i

STUDY THE EFFECT OF USING ULTRASONIC

MEMBRANE ANAEROBIC SYSTEM (UMAS) IN TREATING

SUGARCANE WASTE AND METHANE GAS PRODUCTION

RAGINI A/P MAHENDRAN

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

Bachelor of Chemical Engineering

Faculty of Chemical & Natural Resources Engineering

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG

JULY 2014

vi

ABSTRACT

Sugarcane industry is one of the most important industries in many developing countries.

However, sugarcane industry produces significant amount of wastes mainly in the form of

liquid wastes. In present study, biological treatment with membrane technology and

ultrasound effect was carried out to treat sugarcane wastewater. The main objective of this

study is to make an overall comparison between membrane anaerobic system (MAS) and

ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) in treating sugarcane waste. Raw sugarcane

wastewater was operated in a membrane anaerobic reactor for 5 hours for 7 continuous days.

After 5 hours of operation, the permeate (filtrate) from the reactor was collected and tested

for BOD, COD, TSS and VSS. The gas produced was collected using designated syringe.

The experiment was repeated with 10 kHz of ultrasound frequency devise attached to the

membrane to investigate the effect of ultrasonic wave towards the process. From this study,

for COD and BOD, MAS has achieved 86% removal efficiency and UMAS achieved 96%

removal. For TSS, MAS obtained 81% removal efficiency but UMAS attained 100%

removal which shows UMAS has removed all the detectable suspended solids from the

wastewater. The same trend goes for VSS removal efficiency. MAS produced 1400mL of

permeate and UMAS produced 2346mL of permeate. This huge difference in volume was

due to the fouling which blocks the membrane pores. For biogas production, 68% and 77%

of methane gas have been produced during MAS and UMAS treatments respectively. From

these results, it proves that UMAS has prevented fouling and it is more proficient than MAS

as it produced permeate which meet the discharge limit fixed by Malaysia Department of

Environmental (DOE).

Keywords: Sugarcane wastewater, Anaerobic Digestion, Membrane Anaerobic Reactor,

Ultrasound, Methane Gas

vii

ABSTRAK

Industri tebu adalah salah satu industri yang penting di antara negara-negara yang sedang

membangun. Namun, industri tebu menghasilkan sejumlah besar sisa terutamanya dalam

bentuk sisa cecair. Dalam kajian ini, rawatan biologi bersama teknologi membran dan

ultrasound telah diperlaksanakan untuk merawat sisa cecair tebu. Objektif utama kajian ini

adalah untuk membuat perbandingan keseluruhan antara sistem membran anaerobik (MAS)

dan sistem anaerobik membran ultrasonik (UMAS) dalam merawat sisa cecair tebu. Sisa

cecair tebu mentah dirawat dalam membran anaerobik reaktor selama 5 jam untuk 7 hari

berturut-turut. Selepas 5 jam operasi, air turasan dari reaktor tersebut dikumpulkan dan diuji

untuk BOD, COD, TSS dan VSS. Gas yang dihasilkan pula diukur dengan menggunakan

picagari yang ditetapkan. Dari kajian ini, untuk ujian COD dan BOD, MAS telah mencapai

kecekapan sebanyak 86% dan UMAS pula sebanyak 97%. Untuk TSS, MAS memperolehi

81% kecekapan penyingkiran tetapi UMAS mencapai 100% penyingkiran. Ini menunjukkan

UMAS telah mengeluarkan semua pepejal terampai yang boleh dikesan daripada air

buangan tebu. VSS menujukkan trend yang sama seperti TSS. MAS telah menghasilkan

1400 mL air turasan dan UMAS pula menghasilkan sebanyak 2346 mL. Jumlah air turasan

ini amat berbeza antara dua sistem ini berikutan masalah penyumbatan membran yang

menghalang laluan meresap ke dalam membran. Untuk pengeluaran biogas, 68% dan 77%

gas metana telah dihasilkan masing-masing dalam MAS dan UMAS Daripada keputusan ini,

ia mengaku bahawa UMAS telah menghalang penyumbatan membran dan ia lebih mahir

daripada MAS kerana ia menghasilkan air turasan yang memenuhi had pelepasan yang

ditetapkan oleh Malaysia Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS).

