Next Article in Journal
Inertia Identification and Analysis for High-Power-Electronic-Penetrated Power System Based on Measurement Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Storage of Compressed Natural Gases
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Ride Performance of Active Inerter-Based Vehicle Suspension System with Parameter Uncertainties and Input Constraint via Robust H Control
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Superparamagnetic Nanoparticle (SPM-NP) Heating in Wax Removal during Crude Oil Pipeline Pigging
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies: Applicable to Net Zero

1
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Earth Sciences, Energy Cluster, School of Advanced Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun 248007, India
2
Earth Cryosphere Institute, Tyumen Scientific Center SB RAS, 625026 Tyumen, Russia
3
Upstream and Wax Rheology Division (UWRD), CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun 248005, India
4
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India
5
Oil & Gas Research Center, Central Analytical and Applied Research Unit, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat 123, Oman
6
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian Institute of Petroleum and Energy, Visakhapatnam 530003, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(10), 4100; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104100
Submission received: 21 March 2023 / Revised: 16 April 2023 / Accepted: 30 April 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023

Abstract

:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels play a crucial role in global warming/climate change. The effective removal of CO2 from the point sources or atmosphere (CO2 capture), its conversion to value-added products (CO2 utilization), and long-term geological storage, or CO2 sequestration, has captured the attention of several researchers and policymakers. This review paper illustrates all kinds of CO2 capture/separation processes and the challenges faced in deploying these technologies. This review described the research efforts put forth in gas separation technologies. Recent advances in the existing gas separation technologies have been highlighted, and future directives for commercial deployment have also been outlined.

1. Introduction

Energy is the primary source of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, with a share of around 76% (mainly CO2 emissions). Though COVID-19 triggered an exceptional decrease in global GHG emissions in 2020, the largest-ever annual rise in CO2 emissions witnessed a CO2 rise from 31.5 Gt to 36.6 Gt in 2021 [1]. To achieve the COP26 targets established for net zero, carbon-capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies could be the bottleneck. CCUS is predominantly employed to capture CO2 produced from different industrial sources, such as steel plants, power plants, chemical industries, and thermal-electric power plants. The most conventional approaches for carbon capture are precombustion, postcombustion, and oxyfuel combustion methods [2]. Although there has been extensive research in direct air-capture approaches, the high capital cost has been a significant challenge to deploying this technique. In addition, the development of CO2 separation techniques (to separate CO2 from flue or fuel–gas mixtures) has also gained a significant attraction for the economical deployment of carbon-capture technologies. In this direction, adsorption, absorption, microbial, membrane separation, and environmentally friendly techniques such as ‘gas hydrate-based’ separation and biological processes have grown significantly around the world [2,3,4]. The adsorption, absorption, and cryogenic distillation processes are the most mature CO2 separation methods with high separation efficiency. CO2 capture through Gas hydrate-based and membrane separation methods is highly effective due to their low energy consumption. However, these technologies also have drawbacks, mainly temperature requirements, energy intensity, and CO2 concentration dependency [3,5,6,7,8,9]. The industrial applications of CO2 capture through different methods have numerous drawbacks, restricting this process from being used commercially. Therefore, the current review article discusses all the CO2 separation technologies, listing their advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, the paper also identifies a futuristic overview for improving efficiency and the possible deployment opportunities of different methods.

2. CO2 Separation/Capture Technologies

Research and technological advancements have created multiple novel carbon dioxide (CO2) separation methods. The uncontrollable release of notorious anthropogenic GHGs, especially carbon dioxide, has caused major environmental issues. The harmful effect of CO2 has motivated the development of technologies dedicated to achieving net-zero emission goals while evaluating their efficacy, economics, and environmental impacts [10]. The flue gas properties (such as composition, temperature, and pressure conditions) are also important parameters for selecting the appropriate process of CO2 separation [11]. The current scenario requires investments to mitigate carbon emissions effectively (CO2 capture and sequestration) [12]. Some primary CO2 capture techniques investigated globally are adsorption, absorption, chemical looping combustion, membrane separation, microbial/algal separation, hydrates-based separation, and cryogenic distillation method [2,3]. Figure 1 compares the advantages and disadvantages of different CO2 capture/separation techniques mentioned above. As shown in Figure 1, absorption, adsorption, and membrane-based separation methods offer high separation efficiency. Though cryogenic separation is the most mature technique, the process is highly energy intensive.

2.1. Absorption

The absorption method is widely applicable in the petroleum, coal, and natural-gas industries for separating CO2 [13]. Removing CO2 from a gas stream using different absorbents (physical and chemical) has been used in the industrial sector for over 50 years. The absorption method is broadly divided into two types: physical and chemical absorption [14,15]. Chemical absorption is the process by which a solvent absorbs CO2 and produces chemical compounds. These chemical components are later reused by removing the absorbed CO2 through different techniques. However, if the solvent is chemically inert, it does not interact with CO2. CO2 is chemically absorbed in two steps: the treated gas is initially introduced into counter-flowing interaction with the solvent stream. The solvent absorbs CO2 from the flue gas stream during this phase. As the solvent warms up, CO2 is desorbed in a stripping column, further migrating to the top of the column, where pure CO2 is recovered, compressed, and stored [14,16,17].
On the other hand, physical solvents do not undergo any reaction with CO2, making them more desirable for CO2 separation processes. Henry’s law of equilibrium in vapor–liquid mixtures governs the physical absorption process. It states that the relative gas pressure in equilibrium with the solvent at any given temperature is directly proportional to the amount of a gaseous phase dissolved in a unit volume of the solvent. Since the physical absorption process is pressure dependent, it performs better than chemical absorption at higher partial pressures of CO2, such as in an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plants [14,18,19]. The coal, natural gas, and petroleum industries extensively use absorption techniques to segregate CO2 [13]. Kim and Yang [20] studied the competence of hollow-fiber membranes in CCS with various aqueous absorbents. The capability of the hollow polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane filter was measured at varying temperatures. They conclude that the absorption rate of CO2 increases with the temperature rise. Sensitive absorbents such as 2-amino-2-methyl-l-propanol (AMP) and monoethanolamines (MEA) are vastly active agents to achieve augmented rates of CO2 absorption. Figure 2 shows the different categories of absorption medium broadly categorized into physical and chemical absorption. The physical and chemical processes are further divided into five subcategories: rectisol process, purisol process, selexol process, amine-based process, and inorganic chemical process.
In recent years, research has been undertaken on CO2 capture from fossil-fuel emission sources [21,22]. The CO2 absorption in aqueous media is evaluated by the equation [23]:
CO2 + 2H2O ↔ HCO3 + H3O+
Absorption of CO2 into aqueous solvent was initially done to purify gases such as synthetic gas, hydrogen, and natural gas [22,24]. However, research that originated on CO2 capture from fossil-fuel sources has been done with absorption [21,22]. CO2 absorption through the membrane is the combination of gas absorption and membrane separation processes. This method perceived a remarkable perspective in the last decade for capturing CO2 from flue gas streams [25].
The absorption process for the large implementation of CCS is the perhaps amine based which may cause equipment corrosion, solvent loss, and the production of volatile degradation constituents [26,27]. The release of nitramines and nitrosamines from the degradation of amine emissions can cause potential damage to human health [28]. Kozak et al. [29] presented a chilled-ammonia process (CAP) to capture CO2 from flue gases produced by different industries. They suggested that this process required low energy for the regeneration of CO2 at increased pressure and temperature, reducing the downstream compression, and is more environmentally friendly than the amine processes. Furthermore, the capacity of solvents in absorption was found to be better at lower temperatures, which necessitates the cooling of the solvent before the process and reducing the efficiency of the process [19]. Although absorption is the utmost developed CO2 separation process due to its high efficiency and low cost, it has certain environmental drawbacks due to the disposal of the absorbent after use [2]. Table 1 lists various physical and chemical CO2 absorption agents used for separation in the industry.

