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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal food waste and sewage sludge: A comparative life cycle assessment in the context of a waste service provision
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bioresource Technology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.10.044 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joel Edwards, Maazuza Othman, Enda Crossin, Stewart Burn |
| Abstract |
This study used life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) and compared it against the current waste management system in two case study areas. Results indicated AcoD to have less environmental impact for all categories modelled excluding human toxicity, despite the need to collect and pre-treat food waste separately. Uncertainty modelling confirmed that AcoD has a 100% likelihood of a smaller global warming potential, and for acidification, eutrophication and fossil fuel depletion AcoD carried a greater than 85% confidence of inducing a lesser impact than the current waste service. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 296 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 53 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 9% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 15% |
| Unknown | 66 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 67 | 22% |
| Environmental Science | 58 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Chemical Engineering | 20 | 7% |
| Energy | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 8% |
| Unknown | 98 | 33% |
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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Bioresource Technology
#5,193
of 8,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,644
of 324,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioresource Technology
#45
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 324,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.