↓ Skip to main content

Effect of long-term starvation conditions on polyphosphate- and glycogen-accumulating organisms

Overview of attention for article published in Bioresource Technology, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effect of long-term starvation conditions on polyphosphate- and glycogen-accumulating organisms
Published in
Bioresource Technology, October 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.117
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Vargas, Z. Yuan, M. Pijuan

Abstract

Endogenous processes such as biomass decay and intracellular polymers degradation of polyphosphate-accumulating organisms (PAOs) and glycogen-accumulating organisms (GAOs) were investigated. Cultures enriched in Accumulibacter (a well known PAO) or Competibacter (a well known GAO) were subjected to 21 and 26 days of alternating anaerobic/aerobic conditions respectively. The main energy source for PAOs during starvation was their intracellular polyphosphate released into the medium during the first 14 days of starvation. In contrast, GAOs used their intracellular glycogen during the 26 days of starvation. Biomass decay rates were 0.029 d(-1) for PAOs and almost negligible for GAOs. The reduction in acetate uptake rate during the starvation period, referred to as activity decay, was 0.25 and 0.047 d(-1) for PAOs and GAOs, respectively. Once wastewater was reintroduced, both populations recovered their initial substrate uptake rate after 1 day. The results obtained show that PAOs are more affected than GAOs by starvation conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 38%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 14 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 19%
Engineering 10 16%
Chemical Engineering 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Bioresource Technology
#6,102
of 8,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,056
of 191,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioresource Technology
#97
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,264 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 191,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.