↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a rapid test for anaerobic inhibition and toxicity

Overview of attention for article published in Water Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
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.
Title
Development and validation of a rapid test for anaerobic inhibition and toxicity
Published in
Water Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.063
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Astals, D.J. Batstone, S. Tait, P.D. Jensen

Abstract

Despite the importance of quantifying inhibitory capacity of compounds in anaerobic digestion, there is currently no well-defined method to assess it. Experimental methods in literature are frequently time-consuming and resource intensive. As a result, detailed inhibition testing rarely forms part of anaerobic digestion studies, despite the importance and utility of this information. This study develops and validates a simple and rapid inhibition test protocol, based on relative inhibition of acetoclastic methanogens. The inhibition potential of a compound is determined from the reduction in specific methanogenic activity as inhibitor concentration is increased. The method was successfully performed on two inoculums from different source environments and with both biostatic and biocidal inhibitors. Optimisation work indicated that: (i) sodium acetate is a preferred carbon source compared to acetic acid; (ii) an inoculum to acetate ratio of 5 g VS g(-1) acetate is preferred, and (iii) that the inoculum concentration should be normalised to 10 g L(-1) VS to reduce mass transfer problems and promote consistency. A key advantage over existing methods is that the sampling strategy has been optimised to three events over 1.5 days while effectively controlling the relative analytical error.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 141 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 22%
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Researcher 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 32 22%
Engineering 29 20%
Chemical Engineering 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 49 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,091,226
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#5,908
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,605
of 281,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#37
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 281,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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 57% of its contemporaries.