Quantitative accident analysis on two different bioethanol production plant

Authors

  • Muhammad Saber Khairunnizam School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Mohd Aizad Ahmad School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Zulkifli Abdul Rashid School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Nur Adlina Azhari School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v7i2.1863

Keywords:

Quantitative Accident Analysis, Bioethanol Production, Chemical Release, Incident Outcome Cases, Fatalities

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the expected percentage of fatalities caused by three significant equipment mishaps at a recently built facility in Selangor, Malaysia. This study investigated the possibility of (1) various events occurring in terms of toxicity, thermal radiation, and overpressure, and (2) the percentage of fatalities resulting from the release of chemical mixtures from two ethanol plants: the reference plant (Plant 1) and Plant 2. The major equipment includes a combustor reactor operating at 700 °C and 1 bar for both Plants 1 and 2, a gasification reactor operating at 700 °C (Plant 1) and 900 °C (Plant 2) at 20 bar, and a bioreactor operating at 37 °C and 1 bar for both Plants 1 and 2. To model the process and determine the mass density, mass fraction, and volume fraction of the mixture, Aspen Plus software was utilized. ALOHA and MARPLOT software were used to compute the quantity of toxicity, heat radiation, overpressure, and the affected area. The main equipment comprises a combination of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, ethanol, ethanoic acid, and water, with water considered non-harmful. The release of a chemical mixture was postulated and simulated using three-hole size scenarios: 10 mm, 25 mm, and 160 mm. The findings indicated that Plant 2 experienced the highest percentage of fatalities, 86.77%, resulting from the ethanol fireball incident during nighttime through a 25 mm leak.

Author Biographies

Muhammad Saber Khairunnizam, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Muhammad Saber Bin Khairunnizam is a graduate student in the School of Chemical Engineering at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). He currently works as a Health and Safety Environment (HSE) consultant. He can be reached via email at muhdsaber4@gmail.com.

Mohd Aizad Ahmad, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

*Mohd Aizad Ahmad, PhD is Senior Lecturer in the School of Chemical Engineering at the University Teknologi MARA, UiTM. His main research activity is in the area of process safety and loss prevention. He has published widely on these subjects in publications such as the Key Engineering Materials, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (IJEST) Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Heliyon. His can be reached through his email at mohdaizad@uitm.edu.my

Zulkifli Abdul Rashid, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Zulkifli Abdul Rashid, PhD is Associate Professor in the School of Chemical Engineering at the University Teknologi MARA, UiTM. His main research activity is in the area of quantitative risk assessment (QRA), process safety and loss prevention. He has published widely on these subjects in publications such as the Key Engineering Materials, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (IJEST) Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Heliyon. His can be reached through his email at zulkifli466@uitm.edu.my

Nur Adlina Azhari, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Nur Adlina Azhari is a postgraduate student in the School of Chemical Engineering at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). She currently doing research on Dynamic Risk Assessment for chemical plant safety. She can be reached via email at nuradlina.az@gmail.com

References

Acharya, B., Roy, P., & Dutta, A. (2014). Review of syngas fermentation processes for bioethanol. Biofuels, 5(5), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2014.1002996

AcuTech Consulting Group. (2017). Quantitative risk assessment final report prepared for NW Innovation Works, Port of Kalama, WA. https://pdf4pro.com/view/quantitative-risk-assessment-final-report-dc195.html

Ahmad, M. A., Rashid, Z. A., El-Harbawi, M., & Al-Awadi, A. S. (2022). High-pressure methanol synthesis case study: safety and environmental impact assessment using consequence analysis. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19(9), 8555–8572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03724-1

Ahmed, I. I., & Gupta, A. K. (2010). Pyrolysis and gasification of food waste: Syngas characteristics and char gasification kinetics. Applied Energy, 87(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.08.032

Airgas (2018). Carbon Dioxide SDS. https://www.airgas.com/msds/001013.pdf

Airgas (2020a). Carbon Monoxide SDS. https://www.airgas.com/msds/001014.pdf

Airgas (2020b). Hydrogen SDS. https://www.airgas.com/msds/001026.pdf

Casal, J. (2018a). Chapter 11 - Quantitative Risk Analysis. Evaluation of the Effects and Consequences of Major Accidents in Industrial Plants (pp. 439– 481). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63883-0.00011-3

Casal, J. (2018b). Chapter 2 - Source Term. Evaluation of the Effects and Consequences of Major Accidents in Industrial Plants (pp. 25–74). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63883-0.00002-2

Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2003). Guidelines for Facility Siting and Layout. Wiley-AIChE.

Crowl, D. A., & Louvar, J. F. (2011). Chemical process safety: Fundamentals with applications. Prentice Hall.

de Haag, P. U., Ale, B. J. M., & Post, J. G. (2001). T10-1 - The ‘Purple Book’: Guideline for quantitative risk assessment in the Netherlands.

Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries (pp. 1429-1438). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044450699-3/50053-7

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2023). P.096 Kuala Selangor: Population and housing census 2020. https://open.dosm.gov.my/dashboard/kawasanku/Selangor/parlimen/P.096%20Kuala%20Selangor

Fang, K., Li, D., Lin, M., Xiang, M., Wei, W., & Sun, Y. (2009). A short review of heterogeneous catalytic process for mixed alcohols synthesis via syngas. Catalysis Today, 147(2), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2009.01.038

Griffin, D. W., & Schultz, M. A. (2012). Fuel and chemical products from biomass syngas: A comparison of gas fermentation to thermochemical conversion routes. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 31(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11613

Hawthorne, W. R., Weddell, D. S., & Hottel, H. C. (1948, January). Mixing and combustion in turbulent gas jets. In Symposium on Combustion and Flame, and Explosion Phenomena (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 266-288). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-2896(49)80035-3

Heikkilä, A.-M. (1999). Inherent safety in process plant design: An index-based approach [Doctoral Dissertation, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Aalto University]. Aalto University. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/2516

Inamura, T., Saito, K., & Tagavi, K. A. (1992). A study of boilover in liquid pool fires supported on water. part II: Effects of in-depth radiation absorption. Combustion Science and Technology, 86(1–6), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00102209208947190

Jones, R., Lehr, W., Simecek-Beatty, D., & Reynolds, M. (2013). ALOHA® (Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres) 5.4.4: Technical Documentation. https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ALOHA_Tech_Doc.pdf

Liguori, R., Ventorino, V., Pepe, O., & Faraco, V. (2016). Bioreactors for lignocellulose conversion into fermentable sugars for production of high added value products. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 100(2), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7125-9

Michailos, S., Parker, D., & Webb, C. (2017). Design, Sustainability Analysis and Multiobjective Optimisation of Ethanol Production via Syngas Fermentation. MPRA Paper 87640, University Library of Munich, Germany.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Ethyl Alcohol. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0262.html

New Jersey Department of Health. (2007). Right to Know Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet (Acetic Acid). https://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0004.pdf

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Hydrogen. 29 e-CFR § 1910.103. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.103

Pardo-Planas, O., Atiyeh, H. K., Phillips, J. R., Aichele, C. P., & Mohammad, S. (2017). Process simulation of ethanol production from biomass gasification and syngas fermentation. Bioresource Technology, 245, 925–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.193

Pérez-Fortes, M., Schöneberger, J. C., Boulamanti, A., & Tzimas, E. (2016). Methanol synthesis using captured CO2 as raw material: Techno-economic and environmental assessment. Applied Energy, 161, 718–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.067

Roberts, A. F. (1981). Thermal radiation hazards from releases of LPG from pressurised storage. Fire Safety Journal 4(3), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(81)90018-7

Srinivasan, R., & Nhan, N. T. (2008). A statistical approach for evaluating inherent benign-ness of chemical process routes in early design stages. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 86(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2007.10.011

ThermoFisher (2022). Ethanol SDS.

Vuthaluru, H. B. (2004). Thermal behaviour of coal/biomass blends during co-pyrolysis. Fuel Processing Technology, 85(2–3), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00112-7

Yang, Y., Wang, G., Peng, C., Deng, Q., Yu, Y., He, X., Hu, T., Jiang, L., Shan, S., Zheng, Y., Zhi, Y., & Su, H. (2023). Microwave-assisted synthesis of l-aspartic acid-based metal organic aerogel (MOA) for efficient removal of oxytetracycline from aqueous solution. Applied Surface Science, 610, Article 155608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.155608

Zhang, M., Song, W., Wang, J., & Chen, Z. (2014). Accident consequence simulation analysis of pool fire in fire dike. Procedia Engineering, 84, 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.469

Zhang, Y., Wan, L., Guan, J., Xiong, Q., Zhang, S., & Jin, X. (2020). A Review on Biomass Gasification: Effect of Main Parameters on Char Generation and Reaction. Energy and Fuels, 34(11), 13438–13455. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c02900

Downloads

Published

2024-10-31

How to Cite

Khairunnizam, M. S. ., Ahmad, M. A., Abdul Rashid, Z. ., & Azhari, N. A. . (2024). Quantitative accident analysis on two different bioethanol production plant. Malaysian Journal of Chemical Engineering &Amp; Technology, 7(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.24191/mjcet.v7i2.1863

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024): 2024 MJCET Vol 7 Issue 2

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Muhammad Saber Khairunnizam, Mohd Aizad Ahmad, Zulkifli Abdul Rashid, Nur Adlina Azhari

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.