2.2. Adsorption

Burning fossil fuels has led to the inexorable emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and responsible for global warming. Carbon dioxide escape can be prevented by capturing it before it gets released into the environment. One such method that has been gaining popularity is the adsorption of CO2 on adsorbent material at high temperatures. CO2 adsorption at high temperatures is a significant CO2 separation method. Adsorption is a physical process in which a solid sorbent is used to fix the CO2 onto its surface. The adsorption process reduces energy consumption and cost during CO2 separation. Adsorbents can be used to capture single or multilayer gases depending on the absorbent’s temperature, pore size, surface force, and pressure [2,30,31]. The process employs an adsorbent with a nanoporous surface to precisely adsorb CO2 from the flue gas. Regeneration of the adsorbent is done by creating a vacuum environment around the adsorbent or by providing heat [32]. Generally used adsorbent materials are molecular sieves, zeolites, activated carbon, calcium oxides, lithium zirconate, and hydro-calcites [2]. Table 2 enlists different physical and chemical adsorbents used in the postcombustion capture of CO2.
Adsorption is broadly categorized into chemical and physical adsorption processes. Chemical adsorption or ‘chemisorption’ is driven by chemical reactions at the contact surface. Metal salts and metal oxides are compounds that constitute most chemical adsorbents. ‘Physiosorption’ or physical adsorption does not affect the chemical structure of the adsorbent during adsorption. Inorganic porous materials such as zeolites, hydrotalcite, and activated carbons (AC) are widely used physical adsorbents (refer to Figure 3) [30,37,40,41]. Activated carbon is an economical material with a large surface area and flexible pore structure when treated with activating agents. However, effective CO2 separation through AC is possible when the AC possesses weak binding energy with carbon dioxide [42]. Zeolites are hydrophilic, yet strong CO2 adsorption agents. However, upon interaction with water, the strength of the links between the interconnected substances reduces, decreasing the adsorption capability of the zeolites. Applying metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) as adsorbents is a new approach. Metal ions or ion clusters are the essential components of MOFs, amalgamated by organic linkers and bridging agents to form stable coordination bonds. MOFs have advantages such as ease of synthesis and design with large porosity and modified pore features. Silica, a non-carbonaceous material, has a large surface area, small pore size, and high mechanical stability. Materials made of mesoporous silica use amine-based compounds to trap CO2 [40,42,43,44]. An effective adsorbent should have the following properties: (i) good mechanical strength, (ii) high sorption kinetics, (iii) high selectivity, and (iv) stable adsorption capacity [27].
The various pathways for carrying out the adsorption process are [13]:
1.
Pressure swing adsorption (PSA);
2.
Temperature swing adsorption (TSA);
3.
Electrical swing adsorption (ESA);
4.
Vacuum Swing Adsorption (VSA).
The recovery of CO2 captured during the adsorption process through processes such as pressure-temperature swing adsorption (PTSA), vacuum swing adsorption (VSA), pressure swing adsorption (PSA), and temperature swing adsorption (TSA) processes where PSA and TSA are the most widely used techniques. PSA adsorbs CO2 onto a solid adsorbent surface at fluctuating pressures between maximum and minimum permissible pressure limits. TSA is the process of CO2 recovery through variations of temperature using hot air or steam. The PSA method is favorably implemented in industrial applications due to its high recovery efficiency (85%) and lower application cost than TSA. However, TSA is observed to be 95% effective in recovering CO2 from adsorbed surfaces, although it has a longer regeneration time than PSA. The requirement of high temperature during TSA and high energy during PSA methods are the most significant drawbacks of these two methods [6,7,45,46]. Yong et al. [47] reviewed the various adsorbents at high temperatures. They studied material from carbon-based adsorbents with high adsorption capacity for CO2 separation at surrounding temperature and pressure to other agents such as zeolites, metal oxide sorbents, and hydrotalcite-like compounds (HTlcs). It is of the utmost importance to understand that the choice of adsorbents depends on the operating conditions of the process. MgAl2O4, CaO– and nano CaO/Al2O3 are the most effective chemical adsorbents. The regeneration of chemical adsorbents is complex, even though they have high adsorption capacity and selectivity [30]. Figure 3 shows different materials used as adsorbents for CO2 separation.
Figure 3. Materials used for CO2 capture as adsorbents (reproduced with permission from [48]).
Figure 3. Materials used for CO2 capture as adsorbents (reproduced with permission from [48]).
Energies 16 04100 g003

3. Membrane Separation

Membrane-gas absorption technology is based on the combination of two processes, membrane separation, and gas absorption. This technique witnessed tremendous potential in the last decade for the recovery of CO2 from flue gas streams [25]. The application of membranes is an effective separation mechanism for selectively segregating components from a gas stream. It comprises a selective semipermeable barrier that allows the passage of only certain elements to separate via various mechanisms. Membranes can either be inorganic or organic, and nonporous or porous. Membrane processes are further categorized as gas-separation and gas-absorption membranes based on their corresponding designs and functioning limitations [13].
Membrane technology has emerged as an operational and favorable substitute for gas separation. Zhang et al. [49] in their comprehensive review discussed the development of various membranes mainly engaged for CO2/CH4 separation methods and also proceeded to draw out the dissimilarities between different membranes. Membranes are generally made up of inorganic and polymeric materials or are of a mixed matrix (a combination of both inorganic and polymeric constituents). Figure 4 represents the principle of CO2-membrane gas absorption. The crossover of CO2 through the selective semi-permeable membrane is carried onto the absorption liquid for further processing. Compared to other resistances, the mass-transfer resistance of CO2 diffusion from the gas phase via a permeable membrane to the liquid phase is minimal. However, the resistance to mass transfer significantly rises when the membrane pores are fully or partially occupied with a solvent (wet). Thus, membranes appropriate for membrane-gas absorption should have the following characteristics: (1) hydrophobic properties to prevent membrane impregnation and increased mass-transfer rigidity; (2) a relatively high porosity to minimize membrane resistance; and (3) high chemical stability to endure the potent solvents typically used as the sorbent materials for CO2.
Membrane based CO2 separation is expected to spectate considerable development in the productivity of membranes from various sources [51]. Various degrees of membrane selectivity can be attained depending on the material used in the membrane and its qualities. This approach uses far less energy than absorption or cryogenic fractional processes. For membrane diffusion processes, metallic, polymeric, and ceramic membranes have been developed. The membrane separation process is also used to separate additional gases from natural gas, such as CO2 [2]. Various degrees of membrane selectivity can be attained depending on the material used in the membrane and its qualities. This approach uses far less energy than absorption or cryogenic fractional processes. Metallic, polymeric, and ceramic membranes are used for membrane-diffusion processes. With ever-growing concerns around global warming and militating against climate change, CO2 separation is posed to witness a further development in mechanisms and efficiency, with researchers putting in noble efforts in developing and deploying membranes for CO2 separation from various sources with increased efficiencies [51].
The primary premise is to use the variations in physical qualities and chemical composition of specific elements in a gas mixture and a selective membrane to diffuse the gas constituents at varying rates through the membrane material. The different components of the gas have different diffusion speeds as they move through the membrane, and the differential pressure helps determine the flow through the membrane. The driving force behind this procedure is the variation in concentration of the component on both sides of the membrane [52,53]. Brunetti et al. [54] carried out a general assessment of the existing CO2 separation methods based on membranes and paralleled it to other separation technologies such as cryogenic and adsorption. They observed that the efficacy of the membrane method is heavily influenced by flue gas properties such as low CO2 pressure and strength of the membrane, the critical barriers to implementing this technology.
Specific limitations that pose a barrier in the application of membrane separation are brittleness, the difficulty of commercial-scale manufacture, and cost. CO2-induced plasticization remains a challenging issue in the use of polymer membranes for the separation of CO2 from natural gas [54,55,56,57]. Table 3 lists the performance of in-use membranes at different temperatures and varying absorbents.

