Trends-in-chemical-engineering-education-Process,-product-and-sustainable-chemical-engineering-challenges_2008_Education-for-Chemical-Engineers.pdf

7/28/2019 Trends-in-chemical-engineering-education-Process,-product-and-sustainable-chemical-engineering-challenges_2008_

http:///reader/full/trends-in-chemical-engineering-education-process-product-and-sustainable-chemical-engineering- 1/6

e d u c at i o n f o r c he m i c al e n g i n ee r s 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) e22e27

a v a i l a b le a t w w w . s c i en c e d i r e c t .c o m

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e c e

Trends in chemical engineering education: Process, product

and sustainable chemical engineering challenges

Eric Favre , V eronique Falk, Christine Roizard, Eric Schaer

ENSIC, Nancy Universit e, 1 rue Grandville, 54001 Nancy, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 25 October 2007

Accepted 17 December 2007

Keywords:

Product

Process

Engineering

Sustainable chemistry

Education

History

a b s t r a c t

Teaching chemical engineering has always been faced with a dilemma: either keep in touch

with industry needs or incorporate newscientific concepts into the curriculum.In this paper,

a short historical analysis of the evolution of chemical engineering teaching is presented

and the recent trends of the two previous facets (industry and science) are briefly reviewed.

The process vs product engineering concept is proposed as one of the means to achieve

a better alignment between the curriculum and industry needs. A chemical engineering

teaching framework, based in part on a product and a process oriented component, which

has been in place in our department 5 years ago, is described and discussed. The concept of

sustainable chemistry, including process and product considerations, which can be seen as

the next frontier in chemical engineering education, is finally analysed from the education

point of view.

2008 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Chemical engineering can be broadly defined as the branch

of engineering that deals with the application of sciences

(e.g., mathematics, chemistry and physics) to the process of

converting raw materials or chemicals into more useful or

valuable products in an economical and sustainable man-

ner (i.e., simultaneously managing resources, protecting the

environment and controlling health and safety procedures).

This somehow dual character of the discipline, which com-

bines a scientific facet together with a more pragmatic one(i.e., solving the problems of industry), is represented in Fig. 1.

Similarly to a tree that grows thanks to two nutrient inlets

(e.g., roots and leaves), a schematic plant pattern has been

used in order to show the scientific roots, which, together

with the industry needs and challenges, contribute to the

enlargement of the trunk (i.e., the core of our discipline). The

dual character, which can be proposed as a generic one for

every engineering domain, was highlighted by Danckwerts

(1966).

When one goes back to the historical evolution of chem-

ical engineering, it can be seen that the discipline and the

core curriculum have reacted to stimuli both from science

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 83 17 53 90; fax: +33 3 83 32 29 75.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Favre).

and industry. Table 1 tentatively summarizes what could be

considered as the landmarks of the discipline. It can be seen

that industry or society needs, such as energy, environment,

or nanotechnology, participate together with evolution of the

scientific tools, to drive the changes. Paradigms in chemical

engineering education have been proposed in order to attest

to the major changes in the discipline. Unit operations are

often considered as the first unifying paradigm of chemi-

cal engineering, (Colton, 1991; Wei, 1996; Hougen, 1977). The

second paradigm appeared in 1960 with the book of Bird,

Stewart and Lightfoot entitled Transport phenomena (Birdet al., 1960). Today, the second paradigm is as old as the

first one was when this book was published and the chem-

ical engineering community is still searching for the elusive

third paradigm (Wei, 1996; Mashelkar, 1995; Landau, 1997).

The needs of modern society, getting closer to the practices

in industry, multiscale approach, biology, nanotechnology and

manufacturing efficiency are all held out as promising chal-

lenges from which novel concepts could emerge (Astarita,

1990; Brown and Mashelkar, 1995; Krieger, 1996; Landau, 1997;

Kwauk, 2004). Nevertheless, the implications of these promis-

ing tracks to the curriculum content can hardly be identified

at this stage.

1749-7728/$ see front matter 2008 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ece.2007.12.002
mailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_13/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2007.12.002http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_13/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2007.12.002mailto:[email protected]



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

Fig. 1 Chemical engineering vision: a bridge between

science and chemical process industries.

Apart from thehistorical evolution of thediscipline, an his-

torical 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 scientifictopics,the emergenceof new tools (sim-

ulation, computer science) and new industry needs (biology)

can be identified. 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 significantlyincreased over thisperiod.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 con-

cern of what will be discussed in this paper. In other words,

Table 1 The evolution of chemical engineering1880: Society of Chemical Engineers (G. Davis, UK)

1888: First course in Chem. Eng. at MIT (USA)

1906: American Institution of Chemical Engineers

1915: Concept of unit operations (A.D. Little)

1923: Principles of Chemical Engineering by Lewis et al.

1950: Chemical thermodynamics

1955: Chemical kinetics

1960: Transport Phenomena by Bird, Stewart & Lightfoot

1963: Chemical reaction engineering

1965: System dynamics, process control

1968: Environmental engineering

1970: Safety & risk assessment

1973: Energy

1980: Biotechnology

1985: Computing & simulation (PSE, CFD, MD)

1990: Complex systems

2000: Nanotechnology, bio (life sciences)

A tentative inventory of the historical landmarks of the discipline.

Fig. 2 Sketch of the evolution of chemical engineering

curriculum, according to Aris (1977).

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 playsa key role and also addresses difficult questions. A subtle

balance between rigorous scientific concepts and useful (but,

sometimes, tooempirical) tools hasto be proposed. A problem

solving orientation linked with industry can be attractive to

student and finds 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 con-

cepts which areof crucial importance for anyscientific domain

identity (Bird, 1996). An engineer must indeed remain a prob-

lem solver. Such a subtle equilibrium between applied and

fundamental aspects is very delicate to maintain, both for

teaching and research purposes; as a consequence, controver-sial debates periodically alert to dangerous deviations of our

discipline either towards too practical oriented or too funda-

mental activities.

Moreprecisely, the eventual decision to change the curricu-

lum of chemical engineering should be taken according to the

recent evolution of science and industry (i.e., CPI for Chemi-

cal Process Industries). A (probably oversimplified) 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 mod-

est ratio of those will be marketed, typically less than1% (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 chem-

ical 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 func-

tion). In other words, a chemical product is nowadays

frequently a complex mixture, which has to fulfil the tar-

gets of end-use functions. This significant 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 scientific 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 scientific papers (in thousands)

including the keywords formulation and technology () and chemical engineering and product () (Source: Chemical

Abstract Services).

tremendously (Fig. 3b). It could be expected that thislarge research effort has provided new tools for engineers

working in a product area, which could be of interest for

chemical engineering education.

(iv) Finally and logically, statistical analyses performed in the

US and in Europe (including in our own department) con-

firm that an increasing number of chemical engineers are

hired in industry in order to work within a product (and

not strictly process) framework (Cussler, 1999; Cussler et

al., 2002).

Taking into account the evolution detailed through the dif-

ferent items above, three types of answers can be proposed:

(i) First, a business as usual approach, which claims that

the existing curriculum already fits the needs of indus-

try. The fact that no significant change of the curriculum

has been occurred over the last 40 years, while industry

changed significantly, can be proposed in order to con-

vince decision makersthat thebest strategy is to keep the

situation unchanged in chemical engineering education.

(ii) Another possibility consists of a more revolutionary

approach, which calls for an in-depth overhaul of the

curriculum. The so-called curriculum of the future,

recently proposed by a group of experts in the US,

with a strong emphasis on biology and nanosciences(Armstrong, 2006), can be considered to belong to this

category.

(iii) Finally, an adaptative approach which aims to preserve

the fundamentals of the existing curriculum, with an

emphasis on new teaching units dedicated to current and

emerging needs, can be proposed.

In our department, we decided to apply the last approach5 years ago. A product-centered or a process-centered elective

path have been developed, in order to take into account the

needs of industry. We give hereafter a brief description of this

new curriculum.

2. Product vs process engineering

2.1. Rationale

Starting from the context of a classical chemical engineer-

ing curriculum, a series of principles were first decided in

common, before the development of the new curriculum wasundertaken:

(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 engi-

neers in industry (Wintermantel, 1999; Hegedus, 2005).

Furthermore, it offers a better distinction between thetwo

types of teaching features than a classical commodity vs

specialty analysis. Table 2 summarizes the major differ-

ences between the product and the process teachingunits.

It can be seen that the product engineering challenges

correspond essentially to the domain where chemistry

(molecular scale) and chemical engineering (continuumscale) 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

Table 2 Process vs product engineering: conceptual framework

Process engineering Product engineering

Objects Gas, liquid or solid phases Complex (multicomponent, heterogeneous)

Equilibrium properties Efficient tools (EOS, GE) Type 1 phase transitions Metastable, distributed, non-equilibrium systemsRate processes CFD, CRE, mass and heat transfer Highly non-ideal systems

Production Classical, most often continuous unit operations Unconventional, most often batch operations

Methodology Proven: simulation (Aspen), optimization To be built

Example Vinyl chloride Aspirin tablet




Fig. 4 Overall framework of the product and process engineering teaching organisation developed in our department

(Ensic, Nancy) since 2000.

become chemical engineers and should be able to discuss

with chemists, process engineers and tackle the problems

of a chemical industry.

(iii) The choice of the product or process elective is free.

(iv) The elective specific teaching units are limited to the last

three semesters of the graduate studies. The rest of the

curriculum is the same for the students.(v) No supplementary time is allocated to teaching. In other

words, the size of the box (number of hours of teaching),

which has been discussed before, remains unchanged.

2.2. Curriculum and syllabus

A sketch of the content of the 5 years curriculum is shown

in Fig. 4. A more detailed presentation has been published

earlier (Favre et al., 2005). After 2 years of undergraduate stud-

ies, usually performed in France in special classes with a

strong emphasis on mathematics, physics and chemistry, the

students have a classical set of teaching units in common:

chemistry (mineral, organic, analytical, physical), thermody-namics, fluid mechanics, transport phenomena, numerical

methods, process control, chemical reaction engineering,

separation processes, process systems engineering and unit

operations. At the end of this three semester period, they are

expected to be able to tackle a design project, for which the

production of a given molecule of target tonnage and purity

is demanded. This capstone (or design) project takes place

after the three semester period and it closesthe core chemical

engineering teaching syllabus.

At this stage, the students are asked to choose between

the process or the product elective. A brief overview of the

teaching blocks for each of this elective is given in Table 3.

For the process elective, basically, a large amount of mod-elling, simulation (CFD, PSE. . .) and optimization is given. The

methodology corresponds to the most advanced methods that

canlead to a rigorous plant or process design. Complementary

teachingunits such as safety, energy uses, polymer production

or biotechnology are also provided.

For the product-centered elective, a completely different

situation prevails. The students are first taught the properties

of mostly colloidal systems (e.g., polymers, surfactants, pow-

ders, gels, finely dispersed suspensions), which correspond to

a large majority to formulated products. In a second step, the

largely unconventional processes which are used for prod-

uct production are described with a chemical engineering

approach: granulation, compaction, spray drying, emulsifica-

tion, extrusion, coating. . .. It is obvious at thisstage that, given

thecomplexityof theproducts,the methodology whichis pro-

vided is not as rigorous and as predictive as the one taught

for the process part. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the con-

cepts and tools which are developed can help the students

to find their way in the complex product design and engi-

neering 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): identificationof consumer needs, ideas, selection and design. As examples,

a single dosage gel bead for syrup preparation at home, a flu-

orescent 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 efficient approach could possibly be

achieved and lead to the selection and the in-depth knowl-

edge of critical manufacturing steps. It is interesting to note

that the latter was considered as the definition of chemical

engineering by Astarita (1990).

2.3. A 5 year experience feedback

After 5 years of the product vs process experience in ourdepartment, it might be wise to achieve some kind of feedback

in order to evaluate the pros and cons of the new curriculum.

