↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
3 patents

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Comparison of modified montmorillonite adsorbents Part I: preparation, characterization and phenol adsorption
Published in
Chemosphere, May 2002
DOI 10.1016/s0045-6535(02)00011-5
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study concerns with the development of modified montmorillonites as adsorbents for water treatment. Polymeric aluminium and iron intercalated forms of montmorillonites have been prepared in the absence and presence of an alkylammonium cationic surfactant (Hexdecyl-trimethyl-ammonium bromide, HDTMA). Montmorillonites intercalated with polymeric Al, Fe, Fe/Al (2:1 Fe to Al ratio in solution), possess large N2 Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface areas. XRD data also shows trace amounts of illite and plagioclase within the clay materials. Montmorillonites intercalated with HDTMA, polymeric Fe/HDTMA, polymeric Al/HDTMA and polymeric Fe/Al/HDTMA (1:1 metal to surfactant molar ratio in solution) undergo some losses of N2 BET surface areas. Preliminary adsorption studies on phenol have shown that polymeric Al/HDTMA- and HDTMA-only-modified montmorillonites possess a good affinity for phenol, whereas the polymeric Al/Fe modified- and starting montmorillonites have little affinity for phenol adsorption.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 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 %
Russia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 109 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Researcher 14 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Student > Master 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 24 21%
Engineering 15 13%
Environmental Science 12 11%
Materials Science 8 7%
Chemical Engineering 7 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 37 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,056,682
of 34,054,827 outputs
Outputs from Chemosphere
#1,517
of 17,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,679
of 175,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemosphere
#8
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,054,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 175,832 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.