↓ Skip to main content

Main photoautotrophic components of biofilms in natural draft cooling towers

Overview of attention for article published in Folia Microbiologica, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Main photoautotrophic components of biofilms in natural draft cooling towers
Published in
Folia Microbiologica, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12223-015-0429-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomáš Hauer, Petr Čapek, Petra Böhmová

Abstract

While photoautotrophic organisms are an important component of biofilms that live in certain regions of natural draft cooling towers, little is known about these communities. We therefore examined 18 towers at nine sites to identify the general patterns of community assembly in three distinct tower parts, and we examined how community structures differ depending on geography. We also compared the newly acquired data with previously published data. The bottom sections of draft cooling towers are mainly settled by large filamentous algae, primarily Cladophora glomerata. The central portions of towers host a small amount of planktic algae biomass originating in the cooling water. The upper fourths of towers are colonized by biofilms primarily dominated by cyanobacteria, e.g., members of the genera Gloeocapsa and Scytonema. A total of 41 taxa of phototrophic microorganisms were identified. Species composition of the upper fourth of all towers was significantly affected by cardinal position. There was different species composition at positions facing north compared to positions facing south. West- and east-facing positions were transitory and highly similar to each other in terms of species composition. Biofilms contribute to the degradation of paint coatings inside towers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 44%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 25%
Environmental Science 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Folia Microbiologica
#530
of 739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,827
of 284,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Microbiologica
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 739 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 284,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.