Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33145407›Full record

ReviewACS central science2020

From Molecules to Porous Materials: Integrating Discrete Electrocatalytic Active Sites into Extended Frameworks.

Soumyodip Banerjee, Rasha I Anayah, Carter S Gerke, V Sara Thoi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS central science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Tuning Electrode Reactivity through Organometallic Complexes.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Soumyodip BanerjeeDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.
Rasha I AnayahDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.
Carter S GerkeDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.
V Sara ThoiDepartment of Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metal-organic and covalent-organic frameworks can serve as a bridge between the realms of homo- and heterogeneous catalytic systems. While there are numerous molecular complexes developed for electrocatalysis, homogeneous catalysts are hindered by slow catalyst diffusion, catalyst deactivation, and poor product yield. Heterogeneous catalysts can compensate for these shortcomings, yet they lack the synthetic and chemical tunability to promote rational design. To narrow this knowledge gap, there is a burgeoning field of framework-related research that incorporates molecular catalysts within porous architectures, resulting in an exceptional catalytic performance as compared to their molecular analogues. Framework materials provide structural stability to these catalysts, alter their electronic environments, and are easily tunable for increased catalytic activity. This Outlook compares molecular catalysts and corresponding framework materials to evaluate the effects of such integration on electrocatalytic performance. We describe several different classes of molecular motifs that have been included in framework materials and explore how framework design strategies improve on the catalytic behavior of their homogeneous counterparts. Finally, we will provide an outlook on new directions to drive fundamental research at the intersection of reticular-and electrochemistry.

Identifiers

PMID33145407
PMCPMC7596858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.