Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34950823›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in environmental science & health2021

Smouldering wildfires in peatlands, forests and the arctic: Challenges and perspectives.

Guillermo Rein, Xinyan Huang

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in environmental science & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Priority research directions for wildfire science: views from a historically fire-prone and an emerging fire-prone country.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quantifying fire-specific smoke exposure and health impacts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Guillermo ReinDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, UK.
Xinyan HuangResearch Centre for Fire Safety Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HKImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildfires can be divided into two types, flaming or smouldering, depending on the dominant combustion processes. Both types are present in most wildfires, and despite being fundamentally different in chemical and physical terms, one transitions to the other. Traditionally, science has focused on flames, while smouldering is often misinterpreted. But smouldering wildfires are emerging as a global concern because they cause extensive air pollution, emit very large amounts of carbon, are difficult to detect and suppress, and could accelerate climate change. Central to the topic are smouldering peat fires that lead to the largest fires on Earth. Smouldering also dominates the residual burning after flames have died out and firebrand ignition. Finally, smouldering is an important part of Arctic wildfires, which are increasing in frequency. Here, we present a scientific overview of smouldering wildfires, the associated environmental and health issues, including climate change, and the challenges in prevention and mitigation.

Indexed as

Climate changeEmissionsFirebrandForestPeatPollutionSafety

Identifiers

PMID34950823
PMCPMC8660648
OpenAlexW3193606076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.