World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
59
Citations
12472
World Ranking
3103
National Ranking
37

Peter Fantke publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Peter Fantke sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 282 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 26 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 19 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–689 publications: 4 scientists 690+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 690+

This scientist: 293 publications — 85th percentile

85% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 690 publications or more.

Peter Fantke D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Peter Fantke sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 198 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 20 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125 D-Index: 9 scientists 126+ D-Index: 92 scientists
30 D-Index 126+

This scientist: 59 D-Index — 69th percentile

69% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 126 D-Index or more.

Overview

Peter Fantke is affiliated with the Technical University of Denmark in Denmark. Their primary field of study is Environmental Science, with a particular focus on health, toxicology, and mutagenesis. Additional subfields include pollution, plant science, environmental engineering, and industrial and manufacturing engineering.

Fantke's recent work encompasses a range of topics related to environmental impact and sustainability, pesticide and herbicide environmental studies, air quality and health impacts, pesticide residue analysis and safety, effects and risks of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, recycling and waste management techniques, and pesticide exposure and toxicity.

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Fantke include Olivier Jolliet, Nicolò Aurisano, Lei Huang, Natalie von Goetz, and Michael Zwicky Hauschild.

Their publications often appear in prominent academic venues, such as:

  • Environmental Science & Technology
  • Environment International
  • The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
  • The Science of The Total Environment
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Selected recent papers authored or coauthored by Fantke include:

  • Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities, 2022, Environmental Science & Technology
  • Climate change exacerbates the environmental impacts of agriculture, 2024, Science
  • LC-IMPACT: A regionalized life cycle damage assessment method, 2020, Journal of Industrial Ecology
  • Addressing environmental sustainability of biochemicals, 2020, Nature Sustainability
  • Chemicals of concern in plastic toys, 2020, Environment International

Best Publications

  • IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method

    Cécile Bulle;Cécile Bulle;Manuele Margni;Laure Patouillard;Laure Patouillard;Anne-Marie Boulay

  • Variability of pesticide dissipation half-lives in plants

    Peter Fantke;Ronnie Juraske

  • Climate change exacerbates the environmental impacts of agriculture

    Unknown

  • Ecological and human health risks associated with abandoned gold mine tailings contaminated soil.

    Veronica Mpode Ngole-Jeme;Peter Fantke

  • Health impact and damage cost assessment of pesticides in Europe.

    Peter Fantke;Rainer Friedrich;Olivier Jolliet

  • LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

    Francesca Verones;Jane Bare;Cecile Bulle;Rolf Frischknecht

  • Estimating Half-Lives for Pesticide Dissipation from Plants

    Peter Fantke;Brenda W. Gillespie;Ronnie Juraske;Olivier Jolliet

  • LC-IMPACT: A regionalized life cycle damage assessment method

    Francesca Verones;Stefanie Hellweg;Assumpció Antón;Ligia B. Azevedo;Ligia B. Azevedo

  • Life cycle human health impacts of 875 pesticides

    Peter Fantke;Olivier Jolliet;Olivier Jolliet

  • Addressing environmental sustainability of biochemicals

    Ólafur Ögmundarson;Ólafur Ögmundarson;Markus J. Herrgård;Jochen Forster;Michael Zwicky Hauschild

  • Plant uptake of pesticides and human health: Dynamic modeling of residues in wheat and ingestion intake

    Peter Fantke;Raphaël Charles;Luiz Felippe de Alencastro;Rainer Friedrich

  • Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use

    Olivier Jolliet;Assumpció Antón;Anne-Marie Boulay;Anne-Marie Boulay;Francesco Cherubini

  • Chemicals of concern in plastic toys

    Nicolò Aurisano;Lei Huang;Llorenç Milà i Canals;Olivier Jolliet

  • Dynamic Multicrop Model to Characterize Impacts of Pesticides in Food

    Peter Fantke;Ronnie Juraske;Assumpció Antón;Rainer Friedrich

  • Consensus Modeling of Median Chemical Intake for the U.S. Population Based on Predictions of Exposure Pathways

    Caroline L. Ring;Caroline L. Ring;Jon A. Arnot;Deborah H Bennett;Peter P. Egeghy

  • Dynamics of pesticide uptake into plants

    Peter Fantke;Peter Wieland;Cédric Wannaz;Rainer Friedrich

  • Analysing half-lives for pesticide dissipation in plants

    R.E. Jacobsen;Peter Fantke;Stefan Trapp

  • Addressing temporal considerations in life cycle assessment

    Didier Beloin-Saint-Pierre;Ariane Christine Albers;Arnaud Helias;Ligia Tiruta-Barna

  • Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: progress and case study

    Rolf Frischknecht;Peter Fantke;Laura Tschümperlin;Monia Niero

  • USEtox® 2.0 Documentation (Version 1.00)

    Peter Fantke;Marian Bijster;Cécile Guignard;Michael Zwicky Hauschild

  • Indoor inhalation intake fractions of fine particulate matter: Review of influencing factors

    Natasha Hodas;Natasha Hodas;Miranda Loh;Hyeong-Moo Shin;Dingsheng Li

  • Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

    Thomas Sonderegger;Jo Dewulf;Peter Fantke;Danielle Maia de Souza;Danielle Maia de Souza;Danielle Maia de Souza

  • Defining Product Intake Fraction to Quantify and Compare Exposure to Consumer Products

    Olivier Jolliet;Alexi S. Ernstoff;Susan A. Csiszar;Peter Fantke

Frequent Co-Authors

Olivier Jolliet
Olivier Jolliet University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Michael Zwicky Hauschild
Michael Zwicky Hauschild Technical University of Denmark
Thomas E. McKone
Thomas E. McKone University of California, Berkeley
Assumpció Antón
Assumpció Antón Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology
Bradley G. Ridoutt
Bradley G. Ridoutt Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Alexis Laurent
Alexis Laurent Technical University of Denmark
Serenella Sala
Serenella Sala European Commission Joint Research Centre
Manuele Margni
Manuele Margni Polytechnique Montréal

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For those interested in advancing their expertise in Environmental Sciences, exploring related online degrees can open diverse career pathways. Educational professionals might consider transitioning from an EdS to EdD program to deepen their leadership skills without committing to lengthy dissertations. Programs like these offer practical, research-based learning tailored for sustainability educators and policy advocates.

Social work also intersects with environmental issues, especially in community resilience and environmental justice. Pursuing online DSW programs in social work can equip professionals to address the social dimensions of environmental challenges, fostering stronger connections between communities and ecological health.

Alternatively, enrolling in the most affordable online general studies degree programs can provide students with a flexible foundation, allowing them to tailor their studies towards environmental topics without the financial burden often associated with higher education.

For educators aiming to enhance their credentials in environmental education, exploring online EdD programs no dissertation options can be a convenient pathway that balances academic rigor with practical application. Each of these pathways leverages flexible online learning to help students and professionals align their education with evolving environmental career demands.

Learn more about these options: online edd programs no dissertation, eds to edd program, online dsw programs in social work, and most affordable online general studies degree programs.

Best Scientists Citing Peter Fantke

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles