The vast majority of synthesis protocols studied here contain one of methanol, ethanol, water, and DMF. Methanol was by far the most frequently mentioned solvent, present in 66% of synthesis protocols (Figure ), followed by water (40% of synthesis protocols), ethanol (27%), and finally DMF (12%). Less frequently used solvents included chloroform (1.4%), toluene (1.0%), and ethylene glycol (0.88%). To analyse the usage of each solvent present, we separated them by "synthesis" and "workup" procedure steps, as well as incorporating binary solvent mixtures (Figure ). This analysis revealed that, while ethanol was the third most prevalent solvent overall, it was the second most common solvent used for washing and purification (and the fifth most common reaction solvent). Mixed solvent systems, primarily methanol-water, were present in 8% of syntheses presumably to tune the reaction dielectric and proton transfer catalysis rate. The distribution of solvent quantities used within the syntheses studied (Figure ) showed that each solvent followed approximately lognormal distributions. Both DMF and ethanol were used in smaller quantities than methanol or water (means of 0.4, 0.6, 1.4, and 1.6 moles per synthesis, respectively), indicating that the latter two solvents were more appropriate for scaling up the synthesis. Finally, we analysed the total solids concentration of synthesis protocols by dividing total reagent amounts by the solvent amounts used (Figure ). As with individual reagent concentrations, the total solids concentration followed an approximately log-normal distribution between 0.1-10 %mol. Separately, 7.7% of synthesis protocols had a solids loading of approximately 100 %mol -signifying mechanochemical synthesis protocols. Although mechanochemistry is a promising synthesis route due to its high yields and low environmental impact compared to conventional solvent synthesis methods, the relatively low popularity may be explained due to practical difficulties of mechanochemical synthesis e.g. prevention of hot-spot formation in the reaction vessel. 74 In addition to reagents and solvents, ancillary chemicals such as surfactants, pH modifiers, and modulators are often key to ensure the success of MOF syntheses as well as dictating secondary particle characteristics such as size and crystal form. Three chemical types were prevalent within the synthesis protocols studied: acids, bases, and surfactant compounds. Unlike solvents and reagents, no individual ancillary chemical was identified in more than 3.5% of synthesis protocols (Figure ). However, bases were present in 18% of all the synthesis protocols analysed, carrying out the important role of deprotonating the linker molecule in the reaction mixture. From the variety of distinct molecules used for this role, it appears that no molecular recognition occurs, simply pH control. Despite the requirement for methylimidazole deprotonation for the reaction to progress, acids were detected in 6.3% of syntheses, however from inspection of the individual synthesis protocols acids only appeared during post-synthetic modification of the ZIF-8 materials e.g. after carbonisation or impregnation into silicas. Finally, surfactants like cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) or sodium dodecylsulfate (SDS) were present in 4.6% of synthesis protocols, being used to slow the growth of individual ZIF-8 crystals and therefore control the particle shape. 59,77 While it is possible to identify broad differences in synthesis strategy from feedstock compounds alone, it is impossible to understand why one chemical is chosen over another without further detail about the synthesis protocol being described. For example, the modulator sodium formate has been shown to perform different roles in room-temperature syntheses compared to hydrothermal alternatives. In the first instance, we also consider the conditions (i.e. time and temperature) during the process. These are shown in Figure , demonstrating that the majority of protocols have synthesis times under six hours. Even after disregarding protocols with a reported synthesis time of 0 minutes as being spurious, it is clear that synthesis can be completed very quickly. In terms of synthesis temperature, the majority of the extracted temperatures were found to be room temperature indicating that thermal driving forces were not necessary for the formation of ZIF-8. This is further corroborated by the relative lack of procedures mentioning heated reaction conditions compared to heated drying conditions (Figure ). Overall, the tools developed in this study provide wide-ranging descriptive statistics of various ZIF-8 synthesis routes. The data generated are an excellent addition to existing literature review methods, facilitating the interpretation of different synthesis aspects e.g. reagent choices, stoichiometric ratios and reaction conditions. From these data we are able to identify gaps in the existing literature or synthesis conditions most likely to succeed, as well as providing useful input data for later technoeconomic analysis.