Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41120408›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Engineering and logistical concerns add practical limitations to stratospheric aerosol injection strategies.

Miranda Hack, V Faye McNeill, Dan Steingart, Gernot Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Miranda HackDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10025, USA.
V Faye McNeillDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10025, USA. vfm2103@columbia.edu.
Dan SteingartDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10025, USA.
Gernot WagnerColumbia Business School, New York, NY, 10025, USA.

Funding

Simons Foundation MPS-SRM-00006583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of reflective aerosols in the upper atmosphere (stratospheric aerosol injections, SAI) to limit incoming sunlight has been proposed as a potential means of countering anthropogenic climate change. Such a strategy ideates from observed cooling effects due to sulfate aerosol formation following volcanic eruptions. Solid mineral candidates have been proposed as a sulfate alternative, potentially lowering environmental risks like ozone depletion and absorption of radiation. The bulk of SAI modeling literature focuses on optimal deployment scenarios, in which practical constraints-microphysical, geopolitical, and economic-are not considered. Here, we explore several key micro- and macroscopic aspects of deployment that may directly increase risk, and the degree to which technical and governance approaches could be levied to offset it. We find that the risk and design space for SAI may be considerably constrained by factors like supply chains and governance. Logistical and technical considerations, most significantly difficulties in dispersing solid aerosols at scale in the desired size range, and the radiative properties of potentially formed aggregates, notably introduce uncertainties in the outcomes of solid-based SAI strategies more so than sulfate. We conclude that the design space for a "low-risk" SAI strategy, particularly with solid aerosol, may be more limited than current literature reflects.

Indexed as

GeoengineeringGovernanceInjection technologiesSupply chain

Identifiers

PMID41120408
PMCPMC12540826

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.