Recent Advances and obstacles faced in  using Natural Gas (LNG) as Marine Fuel

Abstract:    

The marine shipping industry is actively developing and evaluating new alternatives to displace heavy fuel oils in an effort to comply with increasingly strict regulations on fuel emissions for large commercial boats. The marine shipping industry is actively developing and evaluating new alternatives to displace heavy fuel oils in an effort to comply with increasingly strict regulations on fuel emissions for large commercial boats Liquified natural gas is one such alternative, given its lower emissions relative to heavy fuel oils. These advances aim to address key challenges of liquefied natural gas, such as high liquefaction costs and methane slip. To solve problems related to liquefaction, the supply chain can be optimized using floating liquified natural gas (FLNG) and adjusting the mixed refrigerant process. The sustainability of LNG can also be improved using catalysts to prevent the escape of methane when slip occurs. Advancements in these fields would lead not only to more sustainably oceanic shipping practices but also to improvements in energy production and domestic use.

1. Introduction:

The marine shipping industry relies on liquid fuel oils to power large-scale cargo ships. These heavy liquid fuel oils are extremely efficient at the cost of emitting high amounts of sulfur and nitrous oxides (Nelson, 2022). Heavy fuel oil also emits substantial ultrafine particulates. These particulates alter cloud properties, leading to phenomena such as ‘ship tracks,’ which are large clouds that trail behind large commercial boats (Streibel, 2016). These emissions have dire effects on the health of the public since there has been a strong correlation between emissions of particulates and cardiovascular mortality for individuals near the coast where these emissions happen in high quantities (Corbett, 2007).
In order to reduce the pollution caused by large commercial vessels, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) called together 156 states to hold the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL addressed several issues regarding waste and emissions by large freighters in its six technical annexes. After the MARPOL convention, there has been an explosion in research into how to reduce nitrogen and sulfur emissions with minimal loss in efficiency. According to Annex VI of MARPOL, heavy fuel oil must not be burned in high concentrations in certain regions designated as Sulphur Emission Controlled Areas (SECA). In a SECA, the maximum allowable percentage of sulfur in liquid fuel is 0.1% (Čampara, 2018).
Marine operators have two main options to circumvent the limitations MARPOL imposes. The first option is the installation of exhaust scrubbers to continue burning fuel high in sulfur at the cost of releasing liquid wastewater (Zhao, 2021). The wastewater is rich in sulfur and nitrogen products which leads to environmental consequences like acidification and damage to the nitrogen cycle in coasts (Endres, 2018). The second option is to install engines capable of burning alternative fuel sources (Zhao, 2021). It is worth noting however that for larger commercial ships, the most cost-effective way to comply with environmental regulations is the use of traditional fuel oil in combination with a scrubbing device (Livaniou, 2022).
Most large commercial ships operate on heavy fuel oil (HFO), a residual substance formed during the cracking of petroleum and processed into fuel. Although HFO can be combusted for a large amount of energy compared to its relatively low price, the gas released by its combustion is higher in nitrous and sulfur oxides (Ait Allal, 2019). Alternatively, marine gas oil (MGO) is a lighter fuel that is produced through the distillation of crude oil and exhausts significantly less sulfur and nitrous oxides (Ait Allal, 2019). As a result, many commercial ships use MGO as a sustainable way to comply with Annex VI in SECA regions. This comes at an economic disadvantage as MGO is significantly more expensive and as a result, only used in SECA regions to comply with sulfur emission regulations. In addition to marine gas oils, several companies opt for another alternative fuel, liquified natural gas (LNG). Liquified natural gas is made by cooling down natural gas, greatly reducing its volume and making it far easier to transport. Its combustion is comparatively cleaner than that of other hydrocarbons, and it produces lower carbon dioxide emissions in addition to smaller amounts of other pollutant gases. A breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions of LNG relative to HFO results in a decrease in SOx, NOx, COx, and particulate matter emissions of 98%, 86%, 11%, and 96% respectively (Baresic, 2024).
As shown in Figure 1, the emissions of harmful oxides and ultrafine particulate matter are dramatically lower than heavy fuel oil.

2. LNG Overview and Associated Issues

Liquified natural gas is not a novel or recent form of energy. Since LNG can be regasified relatively easily with the regasified natural gas functioning the same as regular natural gas, LNG has been used to transport natural gas for home heating, cooking, and electrical generation. It has long since been used as an alternative to coal for power plants due to its increased efficiency and
cleaner products (Al-Yafei, 2021). Although LNG is used as an established power source in home heating, it remains underutilized by the marine shipping industry due to financial and logistical reasons. Additionally, some issues such as methane slip have called the sustainability of LNG into question.

