, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 691–707 | Cite as

Analysis of the microbial risk assessment studies from 1973 to 2015: a bibliometric case study

  • Alireza Mesdaghinia
  • Masoud Younesian
  • Simin Nasseri
  • Ramin Nabizadeh Nodehi
  • Mahdi Hadi


A bibliometric analysis was conducted to assess the trend of microbial risk assessment publications indexed in Scopus from 1973 to 2015. The study was analyzed the distribution of languages, countries, journals, author keywords, authorship pattern, and co-authorship relationships. An exponentially increasing trend (R 2 = 0.98) by 14.72 % article production per year was seen from 1973 to 2015. Risk Anal., Int. J. Food Microbiol. and J. Water Health were published the most papers. United States with 618 articles (78.23 %), Netherlands; 151 articles (19.11 %) and Australia; 135 articles (17.09 %) played active roles in the publication. Ashbolt NJ (3.16 %) from Alberta University and Haas CN from Drexel University (3.16 %) were the most productive authors in this field. The English language was dominant language of all publications (94.18 %). The analysis of author keywords revealed that foods and drinking waters are the most important environment media those are related to the transmission of microbial contamination. An upward trend in the number of articles reveals to be continuing in the future. Given the importance of microbial risk assessment, this trend reflects an increasing attention to the issue of microbial risk assessment among the scientists. It is hoped that transferring the experiences of developed countries in this field to less-developed countries may increases the number of researches in this field. It is expected this study could be the basis for a better understanding and development of researches related to microbial risk assessment worldwide.


Bibliometric analysis Microbial risk assessment Scopus 



Tehran University of Medical Sciences supported this work as a part of Ph.D. dissertation (Grant No: 92-02-46-22845). This support is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Akhtar, S., Sarker, M. R., & Hossain, A. (2014). Microbiological food safety: A dilemma of developing societies. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 40(4), 348–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu, W.-T., & Ho, Y.-S. (2005). Bibliometric analysis of homeopathy research during the period of 1991 to 2003. Scientometrics, 63(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu, W.-T., & Ho, Y.-S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics, 73(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chuang, K.-Y., Huang, Y.-L., & Ho, Y.-S. (2007). A bibliometric and citation analysis of stroke-related research in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 72(2), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elsevier B. V. Company. Scopus Content Overview [Online]. Available: [Accessed].
  6. Fang, P., & Fang, J. M. (1995). A modification of Lotka’s function for scientific productivity. Information Processing and Management, 31(1), 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fu, H.-Z., Long, X., & Ho, Y.-S. (2014). China’s research in chemical engineering journals in Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 98(1), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fu, H.-Z., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2013). Mapping of drinking water research: A bibliometric analysis of research output during 1992–2011. Science of the Total Environment, 443, 757–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. George, J., An, W., Joshi, D., Zhang, D., Yang, M. & Suriyanarayanan, S. (2015). Quantitative microbial risk Assessment to estimate the health risk in urban drinking water systems of Mysore, Karnataka, India. Water Quality, Exposure and Health. doi: 10.1007/s12403-014-0152-4.Google Scholar
  10. Gundry, S., Conroy, R., & Wright, J. (2003). A systematic review of the health outcomes related to household water quality in developing countries. Journal of Water and Health, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. Haas, C. N., Rose, J. B., & Gerba, C. P. (2014). Quantitative microbial risk assessment. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho, Y.-S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of adsorption technology in environmental science. Journal of Environmental Protection Science, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  13. Ho, Y.-S. (2014). Classic articles on social work field in Social Science Citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 98(1), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, J., Ma, Y., Zhang, L., Gan, F., & Ho, Y.-S. (2010). A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on lead in drinking water field from 1991 to 2007. Science of the Total Environment, 408(7), 1738–1744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hugas, M., Tsigarida, E., Robinson, T., & Calistri, P. (2007). Risk assessment of biological hazards in the European Union. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 120(1), 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences, 16, 317–323.Google Scholar
  17. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nicholls, P. T. (1986). Empirical validation of Lotka’s law. Information Processing and Management, 22(5), 417–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka’s law: a testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patra, S. K., Bhattacharya, P., & Verma, N. (2003). Bibliometric study of literature on bibliometrics. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 26(1), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pintar, K., Fazil, A., Pollari, F., Waltner-Toews, D., Charron, D., McEwen, S., & Walton, T. (2012). Considering the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium via consumption of municipally treated drinking water from a surface water source in a Southwestern Ontario Community. Risk Analysis, 32(7), 1122–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. QMRAwiki. About QMRA Wiki [Online]. Available: [Accessed].
  24. QMRAwiki. Dose Response [Online]. Available: [Accessed].
  25. R Core Team 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 3.0.2 ed. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  26. Small, H. G., & Koenig, M. E. (1977). Journal clustering using a bibliographic coupling method. Information Processing and Management, 13(5), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun, J., Wang, M.-H., & Ho, Y.-S. (2012). A historical review and bibliometric analysis of research on estuary pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tan, J., Fu, H.-Z., & Ho, Y.-S. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in science citation index expanded. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1473–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. (2009). VOSviewer: A computer program for bibliometric mapping.Google Scholar
  30. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alireza Mesdaghinia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Masoud Younesian
    • 2
    • 3
  • Simin Nasseri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ramin Nabizadeh Nodehi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mahdi Hadi
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Water Quality Research (CWQR), Institute for Environmental Research (IER)Tehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Health, School of Public HealthTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  3. 3.Center for Air Pollution Research (CAPR), Institute for Environmental Research (IER)Tehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations