Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35201751›Full record

ReviewChemical reviews2022

Replacement of Less-Preferred Dipolar Aprotic and Ethereal Solvents in Synthetic Organic Chemistry with More Sustainable Alternatives.

Andrew Jordan, Callum G J Hall, Lee R Thorp, Helen F Sneddon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Andrew JordanSchool of Chemistry, University of Nottingham, GlaxoSmithKline Carbon Neutral Laboratory, 6 Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2GA, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-2964-5043
Callum G J HallDepartment of Pure and Applied Chemistry, WestCHEM, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland G1 1XL, U.K.
Lee R ThorpGlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2NY, U.K.
Helen F SneddonGreen Chemistry Centre of Excellence, University of York, Department of Chemistry, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, U.K.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dipolar aprotic and ethereal solvents comprise just over 40% of all organic solvents utilized in synthetic organic, medicinal, and process chemistry. Unfortunately, many of the common "go-to" solvents are considered to be "less-preferable" for a number of environmental, health, and safety (EHS) reasons such as toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, or for practical handling reasons such as flammability and volatility. Recent legislative changes have initiated the implementation of restrictions on the use of many of the commonly employed dipolar aprotic solvents such as dimethylformamide (DMF) and

Indexed as

Chemistry, OrganicDimethylformamideSolventsDimethylformamideSolvents

Identifiers

PMID35201751
PMCPMC9098182

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.