↓ Skip to main content

Remote sensing of methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from waste incineration

Overview of attention for article published in Waste Management, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Remote sensing of methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from waste incineration
Published in
Waste Management, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magnus Gålfalk, David Bastviken

Abstract

Incomplete combustion processes lead to the formation of many gaseous byproducts that can be challenging to monitor in flue gas released via chimneys. This study presents ground-based remote sensing approaches to make greenhouse gas (GHG) flux measurements of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from a waste incineration chimney at distances of 150-200 m. The study found emission of N2O (corresponding to 30-40 t yr-1), which is a consequence of adding the reduction agent urea to decrease NOX emissions due to NOX regulation; a procedure that instead increases N2O emissions (which is approximately 300 times more potent as a GHG than CO2 on a 100-year time scale). CH4 emissions of 7-11 t yr-1 was also detected from the studied chimney despite the usage of a high incineration temperature. For this particular plant, local knowledge is high and emission estimates at corresponding levels have been reported previously. However, emissions of CH4 are often not included in GHG emission inventories for waste incineration. This study highlights the importance of monitoring combustion processes, and shows the possibility of surveying CH4 and N2O emissions from waste incineration at distances of several hundred meters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 47%
Environmental Science 4 24%
Engineering 2 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,548,006
of 13,144,984 outputs
Outputs from Waste Management
#235
of 1,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,187
of 347,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Waste Management
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,144,984 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 347,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.