|||
最近写了一篇关于CHF3废气处理的一篇综述,文章被接受后刚上网,还没有正式出版,就收到了来自澳大利亚CSIRO的一个Chief Research Scientist的email:
“I noticed your review of CHF3 destruction in Journal of Fluorine Chemistry. You have done a good job in covering a broad range of processes. Thank you for referring to my work.
I should update you on the application of the PLASCON plasma process; it is now being used commercially in Mexico and the USA for CHF3 destruction. In fact the cost is very similar to incineration – the main cost is the NaOH or similar chemicals required to capture and neutralise the HF formed in the process.
P.S. I should make clear that this is not in any way a complaint – I know from experience it is almost impossible to keep up with the development of industrial processes, since they are usually not described in the scientific literature.”
在综述中,有一个section是关于等离子体处理其他HFCs(含氟烃)废气(Plasma destruction)的. 由于自己没有做过这方面的工作,我只是简单介绍了这种废气处理工艺,并举了澳大利亚CSIRO的PLASCON作为工业应用的例子。在小结中我评论到这种方法处理温度高,产物复杂,能耗高。结果这么快就收到了他的质疑email并附上了他的相关文章(虽然他自己在P.S.中说不是:this is not in any way a complaint)。
体会:看来综述还真是不好写。写综述不可避免要涉及到自己不熟悉或没做过的领域,而要作出正确且恰当的论述是很难把握的。在写的时候我自己可能没有很在意,可人家很关注。虽然综述发在一个影响因子2不到的期刊,我的理解是人家在意是因为不恰当的评论可能会影响到他们的PLASCON的推广应用?再次体会到下结论和作评论要小心、小心再小心,严谨、严谨再严谨。
Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )
GMT+8, 2024-6-3 20:10
Powered by ScienceNet.cn
Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社