Katakunci: Sisa air tebu, rawatan anarobik, sistem anaerobik membran, ultrasound, sistem

anaerobik membran ultrasonik, gas metana

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER SUBJECT PAGE

TITLE PAGE i

SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION ii

STUDENT’S DECLARATION iii

DEDICATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

ABSTRACT vi

ABSTRAK vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv

LIST OF APPENDICES xvii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Motivation 3

1.3 Problem Statement 4

1.4 Objective of Study 5

1.5 Scope of Research 5

1.6 Rationale and Significant 6

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Introduction 7

ix

2.2 Sugarcane Waste 7

2.3 Methane Gas 11

2.4 Ultrasound 12

2.5 Membrane 13

2.6 Treatment Methods Available 14

2.6.1 Aerobic Treatments 14

2.6.2 Anaerobic Treatments 19

2.7 Comparison of Treatment Methods 21

2.8 Anaerobic Digestion Principles 24

2.8.1 Hydrolysis Phase 24

2.8.2 Acidogenic Phase 25

2.8.3 Acetogenic Phase 25

2.8.4 Methanogenic Phase 25

2.9 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) 27

2.10 Anaerobic Membrane Reactors (AnMBR) 28

2.11 Ultrasonic Membrane Anaerobic Reactor (UMAS) 31

2.12 Basic Parametric Requirement 32

2.12.1 Temperature 32

2.12.2 pH 33

2.12.3 Organic Loading Rate (OLR) 33

2.12.4 Retention Time 33

3 METHODOLOGY 34

3.1 Introduction 34

3.2 Characterization of Raw Material 36

3.3 UMAS Process 36

3.3.1 Experimental Setup 36

x

3.3.2 Reactor Operation 39

3.4 Characterization of Treated Sugarcane Wastewater 40

3.5 Parameter Analysis 41

3.5.1 pH 41

3.5.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 41

3.5.3 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) 42

3.5.4 Total Suspended Solid (TSS) 43

3.5.5 Volatile Suspended Solid (VSS) 44

3.5.6 Permeate Volume 45

3.6 Methane Gas Measurement 45

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47

4.1 Introduction 47

4.2 Raw Material Characterization 49

4.3 Properties of Acclimatized Sugarcane Wastewater 50

4.4 Parameter Analysis 52

4.4.1 pH Testing 52

4.4.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Testing 54

4.4.3 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Testing 57

4.4.4 Total Suspended Solid (TSS) Testing 60

4.4.5 Volatile Suspended Solid (VSS) Testing 63

4.4.6 Permeate Volume 66

4.5 Methane Gas Measurement 69

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 73

5.1 Conclusion 73

5.2 Recommendation 74

xi

REFERENCES 75

APPENDICES 86

Appendix A 86

Appendix B 92

Appendix C 97

xii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2.1 Characteristic of Sugar Mill Effluent 9