4. Hydrate-Based Separation

Hydrate-based CO2 technology is gaining traction as a promising technique. The primary chemical used in this approach is water, which is injected into the target gas system. The hydrate-based system is highly favorable in contrast to the described options due to the absence of chemical absorbents, which considerably benefits economic considerations [64]. Before learning the fundamentals of hydrate-based CO2 capture (HBCC) technology, it is critical to understand that a gas hydrate is a clathrate water structure with gas molecules such as CH4, CO2, N2, and H2 captured in a solid cage structure of the water molecules. Weak van der Waal forces are involved to intact the molecules of gas and water. The lower hydrate-production pressure of CO2, in contrast with other components mixed with CO2, makes hydrate formation easier [65]. Even though a substantial progress has been made in improving the rate of hydrate formation, commercial scale process has not developed yet [66]. Xia et al. [67] studied the structural characteristics and occupational behavior of the hydrate formed to capture CO2 from a biogas mixture using Raman spectroscopy. The group used THF + DMSO and TBAT + DMSO systems to facilitate CO2 hydrate formation. It was observed that the presence of DMSO promoted the hydrate formation, increasing the selectivity of CO2. Raman spectroscopy further revealed that the simulated biogas formed structure II hydrates and semiclathrate frameworks with THF + DMSO and TBAB + DMSO systems. Figure 5 gives information about the hydrate-based gas separation process. The optimum temperature and pressure conditions are attained to form hydrate crystals capturing the selective gas molecules in the system. For example, out of feed gas mixture (A + B), B is preferentially occupying the hydrate cages and can be separated as solid hydrate crystals while B component can be recovered from the gas phase.
Moreover, Figure 6 lists different gas systems, which can be separated by hydrates-based technology. It further signifies that CO2 separation is performed for precombustion (CO2/H2), postcombustion (CO2/N2), and upgraded natural gas streams consisting of methane and a CO2 mixture [68]. Postcombustion carbon capture performs CO2 separation from flue gas consisting of N2 and O2. The flue gases undergo subsequent compression and cooling to facilitate the formation of hydrates and further separation of the gas mixture.
Nevertheless, studies on thermodynamic additives (e.g., tetrahydrofuran) have shown a practical impact on CO2 hydrates formation in CO2 + N2 systems, making gas separation more efficient [69]. Precombustion CO2 capture separates CO2 from the fuel–gas mixture consisting of H2. This process removes CO2 from the fuel–gas mixture comprising CO2 (40%) and H2 (60%). Typically, the fuel–gas is generated at elevated pressures (on the order of 2–7 MPa), which can be directly relevant for hydrate formation after introducing a cooling process. Babu et al. thoroughly discussed hydrate-based separation processes for capturing CO2 from fuel–gases. They studied different reactor combinations and different kinetic and thermodynamic promoters to assess the overall economic feasibility of the method [70]. They concluded that hydrate based gas separation (HBGS) technology was the most environmentally friendly gas separation amongst all other techniques since it uses water as a solvent. Further, the ease of performing at any high-pressure container makes its industrial application feasible. They also concluded that the HBGS method resulted in higher gas-storage capacity than any existing gas separation method.
Hydrate separation of CO2 begins with creating hydrates by exposing the CO2-containing exhaust-gas stream to water at high pressure. The production of the hydrate allows for the collection of CO2. The resulting hydrate is further separated, producing pure CO2. Hydrates offer enormous potential for capturing and storing significant amounts of gas. More studies and developments on this unique technology are expected shortly, providing an improved option for CO2 sequestration [4,13]. Yang et al. [71] studied the impacts of reaction time, additives, and pressure on hydrate formation. They also investigated the effect of introducing various gases and additives while using several cycles on the continuous commercial hydrate-based gas separation systems. Li et al. [72] studied the continual hydrate-based gas separation process while introducing a novel and more accessible multiphase isothermal flash-computation approach.
Moreover, gas hydrates have also been considered a promising solution for the geological storage of CO2 due to their high stability and the sizeable gas-holding capacity in hydrate structures [4]. The impact of additives on hydrate formation is significant in applying gas hydrate technology in gas separation and storage processes. Several researchers have studied thermodynamic and kinetic promoters to enhance the hydrate formation rate. Arora and colleagues studied the impact of SDS and zeolite on CO2 hydrate formation kinetics in two fixed-bed silica. It was observed that SDS had promoted effects on hydrate formation rate, whereas zeolites had more delayed hydrate-formation kinetics than SDS. The gas intake per mole of water for the SDS system was very high compared to zeolites [73]. Kumar et al. [74] studied the impact of fly-ash contaminants on hydrates-based gas separation for CO2 capture from a flue gas mixture in the presence of THF, SDS, and SDBS promoters. It was observed that the presence of fly-ash did not impact the phase equilibrium conditions for hydrate formation while enhanced the efficacy of the HBGS process by reducing the induction time and elevating the formation kinetics. Kumar et al. [75] studied the impact of SDS and THF in a CO2/N2/SO2 gas mixture. The study observed that THF at a concentration of 5.56 mol% showed the maximum gas uptake. Veluswamy et al. [76] studied CO2 hydrate formation using tetrahydrofuran (THF) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). They discovered that the gas uptake in the CO2 system with 0.6 wt. % SDS at 1 °C showed the best results as compared to the THF system. They also concluded that the guest gas particles played an important role in affecting the activity of the thermodynamic promoter (THF) in similar operating conditions and driving forces. However, the use of THF and SDS has significant environmental issues, which enhances the need to explore biobased additives by manifolds.
Chemical additives show significant results in CO2 separation using gas hydrates technology however, most of them are harmful to the environment. Developing environmentally friendly bioadditives for efficient hydrate formation requires extensive scientific research. Employing bioadditives in the selective separation of CO2 has been studied by several researchers over time. In this direction, Amino acids have demonstrated the significant improvement in the hydrate formation kinetics. Liu et al. [77] compared the CO2 hydrate formation kinetics of four amino acid solutions, L-norleucine, L-leucine, L-tertleucine, and L-isoleucine. Their study concluded that L-isoleucine showed significant results in CO2 hydrate-formation kinetics with an increased gravimetric capacity. A recent study conducted by Singh et al. [78] investigated the kinetics of methane and carbon dioxide hydrates formation in the presence of biobased additives such as methionine and chitosan at low concentrations in stirred and unstirred conditions. They concluded that both methionine and chitosan behaved as kinetic promoters of CO2 hydrate formation. They also observed that the additives had a good effect on the hydrate-dissociation kinetics with an increase in their concentration. Investigation of the hydrate-formation rate in the presence of amino acids found in different plant extracts requires more scientific interference for finding environmentally benign solutions for CO2 hydrate formation. Bioadditives are generally investigated to be effective at low concentrations, which make their application industrially viable and environmentally benign.

