SynthesisTheScientificWorldJournal2021
A Review of Caffeine Adsorption Studies onto Various Types of Adsorbents.
Synthesis in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanistic and modeling insights into caffeine adsorption on triazole and terephthalic acid functionalized Mg-Zn-Fe layered double hydroxides.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Charcoal agar interference in antibiotic susceptibility testing of Bordetella pertussis: evaluation and alternative methodologies.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2026Article
- Channel Geometry Controls on Chemical Behavior in Rivers: Insights from a Comparative Field Study.ACS ES&T water · 2025Article
- Activated Biochar from Sewage Sludge: A Sustainable Solution for Effective Removal of Emerging Water Contaminants.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Caffeine removal in wastewater: a comprehensive review of current treatment plants and small-scale innovations.Environmental technology reviews · 2025Article
- The risk of premature cardiac contractions (PAC/PVC) related to caffeine consumption among healthcare workers: A comprehensive review.Health science reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic literature review of publications from 2000 to 2020 was carried out to identify research trends on adsorbent materials for the removal of caffeine from aqueous solutions. Publications were retrieved from three databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). Words "adsorption AND caffeine" were examined into titles, abstracts, and keywords. A brief bibliometric analysis was performed with emphasis on the type of publication and of most cited articles. Materials for the removal of caffeine were classified according to the type of material into three main groups: organic, inorganic, and composites, each of them subdivided into different subgroups consistent with their origin or production. Tables resume for each subgroup of adsorbents the key information: specific surface area, dose, pH, maximum adsorption capacity, and isotherm models for the removal of caffeine. The highest adsorption capacities were achieved by organic adsorbents, specifically those with granular activated carbon (1961.3 mg/g) and grape stalk activated carbon (916.7 mg/g). Phenyl-phosphate-based porous organic polymer (301 mg/g), natural sandy loam sediment (221.2 mg/g), composites of MCM-48 encapsulated graphene oxide (153.8 mg/g), and organically modified clay (143.7 mg/g) showed adsorption capacities lower than those of activated carbons. In some activated carbons, a relation between the specific surface area (SSA) and the maximum adsorption capacity (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.