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 |
Factors controlling headspace pressure in a manual manometric BMP method can be used to produce a methane output comparable to AMPTS
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bioresource Technology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. Himanshu, M.A. Voelklein, J.D. Murphy, J. Grant, P. O'Kiely |
| Abstract |
The manual manometric biochemical methane potential (mBMP) test uses the increase in pressure to calculate the gas produced. This gas production may be affected by the headspace volume in the incubation bottle and by the overhead pressure measurement and release (OHPMR) frequency. The biogas and methane yields of cellulose, barley, silage and slurry were compared with three incubation bottle headspace volumes (50, 90 and 180ml; constant 70ml total medium) and four OHPMR frequencies (daily, each third day, weekly and solely at the end of experiment). The methane yields of barley, silage and slurry were compared with those from an automated volumetric method (AMPTS). Headspace volume and OHPMR frequency effects on biogas yield were mediated mainly through headspace pressure, with the latter having a negative effect on the biogas yield measured and relatively little effect on methane yield. Two mBMP treatments produced methane yields equivalent to AMPTS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 28 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 15 | 14% |
| Chemical Engineering | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Energy | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,797,724
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Bioresource Technology
#4,511
of 8,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,199
of 323,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioresource Technology
#70
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,281 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 323,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.