Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34976945›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2021

A Review on Metal-Organic Frameworks as Congenial Heterogeneous Catalysts for Potential Organic Transformations.

Kranthi Kumar Gangu, Sreekantha B Jonnalagadda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 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
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Metal-organic frameworks ofRSC advances · 2024
    Article
  6. RSM optimization of Friedel-CraftsNanoscale advances · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Kranthi Kumar GanguVignan's Institute of Information Technology, Visakhapatnam, India.
Sreekantha B JonnalagaddaSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Westville Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have emerged as versatile candidates of interest in heterogeneous catalysis. Recent research and developments with MOFs positively endorse their role as catalysts in generating invaluable organic compounds. To harness the full potential of MOFs in value-added organic transformation, a comprehensive look at how these materials are likely to involve in the catalytic processes is essential. Mainstays of MOFs such as metal nodes, linkers, encapsulation materials, and enveloped structures tend to produce capable catalytic active sites that offer solutions to reduce human efforts in developing new organic reactions. The main advantages of choosing MOFs as reusable catalysts are the flexible and robust skeleton, regular porosity, high pore volume, and accessible synthesis accompanied with cost-effectiveness. As hosts for active metals, sole MOFs, modified MOFs, and MOFs have made remarkable advances as solid catalysts. The extensive exploration of the MOFs possibly led to their fast adoption in fabricating new biological molecules such as pyridines, quinolines, quinazolinones, imines, and their derivatives. This review covers the varied MOFs and their catalytic properties in facilitating the selective formation of the product organic moieties and interprets MOF's property responsible for their elegant performance.

Indexed as

catalytic active sitesgreen principlesheterogeneous catalysismetal-organic frameworks (MOF)reusabilityvalue-added organic transformations

Identifiers

PMID34976945
PMCPMC8718437

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.