Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper 2
Paper 2
available at www.sciencedirect.com
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Teaching chemical engineering has always been faced with a dilemma: either keep in touch
with industry needs or incorporate new scientic concepts into the curriculum. In this paper,
Keywords:
a better alignment between the curriculum and industry needs. A chemical engineering
Product
teaching framework, based in part on a product and a process oriented component, which
Process
has been in place in our department 5 years ago, is described and discussed. The concept of
Engineering
sustainable chemistry, including process and product considerations, which can be seen as
Sustainable chemistry
the next frontier in chemical engineering education, is nally analysed from the education
Education
point of view.
History
2008 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
e d u c a t i o n f o r c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27
e23
Apart from the historical evolution of the discipline, an historical review of the content of the curriculum can also be
worth for comparison purposes. Fig. 2 shows such an analysis
as a pictorial view for the 7 decades 19001970 (Hougen, 1977;
Aris, 1977). The decrease of descriptive courses, the increasing
ratio of hard scientic topics, the emergence of new tools (simulation, computer science) and new industry needs (biology)
can be identied. At the same time, it is interesting to note
that what could be termed the size of the box (i.e., the total
time dedicated to teaching chemical engineering concepts),
has signicantly increased over this period. This matter of fact,
which can be seen as the change from a specialty course to a
full undergraduate and graduate program, remains a key concern of what will be discussed in this paper. In other words,
should we (or could we) once more increase the box, in order
to leave time for new teaching units? Or do we consider that
the size of the box can by no means be changed, so that some
teaching units should decrease (or disappear) if new ones are
needed?
Apart from the size of the box, the content obviously plays
a key role and also addresses difcult questions. A subtle
balance between rigorous scientic concepts and useful (but,
sometimes, too empirical) tools has to be proposed. A problem
solving orientation linked with industry can be attractive to
student and nds increased attention in research programs as
public funding decreases (leading, among others, to a money
driven situation). This choice can lead to a teaching approach
based on purely empirical knowledge and to a lack of concepts which are of crucial importance for any scientic domain
identity (Bird, 1996). An engineer must indeed remain a problem solver. Such a subtle equilibrium between applied and
fundamental aspects is very delicate to maintain, both for
teaching and research purposes; as a consequence, controversial debates periodically alert to dangerous deviations of our
discipline either towards too practical oriented or too fundamental activities.
More precisely, the eventual decision to change the curriculum of chemical engineering should be taken according to the
recent evolution of science and industry (i.e., CPI for Chemical Process Industries). A (probably oversimplied) summary
of the recent trends can be described as follows:
(i) In terms of objects, the number of molecules which are
known and potentially handled by chemical engineers,
is continuously increasing (Fig. 3a). Even though a modest ratio of those will be marketed, typically less than
1% (Agam, 1994), one could wonder on the need to make
evolve the content of the curriculum with respect to this
continuing trend.
(ii) More interestingly, the objects which are sold by chemical industries have undergone a profound evolution.
CPI products are no more sold for what they are (i.e., a
molecule), but for what they do (i.e., a property or function). In other words, a chemical product is nowadays
frequently a complex mixture, which has to full the targets of end-use functions. This signicant evolution from
so-called commodity to specialty has been abundantly
commented and can be considered as a major change
of the chemical industry (Amundson, 1988; Charpentier,
1997; Cussler, 1999; Cussler et al., 2002; Favre et al., 2002;
Hegedus, 2005).
(iii) Given the interest of the CPI with products, the number
of scientic papers dedicated to this topic has increased
e24
e d u c a t i o n f o r c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27
Fig. 3 (a) Evolution (unit = thousands) of the number of molecules since 1900. (b) Number of scientic papers (in thousands)
including the keywords formulation and technology () and chemical engineering and product () (Source: Chemical
Abstract Services).
2.
2.1.
Rationale
Starting from the context of a classical chemical engineering curriculum, a series of principles were rst decided in
common, before the development of the new curriculum was
undertaken:
(i) Two distinct electives are proposed: a process-centered
one and a product-centered one. This choice seems to be
more relevant to the types of positions occupied by engineers in industry (Wintermantel, 1999; Hegedus, 2005).
Furthermore, it offers a better distinction between the two
types of teaching features than a classical commodity vs
specialty analysis. Table 2 summarizes the major differences between the product and the process teaching units.
It can be seen that the product engineering challenges
correspond essentially to the domain where chemistry
(molecular scale) and chemical engineering (continuum
scale) overlap. This is typical of the so-called coarse grain
challenge, which is occasionally presented as the major
frontier for chemical engineering methodology in terms
of complexity (Kwauk, 2004).
(ii) The students get the same degree after having completed
one or the other of the electives. In other words, they
Objects
Equilibrium properties
Rate processes
Production
Methodology
Example
Process engineering
Product engineering
e d u c a t i o n f o r c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27
e25
Fig. 4 Overall framework of the product and process engineering teaching organisation developed in our department
(Ensic, Nancy) since 2000.
2.2.
cepts and tools which are developed can help the students
to nd their way in the complex product design and engineering framework. A series of characterization techniques,
dedicated to product structure analysis, is also provided. Last
but not least, the students are asked to perform a product
design project based on a team work, according to the four
steps proposed by Cussler and Moggridge (2001): identication
of consumer needs, ideas, selection and design. As examples,
a single dosage gel bead for syrup preparation at home, a uorescent hair gel or a dry sprayable paint for car tuning have
been proposed in the last years. It is expected that, based on
this teaching package, an efcient approach could possibly be
achieved and lead to the selection and the in-depth knowledge of critical manufacturing steps. It is interesting to note
that the latter was considered as the denition of chemical
engineering by Astarita (1990).
