↓ Skip to main content

Antimony leaching and chemical species analyses in an industrial solid waste: Surface and bulk speciation using ToF-SIMS and XANES

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Antimony leaching and chemical species analyses in an industrial solid waste: Surface and bulk speciation using ToF-SIMS and XANES
Published in
Journal of Hazardous Materials, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.01.022
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Kappen, G. Ferrando-Miguel, S.M. Reichman, L. Innes, E. Welter, P.J. Pigram

Abstract

The surface chemistry and bulk chemical speciation of solid industrial wastes containing 8wt-% antimony (Sb) were investigated using synchrotron X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure (XANES) and Time-of-Flight Ion Secondary Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS). Leaching experiments were conducted in order to better understand the behavior of Sb in waste streams and to inform regulatory management of antimony-containing wastes. The experiments also demonstrate how a combination of XANES and ToF-SIMS adds value to the field of waste investigations. Leaching treatments (acid and base) were performed at a synchrotron over 24h time periods. Surface analyses of the wastes before leaching showed the presence of Sb associated with S and O. Bulk analyses revealed Sb to be present, primarily, as trivalent sulfide species. Both acid and base leaching did not change the antimony speciation on the solid. Leaching transferred about 1% of the total Sb into solution where Sb was found to be present as Sb(V). XANES data showed similarities between leachate and FeSbO4. During base leaching, the Sb content in solution gradually increased over time, and potential desorption mechanisms are discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 33%
Other 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 67%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Other 1 7%

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 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,657,783
of 12,253,695 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hazardous Materials
#1,304
of 2,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,386
of 263,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hazardous Materials
#11
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,253,695 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 2,090 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 263,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.