2.2 Parameter Limits of Effluent of Standards A and B 9

2.3 Comparison of Anaerobic and Anaerobic

Treatments

21

2.4 Comparison of Conventional Aerobic Treatment,

Anaerobic Treatment, Aerobic MBR and AnMBR

29

3.1 Characteristics of Reactor 37

3.2 Characteristics of Membrane 37

3.3 Optimum Conditions for UMAS 40

4.1 Parameter Descriptions and Calculation Methods 48

4.2 Initial Values of Raw Material before Treatment 49

4.3 Characteristics of Acclimatized Sugarcane

Wastewater

51

4.4 pH Values of Substrate and Permeate for MAS

Treatment

52

4.5 pH Values of Substrate and Permeate for UMAS

Treatment

53

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

NO

TITLE PAGE

2.1 Sources of Waste Water in Cane Sugar Manufacturing

Factory 8

2.2 A Typical Complete Trickling Filter System 15

2.3 Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Diagram 16

2.4 SBR Activated Sludge Process 18

2.5 Anaerobic Pond System 19

2.6 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor 21

2.7 Four Phases of Biomethanation Process 24

2.8 Flow of Biomethanation Process 26

2.9 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) 28

3.1 Flow of Methodology 35

3.2 Experimental Setup for Membrane Anaerobic System 38

3.3 Schematic Diagram of UMAS 39

3.4 HACH Spectrophotometer 41

3.5 DO Meter 43

3.6 Setup of Filtering Apparatus 44

xiv

3.7 Muffle Furnace 45

3.8 Schematic Diagram of J-tube 46

4.1 COD Values during MAS Treatment 55

4.2 COD Values during UMAS Treatment 56

4.3 COD Removal Efficiency for MAS and UMAS 56

4.4 BOD Values during MAS Treatment 58

4.5 BOD Values during UMAS Treatment 59

4.6 BOD Removal Efficiency for MAS and UMAS 59

4.7 TSS Values during MAS Treatment 62

4.8 TSS Values during UMAS Treatment 62

4.9 TSS Removal Efficiency for MAS and UMAS

63

4.10 VSS Values during MAS Treatment 65

4.11 VSS Values during UMAS Treatment

65

4.12 VSS Removal Efficiency for MAS and UMAS 66

4.13 Volume of Permeate Collected during MAS Treatment

68

4.14 Volume of Permeate Collected during UMAS Treatment

68

4.15 Average Permeate Volume of MAS and UMAS 69

4.16 Methane Gas Composition in MAS and UMAS

Treatment 72

xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL ABBREVIATION

MAS Membrane Anaerobic System

MBR Membrane Bioreactor

AnMBR Anaerobic Membrane Biorector

UMAS Ultrasonic Membrane Anaerobic System

HRT Hydraulic Retention Time

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

DO Dissolved Oxygen

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

TSS Total Suspended Solid

VSS Volatile Suspended Solid

TDS Total Dissolved Solid

OLR Organic Loading Rtae

TS Total Solid

SBR Sequencing Batch Reactors

UASB Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket

xvi

UF Ultrafiltration

MF Microfiltration

CUF Cross Flow Ultrafiltration

POME Palm Oil Mill Effluent

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

MWCO Molecular Weight Cut-Off

NAOH Sodium Hydroxide

L Liters

mL Milliliters

xvii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE

A Raw Material Collection And Experiment Preparation

B Results Tables

C Method Of Analysis

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Environmental problems gained increasing prominence in the 20th

century. Global

population growth and advance of modern technologies raised pressure on worldwide

natural resources such as air, water and land. The most promising source of environmental

problem is the untreated effluent from industries. To reach the world demand, the number of

companies and factories in all sectors increased rapidly. But, these industries emits

unwanted by products which affects the quality of air and water if directly discharged into

rivers. It also indirectly affects the health and well being of man. Lots of researches have

been done on how to solve these environmental issues. But yet, it is still an unsolved

problem.

In many developing countries, especially in Asia and South America, sugarcane

industry is one of the most important industries. However, sugarcane industry produces

significant amount of wastes. Wastes from sugarcane industries can be sorted as bagasses,

solid residues from sugarcane juice extraction, stilage (vinasse or dunder) and liquid waste

effluents. The liquid wastes are usually from cane wash water, floor washing and boiler

blow-down, excess condenser waters and also soda and acid wastes. Due to lack of

2

knowledge and financial status, many sugarcane industries in developing countries just

release their wastewater without any treatment. Sugarcane wastewaters are released in huge

amount from a factory as they use a lot of water supply for the process. A survey on 103

cane sugar factories in North India indicated an average production of 1320 L of wastewater

per ton of cane with BOD5 of 570 mg/L (Baskaran et al., 1966). In other literature, it is

stated that sugar mill effluent has a BOD amount of around 1500 mg/L (Solomon, 2005).

These shows that sugarcane waste water really has high biodegradability and it should be

treated before discharging.

