26%
|
India
|
India, 502, 1.93%
India
502 publications, 1.93%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 411, 1.58%
Egypt
411 publications, 1.58%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 392, 1.51%
Japan
392 publications, 1.51%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 373, 1.44%
United Kingdom
373 publications, 1.44%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 317, 1.22%
Spain
317 publications, 1.22%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 290, 1.12%
Italy
290 publications, 1.12%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 274, 1.05%
Netherlands
274 publications, 1.05%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 265, 1.02%
Germany
265 publications, 1.02%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 238, 0.92%
Switzerland
238 publications, 0.92%
|
France
|
France, 211, 0.81%
France
211 publications, 0.81%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 196, 0.75%
Brazil
196 publications, 0.75%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 168, 0.65%
Poland
168 publications, 0.65%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 164, 0.63%
Belgium
164 publications, 0.63%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 161, 0.62%
Turkey
161 publications, 0.62%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 160, 0.62%
Australia
160 publications, 0.62%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 145, 0.56%
New Zealand
145 publications, 0.56%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 116, 0.45%
Iran
116 publications, 0.45%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 96, 0.37%
Saudi Arabia
96 publications, 0.37%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 82, 0.32%
Ireland
82 publications, 0.32%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 79, 0.3%
Sweden
79 publications, 0.3%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 58, 0.22%
Georgia
58 publications, 0.22%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 57, 0.22%
Finland
57 publications, 0.22%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 55, 0.21%
Denmark
55 publications, 0.21%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 52, 0.2%
Greece
52 publications, 0.2%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 51, 0.2%
Argentina
51 publications, 0.2%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 46, 0.18%
Pakistan
46 publications, 0.18%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 46, 0.18%
Republic of Korea
46 publications, 0.18%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 45, 0.17%
Portugal
45 publications, 0.17%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 44, 0.17%
Israel
44 publications, 0.17%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 43, 0.17%
South Africa
43 publications, 0.17%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 39, 0.15%
Chile
39 publications, 0.15%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 37, 0.14%
Mexico
37 publications, 0.14%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 35, 0.13%
Norway
35 publications, 0.13%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 29, 0.11%
Hungary
29 publications, 0.11%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 29, 0.11%
Czech Republic
29 publications, 0.11%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 27, 0.1%
Austria
27 publications, 0.1%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 25, 0.1%
Serbia
25 publications, 0.1%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 25, 0.1%
Singapore
25 publications, 0.1%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 21, 0.08%
Morocco
21 publications, 0.08%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 18, 0.07%
Jordan
18 publications, 0.07%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 15, 0.06%
Malaysia
15 publications, 0.06%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 15, 0.06%
Slovenia
15 publications, 0.06%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 15, 0.06%
Thailand
15 publications, 0.06%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 15, 0.06%
Philippines
15 publications, 0.06%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 15, 0.06%
Croatia
15 publications, 0.06%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 14, 0.05%
Russia
14 publications, 0.05%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 13, 0.05%
Romania
13 publications, 0.05%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 12, 0.05%
Slovakia
12 publications, 0.05%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 12, 0.05%
Uruguay
12 publications, 0.05%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 10, 0.04%
Colombia
10 publications, 0.04%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 10, 0.04%
Tunisia
10 publications, 0.04%
|
Puerto Rico
|
Puerto Rico, 8, 0.03%
Puerto Rico
8 publications, 0.03%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 7, 0.03%
Bulgaria
7 publications, 0.03%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 7, 0.03%
Nigeria
7 publications, 0.03%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 6, 0.02%
Venezuela
6 publications, 0.02%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 6, 0.02%
Iraq
6 publications, 0.02%
|
Kuwait
|
Kuwait, 6, 0.02%
Kuwait
6 publications, 0.02%
|
Czechoslovakia
|
Czechoslovakia, 6, 0.02%
Czechoslovakia
6 publications, 0.02%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 5, 0.02%
Cuba
5 publications, 0.02%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 5, 0.02%
UAE
5 publications, 0.02%
|
Yugoslavia
|
Yugoslavia, 5, 0.02%
Yugoslavia
5 publications, 0.02%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 4, 0.02%
Algeria
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 4, 0.02%
Indonesia
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
Trinidad and Tobago, 4, 0.02%
Trinidad and Tobago
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 4, 0.02%
Ecuador
4 publications, 0.02%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 3, 0.01%
Kazakhstan
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 3, 0.01%
Oman
3 publications, 0.01%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 3, 0.01%
North Macedonia
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Tanzania
|
Tanzania, 3, 0.01%
Tanzania
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Uzbekistan
|
Uzbekistan, 3, 0.01%
Uzbekistan
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 3, 0.01%
Ethiopia
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Jamaica
|
Jamaica, 3, 0.01%
Jamaica
3 publications, 0.01%
|
USSR
|
USSR, 3, 0.01%
USSR
3 publications, 0.01%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 2, 0.01%
Estonia
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Botswana
|
Botswana, 2, 0.01%
Botswana
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 2, 0.01%
Vietnam
