The demand for hydrogen, a carbon–neutral fuel, is expected to increase in the coming decades. However, the current storage

effi ciency of gaseous hydrogen is poor. Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs), which store hydrogen in liquid form

under ambient conditions, show promise for on-site hydrogen refueling stations. Toluene-methylcyclohexane is one of the

LOHC, it has advantages cost-eff ect and environmentally to large-scale hydrogen transportation, but it should be evaluated

risk assessment based on the chemicals, because there is inherent harm from the properties like toxicity or fl ammability.

Herein, quantitative risk assessment (QRA) results for worst-case scenarios, individual risk (IR), and societal risk (SR) for a

methylcyclohexane-based on-site hydrogen refueling station (MHRS) are compared with those a gaseous hydrogen refueling

stations (GHRS). The latter is more likely to have explosion-related accidents, while the former is more likely to have had

fi re-related accidents. Both show similarly high societal risks. The rupture of the MCH storage tank poses the most signifi cant

risk, but installing a dike reduces by 86%, thereby placing it within acceptable limits. Thus, the key risk factors for future

on-site hydrogen refueling stations are identifi ed and insights into mitigating them are off ered.

Liquid organic hydrogen carrier · Quantitative risk assessment · Hydrogen refueling station · Methylcyclohexane-based on-site hydrogen refueling station