These can be summarized as follows:

(i) First, we notice the difficulty in communicating on the

productengineering concept. It is obvious thatthis termis

rather new (Cussler and Wei, 2003) and that thenumber of

educational initiatives in this field remains limited (Costa

et al., 2006). This difficultyappliesboth to people in indus-

try and students. There is a frequent confusion with a

strict chemistry teaching framework (often called formu-

lation), or with materials science (especially for polymer

based products). We have to continuously recall that whatis taught is neither chemistry nor material science, but a

chemical engineering package dedicated to product pro-

duction.

(ii) In terms of student choice, quite large fluctuations

between the two electives have been observed from year

to year. We observe that students that choose the product

elective are usually more open to research and develop-

ment positions. A large proportion of them continue their

studies to a PhD and a significant proportion seek to go

abroad after graduating.

(iii) From the teaching philosophy point of view, we still

have questions which remain essentially unsolved. For

example: how and what to teach on biological sciences?

Students have indeed a very limited knowledge in biol-

ogy after their 2 years in so-called classes preparatoires

(Fig. 4). It is difficult to identify how to provide to

them the essential concepts in biology within a mini-



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 Targets

Basic Chem. Eng.

CurriculumChemistry (mineral, organic, physical, industrial,

analytical)

Thermodynamics Design a process or plant dedicated to the production

of a molecule of given tonnage and purity.

Fluid mechanicsTransport processes

Chemical reaction engineering

Separation processes

Numerical techniques Take into account the environment and safety

aspects.

Process control

Safety

Process systems engineering

Design project

Process engineering

elective

Advanced modelling and simulation techniques Model, simulate and optimize a chemical engineering

problem from the process point of view.

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Advanced mass transfer and reacting systems

Optimization techniques

Process Intensification

Polymer processing

Biotechnology

Applied energetics

Product engineering

elective

Advances in colloids and interfaces

Polymer science

Powders, granules, tablets Design product through a chemical engineering

approach.

Rheology

Characterization techniques

Product production processes (mixing, drying,

emulsification, granulation, extrusion. . .)

Tackle the process/product/properties interplay (i.e.,

for complex states of matter).

Selected end-use properties (e.g., controlled release,

biodegradability. . .)

Product design project

mal teaching volume (typically a 20h teaching block).

Important issues such as the structure and properties

of biomolecules, enzyme and microbial kinetics, genetic

engineering and biotechnology. . . have to be included

somewhere in the syllabus. However, we still wonder

on the best strategy to achieve this purpose. Simi-

larly, molecular modelling seems extremely promising

for understanding structure/property relationships or to

understand how complex molecules or mixtures behave;

but, how far should we go with molecular modelling

teaching? At the moment, we restrict the teaching effort

to a limited series of lectures. Should we increase thistopic? Finally, we have difficulties teaching the multiscale

approach, whichis oftenat theheart of theproduct design

rigorous understanding. How could we teach this? Which

simulation tools should we use for this purpose?

(iv) We have identified, through evaluation forms, the key role

of the product design project. Students usually say that

this exercise is extremely positive since it forces them to

use different concepts and teaching units. At the same

time, they can test their ability in terms of innovation,

which is and more and moreasked byindustry (Trainham

et al., 2007). Nevertheless, we, teachers, still are com-

pletely lost when student address what we call an inverse

problem to us: they identified a consumer need and thecorresponding product properties (step one of the product

design project). But how can we translate the properties

needed into a tentative formula for the product? In our

lectures, an opposite approach is most often used: start-

ing from a formula, such as a polymer in solution for

instance, we try to predict the properties according to sci-

entific tools. Maybe some computing approaches could

be useful to tackle this inverse problem (Westerberg and

Subrahmanian, 2000).

(v) Another difficulty arises from the fact that students most

often do not make connections between their subjects.

Apart from the product design project, how might we

stimulate their ability to develop a holistic approach?

(vi) Finally, students are often frustrated that we cannot offer

all of the experimental support that would be needed (or

dreamed of. . .

) when they achieve their design project.To the best, they can carry out some modest tests, but

a rigorous lab scale production and the associated prod-

uct characterization can hardly be proposed for all the

types of productsthattheyinvented. We do notknowhow

to provide a decent experimental support in order not to

restrain innovation.

