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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of the type of ion exchange membrane on performance, ion transport, and pH in biocatalyzed electrolysis of wastewater
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Water Science & Technology, June 2008
|
| DOI | 10.2166/wst.2008.043 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. A. Rozendal, T. H. J. A. Sleutels, H. V. M. Hamelers, C. J. N. Buisman |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have shown that the application of cation exchange membranes (CEMs) in bioelectrochemical systems running on wastewater can cause operational problems. In this paper the effect of alternative types of ion exchange membrane is studied in biocatalyzed electrolysis cells. Four types of ion exchange membranes are used: (i) a CEM, (ii) an anion exchange membrane (AEM), (iii) a bipolar membrane (BPM), and (iv) a charge mosaic membrane (CMM). With respect to the electrochemical performance of the four biocatalyzed electrolysis configurations, the ion exchange membranes are rated in the order AEM > CEM > CMM > BPM. However, with respect to the transport numbers for protons and/or hydroxyl ions (t(H/OH)) and the ability to prevent pH increase in the cathode chamber, the ion exchange membranes are rated in the order BPM > AEM > CMM > CEM. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 20% |
| Researcher | 39 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 13 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 43 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 35 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 18 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 63 | 29% |
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 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,722,539
of 23,479,361 outputs
Outputs from Water Science & Technology
#495
of 3,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,162
of 83,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Science & Technology
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,479,361 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,028 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 83,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.