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 |
Microbiome characterization of MFCs used for the treatment of swine manure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hazardous Materials, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.02.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Vilajeliu-Pons, Sebastià Puig, Narcís Pous, Inmaculada Salcedo-Dávila, Lluís Bañeras, Maria Dolors Balaguer, Jesús Colprim |
| Abstract |
Conventional swine manure treatment is performed by anaerobic digestion, but nitrogen is not treated. Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs) allow organic matter and nitrogen removal with concomitant electricity production. MFC microbiomes treating industrial wastewaters as swine manure have not been characterized. In this study, a multidisciplinary approach allowed microbiome relation with nutrient removal capacity and electricity production. Two different MFC configurations (C-1 and C-2) were used to treat swine manure. In C-1, the nitrification and denitrification processes took place in different compartments, while in C-2, simultaneous nitrification-denitrification occurred in the cathode. Clostridium disporicum and Geobacter sulfurreducens were identified in the anode compartments of both systems. C. disporicum was related to the degradation of complex organic matter compounds and G. sulfurreducens to electricity production. Different nitrifying bacteria populations were identified in both systems because of the different operational conditions. The highest microbial diversity was detected in cathode compartments of both configurations, including members of Bacteroidetes, Chloroflexiaceae and Proteobacteria. These communities allowed similar removal rates of organic matter (2.02-2.09kg CODm(-3)d(-1)) and nitrogen (0.11-0.16kgNm(-3)d(-1)) in both systems. However, they differed in the generation of electric energy (20 and 2mWm(-3) in C-1 and C-2, respectively). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 7 | 54% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 9 | 69% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 31% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Researcher | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 18% |
| Environmental Science | 18 | 18% |
| Engineering | 16 | 16% |
| Chemical Engineering | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,788,920
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hazardous Materials
#729
of 7,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,188
of 361,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hazardous Materials
#4
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 361,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.