2.1 Financial Issues

The main reason that LNG remains underused by the marine shipping industry is the price associated with its production. According to the US Department of Energy, in October of 2024, LNG costs $36.36/MBtu. This is higher than HFO, which fluctuates with the oil price but remains relatively inexpensive because it is a byproduct of petroleum processing. In addition to the differences in feedstock, prices of LNG are far higher than HFO due to a difference in complexity in the supply chain. Natural gas must be collected from the ground, processed, liquified, and transported, which costs a lot (Gradassi, 1995). For a more detailed breakdown of the natural gas supply line and what happens after liquefaction, see Figure 2.
LNG is made by liquifying natural gas at temperatures of -162°C. The process of creating liquified natural gas requires the processing of crude natural gas which is typically a mixture and the subsequent liquefaction of pure gas (Bassioni, 2024). Liquefaction is by far the most expensive element of this process, accounting for roughly 28% of the total cost of this process (Hunsil, 2014). In most LNG plants, liquefaction is done through the mixed refrigerant process wherein natural gas, nitrogen, and other hydrocarbons are compressed and cooled (Tak, 2023). The large cost associated with this process is one of many hurdles that must be overcome to use it as a primary source of fuel.
It is also worth noting that the majority of natural gas collected in offshore plants is sent via subsea pipelines to process locations on land, and then redistributed from there, which is an extremely expensive process. The massive investment required to create the infrastructure that makes liquefied natural gas available in a large enough quantity to displace HFO is a primary reason why HFO remains as commonly used as it is today. It is worth noting that after this investment comes to fruition, LNG generally costs less on an annual basis for the majority of two-stroke engines. Figure 3 demonstrates the cost disparity between the two fuels at various engine power sources which indicates that the initial investment may be outweighed– by the benefits provided in annual savings. Even though the cost per year is lower for marine operators, the high investment cost remains an unescapable issue that must be addressed for LNG to replace HFO.

2.2 Logistical Issues

LNG poses logistical issues due to its volume. Despite the volume of natural gas shrinking by six hundred times when liquified (Al-Enazi, 2021), LNG still requires more storage space than HFO which means that it is not compatible with all commercial ships, which poses a significant challenge for its widespread use. Additionally, due to the difference in density that LNG has when compared to HFO or other sources of fuel, it requires special pressurized tanks to be stored (Ait Allal, 2019). These pressurized tanks are more expensive than tanks that store other fuels since they typically cannot use concrete as their primary method of containment and instead must use different materials that are more suited to contain cryogenic materials (Krstulovic-Opara, 2007).
Liquified natural gas also suffers from the same drawbacks as natural gas since they draw upon the same feedstock. Although widely available (Paltsev, 2011), liquified natural gas must be transported several times during its processing which is typically done by trucks. This can lead to spikes in price when issues in the supply chain arise. Additionally, its production requires extensive infrastructure including undersea piping. As more and more natural gas is used, existing wells of natural gas become exhausted which requires new infrastructure to be built or environmentally damaging practices such as fracking to occur (Paltsev, 2011).  Despite these issues, when the efficiency of engines that run on LNG and diesel were compared by Livanos et. al it was found that LNG was 2% more efficient than a diesel engine propulsion plant.

2.3 Methane Slip

Another issue associated with the use of LNG is “methane slip.” Methane slip refers to the phenomenon where unburned methane is released into the atmosphere due to incomplete combustion. (Ushakov, 2019). Since LNG is composed of between 70-90% methane, methane slips as a result of LNG consumption accounting for 3% of methane emissions from natural gas systems (Huonder, 2023). Methane slip is caused by imperfections in the combustion of methane in a mechanical engine. The majority of methane slip is a result of incomplete combustion with a secondary cause being valve overlap in a 2-stroke engine (Huonder, 2023). Minimizing methane slip is another necessary hurdle that must be overcome to cement LNG as the most sustainable marine fuel.

3. Recent Advances

The pressing issues involved with the production and widespread usage of LNG have led to several innovations within the past decade to optimize LNG infrastructure and reduce the environmental impact of LNG combustion engines.

3.1 FLNG and Other Logistical Solutions

One especially notable advancement is floating LNG (FLNG) as a method to address the steep cost associated with the production of LNG. FLNG is a simplification of the process of producing LNG that makes the liquefaction and storage of natural gas possible in offshore plants where the gas is collected (Lee, 2014). This dramatically reduces the price associated with the production of new natural gas liquefaction plants, since they require no additional infrastructure under the sea. Additionally, the lack of subsea infrastructure also makes the process more environmentally sustainable as no ecosystems will be harmed during construction. FLNG consolidates the process of producing natural gas which allows it to be made at a higher volume and lower price. Some successful implementations of FLNG include Petrona’s PFLNG1 which began operation in April 2017. More recent FLNG plants aim to develop new fields in regions of the world like Cameroon and the Republic of Congo. The implementation of FLNG in this way reduces the initial investment required to run a LNG plant.

