Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043368›Full record

ArticleAccounts of chemical research2024

New Opportunities for Organic Synthesis with Superheated Flow Chemistry.

Pauline Bianchi, Jean-Christophe M Monbaliu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accounts of chemical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Chemometric Optimization of BFChemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025
    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.

Pauline BianchiCenter for Integrated Technology and Organic Synthesis, MolSys Research Unit, University of Liège, Allée du Six Août 13, 4000 Liège (Sart Tilman), Belgium.
Jean-Christophe M MonbaliuCenter for Integrated Technology and Organic Synthesis, MolSys Research Unit, University of Liège, Allée du Six Août 13, 4000 Liège (Sart Tilman), Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6916-8846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ConspectusFlow chemistry has brought a fresh breeze with great promises for chemical manufacturing, yet critical deterrents persist. To remain economically viable at production scales, flow processes demand quick reactions, which are actually not that common. Superheated flow technology stands out as a promising alternative poised to confront modern chemistry challenges. While continuous micro- and mesofluidic reactors offer uniform heating and rapid cooling across different scales, operating above solvent boiling points (i.e., operating under superheated conditions) significantly enhances reaction rates. Despite the energy costs associated with high temperatures, superheated flow chemistry aligns with sustainability goals by improving productivity (process intensification), offering solvent flexibility, and enhancing safety.However, navigating the unconventional chemical space of superheated flow chemistry can be cumbersome, particularly for neophytes. Expanding the temperature/pressure process window beyond the conventional boiling point under the atmospheric pressure limit vastly increases the optimization space. When associated with conventional trial-and-error approaches, this can become exceedingly wasteful, resource-intensive, and discouraging. Over the years, flow chemists have developed various tools to mitigate these challenges, with an increased reliance on statistical models, artificial intelligence, and experimental (kinetics, preliminary test reactions under microwave irradiation) or theoretical (quantum mechanics)

Identifiers

PMID39043368
PMCPMC11308364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.