Citron 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 8 年前

請問「有較短的氟碳鏈」英文該怎麼說? (請懂化工的大大幫忙)

因碳4較碳6有較短的氟碳鏈,相較於碳6有較佳的新陳代謝,生物蓄積疑慮極低,運用碳4氟化撥水防護劑生產之織物對環境生態安全性更高。

Because C4-based fluorocarbon compounds have weaker fluroine-carbon bond than C6-based counterparts, they can be metabolized more easily and are considerably less bioaccumulative. Fabrics finished with C4-based fluorocarbon water-repellent agent can mean less environmental impact and higher consumer safety.

以上是我自己翻譯的中翻英對照。我想請懂化工的大大幫我確定的是:

1. 將「有較短的氟碳鏈」翻譯成have weaker fluroine-carbon bond對不對?還是應該要翻成have shorter fluorine-carbon bond才對?

2. 將「碳4氟化撥水防護劑」翻成C4-based fluorocarbon water-repellent agent對不對?還是應該要翻成C4-based fluorinated water-repellent agent才對?如果是後者才對,那麼我前面英文句子裡的C4-based fluorocarbon compounds是否也要改成C4-based fluorinated compounds才對?

對了,我雖然有讀過書,但因為已經離開學校太久了,所以我的化學知識可能還不及目前的國二學生。因此要麻煩各位大大耐心指導一下。先謝謝大家了!

已更新項目:

謝謝James大大:

1. 針對我所發問的項目,提供正確的專有名詞英譯,並詳細解釋為何要這樣翻譯,譬如說:較短的氟碳鏈 = shorter carbon chains。同時還修改我雖沒發問但實則有問題(redundant)的專有名詞英譯,譬如說:撥水防護劑 = water-repellent 而非我原來用的water-repellent agent。

2 個已更新項目:

2.提供非常有用的參考資料(兩個網站),讓我額外地把一些以前一直弄不懂的觀念弄清楚了。譬如說,從第二個 link中,我得知:

a. PFC 和 PFOS /PFOA的差別 (PFOS/PFOA只是PFC的其中兩個成員)。

b. C4, C6和C8名稱的來源。

c. 赫赫有名的PFOS和PFOA原來都是C8!

d. 並非所有的C6 PFCs都是低生物蓄積性的,像PFHxS的生物蓄積性就可能和PFOS/PFOA一樣高、甚至更高。(剛好我下一項產品說明中就有一句話是「並用不含PFOS、PFOA 的C6撥水劑,為環保概念商品」。這下子我知道該怎麼措詞了。)

3 個已更新項目:

第一個link (美國環保局報告),我到目前為止雖然還沒完全看完,但因為您已經把最切中我這題發問的重點告訴我了( there seems to be a correlation between the chain length and the elimination rate of a particular PFC.),所以我就可以暫且放下,回來把這個發問結束,把這題翻譯完成。然後明天頭腦清楚時再繼續閱讀。

非常感謝您幫我找到美國環保局的這個報告。因為和我自己從網路上搜尋到的一堆來源不明或廣告性質的資料相比,它的可信度高多了。以後我自己做research時,也會朝著這個方向走。

4 個已更新項目:

3.當然,也非常感謝您再次幫我把文句從被動式改成主動式(action verbs),讓句子簡潔有力多了!看來,這種寫作技巧和功力,並非一觸可及。我還得多努力練習才行。

5 個已更新項目:

James大大:

如果您真的像您在意見欄裡說的,並非化學專業的人,那麼,我真的要向您致上十二萬分的敬意!!因為我從今天下午四點鐘看到您的回答後,一直消化您所提供的參考資料,到現在已經超過三個小時了,都還沒完全消化完。但從您幫我修改的文句看得出,您已經幫我消化完後,又把精華都融入我的文句裡了。我不知道您到底花了多少時間來回答我這題。(也許,您比我聰明,消化得快些吧。) 但一定不少。總之,今天我實在太感動了。不知道要說些甚麼才好。

現在就讓我先把這題結束吧!希望以後有機會可以回報您的大力幫忙。

3 個解答

評分
  • James
    Lv 5
    8 年前
    最佳解答

    因碳4較碳6有較短的氟碳鏈,相較於碳6有較佳的新陳代謝,生物蓄積疑慮極低,運用碳4氟化撥水防護劑生產之織物對環境生態安全性更高。

    Because C4-based fluorocarbon compounds have weaker fluroine-carbon bond than C6-based counterparts, they can be metabolized more easily and are considerably less bioaccumulative. Fabrics finished with C4-based fluorocarbon water-repellent agent can mean less environmental impact and higher consumer safety.

    以上是我自己翻譯的中翻英對照。我想請懂化工的大大幫我確定的是:

    1. 將「有較短的氟碳鏈」翻譯成have weaker fluroine-carbon bond對不對?還是應該要翻成have shorter fluorine-carbon bond才對?

    James: The word 鏈 refers to the backbone carbon “chain” of a perfluorinated compound, rather than the “bond” between a carbon atom and a fluorine atom, which incidentally is the strongest bond in organic chemistry and is relatively short.

    2. 將「碳4氟化撥水防護劑」翻成C4-based fluorocarbon water-repellent agent對不對?還是應該要翻成C4-based fluorinated water-repellent agent才對?如果是後者才對,那麼我前面英文句子裡的C4-based fluorocarbon compounds是否也要改成C4-based fluorinated compounds才對?

    James: I would simply say C6-PFC-based fluorocarbon water-repellents because "fluorocarbon water repellent" seems to be an accepted industry term and “C6-PFC-based” tells people they contain C6 PFCs.

    Your sentence will thus become:

    With their shorter carbon chains, C4 perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) metabolize better and bioaccumulate less than c6 PFCs. Fabrics finished with C6-PFC-based fluorocarbon water-repellents pose a smaller threat to humans and the environment.

    Following are two links that might be of interest to you:

    http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/pfc...

    http://nikwax.com/en-gb/aboutus/persistentflurocar...

    2012-08-21 14:37:52 補充:

    Based on the EPA report, there seems to be a correlation between the chain length and the elimination rate—a more direct measure of bioaccumulation than metabolism—of a particular PFC. Obviously, we would prefer a chemical that we can easily eliminate from our bodies.

    2012-08-21 14:42:14 補充:

    I've used up the space for an answer, so I will continue here...

    However, a chemical that can be metabolized simply means it can be broken down into smaller pieces of metabolites. Are these metabolites necessarily less harmful to humans?

    The above are just a layman’s comments. I’m not a chemist.

    2012-08-22 00:17:38 補充:

    Thanks, but I made a couple of typos.

    Corrections:

    With their shorter carbon chains, C4 perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) metabolize better and bioaccumulate less than C6 PFCs. Fabrics finished with C4-PFC-based fluorocarbon water-repellents pose a smaller threat to humans and the environment.

  • 8 年前

    James大大:

    哦,只是一個大小寫,和一個數字而已。這個我會自己修正啦。畢竟,這是我的工作,而不是您的。

    不過還是謝謝您這麼認真負責地回頭看,然後再給我訂正後的版本。

  • 8 年前

    Carbon 6 4 more carbon fluorocarbon chain is relatively short, compared to carbon-6 have a better metabolism, extremely low bioaccumulation concerns, the use of carbon fluoride water 4 fabric Protectant production on the environment more secure.

    "Shorter fluorocarbon chain""Carbon 4 fluorinated water Protectant"

還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。