↓ Skip to main content

Low-Potential Respirators Support Electricity Production in Microbial Fuel Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Ecology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.
Article details
Title
Low-Potential Respirators Support Electricity Production in Microbial Fuel Cells
Published in
Microbial Ecology, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00248-014-0518-y
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In this paper, we analyse how electric power production in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) depends on the composition of the anodic biofilm in terms of metabolic capabilities of identified sets of species. MFCs are a promising technology for organic waste treatment and sustainable bioelectricity production. Inoculated with natural communities, they present a complex microbial ecosystem with syntrophic interactions between microbes with different metabolic capabilities. Our results demonstrate that low-potential anaerobic respirators-that is those that are able to use terminal electron acceptors with a low redox potential-are important for good power production. Our results also confirm that community metabolism in MFCs with natural inoculum and fermentable feedstock is a two-stage system with fermentation followed by anode respiration.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Engineering 6 17%
Environmental Science 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 39%
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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,731,702
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Ecology
#1,599
of 2,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,525
of 258,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Ecology
#27
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 258,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.