Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39117910›Full record

ReviewNature materials2025

Transitioning metal-organic frameworks from the laboratory to market through applied research.

Ashley M Wright, Matthew T Kapelewski, Stefan Marx, Omar K Farha, William Morris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Magnetic Mesoporous γ‑FeACS materials Au · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A PtS-like 4Acta crystallographica. Section E, Crystallographic communications · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Extended networks.Nature materials · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Ashley M WrightNumat, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9475-2638
Matthew T KapelewskiMaterials and Catalysis Division, ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company, Annandale, NJ, USA.
Stefan MarxBASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3282-9062
Omar K FarhaNumat, Chicago, IL, USA.
William MorrisNumat, Chicago, IL, USA. william@numat-tech.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2818-4406

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) have captivated researchers for over 25 years, yet few have successfully transitioned to commercial markets. This Perspective elucidates the progress, challenges and opportunities in moving MOFs to market, focusing on applied research. The five applied research steps that enable technology development and demonstration are reviewed: synthesis, forming, processing (washing and activation), prototyping and compliance. Furthermore, the importance of a comprehensive techno-economic analysis incorporating a complete picture of costs and revenues is discussed. Readers can use the understanding of applied research presented herein to tackle their MOF commercialization challenges.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.