3.2 Liquefaction Optimization

One method proposed by researchers to improve the process of liquefaction and dramatically reduce the cost of LNG production is midifying the mixed refrigerant process. The mixed refrigerant process refers to the process by which a refrigerant made of multiple gaseous components can be used to minimize the energy consumption of cooling gas into its liquid form. This process takes multiple steps which are summarized in figure 4. Feed gas, a combination of natural gas and other contaminants present when the natural gas is harvested is first cleaned in a scrub column to prevent freezing or blockages. Externally to this, the mixed refrigerant process occurs in three stages. The mixed refrigerant is compressed using compressors which increases its pressure and temperature. It is then rapidly cooled using an external coolant which is typically water. The refrigerant expands to a lower pressure, reducing its temperature. This cold refrigerant then absorbs heat from the feed gas. In this way, heat is drawn out of the now-purified natural gas, and it becomes liquified (Pereira, 2014). The elaborate nature of this cooling process is the reason for the high production cost of LNG when compared to HFO.
The majority of work to improve the efficiency of this cycle comes in the form of algorithms that maximize the production of LNG while minimizing power consumption. Such a novel way to maximize gas production has been produced by Manassaldi et. al. The research group created an optimization framework that optimized the production of LNG by minimizing the power consumption associated with the mixed refrigerant process. This method helps to reduce the overhead associated with running an LNG plant by minimizing the cost of the extremely costly MR cycle. Additional research has been done by Kahn et. Al uses simulations of 8 functions associated with the production of LNG using the mixed refrigerant process to identify and minimize the largest source of power consumption in the cycle, which is the work done by the compressors to increase the pressure of the mixed refrigerant. Building on this work, Hasan et Al optimized the compressor network associated with the cycle by creating a generalized model for multiple LNG refrigerant cycles. Their research group determined the optimal load distribution to minimize power consumption. Using these methods, the production of LNG becomes increasingly energy efficient and improves its feasibility as a marine fuel.

3.3 Minimizing Methane Slip

Researchers have proposed several methods to minimize the emissions of methane, including novel methods to reduce methane slip. As discussed earlier, the main way to reduce methane slip in engines, especially when natural gas is being combusted, is by maximizing combustion. This is typically done by minimizing the loss of methane due to quenching and maximizing the amount of methane that is combusted. One method that has been proposed is using controlled auto-ignition, which has been evaluated in a 4-stroke natural gas-powered engine by Hampson in 2019. The results of their research indicate that ignition is stable and a majority of the gas in the chamber is combusted, which indicates the potential for minimizing methane slip (Hampson, 2019). In addition to maximizing combustion efficiency inside the combustion chamber, another method to limit the effects of methane slip is to capture methane in the exhaust. This is typically done using catalytic oxidation (Lee, 1995). There has been a plethora of research into which catalysts are the most effective, with the most commonly studied catalyst being Palladium (Huonder, 2023) which is used due to its near-perfect methane conversion rate (Gremminger, 2020). This indicates that it is an optimal catalyst for an exhaust device to reduce methane slip but it is susceptible to poisoning and aging (Yamamoto, 1998). Recent research has shown other viable catalysts such as alloys containing combinations of Palladium, Platinum, Rhodium, Nickel, and Magnesium (Huonder, 2023). Another method to reduce methane slip is with exhaust gas recirculation systems, which recycle the methane for further reduction. Research performed indicates that the presence of an EGR system can reduce the methane emissions of a natural gas engine by 20% (Qu, 2022).

Conclusions

LNG has proved to be a viable alternative to HFO and MGO, with a substantial reduction in sulfur and nitrogen emissions, and slight decreases in carbon emissions. Nevertheless, there are various obstacles to be resolved before LNG can become widespread in the marine shipping sector. The development of FLNG has made the production process simpler, less expensive, and less harmful to the environment compared to conventional LNG infrastructure. Similarly, optimization studies on the mixed refrigerant process have also resulted in drastic reductions in energy consumption during liquefaction.
Scientists have developed a variety of methods to increase the efficiency of combustion and to capture unburned methane to address methane slip. Several techniques, including controlled auto-ignition, catalytic oxidation using palladium-based catalysts, and exhaust gas recirculation systems, have shown promise for significantly reducing methane emissions. These various innovations taken together would suggest that LNG could be a viable, sustainable fuel alternative for marine shipping and may have an impact on other energy sectors, such as domestic heating and the generation of electricity.

Works Cited

Ait Allal, A., et al. “Toward an evaluation of marine fuels for a clean and efficient autonomous ship propulsion energy.” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 13, Jan. 2019, pp. 486–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.04.005.
Al-Enazi, Ahad, et al. “A review of cleaner alternative fuels for maritime transportation.” Energy Reports, vol. 7, Nov. 2021, pp. 1962–1985, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.036. Al-Yafei, Hussein, et al. “A systematic review for sustainability of Global Liquified Natural Gas Industry: A 10-year update.” Energy Strategy Reviews, vol. 38, Nov. 2021, p. 100768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100768.
Baresic, Domagoj, and Nishatabbas Rehmatulla. “Exploring the factors leading to diffusion of alternative fuels using a socio-technical transition approach—a case study of LNG as a marine fuel in Norway.” Fuels, vol. 5, no. 4, 30 Sept. 2024, pp. 574–606, https://doi.org/10.3390/fuels5040032.
Bassioni, Ghada, and Harald Klein. “Liquefaction of natural gas and simulated process optimization – A Review.” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, Feb. 2024, p. 102431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102431.
Čampara, Leo, et al. “Overview of MARPOL annex VI regulations for prevention of air pollution from marine diesel engines.” SHS Web of Conferences, vol. 58, Jan. 2018, p. 01004, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185801004.
“Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, January 2024.” Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy, Oct. 2024, afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_january_2024.pdf.
Corbett, James J., et al. “Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment.” Environmental science & technology 41.24 (2007): 8512-8518.
Endres, Sonja, et al. “A new perspective at the ship-air-sea-interface: The environmental impacts of exhaust gas scrubber discharge.” Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 5, 24 Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139.
Eyring, V., H. W. Köhler, J. van Aardenne, and A. Lauer (2005), Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D17305, doi:10.1029/2004JD005619.
Gradassi, Michael J., and N. Wayne Green. “Economics of Natural Gas Conversion Processes.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 42, no. 2–3, Apr. 1995, pp. 65–83,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3820(94)00094-a.
Gremminger, Andreas, et al. “PGM based catalysts for exhaust-gas after-treatment under typical diesel, gasoline and gas engine conditions with focus on methane and formaldehyde oxidation.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, vol. 265, May 2020, p. 118571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2019.118571.
Hampson, GJ. “High Efficiency Natural Gas Engine Combustion Using Controlled Auto-Ignition.” Proceedings of the ASME 2019 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference. ASME 2019 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference. Chicago, Illinois, USA. October 20–23, 2019. V001T03A019. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/ICEF2019-7292
Hasan, M. M., et al. “Optimization of compressor networks in LNG operations.” Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2009, pp. 1767–1772, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1570-7946(09)70685-6.
Herdzik, J. (2023) Marine fuel from the past to the future. Scientific Journals of the Maritime University of Szczecin, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie 74 (146), 83–90.
Huonder, Andrew, and Daniel Olsen. “Methane emission reduction technologies for Natural Gas Engines: A Review.” Energies, vol. 16, no. 20, 12 Oct. 2023, p. 7054,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en16207054.
Husnil, Yuli Amalia, and Moonyong Lee. “Control Structure Synthesis for operational optimization of mixed refrigerant processes for Liquefied Natural Gas Plant.” AIChE Journal, vol. 60, no. 7, 11 Mar. 2014, pp. 2428–2441, https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.14430.
Ju, Hae-ji, and Soo-kyung Jeon. “Analysis of characteristic changes of blended very low sulfur fuel oil on ultrasonic frequency for marine fuel.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 9, 5 Sept. 2022, p. 1254, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10091254.
Khan, Mohd Shariq, et al. “Evolution and optimization of the dual mixed refrigerant process of natural gas liquefaction.” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 96, Mar. 2016, pp. 320–329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.11.092.
Krstulovic-Opara, Neven. “Liquefied natural gas storage: Material behavior of concrete at cryogenic temperatures.” ACI Materials Journal, vol. 104, no. 3, 2007, https://doi.org/10.14359/18676.
Lee, Dong-Hyun, et al. “Research of design challenges and new technologies for floating LNG.” International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, June 2014, pp. 307–322, https://doi.org/10.2478/ijnaoe-2013-0181.
Lee, Joo H., and David L. Trimm. “Catalytic combustion of methane.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 42, no. 2–3, Apr. 1995, pp. 339–359,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3820(94)00091-7.
Livaniou, Styliani, and Georgios A. Papadopoulos. “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as a transitional choice replacing marine conventional fuels (heavy fuel oil/marine diesel oil), towards the era of decarbonisation.” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 24, 7 Dec. 2022, p. 16364, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416364.
Livanos, George A., et al. “Techno-economic investigation of alternative propulsion plants for ferries and Roro ships.” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 79, Mar. 2014, pp. 640–651, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.050.
Manassaldi, Juan I., et al. “A novel approach for optimizing the natural gas liquefaction process.” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 202, Feb. 2024, pp. 489–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2024.01.003.
Nelson RK, Scarlett AG, Gagnon MM, Holman AI, Reddy CM, Sutton PA, Grice K. Characterizations and comparison of low sulfur fuel oils compliant with 2020 global sulfur cap regulation for international shipping. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022 Jul;180:113791. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113791. Epub 2022 Jun 1. PMID: 35665617.
Paltsev, Sergey, et al. “The future of U.S. natural gas production, use, and Trade.” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 9, Sept. 2011, pp. 5309–5321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.033.
Pereira, Clementino, et al. “Thermodynamic analysis for liquefaction of natural gas using the C3-mr refrigeration process.” International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014, pp. 17–22, https://doi.org/10.7763/ijcea.2014.v5.343.
Qu, Jinbo, et al. “Design and thermodynamics analysis of marine dual fuel low speed engine with methane reforming integrated high pressure exhaust gas recirculation system.” Fuel, vol. 319, July 2022, p. 123747, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123747.
Streibel, Thorsten, et al. “Aerosol emissions of a ship diesel engine operated with diesel fuel or Heavy Fuel Oil.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 24, no. 12, 2 May 2016, pp. 10976–10991, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6724-z.
Tak, Kyungjae, et al. “Comparison of mixed refrigerant cycles for natural gas liquefaction: From single mixed refrigerant to mixed fluid Cascade Processes.” Energy, vol. 272, June 2023, p. 127051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127051.
Ushakov, Sergey, et al. “Methane Slip from Gas Fuelled Ships: A Comprehensive Summary Based on Measurement Data - Journal of Marine Science and Technology.” SpringerLink, Springer Japan, 10 Jan. 2019, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z.
Yamamoto, Hiromichi, and Hiroshi Uchida. “Oxidation of methane over PT and PD supported on alumina in lean-burn natural-gas engine exhaust.” Catalysis Today, vol. 45, no. 1–4, Oct. 1998, pp. 147–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0920-5861(98)00265-x.
Zhao, Yuzhe, et al. “Reducing sulfur and nitrogen emissions in shipping economically.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 90, Jan. 2021, p. 102641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102641.

