↓ Skip to main content

Development of self-assembled nanocrystalline cellulose as a promising practical adsorbent for methylene blue removal

Overview of attention for article published in Carbohydrate Polymers, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Development of self-assembled nanocrystalline cellulose as a promising practical adsorbent for methylene blue removal
Published in
Carbohydrate Polymers, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.07.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study is focused on nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) flakes for methylene blue (MB) removal via adsorption. NCC flakes exhibit a high adsorption capacity (188.7 mg/g fixed at 0.7 g/L adsorbent dosage, 25 °C and pH 6) compared to other nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotube and other cellulosic materials, such as coffee husks. Unlike NCC powder, it was observed that NCC flakes can be easily separated from wastewater containing MB. Further adsorption studies were conducted on NCC flakes, and it was found that 0.7 g/L was the optimum adsorbent dosage, which fitted well with the Langmuir Isotherm. The mean free energy value from Dubinin-Radushkevich isotherm was less than 8 kJ/mol. ΔGo values at different temperatures were within the -20 kJ/mol to 0 kJ/mol range. In conclusion, NCC flakes is a promising and practical 'green' nanomaterial that can be further developed for industrial applications.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 22 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemical Engineering 8 13%
Chemistry 7 11%
Environmental Science 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 28 44%
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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Carbohydrate Polymers
#3,426
of 5,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,053
of 340,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbohydrate Polymers
#48
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,159 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 340,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.