Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34321657›Full record

ReviewNature materials2021

Porous materials for carbon dioxide separations.

Rebecca L Siegelman, Eugene J Kim, Jeffrey R Long

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature materials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
48.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 656 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mesoporous Silica-Supported MOF Composites for CONanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Benchmarking COACS central science · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Semiartificial COChemical reviews · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Porous Organic Cages for COAngewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Review
  13. Enhanced COACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026
    Article
  14. Discovering COJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Heteroatom-Engineered Covalent Organic Frameworks Break the COJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca L SiegelmanDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-6118
Eugene J KimDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3474-3676
Jeffrey R LongDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. jrlong@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5324-1321
DuPont (United States) · USLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global investment in counteracting climate change has galvanized increasing interest in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a versatile emissions mitigation technology. As decarbonization efforts accelerate, CCS can target the emissions of large point-source emitters, such as coal- or natural gas-fired power plants, while also supporting the production of renewable or low-carbon fuels. Furthermore, CCS can enable decarbonization of difficult-to-abate industrial processes and can support net CO

Identifiers

PMID34321657
OpenAlexW3183503949

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.