1. Special report- global wawrming of 1.5°C. 2018, IPCC
2. IRENA, Global Energy Transformation: A roadmap to 2050. 2018
3. Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. 2021,
IEA
4. G. Gowrisankaran, S.S. Reynolds, M. Samano, Intermittency and
the value of renewable energy. J. Polit. Econ. 124 (4), 1187–1234
(2016)
5. D. Reiche, M. Bechberger, Policy diff erences in the promotion of
renewable energies in the EU member states. Energy Policy 32 (7),
843–849 (2004)
6. T. He et al., Hydrogen carriers. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1 (12), 16059
(2016)
7. M. Aziz, Liquid hydrogen: a review on liquefaction, storage, transportation,
and safety. Energies 14 (18), 5917 (2021)
8. Z.J. Wan et al., Ammonia as an eff ective hydrogen carrier and a
clean fuel for solid oxide fuel cells. Energy Convers. Manage. 228 ,
113729 (2021)
9. P.M. Modisha et al., The prospect of hydrogen storage using liquid
organic hydrogen carriers. Energy Fuels 33 (4), 2778–2796 (2019)
10. M. Niermann et al., Liquid organic hydrogen carrier (LOHC) -
assessment based on chemical and economic properties. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 44 (13), 6631–6654 (2019)
11. J.-S. Lee et al., Large-scale overseas transportation of hydrogen:
comparative techno-economic and environmental investigation.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 165 , 112556 (2022)
12. Institute, W.R. Climate Watch Historical GHG Emissions. 2022;
Available from: https:// www. clima tewat chdata. org/ ghg- emiss ions
13. (LBST), L.-B.-S., Another record number of newly opened hydrogen
refuelling stations in 2021, In: 14th Annual assessment of
H2stations.org by LBST, H2Stations.org, Editor. 2022
14. (IEA), I.E.A., The Future of Hydrogen. 2019
15. Hydrogenius, Hydrogen stored as an oil. 2020
16. L. Lin et al., Techno-economic analysis and comprehensive optimization
of an on-site hydrogen refuelling station system using
ammonia: hybrid hydrogen purifi cation with both high H 2 purity
and high recovery. Sustain. Energy Fuels 4 (6), 3006–3017 (2020)
17. H.R. Gye et al., Quantitative risk assessment of an urban hydrogen
refueling station. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2), 1288–1298
(2019)
18. Z.Y. Li, X.M. Pan, J.X. Ma, Quantitative risk assessment on 2010
Expo hydrogen station. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36 (6), 4079–4086
(2011)
19. K. Tsunemi et al., Quantitative risk assessment of the interior of
a hydrogen refueling station considering safety barrier systems.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (41), 23522–23531 (2019)
20. T. Suzuki et al., Quantitative risk assessment using a Japanese
hydrogen refueling station model. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (11),
8329–8343 (2021)
21. B.H. Yoo et al., Comparative risk assessment of liquefi ed and gaseous
hydrogen refueling stations. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (71),
35511–35524 (2021)
22. S.H. Bae et al., Design-based risk assessment on an ammoniaderived
urban hydrogen refueling station. Int. J. Energy Res.
46 (9), 12660–12673 (2022)
23. J. Nakayama et al., Preliminary hazard identifi cation for qualitative
risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling station
with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical
hydride. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (18), 7518–7525 (2016)
24. J. Nakayama et al., Simulation-based safety investigation of a
hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production
system involving methylcyclohexane. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
42 (15), 10636–10644 (2017)
25. J. Nakayama et al., Thermal hazard analysis of a dehydrogenation
system involving methylcyclohexane and toluene. J. Therm. Anal.
Calorim. 133 (1), 805–812 (2018)
26. J. Nakayama et al., Security risk analysis of a hydrogen fueling
station with an on-site hydrogen production system involving
methylcyclohexane. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (17), 9110–9119
(2019)
27. K. Tsunemi et al., Screening-level risk assessment of a hydrogen
refueling station that uses organic hydride. Sustainability 10 (12),
4477 (2018)
28. K. Reddi, A. Elgowainy, E. Sutherland, Hydrogen refueling station
compression and storage optimization with tube-trailer deliveries.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (33), 19169–19181 (2014)
29. S. Sircar, T.C. Golden, Purifi cation of hydrogen by pressure swing
adsorption. Sep. Sci. Technol. 35 (5), 667–687 (2000)
30. J.K. Ali, D.W.T. Rippin, Comparing mono- and bimetallic noblemetal
catalysts in a catalytic membrane reactor for methylcyclohexane
dehydrogenation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34 , 722 (1995)
31. J.K. Ali, D.W.T. Rippin, A. Baiker, Improving methylcyclohexane
dehydrogenation with ex-situ hydrogen separation in a reactorinterstaged
membrane system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34 , 2940
(1995)
32. H.H. Funke et al., Separations of cyclic, branched, and linear
hydrocarbon mixtures through silicalite membranes. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 36 , 137 (1997)
33. K. Oda et al., Dehydrogenation of methylcyclohexane to produce
high-purity hydrogen using membrane reactors with amorphous
silica membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 , 11287 (2010)
34. G. Li et al., Methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation in catalytic
membrane reactors for effi cient hydrogen production. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 52 (37), 13325–13332 (2013)
35. E.E. Wolf, E.E. Petersen, Kinetics of deactivation of a reforming
catalyst during methylcyclohexane dehydrogenation in a diff usion
reactor. J. Catal. 46 (2), 190–203 (1977)
36. Y. Okada et al., Development of dehydrogenation catalyst for
hydrogen generation in organic chemical hydride method. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 31 (10), 1348–1356 (2006)
37. M.S. Akram et al., An exclusive kinetic model for the methylcyclohexane
dehydrogenation over alumina-supported Pt catalysts.
Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 52 (7), 415–449 (2020)
38. Performance of 10,000 hours of operation in Chiyoda’s demo
plant. 2020 [cited 2020 June 8]; Available from: https:// www.
chiyo dacorp. com/ en/ servi ce/ spera- hydro gen/ demo- plant/
39. J.W. Ren et al., Review on processing of metal-organic framework
(MOF) materials towards system integration for hydrogen storage.
Int. J. Energy Res. 39 (5), 607–620 (2015)
40. I. Dincer, Environmental and sustainability aspects of hydrogen
and fuel cell systems. Int. J. Energy Res. 31 (1), 29–55 (2007)
41. M. Niermann et al., Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) -
techno-economic analysis of LOHCs in a defi ned process chain.
Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (1), 290–307 (2019)
42. Z.Y. Li, X.M. Pan, J.X. Ma, Quantitative risk assessment on a
gaseous hydrogen refueling station in Shanghai. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 35 (13), 6822–6829 (2010)
43. TNO Purple Book, Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment.
1999, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters: The Netherlands
44. Askarian, A., et al., Hazard Identifi cation and Risk Assessment in
Two Gas Refi nery Units. Health Scope, 2018. 7 (1).
45. R.L. Dehart, Canadian-center-for-occupational-health-and-safety
Ccinfodisc. Jama-J Am. Med. Assoc. 265 (18), 2415–2416 (1991)
46. Jeff rey LaChance, W.H., Bobby Middleton, Larry Fluer, Analyses
to Support Development of Risk-Informed Separation Distances
for Hydrogen Codes and Standards. 2009, Sandia National
Laboratories.
47. TNO Green Book, Methods for the determination of possible
damage to people and objects resulting from release of hazardous
materials. 1992, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters:
The Netherlands
48. NA, E., Vulnerability model a simulation system for assessing
damage resulting from marine spills. 1975
49. Zhang, M., et al., Accident consequence simulation analysis of
pool fi re in fi re dike. In: 2014 International Symposium on Safety
Science and Technology, 2015. 84 : 565–577.
50. Association, N.F.P., NFPA 704 Standard System for the Identifi cation
of the Hazards of Materials for Emergency Response. 2020:
National Fire Protection Association.
51. National Fire Codes, 7. 1985, National Fire Protection Association:
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA.
52. Crowl, D.A. and J.F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals
with Applications. 2011: Pearson education international.
53. Norske Hydro ASA and Det Norske Veritas AS for WP5.2 &
Risk acceptance criteria for hydrogen refueling stations. 2003,
European Integrated Hydrogen Project 2 [EIHP-2]
54. Y.D. Jo, B.J. Ahn, A method of quantitative risk assessment for
transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. J. Hazard. Mater.
123 (1–3), 1–12 (2005)
55. C.H. Shin, Improvement in the risk reduction of dikes of storage
tanks handling hazardous chemicals. Crisisonomy 12 , 83–89
(2016)