The seven stages of chemical technology from concept to industrialization (Issue 6/100) -- Thoughts inspired by literature reading

Thread Content

This post was last edited by xiouxingzhe on 2026-6-23 at 15:21. Seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 6/100). Third source of inspiration: associative thinking through literature reading. Dear friends: Hello everyone! In the previous issue, we discussed the inspiration from theoretical reasoning – using paper and pen to rule out some unworkable ideas in advance. Today, let’s talk about the third source of inspiration: associations drawn from reading literature. When it comes to reading literature, many marine scientists’ first reaction is likely: searching for data, examining the conclusions, and writing citations. But from my own experience, if one treats literature merely as a source of data, one might miss its greater value—it is actually a rich source of inspiration. I. Two ways of reading, two kinds of gains: How to read literature? From my own experience, there are two ways of reading it. One is “check the result”. If you need the boiling point data for a certain substance, open a literature article, find the data, and cite it. This isn’t reading; this is retrieval. Searching is certainly useful, but it’s unlikely to inspire you. Another is “reading the train of thought.” You should not only consider the conclusions drawn from this literature, but also why the experiments were designed in that way, what the logic behind the arguments is, which possibilities were ruled out, and what technical approaches were chosen. You’re not just reading the content; you’re also reading his thought process. As fuel driven by inspiration, I think only the second interpretation is valuable. I have a habit when reading literature: when I come across a paper that is truly worth studying in detail, after reading the abstract and methods, I don’t look at the conclusions first; instead, I think to myself, “If I were to conduct this research, how would I do it?” ”Then I see what differs between my proposed approach and the author’s approach. The greater the difference, the more worth exploring this article is. Why do this? Because once you read the author’s conclusion first, your thinking tends to be anchored by it. If you look at the experimental design and methods used in his previous work, you will unconsciously approach it with the intention of verifying his conclusions, making it difficult to form an independent judgment. Sometimes I cover the conclusion section with a piece of paper to force myself to think first and then look at it. In addition to this habit, when reading literature I also pay special attention to one type of information: what possibilities the authors have ruled out. A good paper should not only tell you what was done and what was achieved, but also what was tried and found to be ineffective. These “excluded paths” may be of equal value to latercomers as the “verified paths”. Once, while working on a solvent recovery solution, I found inspiration in the \"failed attempts\" section of a paper – the author ruled out the extraction method, but he explained clearly why it didn’t work, which in turn led me to think of an improved approach. II. Active association: Can the approaches from Field A solve problems in Field B? The ultimate value of reading literature lies not in reproducing the authors’ results, but in making associations. After reading a paper on the kinetics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions, you suddenly ask yourself: \"Could the electron transfer mechanism at the active site of this enzyme provide insights for the design of my hydrogenation catalysts?\" ”The author of this paper may never know of your existence, but your innovation might take root here. This kind of association requires deliberate practice. I have a habit of spending some time each year reading about the progress in related fields. Those working in organic synthesis should look into electrochemistry; those involved in distillation should consider membrane separation; those working with traditional batch reactors should explore continuous flow processes. It’s not necessary to look at every detail; focus on the reasoning. Why read in a superficial, cursory manner? Because one starts by looking at things in great detail, it’s easy to get trapped in the technical specifics of that field, and as a result, fails to learn the methods and approaches. Methods and approaches are often clearly expressed in the general review or introduction sections. Skim through a few review articles to understand what core problems this field is trying to solve and what kind of thinking approaches are used to address them, then bring these conceptual frameworks back to your own field to see if there are any applicable elements. Once, while reading a review on membrane separation technology for seawater desalination, I noticed that their approach to dealing with membrane fouling was quite interesting – instead of blocking the pollutants, they altered the surface charge of those pollutants to make it harder for them to adhere. Although I was an outsider to membrane separation, this approach later helped me solve a problem of scaling in a crystallizer. This is the advantage of focusing on the overall approach rather than the details. III. A handy tool: Function Search. Having talked about so many methods for reading literature, I’d like to share another practical tool that I’ve been using for many years—it’s called “Function Search”. It will be mentioned again in the episode on cross-domain technology transplantation; here, a brief introduction to the aspects related to literature retrieval is provided first. The core idea behind functional retrieval is: rather than searching for literature using terms specific to a particular field, first abstract your question into a \"functional requirement\", and then use that functional requirement to conduct searches across different fields. For example. Your question is “Reboilers in distillation towers tend to scale easily, resulting in a rapid decline in heat transfer efficiency.” The conventional way to conduct a search might be to type in “scaling of distillation column reboilers,” and the results that come up will all be related to this field. But if you make an abstraction and boil down the problem to \"how to reduce the accumulation of solid deposits on the heat transfer surface during the heat transfer process\"—this description contains no mention of \"distillation\" or \"reboilers\", only the functional requirements. Using this abstract description for retrieval, you’ll find that the food industry, water treatment industry, and oil industry are all tackling similar problems. Their solutions might just provide you with some inspiration. Another example: \"Uneven stirring in the reactor leads to excessively high local concentrations\" can be abstracted as \"how to achieve efficient and uniform mixing in confined spaces\" – a problem that also exists in the paint, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical industries. From my own experience with this search function, it allows you to expand your search scope from \"solutions known in your industry\" to \"solutions available in various industries.\" It’s not always possible to find a direct solution, but the perspective broadens significantly. IV. After reading, don’t forget to conduct a novelty search. After making connections, there is one step that I think is essential: conducting a novelty search. Has your Lenovo already had a team work on this? What level have others reached? If it has already been published, at least you won’t have to go through the same process in vain. If no one has published it yet, then this path might be yours. When conducting a novelty search, don’t limit yourself to Chinese texts or just one database. Check patent databases, academic searches, and industry reports – look into everything that can be found. I have another habit when conducting a literature review: I don’t just check whether someone has already done it, but also determine to what extent they stopped once they did it. Was it a paper based on laboratory data and that’s where it ended, or was pilot testing carried out but industrialization wasn’t pursued? If it is the former, it may mean that this approach is feasible in the laboratory but presents problems when scaled up. If it is the latter, it may mean that there is no temporary need in the market. This information is more valuable than a simple statement such as “Certain technology has been reported in existing literature.” It can help you figure out: what are the reasons others gave up? Is that reason still valid for you? If the market conditions, raw material prices, and policies and regulations change, might a path that wasn’t viable in the past be worth trying again today? Preview for the next issue: Issue 7 – The Fourth Gateway to Inspiration: Identifying Industry Pain Points. Good inspiration isn’t found in the office; it’s on the front lines. Behind the workers’ complaints lie real problems – a tower that is constantly blocked, a pump that keeps breaking down; by tracing things back to their roots, the target for technological innovation can be identified. Table of Contents link: Seven-Stage Model of Chemical Technology from Idea to Industrialization (Issue 100) – Table of Contents (updated in real time)