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 |
A protocol for the use of computational fluid dynamics as a supportive tool for wastewater treatment plant modelling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Water Science & Technology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2166/wst.2014.425 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Laurent, R. W. Samstag, J. M. Ducoste, A. Griborio, I. Nopens, D. J. Batstone, J. D. Wicks, S. Saunders, O. Potier |
| Abstract |
To date, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models have been primarily used for evaluation of hydraulic problems at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). A potentially more powerful use, however, is to simulate integrated physical, chemical and/or biological processes involved in WWTP unit processes on a spatial scale and to use the gathered knowledge to accelerate improvement in plant models for everyday use, that is, design and optimized operation. Evolving improvements in computer speed and memory and improved software for implementing CFD, as well as for integrated processes, has allowed for broader usage of this tool for understanding, troubleshooting, and optimal design of WWTP unit processes. This paper proposes a protocol for an alternative use of CFD in process modelling, as a way to gain insight into complex systems leading to improved modelling approaches used in combination with the IWA activated sludge models and other kinetic models. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 53 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 26% |
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 28 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,311,799
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Water Science & Technology
#2,040
of 2,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,983
of 260,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Science & Technology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 260,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.