↓ Skip to main content

Performance of novel media in stratified filters to remove organic carbon from lake water

Overview of attention for article published in Water Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Performance of novel media in stratified filters to remove organic carbon from lake water
Published in
Water Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2016.08.025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maebh A. Grace, Eoghan Clifford, Mark G. Healy

Abstract

Disinfection by-products (DBPs) are an ever-increasing occurrence in water networks, particularly those which abstract water from peatland areas. Although much research has been carried out to discover novel methods to remove specific DBPs, the removal of natural organic matter (NOM) from source water may provide a more sustainable solution in many areas. This study focuses on the removal of NOM by novel filters, which could be retrospectively fitted to any conventional water treatment facility. The filters comprised stratified layers of a variety of media, including sand, Bayer residue, granular activated carbon (GAC), and pyritic fill. The filters were operated under two loading regimes, continuous and intermittent, at loading rates similar to recognised design standards. The most successful filter design comprised stratified layers of sand, GAC, and pyritic fill. Over the duration of a 240 day study, these filters obtained average dissolved organic carbon removal rates of 40%, and achieved average specific ultra-violet absorbance reductions from 2.9 to 2.4 L mg(-1) m(-1). The study demonstrates that these novel filters may be used to reduce NOM levels, thus reducing the potential for DBP formation. Such designs can incorporate the use of waste media, making the overall design more sustainable and robust.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 25%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 4 20%
Other 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 35%
Environmental Science 5 25%
Chemistry 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%

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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#10,874,304
of 12,269,818 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#4,679
of 5,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,824
of 262,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#126
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,269,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,590 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 262,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.