5. Cryogenic Distillation

The cryogenic distillation method is a nontraditional distillation process, where a column is employed to separate the liquid components. The cryogenic distillation method is used to efficiently remove gaseous components within the mixture based on the basic concept of separation based on boiling point difference. It operates at low temperatures and high pressure. However, it depends on the liquid-mole ratio in a cryogenic distillation column [2]. The liquid-mole fraction determines the conditions for generating solid CO2 in a cryogenic distillation column [79]. The distillation occurs at exceedingly low temperatures and high pressures and is an energy-intensive method that costs 600–660 kWh/ton of CO2 retrieved in the liquid state. However, the system’s efficiency ranges from 90–95% [80]. While the fractional distillation column in the normal process separates the components of a liquid, the cryogenic distillation method is utilized to effectively separate gaseous components in the mixture based on the basic principle of separation, which is based on the phase equilibrium conditions. It finds vast commercial applications for CO2 separation from gas streams having comparatively higher CO2 concentrations (more than 50%) [2,13]. Figure 7 shows the impact of CO2 concentration on the binary CH4-CO2 system’s P-T phase envelope. Altering the CO2 levels in a gaseous mixture changes the bubble and dew points due to varying temperature and pressure conditions. As seen from the P-T phase envelope, every mixture with a certain CO2 level has a unique critical point with various pressures and temperature circumstances. The temperature of the dew and bubble points at constant pressure reduces as the CH4 content in the binary mixture increases, and vice versa.
Moreover, the CO2 freezing lines are also impacted by the component shift [81]. Figure 8 demonstrates a process-flow diagram of the cryogenic CO2 separation method. The most promising benefit of cryogenic CO2 capture is that the process can operate without any chemical absorbent. Cryogenic distillation also finds wide application in the removal of CO2 from high-pressure gases [13].
Figure 9 represents the block-flow diagram of the cryogenic CO2 capture process, dividing the procedure into two parallel processes. The method converts liquefied natural gas into gaseous-phase natural gas, simultaneously segregating air into different components. The technique separates the components at different pressure and temperature conditions. The mechanism for the process of CO2 separation can be summarized as follows:
First, the flue gas containing CO2 is cooled to a desublimation temperature (−100 to −350 °C). After solidifying the CO2, it is separated from the other light-gas components. Further, solid CO2 is subjected to high-pressure conditions (100–200 atm). Through this process, CO2 recovery can reach up to 99.9% of the flue gas [2].
High product purity is the key benefit of cryogenic CO2 collection processes and it does not need any organic solvents, which makes the cryogenic CO2 capture technique a green technology. However, the gaseous mixture must undergo an appropriate thermodynamic phase analysis before designing a cryogenic CO2 collection technique.

6. Biological CO2 Capture/Separation

The enormous upsurges in the world population and urbanization have increased the need for energy consumption, eventually leading to a significant boost in CO2 emissions. The CO2 emission has risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, and it has been predicted that an increase of 1.4–5.8 °C would be experienced by the end of the decade [84]. The primary requirement is to lower CO2 emissions, which can be achieved by using fewer fossil fuels and increasing carbon capture and sequestration [4,65]. Bio-CCU, i.e., biologically mediated CO2 capture and utilization, is found to be one of the promising biotechnologies to decrease CO2 emissions considerably [85]. Photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic methods of CO2 fixing are the two primary biological methods. Microalgae cultivation, afforestation, and ocean fertilization are photosynthesis-based techniques that fix CO2 in the sunshine and transform it into valuable goods. Contrarily, non-photosynthetic processes repair CO2 in the absence of sunshine by using biological systems. The agronomy of algal biomass, whether cyanobacteria (prokaryotic) or eukaryotic (microalgae) microorganisms are superior to other photosynthetic methods. A technique with considerable potential, CO2 fixation by microalgae converts water and CO2 into organic molecules without additional energy, causing no pollution due to biological processes for CO2 capture. Microalgal CO2 fixation depends on nutrient availability, temperature, pH, and light conditions during cultivation, and the CO2 concentration, pollutant gases, and the type of algae. Microalgae biomass is made up of lipids, proteins, and carbs. Algal biomass protein has already been used to improve animal diets. Compared to typical crops such as canola, soybean, or a corner acre of land, the microalgae yields are nearly 30 to 50 times higher. Algae are grown in ponds and bioreactors with large surfaces that maximize sun exposure, resulting in a land- and water-intensive process. Whereas non-photosynthetic processes yield large amounts of biomass, their life-cycle analyses are subpar. The main advantage is these biological systems’ adaptability to different settings and feedstock. Additionally, they can withstand low CO2 concentrations and contaminants (such as NOx and SOx) in the carbon products frequently present in industrial releases. These factors significantly influence the capital and operating costs of biological-conversion technologies. Due to the high feedstock cost, such as sugars, and low output yields, large-scale commercialization of microbial synthesis has always been a challenge. Contrarily, CO2 is used by photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria, reducing the feedstock cost, although they grow slowly compared to industrial-level production. Along with the aforementioned biological pathways, additional pathways have been created for significant CO2 fixation from the environment, including farming crops and cattle, valorizing biomass, afforestation, and marine fertilization. These strategies all use photosynthetic cells in their operations. The following sections contain a thorough examination of the benefits and drawbacks of each biological technique [86,87,88,89,90]. Samipour et al. [91] studied the drawbacks of biological-process implementation in the industrial sector. They segregated the problems into two distinct categories: biological and process-related challenges. They concluded that these issues comprised ineffective natural processes and energy sources. The sensitivity of the process and tight control conditions are also some drawbacks of the system. They suggested artificial biology-guided metabolic engineering from a holistic perspective to produce successful strains and an efficient method of related streamlined operations with optimal operating regulations and procedures. Optimized conditions that mimic natural circumstances are essential for developing well-organized techniques to industrialize CO2 biotransformation and biofixation. Figure 10 depicts the microalgae agronomy with CO2 consumption and their uses as biofuel. The flowchart shows the treatment of byproducts generated from postcombustion processes with water and nutrients and later used for microalgae cultivation. The microalgal biomass can be used further for different processes and as a feedstock for the postcombustion CO2 capture method, continuing the cycle.
Wan et al. [93] experimented with very-high selectivity and permeability GO/MILM, which was catalyzed biogenetically. The membrane possesses moderate viscosity and hence is effective in CO2 separation. Biological CO2 separation may also inculcate the use of biopolymers produced by living organisms or from natural sources. They have properties such as biodegradability, composting, and environmental sustainability, which provide them with tremendous usability in the gas separation processes [94].

7. Comparison of Various CO2 Capture/Separation Process

Table 4 enlists different CO2-separation methods based on their CO2-capture efficiency, cost-per-unit CO2 removal, feed-stream concentration, and purity of the CO2 stream collected. Techniques such as chemical looping and biological CO2 separation require a shallow CO2-concentration feed stream as the input. Adsorption provides the purest CO2 stream, as compared to the other methods. Membrane technology shows the best results in terms of cost and efficiency. Further research with membranes in focus could undoubtedly produce a long-lasting, economical, and efficient solution to CO2 separation issues existing in the world’s energy sector.
Moreover, Figure 11 demonstrates the technology readiness level (TRL) of different CO2 separation processes. Researchers have studied the techno-economic aspects of different CO2 segregation methods and classified them based on the lab scale or/and industrial application [120].
Several studies have been conducted on CO2 separation over the years, addressing the challenges in the existing technologies. Kenarsari et al. [121] reviewed the existing CO2 separation technologies such as absorption, adsorption, membrane separation, chemical looping, and cryogenic separation. Addressing the benefits and drawbacks of these processes, they concluded that implementing any particular technology could not effectively resolve the CO2 separation and capture challenges. Further, they suggested that combining the available technologies would provide an effective CO2 separation method for industrial application. Zoccali et al. [122], in their review, discussed the recent advances in column technology and the hardware required for online coupling of supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) and chromatograph (SFC). Their study explained the advantages of employing supercritical fluids for the extraction and separation techniques and their benefits over conventional solvent-based methods. Moreover, they highlight that SFE possesses a high selectivity and easy abstraction of residual CO2 after fluid-extraction processes. Further, the elimination of expanded CO2 gas could be achieved after the depressurization of the system. Yang et al. [123] discussed several essential CO2-separation techniques, including absorption, adsorption, membrane technique, and hydrate-based and chemical-looping processes. They also discussed the different CO2 storage methods such as forestation, mineral carbonation, and ocean fertilization techniques. They suggested that membrane application for CO2 separation is an environmentally benign, cost-effective, and low space-consuming process which could achieve high selectivity and stability by employing mixed-matrix membranes instead of polymer membranes. Furthermore, they also suggested that the sequestration of CO2 through forestation and ocean fertilization could help to delay or prevent unwanted atmospheric CO2 release.
Overall, this paper conducts a detailed review of the existing CO2-separation technologies, emphasizing hydrate-based technology. Further, this paper provides a table addressing parameters such as technique, cost, and efficiency for different separation processes. The paper also addresses the technology-readiness level of different methods, broadly segregating them into different categories.