The increased attention on the environmental issues and the rise of oil price,

government all over the world, including Malaysia are forced to look for alternative energy.

Under the 8th

and 9th

Malaysian Plans, renewable energy is considered as the country’s fifth

fuel. Nowadays, the government adopts Renewable Energy and Green Technology. On 26th

Jan 2010, government launched Green Technology Financing Scheme to encourage the

search for alternative energy. Sustainable and renewable energy with the green technology

will be the core of economic growth for all countries. This shows Malaysia is in high

demand of expertise in renewable and sustainable energy.

Methane is the main component of natural gas. It is used for generating electric by

burning it in a turbine or boiler. Methane is a good source of energy compared to other

hydrocarbon fuels. This is because; burning of methane produces less carbon dioxide for

each unit compared to other hydrocarbons. Therefore, methane can be used as an alternative

energy source. Methane is usually produced from burning of fossil fuels or partial oxidation

of hydrocarbon fuels. But, these methods lead to emission of greenhouse gasses and global

warming. So, production of methane from renewable sources as industrial and agricultural

wastes by anaerobic digestion is not only an environmental friendly way of producing

methane, but also a good way of handling those wastes.

There are few methods available to treat sugarcane wastewaters such as trickling

filtration, aerobic treatments and anaerobic treatments. Among all these treatments,

anaerobic treatments are well preferred because it produces useful methane gas and cheaper

3

compared to other process. But, since there is huge amount of biomass and harmful organics

matters in anaerobic systems, the chances to still have those matters in the effluent is high.

To solve this conflict, membrane anaerobic system (MAS) was introduced where a

membrane module of microfiltration or ultrafiltration added to the system to purify the

effluent. A lot of studies have been conducted regarding MAS but it still contains some

unsolved problems mainly membrane fouling. Few methods has been proposed to control

membrane fouling which includes optimum operating conditions, modification of mixed

liquor characteristics and membrane materials, high shear across membrane and cleaning

methods (Xu et al., 2011). Although all these methods have been implemented, membrane

fouling still has not been solved. Therefore, Wen et al. (2008) has come out with a new

design which is using ultrasound on the membrane to reduce membrane fouling (Wen et al.,

2008, Abdulrahman et al., 2014).

Thus, this present research is attempted to study the effect of using ultrasonic

membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) in treating sugarcane waste. By this study, it is

attempted to propose another way of treating sugarcane wastewater, producing renewable

methane gas and also controlling membrane fouling.

1.2 Motivation

Environmental problems are the most serious problem our surrounding faces

nowadays. Direct discharge of sugarcane wastewater into rivers creates severe water

pollution. This is because sugarcane wastewater is highly polluted with high COD, BOD and

TSS values which can affect the quality of water drastically (Candelario et al., 1974). Lots

of researches have been done on how to solve these environmental issues. Besides that, the

rise of oil and fuel price forces human to look for alternative fuels which are cheaper and

environmental friendly. Methane is a good source of hydrocarbon fuel. But its production

through hydrogenation of carbon dioxide leads to emission of greenhouse gasses and global

warming (Wang et al., 2011). Therefore, production of methane from renewable sources as

4

industrial and agricultural wastes by anaerobic digestion will be more favorable than other

routes.

However, anaerobic digestion face both economical and environmental disadvantages

such as requirement of large footprints and long hydraulic retention time (HRT) and at the

same time not capable to produce effluent which meet the discharge standard fixed by

Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE). Therefore, anaerobic digestion with

membrane technology has been used to filter out the effluent to be clearer and free from

suspended solids. However, membrane system faces fouling problem which can lead to

decrease the filtering efficiency. Thus, ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) is a

perfect system which can reduce fouling, increase filtering efficiency and also the

biomethanation process.

1.3 Problem Statement

Sugarcane wastewater is one of the wastewater that is discharged in huge amount.

This is because, during the process of sugarcane milling, large amount water is used.

