ArticleACS omega2026
Practical Microwave-Assisted Recirculated Flow Esterification at Atmospheric Pressure.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our previous publications, we reported on esterifications carried out in a circulating flow MW system. It was found that circulation enables direct insight into the reactions from both chemical and energy perspectives. We examined productivity and scalability in terms of substrate, temperature, flow rate, and catalyst, and also analyzed the processes from the point of view of energy. Compared to the conventional linear setup, the circulation resulted in a significantly higher reaction rate, and thus a higher productivity, due to a drastic increase in flow rate. However, it also became clear that higher flow rates impose a substantially higher load on both the MW equipment and the overall system, which may easily lead to pipe perforations or instantaneous seal wear due to the higher operating pressure generated by the back pressure regulator (BPR) control unit. As higher pressures are associated with elevated temperatures, this raises considerable safety concerns. In this article, we aimed to eliminate the BPR unit. While this approach sacrifices a key advantage typically associated with the MW technology by restricting the operation to atmospheric pressure, the capabilities offered by the circulation solution may compensate for the inherent limitations of the new system, and, in turn, the safety risk may be reduced.
Identifiers
What 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.