↓ Skip to main content

Coconut shells as filling material for anaerobic filters

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Coconut shells as filling material for anaerobic filters
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-655
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luana Mattos de Oliveira Cruz, Ronaldo Stefanutti, Bruno Coraucci Filho, Adriano Luiz Tonetti

Abstract

In rural areas of developing countries, there is a lack of sanitation services and the installation of such infrastructure is hampered by the high investment costs for initial implementation and by the limited availability of qualified personnel. An alternative to traditional sanitation services include an anaerobic filter, but the high cost of appropriate filling material can be an obstacle to its wide-spread implementation. To decrease this construction cost, the objective of this work was to study the use of coconut shells as filling material for anaerobic filters. Anaerobic filters were built and filled with the studied material and operated with up flow and hydraulic retention time of 9 hours. The reactors provided a removal of 79 ± 16% in BOD terms, indicating that the coconut shell filling had efficiency consistent with the literature data. In addition, the husks were found to retain their tensile strength following use in the reactors. Coconut husks have more empty bed volume than other low cost materials, such as crushed stone, nearing properties of traditional materials. The results of this study indicate that coconut husks may prove to be a low cost alternative to traditional fillers for anaerobic treatment in rural communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 22 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 23%
Environmental Science 11 17%
Chemical Engineering 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#8,340,088
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#484
of 1,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,078
of 322,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#23
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. 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 322,277 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 71% of its contemporaries.