↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

Using Prokaryotes for Carbon Capture Storage

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Biotechnology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Using Prokaryotes for Carbon Capture Storage
Published in
Trends in Biotechnology, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.06.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie Hicks, Unni Vik, Peter Taylor, Efthymios Ladoukakis, Joonsang Park, Frangiskos Kolisis, Kjetill S. Jakobsen

Abstract

Geological storage of CO2 is a fast-developing technology that can mitigate rising carbon emissions. However, there are environmental concerns with the long-term storage and implications of a leak from a carbon capture storage (CCS) site. Traditional monitoring lacks clear protocols and relies heavily on physical methods. Here, we discuss the potential of biotechnology, focusing on microbes with a natural ability to utilize and assimilate CO2 through different metabolic pathways. We propose the use of natural microbial communities for CCS monitoring and CO2 utilization, and, with examples, demonstrate how synthetic biology may maximize CO2 uptake within and above storage sites. An integrated physical and biological approach, combined with metagenomics data and biotechnological advances, will enhance CO2 sequestration and prevent large-scale leakages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 158 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 42 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 16%
Engineering 11 7%
Environmental Science 11 7%
Chemical Engineering 8 5%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 52 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#785,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#68
of 2,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,001
of 329,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 329,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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.