↓ Skip to main content

Chemical dosing for sulfide control in Australia: An industry survey

Overview of attention for article published in Water Research, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Chemical dosing for sulfide control in Australia: An industry survey
Published in
Water Research, October 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2011.09.054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramon Ganigue, Oriol Gutierrez, Ray Rootsey, Zhiguo Yuan

Abstract

Controlling sulfide (H(2)S) production and emission in sewer systems is critical due to the corrosion and malodour problems that sulfide causes. Chemical dosing is one of the most commonly used measures to mitigate these problems. Many chemicals have been reported to be effective for sulfide control, but the extent of success varies between chemicals and is also dependent on how they are applied. This industry survey aims to summarise the current practice in Australia with the view to assist the water industry to further improve their practices and to identify new research questions. Results showed that dosing is mainly undertaken in pressure mains. Magnesium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and nitrate are the most commonly used chemicals for sewers with low flows. In comparison, iron salts are preferentially used for sulfide control in large systems. The use of oxygen injection has declined dramatically in the past few years. Chemical dosing is mainly conducted at wet wells and pumping stations, except for oxygen, which is injected into the pipe. The dosing rates are normally linked to the control mechanisms of the chemicals and the dosing locations, with constant or profiled dosing rates usually applied. Finally, key opportunities for improvement are the use of mathematical models for the selection of chemicals and dosing locations, on-line dynamic control of the dosing rates and the development of more cost-effective chemicals for sulfide control.

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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 27 23%
Environmental Science 24 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Chemistry 4 3%
Chemical Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 36 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 November 2011.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#6,385
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,058
of 145,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#45
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 145,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.