↓ Skip to main content

Environmental Effects of Using Chelating Agents in Polluted Sediment Remediation

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Environmental Effects of Using Chelating Agents in Polluted Sediment Remediation
Published in
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00128-014-1437-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Di Palma, Elisabetta Petrucci, Biancamaria Pietrangeli

Abstract

The results of laboratory scale experimental tests of contaminant extraction from marine sediment slurries are presented and discussed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of EDTA and rhamnolipid in copper removal from an artificially contaminated sediment. The comparison was made in terms of metal extraction yield, and in the evaluation of its mobilization towards the more exchangeable fractions in the sediment. Results show that, under acidic conditions established during washing, EDTA ensured higher extractions efficiencies of Cu (up to 95 %) than rhamnolipid, although there was less mobilization into bioavailable forms with the use of rhamnolipid. In addition, in the view of a biological treatment of the spent solution, the use of rhamnolipid resulted in a lower decrease of the specific oxygen uptake rate with respect to EDTA. In fact, the low surfactants concentration required, partially compensated the toxic effect of Cu towards biomass.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemical Engineering 3 16%
Engineering 3 16%
Environmental Science 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 42%
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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#16,371,088
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#2,634
of 4,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,796
of 368,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#6
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 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 4,112 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 368,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.