Normally, sugarcane wastewaters have high BOD and COD values. Direct discharge of this

liquid into river water may deplete dissolved oxygen, destroy aquatic life, and makes the

water unfit for community water supply. Methane is an important natural gas which should

be produced in an environmental friendly way. Since the costs of fossil fuels are increasing,

transforming waste materials into useable energy is a good alternative way of producing

energy. Besides that, waste management through this method can be considered as

economical and environmental friendly. Due to fouling problem in anaerobic membrane

system, ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system is evolved to control fouling.

5

1.4 Objective of Study

The research aims to solve the problem statements by accomplishing the following

objectives:

a) To make an overall comparison between membrane anaerobic system (MAS) and

ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) in treating sugarcane waste.

b) To compare the quantity of methane gas generated from the process of using

membrane anaerobic system and ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system.

1.5 Scope of Research

Raw material used in this study is sugarcane waste water from sugarcane mill. The

raw material was taken from Kilang Gula Felda Perlis Sdn Bhd. To fulfill the objective of

my study, a 50L anaerobic membrane bioreactor system was used. The experiment was first

conducted using membrane anaerobic system (MAS) for 7 days. The reactor was then

attached with an ultrasonic device on to the membrane to modify it to ultrasonic membrane

anaerobic system (UMAS). The wastewater was treated in UMAS for 7 days also.

Parameters such as pH, temperature and pressure are maintained in optimum operating

conditions. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) was set to 7 days. Other parameters that should

be considered in evaluating the system performance was Chemical Oxygen Demand,

Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solid and Volatile Suspended Solid for the

raw material, reacted wastewater and permeate to find the efficiency of the system.

6

1.6 Rationale and Significant

This study mainly will contribute an effective way of handling and managing the

sugarcane wastewaters rather than just discharging into rivers. This can reduce the

environmental problem caused by industrial wastewaters. Besides that, this research also

produces alternative renewable energy that can be applied in many industries as substitute

for fossil fuels which cost a lot.

7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In the 20th

century, major research emphasis have been the centre of development of

fossil crude oil, coal and natural gas based refinery to exploit the cheaply available fossil

feedstock for development of industry (Demirbas, 2006). The combustion of fossil fuels is

the main contributor to the increase in the level of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which

will directly increase global warming. Biomass resources are the most suitable and

renewable primary energy resources that can provide alternative transportation fuels

(Hamelinck et al., 2005). Biofuels produced from biomass help to reduce both the world’s

dependence on oil and carbon dioxide production. Methane production from many type of

biological wastes through anaerobic digestion technology is advancing worldwide and it is

very economical and benefits environmentally.

2.2 Sugarcane Waste

Sugarcane is world’s largest crop which can grow 10-20 feet high and 1-3 inch in

diameter. Sugarcane consists of about 15% of fiber, 85% of water and soluble solids,

including sucrose of about 15% (Lamb.J.C). 80% of sugar in world is produced from cane

and the rest is from sugar beets. Some of the major sugar producing countries is India,

8

Mexico, Brazil and many more. The world production of cane sugar in 1962 was nearly 30

million per year (Guzman, 1962). However, the process involved to produce sugar causes

major problem due to waste produced from sugar mills. The most significant by products

from a cane sugar mill are bagasses, solid residue from sugarcane juice extraction, stillage

(vinasse or dunder) and liquid waste effluent (Gunkel et al., 2006). The liquid wastes are

normally from cane wash water, floor washing and boiler blow down, excess condenser

waters and also soda and acid wastes. These liquid needs to be treated to meet the effluent

discharge standard for sugarcane waste water. Figure 2.1 below shows the sources of waste

water from a sugar mill.

Figure 2.1: Sources of Waste Water in Cane Sugar Manufacturing Factory. (Akbar et al.,

2006)

9

Table 2.1 shows the characteristics of a sample of sugarcane mill effluent and Table

2.2 shows the Malaysia sewage and industrial effluent discharge standards.

