Process/combined industries techniques

An example where all four areas are utilized in combination with production processes is found in ozone applications in the semiconductor industry (Section B 6.1). Part of ozone s effectiveness in these four areas is derived from its production of OH-radicals. Combined processes, i. e. advanced oxidation processes, represent alternative techniques for catalyzing the production of these radicals and expands the range of compounds treatable with ozone (Section B 6.2). 

Pervaporation as a standalone technique is still to be developed industrially, but as part of a hybrid process, combined with for example, distillation (Figure 3.3), it is very promising for difficult separations and may yield considerable energy savings. 

Primary recovery of the active ingredient from the solid or liquid phase to remove large quantities of unwanted waste materials, which may themselves be processed further. Suitable techniques include solvent extraction, precipitation by chemical or physical changes to the product-containing solution, and ultrafiltration or microfiltration to separate products above a particular size. Work done on combined biomass separation-primary product recovery processes such as expanded-bed adsorption are now being commercialized in the pharmaceutical industry. 

The opposite of evaporation is condensation. In principle, a gas can be made to liquefy by either one of two techniques. By cooling a sample of gas we decrease the kinetic energy of its molecules, so that eventually molecules aggregate to form small drops of liquid. Alternatively, we can apply pressure to the gas. Compression reduces the average distance between molecules so that they are held together by mutual attraction. Industrial liquefaction processes combine these two methods. 

Separation science plays a pivotal role in many hydromet-allurgical processes, inclnding industrial wastewater treatment [1-7]. Ont of the various separation techniques, solvent extraction, ion exchange, and precipitation are the workhorse for various industrial applications. At the same time, there is a growing interest in membrane-based separation methods that are considered environmentally benign [7-10]. A combination of membrane separation and solvent extraction techniques, known as the liquid membrane (LM) technique, has drawn considerable attention for the separation scientists and technologists. LM-based separation methods are associated... 

When disaggregating by industry sector and groupings it is clear that most sectors follow these broad patterns, but there are one or two anomalies. Thus, the Process/Combined grouping stands out as the one sector that places internal barriers (50%) over tool and technique inadequacy (39%) as the major cause of failure. This grouping also stands out as the one that places unrealistic expectations ahead of all of the other internal barriers. When it comes to internal barriers the Process/Manufacturing and the Project/Combined sectors both place culture (40% and 32% respectively) as the major barrier ahead of insufficient resource (28% and 15 respectively). 

Table 9.9 outlines the findings from a series of questions focused on the extent to which tool and technique inadequacy or internal barriers where responsible for failures of implementation. At the group level only the Process/Combined (with 61%) and the Project/Combined (with 57%) groups blamed tool inadequacy more than internal barriers for failures of implementation. All of the other groupings tended to blame internal barriers rather than tool and technique inadequacy as the primary cause of failure. At the industry sector level there was a wider differentiation. Those most blaming tool and technique inadequacy included Telecommunications (88%), Oil Gas (76%), Basic Chemicals (64%) and Computer Hardware (59%). Those most blaming internal barriers included Aerospace (78%), Retail Distribution (75%), Tourism Leisure (71%), Retail Financial Services (68%), Publishing (67%), IT Solutions (57%) and Confectionery (55%). 

The reason for this was because it was felt, initially, that process-based industries would tend to have higher tool and technique usage requirements than project-based industries, and that manufacturing industries would also tend to have more need than service base industries, with combined industries somewhere in between. The rationale here was that manufacturing and process-based industries would tend to need more routinised and standardised approaches to business that would favour tool and technique usage across all four functions. On the other hand it was hypothesised that project-based and services related industries, with a more ad-hoc and less routinised approach to business, would use tools and techniques much less across all of the four functions. 

---