1. Analysis of the stability of the process used to manufacture Atinumab, substance-solution.
  2. Analysis of the stability of the manufacturing process of Atinumab, substance-solution.

Which one is better stylistically?

I prefer the first option, but a fellow translator said that she prefers the second.

The second option reads to me, kind of, as if Atinumab was someone who owns the process.

The sentence is actually the title of an internal document in a company, so I was aiming for clarity. Maybe I dislike a bit the triple use of the preposition "of".

"Substance-solution" is an arcane pharma phrase and is, unfortunately, part of the product's name.

  • 1
    ... the stability of the Atinumab manufacturing process... is a viable alternative. Apr 5, 2017 at 11:22
  • 1
    As a title: "Stability of the Atinumab manufacturing process" or if you're a real fan of attributives (I'm not), "Atinumab manufacturing process stability". It is understood to be an analysis. I don't understand the "substance-solution" tacked onto the end there. Apr 5, 2017 at 12:00
  • @TRomano - "substance-solution" is, unfortunately, part of the name. I'm all for your option, but this "substance-solution" kind of wrecks it. I should have explained this bit from the start.. Apr 5, 2017 at 12:18
  • 1
    @CowperKettle - "Atinumab, substance-solution" sounds messy wherever it's placed. Could "substance-solution" go in brackets? Or could the comma be removed?
    – SteveES
    Apr 5, 2017 at 12:57
  • 2
    You could still have as a title Stability of the Atinumab substance-solution manufacturing process. Apr 5, 2017 at 13:15

2 Answers 2


The first alternative is preferable. As you noted, the second one contains three instances of "of", which is stylistically questionable. Changing the last one to "for" would be an improvement, but even so, I would prefer the first alternative because it clarifies the relationship between the process and Atinumab. The second does not make it clear; Atinumab could be either a company (which executes the process) or a product (which is the result of the process). The reader will probably be able to guess the correct interpretation, even without reading further, but this is the kind of momentary lack of clarity that leaves the reader with an unsettled feeling.



...Manufacturing process... is a tighter and therefore better phrase than ...process used to manufacture..., so your fellow-translator was right on that score. Since that's just a stylistic judgment call and you're the judge here, though, I assume saying so precludes my winning the bounty. ^_^

Analysis of the stability of the manufacturing process of Atinumab, substance-solution


It's the rest of the title that's the real problem, though. You want something punchier if at all possible.

First, unless there is some other document analysis is being contrasted with (e.g., research or findings), it's actually unnecessary. If this is a document concerning the stability of the manufacturing process, its role as an analysis of that topic goes without saying.

Stability of the manufacturing process of Atinumab, substance-solution


There's just no way that the product name, as given, is actually grammatically correct. Either substance-solution really is an appositive phrase or it is a fundamental part of the name. If the former, it shouldn't be included at all unless there is another form of Atinumab with which it's being contrasted. If it is being contrasted with another form of Atinumab, it'd still be better to use the term as an attributive adjective than an appositive phrase. If it's the latter, it shouldn't be shunted off by a comma and left lower-case. English names don't work like Russian ones: It's the Black Sea, not Black sea, and the Volga River, not Volga river.

Based on what you said above, I think this is the correct formatting

Stability of the manufacturing process of Atinumab Substance–Solution

though obviously you can't change the product's name if marketing already gave it to you in a different format.

Note also the en dash instead of the hyphen, since you're using it to replace an implicit and between those two nouns. Again, this may be mistaken or something that marketing has tied your hands regarding, but cursory googling shows that hyphenated or dashed substance–solution isn't accurate. Instead, everyone seems to write it as two words, substance solution, with the first acting as an attributive modifier towards the second. So more likely

Stability of the manufacturing process of Atinumab Substance Solution

if you have an audience who is more comfortable with British English or

Stability of the Manufacturing Process of Atinumab Substance Solution

if they're more used to the American style of title capitalization.


Either of those seems to be grammatically correct for whichever side of the Atlantic you're writing for. It's still an awkward title, since it's overlong. Either of

UK: Stability of the Atinumab Substance Solution manufacturing process

US: Stability of the Atinumab Substance Solution Manufacturing Process

is going to be about as tight as you can make the phrasing while still emphasizing that you're looking at the stability of the step-by-step process of manufacture. If you're just discussing the manufacture in general or as whole, you could go a step farther to

UK: Atinumab Substance Solution manufacturing stability

US: Atinumab Substance Solution Manufacturing Stability

If the comma really is necessary for the product's name, there should be one both before substance and after solution.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .