Peer Review of Group 2’s Report 0

Cover Sheet: No mention of the project title/ description and general purpose of the report (i.e.
Report 0 - process description)

Summary: No mention of plant location or the commissioner, raw materials and by-products
involved in the process. Otherwise good.

Overall Process Flow Diagram: Very neatly presented and legible but no unit numbers or stream
numbers on the diagram for reference.

Plant Description: Good detailed description but no reference to overall process diagram which can
make it hard to follow. Unit and stream numbers should be utilised with reference to the diagram.
No mention of plant requirement ( 250,000 tonnes/year of VAM at certain purity etc.)

Acetic Acid Scrubber : Questionable/vague unit purpose which overlaps with purpose of unit 3.
Good justification for solvent choice. Redundant repetition of the exact same paragraph in unit
description. Very neat presentation of diagram and specifications. No mention of feed tray location
(i.e. 8 from the top or from the bottom). Inconsistent flowrate units ( kmol/h vs kg/h).

CO2 Removal Column : No mention of ethylene stream to be recycled back into process. Good
justification of solvent choice but no reference/justification for ratio of MDEA to water used.
Perhaps better to use weight fractions rather than flowrates for components as the specifications
were given in weight fraction. Unit and stream numbers are not consistent with other units.

Solvent Recovery Column: Very good and detailed description and explanation of unit. Perhaps
better to use weight fractions rather than flowrates for components as the specifications were given
in weight fraction. Unit and stream numbers are not consistent with other units.

Acetic Acid Recovery Distillation Column: Description too lengthy, exceeds 2 pages. Points in the
sensitivity analysis can be conveyed more directly in less words. Unit and stream numbers are not
consistent with other units. Perhaps better to use weight fractions rather than flowrates for
components as the specifications were given in weight fraction. Excellent otherwise.

Light Ends Recovery Distillation Column: Unit and stream numbers are not consistent with other
units. Perhaps better to use weight fractions rather than flowrates for components as the
specifications were given in weight fraction.

Final VAM Product Purification Column: Unit and stream numbers are not consistent with other
units. Perhaps better to use weight fractions rather than flowrates for components as the
specifications were given in weight fraction.

Presentation: Very neat and pretty diagrams. However, no unit and stream numbers are included
which can confuse the reader.

Conclusion: No conclusion was made at the end of the report.