gardens521
Jan 7, 2016
Writing Feedback / What are the Stylistic Weaknesses in this Engineering Design Abstract? [2]
Hi all!
I'm an engineering student and my professor asks us to find the stylistic weaknesses in the following abstract and rewrite it. The suggestions include a stronger organization, less lengthy sentences and big words, more active voice instead of passive voice, etc. (definitely not restricted to those). As I am an international student, writing is not really my forte and I have tried my best to rewrite it. I wish you could take a look to see if there is any other improvements I need to make, whether I have changed the original meaning of any part of the abstract, and any basic grammatical mistake in my writing.
It is due tomorrow morning (Jan. 8th), and any help would be appreciated!
Original version:
Design Team Executive Summary
A chemical plant is proposed that capitalizes on opportunities present within the production of dimethyl carbonate market by producing 150 million kilograms per year of dimethyl carbonate. The proposed design uses a safer, greener and more environmentally friendly approach. Dimethyl carbonate can be polymerized to form polycarbonates, which are known for their fire resistance, high dielectric strength and optical transparency. The design consist of a 20.6 m3 continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) operating isothermally at 130 C and 30 bar with an inlet stream of methanol, oxygen, and carbon monoxide, with flow rates of 14,100 kg/hr, 6,200 kg/hr, and 10,800, respectively. The proposed plant begins with all three components being pressurized, upon entering the CSTR to produce two effluent streams (vapor and liquid) that are mixed together to enter two flash drums; where the vapor-liquid mixtures are separated. Next, two distillation columns are used to remove unwanted products, while recycling the unreacted methanol, DMC, and carbon monoxide back into the mixer and producing DMC. This venture would deliver a return on investment before taxes of 13.7%, a net present value of 26 million dollars, and a total capital investment of $122 million. This venture could be a profitable investment, but it takes 7 years to payback the total capital investment; therefore, it is recommended that further research and development be conducted to reduce costs or increase profits to make this a less risky venture.
What I have done:
Design Team Executive Summary
The conventional synthesis method of the dimethyl carbonate, one of the most important raw materials of polycarbonates, may pose a problem for its use of highly toxic phosgene gas. Our research team proposed a safer, greener and more environmentally friendly approach to produce the dimethyl carbonate.
Our design consists of a 20.6 m3 continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) that operates isothermally at 130 °C and 30 bar. The raw material is an inlet stream, which is composed of 14,100 kg/hr of methanol, 6,200 kg/hr of oxygen, and 10,800 kg/hr of carbon monoxide. Firstly, all three components are pressurized to produce two effluent streams (vapor and liquid) before they enter the CSTR. The vapor-liquid mixtures are then separated after being delivered into the two flash drums. Lastly, the two distillation columns remove the unwanted products, and recycle back the unreacted methanol, DMC, and carbon monoxide into the mixer for reuse.
Economic analysis of our design shows its feasibility. This conceptual chemical plant would deliver a return on investment before taxes of 13.7%, a net present value of 26 million dollars, and a total capital investment of $122 million. Evaluation on this design also suggested that our conceptual chemical plant would be a profitable investment after seven years of operation. Therefore, we recommend further research and development on this project to make it more profitable and less risky.
Hi all!
I'm an engineering student and my professor asks us to find the stylistic weaknesses in the following abstract and rewrite it. The suggestions include a stronger organization, less lengthy sentences and big words, more active voice instead of passive voice, etc. (definitely not restricted to those). As I am an international student, writing is not really my forte and I have tried my best to rewrite it. I wish you could take a look to see if there is any other improvements I need to make, whether I have changed the original meaning of any part of the abstract, and any basic grammatical mistake in my writing.
It is due tomorrow morning (Jan. 8th), and any help would be appreciated!
Original version:
Design Team Executive Summary
A chemical plant is proposed that capitalizes on opportunities present within the production of dimethyl carbonate market by producing 150 million kilograms per year of dimethyl carbonate. The proposed design uses a safer, greener and more environmentally friendly approach. Dimethyl carbonate can be polymerized to form polycarbonates, which are known for their fire resistance, high dielectric strength and optical transparency. The design consist of a 20.6 m3 continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) operating isothermally at 130 C and 30 bar with an inlet stream of methanol, oxygen, and carbon monoxide, with flow rates of 14,100 kg/hr, 6,200 kg/hr, and 10,800, respectively. The proposed plant begins with all three components being pressurized, upon entering the CSTR to produce two effluent streams (vapor and liquid) that are mixed together to enter two flash drums; where the vapor-liquid mixtures are separated. Next, two distillation columns are used to remove unwanted products, while recycling the unreacted methanol, DMC, and carbon monoxide back into the mixer and producing DMC. This venture would deliver a return on investment before taxes of 13.7%, a net present value of 26 million dollars, and a total capital investment of $122 million. This venture could be a profitable investment, but it takes 7 years to payback the total capital investment; therefore, it is recommended that further research and development be conducted to reduce costs or increase profits to make this a less risky venture.
What I have done:
Design Team Executive Summary
The conventional synthesis method of the dimethyl carbonate, one of the most important raw materials of polycarbonates, may pose a problem for its use of highly toxic phosgene gas. Our research team proposed a safer, greener and more environmentally friendly approach to produce the dimethyl carbonate.
Our design consists of a 20.6 m3 continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) that operates isothermally at 130 °C and 30 bar. The raw material is an inlet stream, which is composed of 14,100 kg/hr of methanol, 6,200 kg/hr of oxygen, and 10,800 kg/hr of carbon monoxide. Firstly, all three components are pressurized to produce two effluent streams (vapor and liquid) before they enter the CSTR. The vapor-liquid mixtures are then separated after being delivered into the two flash drums. Lastly, the two distillation columns remove the unwanted products, and recycle back the unreacted methanol, DMC, and carbon monoxide into the mixer for reuse.
Economic analysis of our design shows its feasibility. This conceptual chemical plant would deliver a return on investment before taxes of 13.7%, a net present value of 26 million dollars, and a total capital investment of $122 million. Evaluation on this design also suggested that our conceptual chemical plant would be a profitable investment after seven years of operation. Therefore, we recommend further research and development on this project to make it more profitable and less risky.