↓ Skip to main content

Formations of calcium carbonate minerals by bacteria and its multiple applications

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
456 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
838 Mendeley
Title
Formations of calcium carbonate minerals by bacteria and its multiple applications
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1869-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Periasamy Anbu, Chang-Ho Kang, Yu-Jin Shin, Jae-Seong So

Abstract

Biomineralization is a naturally occurring process in living organisms. In this review, we discuss microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation (MICP) in detail. In the MICP process, urease plays a major role in urea hydrolysis by a wide variety of microorganisms capable of producing high levels of urease. We also elaborate on the different polymorphs and the role of calcium in the formation of calcite crystal structures using various calcium sources. Additionally, the environmental factors affecting the production of urease and carbonate precipitation are discussed. This MICP is a promising, eco-friendly alternative approach to conventional and current remediation technologies to solve environmental problems in multidisciplinary fields. Multiple applications of MICP such as removal of heavy metals and radionuclides, improve the quality of construction materials and sequestration of atmospheric CO2 are discussed. In addition, we discuss other applications such as removal of calcium ions, PCBs and use of filler in rubber and plastics and fluorescent particles in stationary ink and stationary markers. MICP technology has become an efficient aspect of multidisciplinary fields. This report not only highlights the major strengths of MICP, but also discusses the limitations to application of this technology on a commercial scale.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 838 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 830 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 130 16%
Student > Bachelor 111 13%
Student > Master 110 13%
Researcher 85 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 5%
Other 102 12%
Unknown 259 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 203 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 75 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 7%
Environmental Science 49 6%
Chemistry 30 4%
Other 121 14%
Unknown 299 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,013,770
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#302
of 1,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,452
of 303,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#25
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 303,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.