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Gambia
|
Gambia, 2, 0.01%
Gambia
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Greenland
|
Greenland, 2, 0.01%
Greenland
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 2, 0.01%
Kenya
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 2, 0.01%
Cyprus
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 2, 0.01%
Costa Rica
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.01%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Luxembourg
|
Luxembourg, 2, 0.01%
Luxembourg
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Syria
|
Syria, 2, 0.01%
Syria
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Sudan
|
Sudan, 2, 0.01%
Sudan
2 publications, 0.01%
|
Belarus
|
Belarus, 1, 0%
Belarus
1 publication, 0%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0%
Armenia
1 publication, 0%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 1, 0%
Bangladesh
1 publication, 0%
|
Bahrain
|
Bahrain, 1, 0%
Bahrain
1 publication, 0%
|
Benin
|
Benin, 1, 0%
Benin
1 publication, 0%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0%
Ghana
1 publication, 0%
|
Guatemala
|
Guatemala, 1, 0%
Guatemala
1 publication, 0%
|
Iceland
|
Iceland, 1, 0%
Iceland
1 publication, 0%
|
Yemen
|
Yemen, 1, 0%
Yemen
1 publication, 0%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 1, 0%
Qatar
1 publication, 0%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0%
|
Côte d'Ivoire
|
Côte d'Ivoire, 1, 0%
Côte d'Ivoire
1 publication, 0%
|
Show all (70 more) | |
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
50
100
150
200
250
|
|
USA
|
USA, 207, 24.07%
USA
207 publications, 24.07%
|
China
|
China, 134, 15.58%
China
134 publications, 15.58%
|
India
|
India, 103, 11.98%
India
103 publications, 11.98%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 100, 11.63%
Egypt
100 publications, 11.63%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 29, 3.37%
Brazil
29 publications, 3.37%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 28, 3.26%
Saudi Arabia
28 publications, 3.26%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 28, 3.26%
Japan
28 publications, 3.26%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 27, 3.14%
Canada
27 publications, 3.14%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 25, 2.91%
United Kingdom
25 publications, 2.91%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 21, 2.44%
Turkey
21 publications, 2.44%
|
France
|
France, 19, 2.21%
France
19 publications, 2.21%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 19, 2.21%
New Zealand
19 publications, 2.21%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 19, 2.21%
Switzerland
19 publications, 2.21%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 15, 1.74%
Iran
15 publications, 1.74%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 14, 1.63%
Germany
14 publications, 1.63%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 14, 1.63%
Spain
14 publications, 1.63%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 13, 1.51%
Ireland
13 publications, 1.51%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 13, 1.51%
Morocco
13 publications, 1.51%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 12, 1.4%
Italy
12 publications, 1.4%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 11, 1.28%
Belgium
11 publications, 1.28%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 11, 1.28%
Netherlands
11 publications, 1.28%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 8, 0.93%
Poland
8 publications, 0.93%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 8, 0.93%
Republic of Korea
8 publications, 0.93%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 7, 0.81%
Portugal
7 publications, 0.81%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 7, 0.81%
Australia
7 publications, 0.81%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 6, 0.7%
Singapore
6 publications, 0.7%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 6, 0.7%
Finland
6 publications, 0.7%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 4, 0.47%
Hungary
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 4, 0.47%
Jordan
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 4, 0.47%
Colombia
4 publications, 0.47%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.35%
Austria
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 3, 0.35%
Thailand
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 3, 0.35%
Tunisia
3 publications, 0.35%
|
Kazakhstan
|
Kazakhstan, 2, 0.23%
Kazakhstan
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 2, 0.23%
Argentina
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 2, 0.23%
Indonesia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 2, 0.23%
Costa Rica
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 2, 0.23%
Malaysia
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 2, 0.23%
Mexico
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 2, 0.23%
Oman
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Syria
|
Syria, 2, 0.23%
Syria
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 2, 0.23%
Chile
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 2, 0.23%
Sweden
2 publications, 0.23%
|
Armenia
|
Armenia, 1, 0.12%
Armenia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 1, 0.12%
Vietnam
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0.12%
Ghana
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 1, 0.12%
Greece
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 1, 0.12%
Denmark
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 1, 0.12%
Iraq
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Yemen
|
Yemen, 1, 0.12%
Yemen
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 1, 0.12%
Qatar
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 1, 0.12%
Kenya
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0.12%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.12%
Norway
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 1, 0.12%
Pakistan
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.12%
Romania
1 publication, 0.12%
|
North Macedonia
|
North Macedonia, 1, 0.12%
North Macedonia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.12%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.12%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Jamaica
|
Jamaica, 1, 0.12%
Jamaica
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Show all (30 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
|
2 profile journal articles
Díaz-Galiano Francisco
🤝
PhD in Chemistry

University of Almería
31 publications,
408 citations
h-index: 11
Research interests
Food chemistry
Food packaging
Food safety
Ion Mobility
Mass Spectrometry
Metabolomics
2 profile journal articles
Merey Hanan

Cairo University
29 publications,
286 citations
h-index: 11
1 profile journal article
Abramović Biljana
127 publications,
2 730 citations
h-index: 32