↓ Skip to main content

Effects of trace element addition on process stability during anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW and slaughterhouse waste

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Effects of trace element addition on process stability during anaerobic co-digestion of OFMSW and slaughterhouse waste
Published in
Waste Management, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Moestedt, E. Nordell, S. Shakeri Yekta, J. Lundgren, M. Martí, C. Sundberg, J. Ejlertsson, B.H. Svensson, A. Björn

Abstract

This study used semi-continuous laboratory scale biogas reactors to simulate the effects of trace-element addition in different combinations, while degrading the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and slaughterhouse waste. The results show that the combined addition of Fe, Co and Ni was superior to the addition of only Fe, Fe and Co or Fe and Ni. However, the addition of only Fe resulted in a more stable process than the combined addition of Fe and Co, perhaps indicating a too efficient acidogenesis and/or homoacetogenesis in relation to a Ni-deprived methanogenic population. The results were observed in terms of higher biogas production (+9%), biogas production rates (+35%) and reduced VFA concentration for combined addition compared to only Fe and Ni. The higher stability was supported by observations of differences in viscosity, intraday VFA- and biogas kinetics as well as by the 16S rRNA gene and 16S rRNA of the methanogens.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 22%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 38 26%
Engineering 26 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Chemical Engineering 5 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 39 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,017,843
of 5,347,972 outputs
Outputs from Waste Management
#73
of 283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,071
of 153,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Waste Management
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,347,972 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 61st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 153,579 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.