↓ Skip to main content

High-rate anaerobic co-digestion of kraft mill fibre sludge and activated sludge by CSTRs with sludge recirculation

Overview of attention for article published in Waste Management, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
High-rate anaerobic co-digestion of kraft mill fibre sludge and activated sludge by CSTRs with sludge recirculation
Published in
Waste Management, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva-Maria Ekstrand, Marielle Karlsson, Xu-Bin Truong, Annika Björn, Anna Karlsson, Bo H. Svensson, Jörgen Ejlertsson

Abstract

Kraft fibre sludge from the pulp and paper industry constitutes a new, widely available substrate for the biogas production industry, with high methane potential. In this study, anaerobic digestion of kraft fibre sludge was examined by applying continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR) with sludge recirculation. Two lab-scale reactors (4L) were run for 800days, one on fibre sludge (R1), and the other on fibre sludge and activated sludge (R2). Additions of Mg, K and S stabilized reactor performance. Furthermore, the Ca:Mg ratio was important, and a stable process was achieved at a ratio below 16:1. Foaming was abated by short but frequent mixing. Co-digestion of fibre sludge and activated sludge resulted in more robust conditions, and high-rate operation at stable conditions was achieved at an organic loading rate of 4g volatile solids (VS)L(-1)day(-1), a hydraulic retention time of 4days and a methane production of 230±10NmL per g VS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 10 29%
Engineering 8 24%
Chemical Engineering 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 7 21%

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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,684,065
of 12,297,856 outputs
Outputs from Waste Management
#598
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,857
of 266,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Waste Management
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,297,856 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 266,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.