↓ Skip to main content

Uptake and sorption of aluminium and fluoride by four green algal species

Overview of attention for article published in Chemistry Central Journal, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Uptake and sorption of aluminium and fluoride by four green algal species
Published in
Chemistry Central Journal, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1752-153x-8-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danaé Pitre, Amiel Boullemant, Claude Fortin

Abstract

We examined the uptake and sorption of aluminium (Al) and fluoride (F) by green algae under conditions similar to those found in the effluents of the aluminium industry. We took into account the speciation of Al in the medium since Al can form stable complexes with F and these complexes may play a role in the uptake and sorption of Al. We compared the capacity of four species of green algae (i.e. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, Chlorella vulgaris, and Scenedesmus obliquus) to accumulate and adsorb Al and F. The selected algae were exposed during 4 days, covering all growth phases of algae, to a synthetic medium containing Al and F at pH 7.0. During this period, dissolved Al as well as cellular growth were followed closely. At the end of the exposure period, the solutions were filtered in order to harvest the algal cells. The cells were then rinsed with enough ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid to remove loosely bound ions from the algal surface, determined from the filtrates. Finally, the filters were digested in order to quantify cellular uptake.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 4%
Tunisia 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 5 22%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 8 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Chemistry 3 13%
Engineering 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%

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 07 February 2014.
All research outputs
#2,669,557
of 5,036,908 outputs
Outputs from Chemistry Central Journal
#191
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,520
of 138,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemistry Central Journal
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 138,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 50% of its contemporaries.