ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2022
A reply to: "Response to Comment on "Density Functional Theory and 3D-RISM-KH molecular theory of solvation studies of CO2 reduction on Cu-, Cu2O-, Fe-, and Fe3O4-based nanocatalysts"".
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response (Kovalenko and Neburchilov, J. Mol. MODEL: 28:33, 1) to the comment (Gusarov, J. Mol. MODEL: 27:344-354, 2), the authors avoided answering the main question about the incorrect intermediate state of CO MODEL: 26:267-276, 3). The intermediate products of this reaction are well known and presented in the literature including the studies of Li and Kanan (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134:7231-7234, 4); Feaster et al. (ACS Catal. 7:4822-4827, 5); Choi et al. (Sci. Rep. 7:41,207-41,210, 6); Kuhl et al. (Am. Chem. Soc. 136:14,107-14,113, 7); Kuhl et al. (Energy Environ. Sci. 5:7050-7059, 8); and Hatsukade et al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16:13,814-13,819, 9) referenced by Kovalenko and Neburchilov (J. Mol. MODEL: 26:267-276, 3). In particular, in Figs. 2(d), 3(d), 4(d), and 5(d) (Kovalenko and Neburchilov, J. Mol. MODEL: 26:267-276, 3), the orientation of carbon monoxide is opposite to Fig. 4 (Feaster et al., ACS Catal. 7:4822-4827, 5), Fig. 6(a) (Choi et al., Sci. Rep. 7:41,207-41,210, 6), Fig. 7 (Kuhl et al., Energy Environ. Sci. 5:7050-7059, 8), Fig. 7 (Hatsukade et al., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16:13,814-13,819, 9), and Fig. 2 (Gusarov, J. Mol. MODEL: 27:344-354, 2). This obvious fact which also comes from chemical properties of components should not be ignored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35384501What 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.