2.3.
e26
e d u c a t i o n f o r c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27
Table 3 An overview of the teaching units and targets for the product engineering and the process engineering electives
Teaching units
Basic Chem. Eng.
Curriculum
Targets
Process control
Safety
Process systems engineering
Design project
Process engineering
elective
Rheology
Characterization techniques
Product production processes (mixing, drying,
emulsication, granulation, extrusion. . .)
Selected end-use properties (e.g., controlled release,
biodegradability. . .)
Product design project
3.
Sustainable chemistry: educational
challenges
We will close our paper with a more prospective analysis.
According to industry and experts forecasts, it might be that
the next frontier of chemical engineering education will be
the biology or nanotechnology revolution (National Research
Council Report, 2003). This statement applies particularly for
the US industry and chemical engineering curricula will prob-
e d u c a t i o n f o r c h e m i c a l e n g i n e e r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27
4.
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the reviewers for their valuable comments
and suggestions.
e27
references
Agam, G., (1994). Industrial Chemicals. Their Characteristics and
Development. (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
Amundson, N.R., (1988). Frontiers in Chemical Engineering. Research
Needs and Opportunities. (National Academy Press,
Washington, DC).
Aris, R., 1977, Academic chemical engineering in an historical
perspective. Ind Eng Chem Fundam, 16(1): 14.
Armstrong, R.C., 2006, A vision of the curriculum of the future.
Chem Eng Educ, 1: 104109.
Astarita, G., 1990, Frontiers in chemical engineering and 1992.
Chem Eng Prog, 86: 5559.
Bird, R.B., 1996, Rethinking academia: restore the right priorities.
Chem Eng Prog, 92: 8083.
Bird, R.B., Stewart, W.E. and Lightfoot, E.N., (1960). Transport
Phenomena. (Wiley, New York).
Brown, R. and Mashelkar, R., 1995, Frontiers of chemical
engineering science. Chem Eng Sci, 50: 39974141.
Charpentier, J.C., 1997, Process engineering and product
engineering. Chem Eng Sci, 52: iiiiv.
Colton, C.K., 1991, Perspectives in chemical engineering research
and education. Adv Chem Eng, 16: 253264.
Costa, R., Moggridge, G.D. and Saraiva, P.M., 2006, Chemical
product engineering: an emerging paradigm within chemical
engineering. AIChE J, 52(6): 19761986.
Cussler, E. and Moggridge, G., (2001). Chemical Product Design.
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Cussler, E.L., 1999, Do changes in the chemical industry imply
changes in curriculum? Chem Eng Educ, 4: 1217.
Cussler, E.L., Savage, D.W., Middelberg, A.P.J. and Kind, M., 2002,
Refocusing chemical engineering. Chem Eng Prog, 1: 26S31S.
Cussler, E.L. and Wei, J., 2003, Chemical product engineering.
AIChE J, 49(5): 10721075.
Danckwerts, P.V., 1966, Science in chemical engineering. Chem
Eng, 7: 155159.
Favre, E., Marchal-Heussler, L., Durand, A., Midoux, N. and
Roizard, C., 2005, A curriculum in chemical product
engineering. Chem Eng Educ, 39(4): 264271.
Favre, E., Marchal-Heussler, L. and Kind, M., 2002, Chemical
product design: research and educational challenges. Trans
IChemE: Chem Eng Res Des, 80 A: 6574.
Hegedus, L.L., 2005, Chemical engineering research of the future:
an industrial perspective. AIChE J, 51(7): 18701871.
Hougen, O.A., 1977, Seven decades of chemical engineering.
Chem Eng Prog, 73: 89104.
Krieger, J.H., 1996, Chemical engineering redenes itself in era of
global change. Chem Eng News, 74: 1018.
Kwauk, M., 2004, Beyond transport phenomena and reaction
engineering. Chem Eng Sci, 59(89): 16131616.
Landau, R., 1997, Education: moving from chemistry to chemical
engineering and beyond. Chem Eng Prog, 93: 5265.
Mashelkar, R.A., 1995, Seamless chemical engineering science:
the emerging paradigm. Chem Eng Sci, 50: 122.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman,
J.B., 2003, Applying the principles of green engineering to
cradle to cradle design. Environ Sci Technol, 435A441A.
December Issue
National Research Council, Board on Chemical Sciences and
Technology., (2003). Beyond the molecular frontier. In
Challenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. (National
Academies Press).
Prausnitz, J.M., 1996, Molecular thermodynamics: opportunities
and responsibilities. Fluid Phase Equilib, 116: 1226.
Trainham, J.A., Fitzerald, L. and Fox, P., 2007, Third way
innovators to the rescue. AIChE J, 53(6): 13941398.
Wei, J., 1996, A century of changing paradigms in chemical
engineering. ChemTech, 26(5): 1618.
Westerberg, A.W. and Subrahmanian, E., 2000, Product design.
Comput Chem Eng, 24: 959966.
Wintermantel, K., 1999, Process and product engineering
achievements. Present and future challenges. Chem Eng Sci,
54: 15971620.