Critique on “Sorbitol Production from Philippine White and Yellow Corn via

Liquefaction-Saccharification and Hydrogenation using Alpha-Amylase” Plant Design

By E. Abunales, D. Calixterio, R.J. Desales, M.A. Espino, A. Florendo, J.C. Hernandez, C.A. Mapa,
M.L.T. Tabafunda

Critiqued by: Maryluz O. Buensuceso, Syryll Maynard M. Olidan, Laudimer Tye Q. Tan
4ChE-D

In this plant design, Trade Marc introduced the process of sorbitol production, a widely
used food raw materials for various commercial products starting from toothpastes to junk foods.
They tackled its marketability and the feasibility of the process of manufacturing it here in the
Philippines. Included in the plant design were the design of the equipments to be used, the low
cost manufacturing process itself and various safety guidelines and evaluations.

Under the section of technical analysis, the major equipments were introduced and
described. However, the proper use and specifications of the equipments were barely covered.
The formatting in this section was also full of mistakes. The tables of equipments were not
properly labelled, the use of a page is inefficient and the locations of texts and images on the
page were somehow too awkward for the readers to comprehend. Under the same section,
contained the material balances for each equipments used. The sample values used in these
balances were randomized and were rather difficult to analyze as they did not use the standard
sample values which are usually rounded off to the nearest thousand or million, etc. Specifically
in the “Arc Separator”, the mass in was not in balanced with the mass out. The shown material
balance did not account the waste products in the calculations for the final mass out. It was also
observed that the symbols used for the corresponding equipments were not the standard symbols
used in P&I Diagrams. We also noticed that the labelling on each of the individual equipments
were only the initial of the real name of the equipment. Starting at page 37, the description for
each equipments became out of sync with their respective pages. For example, the description for
the stirred tank reactor was written on the page for the liquefaction stage. Out of all these
mistakes however, the correct steps were placed in order and were logical and easy to
understand.

For the section where the quantitative block flow diagram is located, the first thing we
noticed is that the diagram itself was too small making it so difficult to read. The entire diagram
was confined in just half of the page making the text blurry and difficult to comprehend. They
should have just changed the orientation to landscape form so that the entire page was utilized
properly. The labels for what comes in and what comes out of the process was too small to the
point that the reader needs to put the paper really close to them to be able to read what is stated.
The lines connecting each processes were also not straightened making it informal to look at.
Proper P&ID symbols were also not utilized in this part. Almost all the equipments and
processes that are stated were just in square boxes where in fact they should have used the proper
symbols for this.

In contrast to all these mistakes, we found that they not only showed the cost but they
presented how the costs were estimated with respect to the specifications, power requirements
and capacity of all the equipment. But then again, the calculations were not properly formatted
and were informal. On another good note, the processes were easily understood because the
authors used straightforward and simple vocabulary in the description. Also, all equations
matched with the correct legends.

Overall, although there are a lot of mistakes and errors in the paper, it somehow served its
purpose of explaining the process of producing sorbitol. The authors are recommended to follow
proper formatting to make their presentation look more formal and presentable.