Bottom-up approaches

Here one deals with individual molecules. The resultant reaction network describes the process chemistry in molecular detail. Broadly speaking, the approach has the following key elements. 

Below we briefly describe two specific bottom-up approaches. 

---

Micro-scaling or bottom up approach to quality costs, where it is possible to calculate the cost of losses involved in manufacture and due to returns and/or claims. This method requires a great deal of experience and relies on the availability of detailed cost data throughout a product s life-cycle. While this is a crucial activity for a business, it is also not a practical approach for estimating the quality cost for product in the early stages of product development. 

The bottom-up method uses the same substitution and expansion techniques, except that now, the operation begins at the bottom of the tree and proceeds up. Equations containing only basic failures are successively substituted for higher faults. The bottom-up approach can be more laborious and time-consuming however, the minimal cutsets are now, 1 obtained for every intermediate fault as well as the top event. 

The member countries participate on an a la carte principle, and activities are launched using a bottom-up approach. One of its main features is its built-in flexibility. This concept clearly meets a growing demand, and in addition, it complements rhe community programs. 

How do you then design an effective system There are several techniques you can use. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), and Theory of Constraints (TOC) are but three. The FMEA is a bottom-up approach, the FTA a top-down approach, and TOC a holistic approach. 

The FMEA approach is a bottom-up approach, looking at component failures and establishing their effect on the system. An alternative approach is to use a top-down approach such as Fault Tree Analysis to postulate system failure modes and establish which processes, procedures, or activities are likely to cause such failures. 

Collectivism is thus distinct from both the top-down reductionist approach traditionally favored by most physicists (system as a simple edifice of its microscopic parts), and the more recent neural-net-like bottom-up approach favored by connec-tionists (system as a synthesis of its constituent parts). The nonlinear inter-level feedback loop that makes up the collective is what makes a traditional linear analysis of such systems difficult, if not impossible. 

Nanomaterials can be manufactured by one of two groups of methods, one physical and one chemical. In top-down approaches, nanoscale materials are carved into shape by the use of physical nanotechnology methods such as lithography (Fig. 15.30). In bottom-up approaches, molecules are encouraged to assemble themselves into desired patterns chemically by making use of specific... 

Distinguish between the top down and bottom up approaches to manufacturing nanomaterials. 

The top down approach refers to physically assembling the nanoparticles into desired forms the bottom up approach utilizes specific intermolecular interactions to cause the nanomaterials to self-assemble. 

Tailoring block copolymers with three or more distinct type of blocks creates more exciting possibilities of exquisite self-assembly. The possible combination of block sequence, composition, and block molecular weight provides an enormous space for the creation of new morphologies. In multiblock copolymer with selective solvents, the dramatic expansion of parameter space poses both experimental and theoretical challenges. However, there has been very limited systematic research on the phase behavior of triblock copolymers and triblock copolymer-containing selective solvents. In the future an important aspect in the fabrication of nanomaterials by bottom-up approach would be to understand, control, and manipulate the self-assembly of phase-segregated system and to know how the selective solvent present affects the phase behavior and structure offered by amphiphilic block copolymers. 

Biotic indices that are relatively simple and inexpensive to apply can be very useful for identifying environmental problems caused by pollutants. Serious effects of pollutants can cause departures from normal profiles. The problem is, however, identifying which pollutants—or which other enviromnental factors—are responsible for significant departures from normality. This dilemma illustrates well the importance of having both a top-down and a bottom-up approach to pollution problems in the field. Chemical analysis and biomarker assays can be used to identify chemicals responsible for adverse changes in communities detected by the use of biotic indices. 

The book takes a bottom-up approach, describing the mechanisms by which pollutants have harmful effects on living organisms and how these effects are translated into adverse changes at the population level. This mechanistic approach supplies the basis for development of new mechanistic biomarker assays, which in turn provide measures of toxic effect and not merely of exposure, and subsequently provide evidence of causality between pollutant levels and ecological changes. 

Different synthetic methodologies can be pursued to prepare hierarchical porous zeolites, which can be discriminated as bottom-up and top-down approaches. Whereas bottom-up approaches frequently make use of additional templates, top-down routes employ preformed zeolites that are modified by preferential extraction of one constituent via a postsynthesis treatment For the sake of conciseness, we restrict ourselves here to the discussion of the latter route. Regarding bottom-up approaches, recently published reviews provide state-of-the-art information on these methodologies [8, 9,17-19]. 

Douglas and coworkers were the first one that described a bottom-up approach based on S-layers as templates for the formation of perfectly ordered arrays of nanoparticles [128]. The S-layer lattice was used primarily to generate a nanometric lithographic mask for the subsequent deposition of metals. In this approach a thin Ta-W film was deposited... 

Nanotechnology is the branch of engineering that deals with the manipulation of individual atoms, molecules, and systems smaller than 100 nanometers. Two different methods are envisioned for nanotechnology to buUd nanostructured systems, components, and materials. One method is the top-down approach and the other method is called the bottom-up approach. In the top-down approach the idea is to miniaturize the macroscopic structures, components, and systems toward a nanoscale of the same. In the bottom-up approach the atoms and molecules constituting the building blocks are the starting point to build the desired nanostmcture [96-98]. 

Various illustrations are available in the literature depicting the comparison of top-down and bottom-up approaches [96, 97]. In the top-down method a... 

In the bottom-up approach the initiative to start the learning process is taken by one of the infimal decision units. Since solutions found at this unit may include connection variables, the request for given values of these variables is propagated backward, to unit A + 1, through temporary loss functions. After successive backpropagation steps, the participation of several other fhe operators associated with them, a final decision... 

The bottom-up approach contains two distinct stages. First, by successive backpropagation steps one builds a decision policy. Then, this uncovered policy is evaluated and refined, and its expected benefits confirmed before any implementation actually takes place. This two-stage process is conceptually similar to dynamic programming solution strategies, where first a decision policy is constructed by backward induction, and then one finds a realization of the process for the given policy, in order to check its expected performance (Bradley et al., 1977). 

Let s assume that the inputs to the supremal decision unit are a subset of all the decision variables attached to infimal decision units, consisting of those variables that are believed to be particularly influential with respect to the operation of the overall system. Then, an application of basic to DUj, results directly in the identification of a decision policy, X p. This decision policy is then passed down to the lower level in the hierarchy, where it is submitted to a process of validation and refinement by all infimal decision units that is identical to the one that takes place in the bottom-up approach. 

To give a thorough, rational review of the field of chemical micro-process technology itself, one ideally would like to follow a deductive analysis route, pursuing a bottom-up approach. First, one may provide a definition of micro reactors, then search for the impacts on the engineering of chemical processes, and try to propose routes for exploitation, i.e. applications. Alternatively, for a less comprehensive, but more in-depth description, one could use a top-dovm approach starting with a selected application and try to design an ideal micro reactor for this. 

Bottom-up approaches, geometric transition state theory, 195-201... 

FIGURE 9.1 Liquid chromatography workflow strategy options in proteomics. (a) bottom-up approach (b) top-down approach (c) selective sample cleanup directly combined with chromatographic separation (d) peptide capture with affinity restricted access material. 

The combination of this top-down proteomics approach, which generates information on the structure of the intact protein, with a bottom-up approach for protein identification (using MS/MS data of tryptic peptides from the collected fractions) has been particularly useful for identifying posttranslational modifications, cotransla-tional processing, and proteolytic modifications in a number of proteins. Examples from our work will be shown to illustrate this hybrid methodology for proteomics analysis. 

---