3. Sustainable chemistry: educationalchallenges

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-




ably incorporate a large dose of these disciplines in the future

(Armstrong,2006). In Europe, the need to develop a sustainable

chemical industry is often presented as the inevitable driver

of the future.

Thus, we started to explore to what extent the new cur-

riculum exposed in the previous section would need to be

rebuilt according to sustainable chemistry requirements. A

major conclusion of our analysis is that, while sustainablechemistry calls for a sound change of the objects that the

chemical engineer will have to be faced to, it does not imply

an in-depth rebuilt of the curriculum. We think that the

best answer is again an evolution of the existing curricu-

lum through tools such as: lab work with molecules from

renewable sources, design project where sustainable chem-

istry constraints are taken into account, andworked exercises

where the future building blocks or molecules of a sustain-

able chemistry industry are studied. The application of the

so-called twelve principles of green engineering (McDonough

et al., 2003) within the context of a design project seems to be

of particular relevance.

A very limited number of new teaching units or simplyan extension of already existing topics would be needed: for

instance, energy integration and energy analysis, biotechnol-

ogy, metrics like Life Cycle Analysis, environmental impact

though greenhouse gases balance.

This analysis is still embryonic and far to be conclu-

sive. Some chemical engineering departments will probably

propose a completely different diagnostic and start novel cur-

ricula for teaching sustainable chemical engineering. Again,

we wait for feedback from industry and colleagues to refine

our views in this challenging area.

4. Conclusion

The rapid changes of chemical industry, together with the

emergence of new scientific and teaching tools, pose a

formidable challenge to chemical engineering teaching. The

evolution of existing curricula demands the identification of a

subtle balance among competing constraints:

take care of dispersive forces (i.e., going toofar into domains

such as physics, chemistry or biology),

maintain the roots of the discipline (unifyingconcepts, built

around balances, equilibrium and transport phenomena),

keep in mind the core identity of a chemical engineer (such

as the ability to effectively communicate and work withchemists, physicists, biologists, and find solutions to prob-

lems such as from beaker to plant).

We would like to close our paper with a quotation from J.

Prausnitz, which gives what we consider as a clear and rele-

vant definition of a chemical engineer:

An effective chemical engineer is someone who relates his

or her special expertise to other areas of concern, someone

who may focus on one part of a practical problem but also

retains an overall view of where the special area intersects

with others (Prausnitz, 1996).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers for their valuable comments

and suggestions.

r e f e r e n c e s

Agam, G., (1994). Industrial Chemicals. Their Characteristics andDevelopment. (Elsevier, Amsterdam).

Amundson, N.R., (1988). Frontiers in Chemical Engineering. ResearchNeeds and Opportunities. (National Academy Press,Washington, DC).

Aris, R., 1977, Academic chemical engineering in an historicalperspective. 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, Chemicalproduct engineering: an emerging paradigm within chemicalengineering. 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 implychanges 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. ChemEng, 7: 155159.

Favre, E., Marchal-Heussler, L., Durand, A., Midoux, N. and

Roizard, C., 2005, A curriculum in chemical productengineering. Chem Eng Educ, 39(4): 264271.Favre, E., Marchal-Heussler, L. and Kind, M., 2002, Chemical

product design: research and educational challenges. TransIChemE: 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 redefines itself in era ofglobal change. Chem Eng News, 74: 1018.

Kwauk, M., 2004, Beyond transport phenomena and reactionengineering. Chem Eng Sci, 59(89): 16131616.

Landau, R., 1997, Education: moving from chemistry to chemicalengineering 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 tocradle to cradle design. Environ Sci Technol, 435A441A.December Issue

National Research Council, Board on Chemical Sciences andTechnology., (2003). Beyond the molecular frontier. InChallenges for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. (NationalAcademies Press).

Prausnitz, J.M., 1996, Molecular thermodynamics: opportunitiesand responsibilities. Fluid Phase Equilib, 116: 1226.

Trainham, J.A., Fitzerald, L. and Fox, P., 2007, Third wayinnovators 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.

Documents

Trends-in-chemical-engineering-education-Process,-product-and-sustainable-chemical-engineering-challenges_2008_Education-for-Chemical-Engineers.pdf