About the Authors

Dr. Raj Shah is a Director at Koehler Instrument Company in New York, where he has worked for the last 25 plus years. He is an elected Fellow by his peers at IChemE, AOCS, CMI, STLE, AIC, NLGI, INSTMC, Institute of Physics, The Energy Institute and The Royal Society of Chemistry. An ASTM Eagle award recipient, Dr. Shah recently coedited the bestseller, “Fuels and Lubricants handbook”, details of which are available at ASTM’s LongAwaited Fuels and Lubricants Handbook 2nd Edition Now Available https://bit.ly/3u2e6GY.
He earned his doctorate in Chemical Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University and is a Fellow from The Chartered Management Institute, London. Dr. Shah is also a Chartered Scientist with the Science Council, a Chartered Petroleum Engineer with the Energy Institute and a Chartered Engineer with the Engineering council, UK. Dr. Shah was recently granted the honourific of “Eminent engineer” with Tau beta Pi, the largest engineering society in the USA. He is on the Advisory board of directors at Farmingdale university (Mechanical Technology), Auburn Univ (Tribology), SUNY, Farmingdale, (Engineering Management) and State university of NY, Stony Brook ( Chemical engineering/ Material Science and engineering). An Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, in the Department of Material Science and Chemical engineering, Raj also has over 680 publications and has been active in the energy industry for over 3 decades. More information on Raj can be found at https://bit.ly/3QvfaLX
Contact: rshah@koehlerinstrument.com

Dr. Vikram Mittal, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Department of Systems Engineering at the United States Military Academy.  His research interests include energy modeling, technology forecasting, and Alternative fuels. Previously, he was a senior mechanical engineer at the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory.  He holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, an MS in Engineering Sciences from Oxford, and a BS in Aeronautics from Caltech. Dr. Mittal is also a combat veteran and a major in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Mr. Mathew Roshan is part of a thriving internship program at Koehler Instrument company in Holtsville, and is a student of Chemical Engineering at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY where Dr. Shah is the current chair of the external advisory board of directors