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Sugar Mill Effluent (Kumar et al., 2012)

Table 2.2: Parameter Limits of Effluent of Standards A and B

Parameter Unit Standard A Standard B

(i) Temperature °C 40 40

(ii) pH Value 6.0 - 9.0 5.5 - 9.0

(iii) BOD5 at 20°C mg/l 20 50

(iv) COD mg/l 50 100

(v) Suspended Solids mg/l 50 100

(vi) Mercury mg/l 0.005 0.05

(vii) Cadmium mg/l 0.01 0.02

(viii) Chromium, Hexavalent mg/l 0.05 0.05

(ix) Arsenic mg/l 0.05 0.10

Parameters Concentration

pH 6.85

TSS, mg/l 340

TDS. mg/l 2055

TS, mg/l 2395

BOD5, mg/l 1620

COD, mg/l 2210

Total Nitrogen. Mg/l 13.35

Total Phosphorus, mg/l 5.50

10

(x) Cyanide mg/l 0.05 0.10

(xi) Lead mg/l 0.10 0.5

(xii) Chormium, Trivalent mg/l 0.20 1.0

(xiii) Copper mg/l 0.20 1.0

(xiv) Manganese mg/l 0.20 1.0

(xv) Nickel mg/l 0.20 1.0

(xvi) Tin mg/l 0.20 1.0

(xvii) Zinc mg/l 1.0 1.0

(xviii) Boron mg/l 1.0 4.0

(xix) Iron (Fe) mg/l 1.0 5.0

(xx) Phenol mg/l 0.001 1.0

(xxi) Free Chlorine mg/l 1.0 2.0

(xxii) Sulphide mg/l 0.50 0.50

(xxiii) Oil and Grease mg/l Not detectable 10

Source: Malaysia’s Environmental Law, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, 1974 the

Malaysia Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluent) Regulations, 1979, 1999,

2000.

The table shows that, cane sugar mill effluent have high amount of BOD and COD

values which does not meet the standard limit. Organic pollutants present in the effluent are

sugar and other carbohydrates. There is immediate oxygen demand by these effluents which

causes rapid depletion of dissolved oxygen of receiving streams. This may lead to severe

anaerobic conditions. This condition results in the release of foul odour and in the

production of hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide precipitates iron as black sulfide and

lead to unsightly appearance (Hendrickson, 1971). All these effects make the water totally

unfit for fish and other aquatic life. Also the dissolved and suspended solids deteriorate

11

slowly resulting in obnoxious odor. Besides that, suspended impurities also block the

drainage and detach (Kolhe et al., 2001).

Direct use of sugarcane mill effluent for agricultural practices such as for irrigation

purpose, will affect the soil fertility as well as the plant growth and seed germination. In a

study conducted by Ramkrishan et al. (2001), it is reported that sugar mill effluent reduced

the rate of germination of seed on the paddy crop. Furthermore, sugar mill effluents also

affect the soil fauna. The bacteria and fungi which maintain the soil fertility will be affected

by the highly toxic chemicals releases from sugar mill effluent. Besides that, sugar mill

effluent has high toxic chemicals and heavy metals which can affect aquatic flora and fauna

(Senthil et al., 2001). Economically, important fishes having nutritive values which are

under threat due to discharge of sugar industry effluent into fresh water ecosystem. This is

due to depletion of dissolved oxygen (Avasan, 2001). This proves that effluent is also not

environmental friendly to be discharged into river or land directly. So, proper treatments

should be applied to convert the effluent into useful products and at the same time avoiding

environmental problems.

2.3 Methane Gas

Methane is a colourless, odourless gas which is widely spread in the nature. It is a

natural gas which contains 75% CH4, 15% ethane (C2H6) and 5% of other hydrocarbons as

propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). Methane gas can be produced from decomposition of

plant and animal matter in the presence of anaerobic bacteria (Scifun.Chem.Wisc,). Methane

gas is less dense than air in the room temperature. The melting and boiling points are -183°C

and -164°C respectively. There will be energy released during the combustion of methane.

Methane has potency as an alternative source to heat homes and commercial buildings and

also used in the generation of electric power. Methane commonly produced by

hydrogenating carbon dioxide and it is also a side product of carbon monoxide

hydrogenation (Wang et al., 2011). However, these methods are not very effective because