8. Future Scopes

The ever-growing technological advancements in CCUS techniques are being widely studied by researchers all over the globe. Developments in CO2 separation techniques are obligatory to increase their efficacy. Nevertheless, certain challenges in the separation techniques limit their application in industrial sectors. Economic constraints play a significant role in employing CCUS techniques, providing scope for examining cost-effective methods for CO2 separation. Herein, we suggested the following research opportunities in the sector of CO2 separation techniques:
  • Environmentally benign substitutes need to be developed for adsorption and absorption process;
  • The use of biopolymers in gas-separation membranes requires extensive research;
  • Process-related challenges need to be overcome to enhance the use of biological CO2 separation techniques at industrial levels.
In addition to the suggestions made here, several other challenges in the CCS require scientific attention for further deployment, such as:
  • Identify suitable methods to optimize the energy consumption of different CO2 capture/separation processes;
  • Longevity of the CO2 source (for example, cement plants, power plants, and steel);
  • Distance between the CO2 generator and the storage facility;
  • Onshore versus offshore storage and transportation;
  • Transportation infrastructure type (pipeline trunks, road and rail networks, and cargo dock facilities).

9. Conclusions

The emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) has become an extensive issue in the fast-growing world. The release of GHGs from municipal solid waste, industrial activities, deforestation, and fossil-fuel burning has resulted in the growing global-warming potential. Capturing the produced CO2 would not only help to reduce GHGs in the atmosphere but also provide a significant carbon dioxide source for industrial applications. Selecting the best carbon-capture technology is a complex topic as a variety of technological and economic aspects should be considered, including feed-gas compositions and parameters, the desired purity of the processed gas, facility costs (investment and maintenance), possible economic experience, process dependability, and operational flexibility. On the other hand, the vast number of active CO2 capture installations and the relatively simple operation mechanisms of individual units allow for the formulation of broad criteria for selecting the right way to capture CO2. The technical issues associated with CO2 separation are well recognized and, in most cases, adequately solved. Identifying processes for optimized energy consumption plays an important role in deciding the most appropriate CO2 separation methods from different sources. Zach et al. [124] conducted a study to suggest a user-friendly optimization tool for enhancing the performance of membrane-based CO2 separation at the lowest possible energy expense. They derived a mathematical co-relation which was verified using a hypothetical waste-to-energy system to produce desirable results. Similar models must be identified and/or derived for emerging technologies such as hydrate-based separation to enhance their efficiency and optimize the technology. This paper reviews different CO2 separation techniques and their advantages and disadvantages to determine the best technique for CO2 separation. It has been observed that adsorption remains the most efficient technology for CO2 separation. However, developing membrane applications and gas hydrates technology for gas separation using natural polymers and environmentally friendly additives, respectively could reduce the cost of these two processes.
It is essential to identify the most feasible method for CO2 capture to implement CCUS effectively in different industrial sectors. This research suggests that gas hydrate based techniques would be one of the most feasible approaches for efficient CO2 capture/ separation and storage. Scientific investigation of biological CO2 capture, such as artificial photosynthesis, is also suggested a promising approach. The increasing global temperature must be controlled to save the earth and the human race.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.P., A.K. and S.J.; Writing—original draft, G.K.R., G.P., A.K. and S.S.; Resources, G.K.R., G.P. and S.S.; Methodology, G.K.R., G.P. and S.S.; Data curation, G.K.R., G.P., A.K. and S.S.; Supervision, G.K.R., G.P., A.K. and S.S.; Validation, G.K.R., G.P. and S.S.; Visualization, G.K.R., G.P., A.K., N.M., G.C. and S.J.; Writing—review & editing, G.K.R., G.P., A.K., S.J., N.M. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research work has not received any external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data was created for the research described in the article.

Acknowledgments

Gaurav Pandey would like to acknowledge this work under the national project (1021110317891-3-2.4.2) from TSC SB-RAS at Earth Cryosphere Institute, Tyumen, Russia and UPES-SHODH Grant program (ref: UPES/R&D/SHODH/202361). Asheesh Kumar acknowledges the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, for the Ramanujan Fellowship (RJF/2020/000063). All authors would like to kindly acknowledge the support provided by their respective universities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. International Energy Agency. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 Global Emissions Rebound Sharply to Highest Ever Level; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Leung, D.Y.C.; Caramanna, G.; Maroto-Valer, M.M. An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bhown, A.S.; Freeman, B.C. Analysis and Status of Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8624–8632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pandey, G.; Poothia, T.; Kumar, A. Hydrate based carbon capture and sequestration (HBCCS): An innovative approach towards decarbonization. Appl. Energy 2022, 326, 119900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aaron, D.; Tsouris, C. Separation of CO2 from Flue Gas: A Review. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2005, 40, 321–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Takamura, Y.; Aoki, J.; Uchida, S.; Narita, S. Application of high-pressure swing adsorption process for improvement of CO2 recovery system from flue gas. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2001, 79, 812–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clausse, M.; Merel, J.; Meunier, F. Numerical parametric study on CO2 capture by indirect thermal swing adsorption. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1206–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adanez, J.; Abad, A.; Garcia-Labiano, F.; Gayan, P.; de Diego, L.F. Progress in Chemical-Looping Combustion and Reforming technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38, 215–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Erlach, B.; Schmidt, M.; Tsatsaronis, G. Comparison of carbon capture IGCC with pre-combustion decarbonisation and with chemical-looping combustion. Energy 2011, 36, 3804–3815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wong, S.; Bioletti, R. Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed on 23 November 2022).
  11. Songolzadeh, M.; Soleimani, M.; Takht Ravanchi, M.; Songolzadeh, R. Carbon Dioxide Separation from Flue Gases: A Technological Review Emphasizing Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 828131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Simpson, A.P.; Simon, A.J. Second law comparison of oxy-fuel combustion and post-combustion carbon dioxide separation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2007, 48, 3034–3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mondal, M.K.; Balsora, H.K.; Varshney, P. Progress and trends in CO2 capture/separation technologies: A review. Energy 2012, 46, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rackley, S.A. Absorption capture systems. In Carbon Capture and Storage, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 151–185. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sifat, N.S.; Haseli, Y. A Critical Review of CO2 Capture Technologies and Prospects for Clean Power Generation. Energies 2019, 12, 4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Theo, W.L.; Lim, J.S.; Hashim, H.; Mustaffa, A.A.; Ho, W.S. Review of pre-combustion capture and ionic liquid in carbon capture and storage. Appl. Energy 2016, 183, 1633–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yu, C.-H.; Huang, C.-H.; Tan, C.-S. A Review of CO2 Capture by Absorption and Adsorption. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2012, 12, 745–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jansen, D.; Gazzani, M.; Manzolini, G.; van Dijk, E.; Carbo, M. Pre-combustion CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 40, 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Figueroa, J.D.; Fout, T.; Plasynski, S.I.; McIlvried, H.; Srivastava, R.D. Advances in CO2 Capture Technology—The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2008, 2, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, Y.-S.; Yang, S.-M. Absorption of carbon dioxide through hollow fiber membranes using various aqueous absorbents. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2000, 21, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, S.C.; Choi, B.Y.; Lee, T.J.; Ryu, C.K.; Ahn, Y.S.; Kim, J.C. CO2 absorption and regeneration of alkali metal-based solid sorbents. Catal. Today 2006, 111, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hu, G.; Nicholas, N.J.; Smith, K.H.; Mumford, K.A.; Kentish, S.E.; Stevens, G.W. Carbon dioxide absorption into promoted potassium carbonate solutions: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 53, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bosch, H.; Versteeg, G.F.; Van Swaaij, W.P.M. Kinetics of the reaction of CO2 with the sterically hindered amine 2-Amino-2-methylpropanol at 298 K. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1990, 45, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shrier, A.L.; Danckwerts, P.V. Carbon Dioxide Absorption into Amine-Promoted Potash Solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1969, 8, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Feron, P.H.; Jansen, A. The production of carbon dioxide from flue gas by membrane gas absorption. Energy Convers. Manag. 1997, 38, S93–S98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bougie, F.; Iliuta, M.C. CO2 Absorption in Aqueous Piperazine Solutions: Experimental Study and Modeling. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 1547–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fredriksen, S.B.; Jens, K.-J. Oxidative Degradation of Aqueous Amine Solutions of MEA, AMP, MDEA, Pz: A Review. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 1770–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. da Silva, C.F.N.; Dias, A.P.B.; Santana, A.P.R.; Pizzo, J.S.; de Souza, F.M.; Lazarin, A.M.; Sernaglia, R.L.; Andreotti, E.I.S. Retraction: Intercalation of Amines into Layered Calcium Phosphate and Their New Behavior for Copper Retention from Ethanolic Solution. Open J. Synth. Theory Appl. 2013, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kozak, F.; Petig, A.; Morris, E.; Rhudy, R.; Thimsen, D. Chilled ammonia process for CO2 capture. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 1419–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Songolzadeh, M.; Ravanchi, M.T.; Soleimani, M. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: A General Review on Adsorbents. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Eng. 2012, 6, 906–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Meisen, A.; Shuai, X. Research and development issues in CO2 capture. Energy Convers. Manag. 1997, 38, S37–S42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, H.; Liu, B.; Lin, L.-C.; Chen, G.; Wu, Y.; Wang, J.; Gao, X.; Lv, Y.; Pan, Y.; Zhang, X.; et al. A hybrid absorption–adsorption method to efficiently capture carbon. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mishra, A.K.; Ramaprabhu, S. Palladium nanoparticles decorated graphite nanoplatelets for room temperature carbon dioxide adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 187, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abid, H.R.; Pham, G.H.; Ang, H.-M.; Tade, M.O.; Wang, S. Adsorption of CH4 and CO2 on Zr-metal organic frameworks. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 366, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Choi, S.; Drese, J.H.; Jones, C.W. Adsorbent Materials for Carbon Dioxide Capture from Large Anthropogenic Point Sources. ChemSusChem 2009, 2, 796–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jang, D.-I.; Park, S.-J. Influence of nickel oxide on carbon dioxide adsorption behaviors of activated carbons. Fuel 2012, 102, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Anbia, M.; Hoseini, V. Development of MWCNT@MIL-101 hybrid composite with enhanced adsorption capacity for carbon dioxide. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 191, 326–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lee, Z.H.; Lee, K.T.; Bhatia, S.; Mohamed, A.R. Post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: Evolution towards utilization of nanomaterials. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2599–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chiao, C.-H.; Chen, J.-L.; Lan, C.-R.; Chen, S.; Hsu, H.-W. Development of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology—Taiwan power company perspective. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2011, 21, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  40. Li, J.-R.; Ma, Y.; McCarthy, M.C.; Sculley, J.; Yu, J.; Jeong, H.-K.; Balbuena, P.B.; Zhou, H.-C. Carbon dioxide capture-related gas adsorption and separation in metal-organic frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2011, 255, 1791–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dantas, T.L.P.; Luna, F.M.T.; Silva, I.J., Jr.; Torres, A.E.B.; Azevedo, D.C.S.; Rodrigues, A.E.; Moreira, R.F.P.M. Carbon dioxide–nitrogen separation through pressure swing adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 172, 698–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bolland, P.O.; Nord, P.L.O. Carbon Dioxide Emission Management in Power Generation; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  43. Boot-Handford, M.E.; Abanades, J.C.; Anthony, E.J.; Blunt, M.J.; Brandani, S.; Mac Dowell, N.; Fernández, J.R.; Ferrari, M.-C.; Gross, R.; Hallett, J.P.; et al. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 130–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Osman, A.I.; Hefny, M.; Abdel Maksoud, M.I.A.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Rooney, D.W. Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 797–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kulkarni, A.R.; Sholl, D.S. Analysis of Equilibrium-Based TSA Processes for Direct Capture of CO2 from Air. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 8631–8645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ritter, J.A. Radically New Adsorption Cycles for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. In Proceedings of the University Coal Research Contractors Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2–3 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yong, Z.; Mata, V.; Rodrigues, A. Adsorption of carbon dioxide at high temperature—A review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2002, 26, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lai, J.Y.; Ngu, L.H.; Hashim, S.S. A review of CO2 adsorbents performance for different carbon capture technology processes conditions. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 1076–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, Y.; Sunarso, J.; Liu, S.; Wang, R. Current status and development of membranes for CO2/CH4 separation: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 12, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Norahim, N.; Yaisanga, P.; Faungnawakij, K.; Charinpanitkul, T.; Klaysom, C. Recent Membrane Developments for CO2 Separation and Capture. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2018, 41, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dai, Z.; Noble, R.D.; Gin, D.L.; Zhang, X.; Deng, L. Combination of ionic liquids with membrane technology: A new approach for CO2 separation. J. Memb. Sci. 2016, 497, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ismail, A.F.; Chandra Khulbe, K.; Matsuura, T. Gas Separation Membranes; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bodzek, M.; Konieczny, K.; Kwiecińska, A. Application of membrane processes in drinking water treatment–state of art. Desalin. Water Treat. 2011, 35, 164–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brunetti, A.; Scura, F.; Barbieri, G.; Drioli, E. Membrane technologies for CO2 separation. J. Memb. Sci. 2010, 359, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bodzek, M.; Bohdziewicz, J.; Konieczny, K. Techniki Membranowe W Ochronie Srodowiska; Wydawnictwo Politechniki Slaskiej: Gliwice, Poland, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  56. Narabska, A. Membranes and Membrane Separation Techniques; UMK Publishing House: Kota Bharu, Malaysia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  57. Adewole, J.K.; Ahmad, A.L.; Ismail, S.; Leo, C.P. Current challenges in membrane separation of CO2 from natural gas: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 17, 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, X.; Jin, H.; Li, Y.; Bux, H.; Hu, Z.; Ban, Y.; Yang, W. Metal–organic framework ZIF-8 nanocomposite membrane for efficient recovery of furfural via pervaporation and vapor permeation. J. Memb. Sci. 2013, 428, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, Y.; Wang, R. Novel method for incorporating hydrophobic silica nanoparticles on polyetherimide hollow fiber membranes for CO2 absorption in a gas–liquid membrane contactor. J. Memb. Sci. 2014, 452, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhang, L.; Fane, A.G. Novel single-step hydrophobic modification of polymeric hollow fiber membranes containing imide groups: Its potential for membrane contactor application. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 101, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yan, S.; Fang, M.-X.; Zhang, W.-F.; Wang, S.-Y.; Xu, Z.-K.; Luo, Z.-Y.; Cen, K.-F. Experimental study on the separation of CO2 from flue gas using hollow fiber membrane contactors without wetting. Fuel Process. Technol. 2007, 88, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghasem, N.; Al-Marzouqi, M.; Duidar, A. Effect of PVDF concentration on the morphology and performance of hollow fiber membrane employed as gas–liquid membrane contactor for CO2 absorption. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 98, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mansourizadeh, A.; Ismail, A.F. A developed asymmetric PVDF hollow fiber membrane structure for CO2 absorption. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tomita, S.; Akatsu, S.; Ohmura, R. Experiments and thermodynamic simulations for continuous separation of CO2 from CH 4 + CO 2 gas mixture utilizing hydrate formation. Appl. Energy 2015, 146, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. He, J.; Liu, Y.; Ma, Z.; Deng, S.; Zhao, R.; Zhao, L. A Literature Research on the Performance Evaluation of Hydrate-based CO 2 Capture and Separation Process. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 4090–4097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yang, M.; Song, Y.; Jiang, L.; Zhao, Y.; Ruan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S. Hydrate-based technology for CO2 capture from fossil fuel power plants. Appl. Energy 2014, 116, 26–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xia, Z.-M.; Li, X.-S.; Chen, Z.-Y.; Li, G.; Yan, K.-F.; Xu, C.-G.; Lv, Q.-N.; Cai, J. Hydrate-based CO2 capture and CH4 purification from simulated biogas with synergic additives based on gas solvent. Appl. Energy 2016, 162, 1153–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kumar, A.; Veluswamy, H.P.; Jadhawar, P.; Chapoy, A.; Aman, Z. Gas Hydrates in Man-Made Environments: Applications, Economics, Challenges and Future Directions. In Status and Future Challenges for Non-Conventional Energy Sources Volume 1. Clean Energy Production Technologies; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 173–192. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sabil, K.M.; Partoon, B. Recent advances on carbon dioxide capture through a hydrate-based gas separation process. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2018, 11, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Babu, P.; Linga, P.; Kumar, R.; Englezos, P. A review of the hydrate based gas separation (HBGS) process for carbon dioxide pre-combustion capture. Energy 2015, 85, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yang, M.; Zhou, H.; Wang, P.; Song, Y. Effects of additives on continuous hydrate-based flue gas separation. Appl. Energy 2018, 221, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, L.; Fan, S.; Yang, G.; Chen, Q.; Zhao, J.; Wei, N.; Meng, W.; Fan, J.; Yang, H. Continuous simulation of the separation process of CO2/H2 by forming hydrate. Chem. Eng. Sci. X 2020, 7, 100067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Arora, A.; Kumar, A.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Kumar, P.; Balomajumder, C. Effect of different fixed bed media on the performance of sodium dodecyl sulfate for hydrate based CO2 capture. Mater. Des. 2016, 90, 1186–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kumar, A.; Sakpal, T.; Linga, P.; Kumar, R. Impact of Fly Ash Impurity on the Hydrate-Based Gas Separation Process for Carbon Dioxide Capture from a Flue Gas Mixture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 9849–9859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kumar, A.; Bhattacharjee, G.; Barmecha, V.; Diwan, S.; Kushwaha, O.S. Influence of kinetic and thermodynamic promoters on post-combustion carbon dioxide capture through gas hydrate crystallization. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 1955–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Veluswamy, H.P.; Premasinghe, K.P.; Linga, P. CO2 Hydrates—Effect of Additives and Operating Conditions on the Morphology and Hydrate Growth. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 5048–5054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Wang, W. CO2 Hydrate Formation Promoted by a Bio-friendly Amino Acid L-Isoleucine. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 474, 052054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Singh, A.; Veluswamy, H.P. Investigation of Kinetics of Methane and Carbon Dioxide Hydrates in the Presence of Biobased Additives. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 14315–14330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ozturk, M.; Panuganti, S.R.; Gong, K.; Cox, K.R.; Vargas, F.M.; Chapman, W.G. Modeling natural gas-carbon dioxide system for solid-liquid-vapor phase behavior. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 45, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Göttlicher, G.; Pruschek, R. Comparison of CO2 removal systems for fossil-fuelled power plant processes. Energy Convers. Manag. 1997, 38, S173–S178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Babar, M.; Bustam, M.A.; Ali, A.; Shah Maulud, A.; Shafiq, U.; Mukhtar, A.; Shah, S.N.; Maqsood, K.; Mellon, N.; Shariff, A.M. Thermodynamic data for cryogenic carbon dioxide capture from natural gas: A review. Cryogenics 2019, 102, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tuinier, M.J.; Hamers, H.P.; van Sint Annaland, M. Techno-economic evaluation of cryogenic CO2 capture—A comparison with absorption and membrane technology. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1559–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mehrpooya, M.; Esfilar, R.; Moosavian, S.M.A. Introducing a novel air separation process based on cold energy recovery of LNG integrated with coal gasification, transcritical carbon dioxide power cycle and cryogenic CO2 capture. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1749–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. De Silva, G.P.D.; Ranjith, P.G.; Perera, M.S.A. Geochemical aspects of CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers: A review. Fuel 2015, 155, 128–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Daneshvar, E.; Wicker, R.J.; Show, P.L.; Bhatnagar, A. Biologically-mediated carbon capture and utilization by microalgae towards sustainable CO2 biofixation and biomass valorization—A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 427, 130884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hakkarainen, J.; Ialongo, I.; Maksyutov, S.; Crisp, D. Analysis of four years of global XCO2 anomalies as seen by orbiting carbon observatory-2. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vieira, É.D.; da Graça Stupiello Andrietta, M.; Andrietta, S.R. Yeast biomass production: A new approach in glucose-limited feeding strategy. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2013, 44, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhao, B.; Su, Y. Process effect of microalgal-carbon dioxide fixation and biomass production: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, J.; Gu, S. Commercialization potential of microalgae for biofuels production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2596–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Usui, N.; Ikenouchi, M. The biological CO2 fixation and utilization project by RITE(1): Highly-effective photobioreactor system. Energy Convers. Manag. 1997, 38, S487–S492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Samipour, S.; Ahmadi, A.; Manshadi, M.D.; Setoodeh, P. Challenges in Industrialization of Biological CO2 Capture; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  92. Guduru, R.K.; Gupta, A.A.; Dixit, U. Biological Processes for CO2 Capture; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wan, X.; Wang, X.; Wan, T.; Yan, Y.; Ye, Z.; Peng, X. Bio-inspired ferromagnetic graphene oxide/magnetic ionic liquid membrane for highly efficient CO2 separation. Appl. Mater. Today 2021, 24, 101164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Russo, F.; Galiano, F.; Iulianelli, A.; Basile, A.; Figoli, A. Biopolymers for sustainable membranes in CO2 separation: A review. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 213, 106643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Douskova, I.; Doucha, J.; Livansky, K.; Machat, J.; Novak, P.; Umysova, D.; Zachleder, V.; Vitova, M. Simultaneous flue gas bioremediation and reduction of microalgal biomass production costs. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 82, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Greenough, R.; Taylor, S.; Ozawa-Meida, L.; Acquaye, A. Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Goli, A.; Shamiri, A.; Talaiekhozani, A.; Eshtiaghi, N.; Aghamohammadi, N.; Aroua, M.K. An overview of biological processes and their potential for CO2 capture. J. Environ. Manage. 2016, 183, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wyczalek, F. Energy Independence—A Nation Running on Empty. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 15–18 August 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Otto, A.; Robinius, M.; Stolten, D. A Review of Post-combustion CO2 Capture Technologies from Coal-fired Power Plants. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 650–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Damen, K.; van Troost, M.; Faaij, A.; Turkenburg, W. A comparison of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage. Part A: Review and selection of promising conversion and capture technologies. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2006, 32, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rubin, E.; Rao, A.; Chen, C. Comparative assessments of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. In Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 7; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 285–293. [Google Scholar]
  102. Porter, R.T.J.; Fairweather, M.; Pourkashanian, M.; Woolley, R.M. The range and level of impurities in CO2 streams from different carbon capture sources. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 36, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kanniche, M.; Le Moullec, Y.; Authier, O.; Hagi, H.; Bontemps, D.; Neveux, T.; Louis-Louisy, M. Up-to-date CO2 Capture in Thermal Power Plants. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dillon, D.J.; White, V.; Allam, R.J.; Wall, R.A.; Gibbins, J. Oxy Combustion Processes for CO2 Capture from Power Plant; Engineering Investigation Report; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris, France, 2005; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  105. Zheng, L. Oxy-Fuel Combustion for Power Generation and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hendriks, C. Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants; Energy & Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  107. Olabi, A.G.; Obaideen, K.; Elsaid, K.; Wilberforce, T.; Sayed, E.T.; Maghrabie, H.M.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into sustainable development goals SDGs using novel indicators. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lyngfelt, A.; Linderholm, C. Chemical-looping Combustion of Solid Fuels—Technology Overview and Recent Operational Results in 100 kW Unit. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rackley, S.A. Introduction. In Carbon Capture and Storage; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gielen, D. The energy policy consequences of future CO2 capture and sequestration technologies. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Alexandria, Egypt, 6 May 2003; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  111. Audus, H. Leading options for the capture of CO2 at power stations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-5), Cairns, QLD, Australia, 13–16 August 2000. [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhang, X.; Song, Z.; Gani, R.; Zhou, T. Comparative Economic Analysis of Physical, Chemical, and Hybrid Absorption Processes for Carbon Capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 2005–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tuinier, M.J.; van Sint Annaland, M.; Kramer, G.J.; Kuipers, J.A.M. Cryogenic CO2 capture using dynamically operated packed beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Gao, Z.; Fu, J.; Ao, W.; Dai, J. CO2 Capture with Chemical Looping Combustion of Gaseous Fuels: An Overview. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 3475–3524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Castel, C.; Bounaceur, R.; Favre, E. Membrane Processes for Direct Carbon Dioxide Capture From Air: Possibilities and Limitations. Front. Chem. Eng. 2021, 3, 668867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zhai, H.; Rubin, E.S. The Effects of Membrane-based CO2 Capture System on Pulverized Coal Power Plant Performance and Cost. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 1117–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cuéllar-Franca, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. J. CO2 Util. 2015, 9, 82–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lyngfelt, A.; Leckner, B. A 1000 MWth boiler for chemical-looping combustion of solid fuels—Discussion of design and costs. Appl. Energy 2015, 157, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Moldenhauer, P.; Linderholm, C.; Rydén, M.; Lyngfelt, A. Avoiding CO2 capture effort and cost for negative CO2 emissions using industrial waste in chemical-looping combustion/gasification of biomass. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020, 25, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hong, W.Y. A techno-economic review on carbon capture, utilisation and storage systems for achieving a net-zero CO2 emissions future. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2022, 3, 100044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kenarsari, S.D.; Yang, D.; Jiang, G.; Zhang, S.; Wang, J.; Russell, A.G.; Wei, Q.; Fan, M. Review of recent advances in carbon dioxide separation and capture. RSC Adv. 2013, 3, 22739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zoccali, M.; Donato, P.; Mondello, L. Recent advances in the coupling of carbon dioxide-based extraction and separation techniques. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 116, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Yang, H.; Xu, Z.; Fan, M.; Gupta, R.; Slimane, R.B.; Bland, A.E.; Wright, I. Progress in carbon dioxide separation and capture: A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zach, B.; Pluskal, J.; Šomplák, R.; Jadrný, J.; Šyc, M. Tool for optimization of energy consumption of membrane-based carbon capture. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 320, 115913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Comparison of different separation technologies for their advantages and disadvantages.
Figure 1. Comparison of different separation technologies for their advantages and disadvantages.
Energies 16 04100 g001
Figure 2. Absorption-based CO2 capture/separation processes.
Figure 2. Absorption-based CO2 capture/separation processes.
Energies 16 04100 g002
Figure 4. CO2-membrane gas absorption principle (reproduced with permission from [50]).
Figure 4. CO2-membrane gas absorption principle (reproduced with permission from [50]).
Energies 16 04100 g004
Figure 5. Hydrate-based gas separation from a binary mixture (reproduced with permission from [68]).
Figure 5. Hydrate-based gas separation from a binary mixture (reproduced with permission from [68]).
Energies 16 04100 g005
Figure 6. Hydrate-Based Gas/CO2 Capture Technology (modified and reproduced with permission from [68]).
Figure 6. Hydrate-Based Gas/CO2 Capture Technology (modified and reproduced with permission from [68]).
Energies 16 04100 g006
Figure 7. Phase equilibrium conditions along with CO2 content (reproduced with permission from [81]).
Figure 7. Phase equilibrium conditions along with CO2 content (reproduced with permission from [81]).
Energies 16 04100 g007
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of cryogenic CO2 capture process (reproduced with permission from [82]).
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of cryogenic CO2 capture process (reproduced with permission from [82]).
Energies 16 04100 g008
Figure 9. Block-flow diagram of the proposed process of cryogenic CO2 capture (reproduced with permission from [83]).
Figure 9. Block-flow diagram of the proposed process of cryogenic CO2 capture (reproduced with permission from [83]).
Energies 16 04100 g009
Figure 10. Microalgae agronomy with CO2 consumption and their applications as biofuels (reproduced with permission from [92]).
Figure 10. Microalgae agronomy with CO2 consumption and their applications as biofuels (reproduced with permission from [92]).
Energies 16 04100 g010
Figure 11. TRL level of CO2 separation/capture technologies (modified and adopted from [4]).
Figure 11. TRL level of CO2 separation/capture technologies (modified and adopted from [4]).
Energies 16 04100 g011
Table 1. Various solvents applied for CO2 absorption [11].
Table 1. Various solvents applied for CO2 absorption [11].
SolventAdvantagesDisadvantages
PHYSICAL ABSORPTION
DME of PEG (Selexol)Lower energy requirement for regeneration.
Low toxicity, low corrosiveness, and lower vapor pressure
Temperature and pressure dependent.
Low CO2 absorption capacity
Glycol Carbonate
Glycol
Methanol (Rectisol)
Fluorinated Solvent
CHEMICAL ABSORPTION
Alkanolamines
(MEA, DEA, MDEA)
Rapid reaction
Greater selectivity
Reversible absorption
Low-cost solvent
Limited CO2 loading capacity
Greater apparatus corrosion rate
Higher energy consumption
Amino acid and aq. amino acid saltNonvolatile solvent
Possesses high surface tension
Better performance than MEA with similar concentration
Lower effectiveness in presence of O2
AmmoniaUnharmed in presence of SO2 and O2 in flue gas
Corrosion free
Lower energy requirement
Not suitable for postcombustion applications.
Risk of dry CO2-NH3 explosion at high CO2 concentration.
Ionic LiquidHigh thermal steadiness
Low vapor pressure required
Greater polarity
Lower toxicity
Viscosity of the fluid increases with CO2 absorption
Aq. Piperazine (PZ)Quick absorption kinetics
Limited degradation rates during CO2 separation
Insignificant thermal degradation in concentrated PZ solution
Promising equilibrium characteristics
Low oxidative degradation of concentrated PZ
Table 2. Chemical and physical adsorbents efficiency for postcombustion CO2 [11,33].
Table 2. Chemical and physical adsorbents efficiency for postcombustion CO2 [11,33].
SorbentOperating Pressure (kPa)Operating Temperature (K)CO2 Capture
Capacity (mol CO2/kg Sorbent)
CHEMICAL ADSORBENTS
Mesoporous (MgO) [34]1012981.8
CaO nanopods [11]10187317.5
CaO derived from nano-CaCO3 [11,34]10192316.7
CaO-MgAl2O4
(spinel nanoparticles) [34]
1019239.1
Nano CaO/Al2O3 [34]1019236.0
Lithium–Silicate [34]-9938.18
CaO [34]10087317.3
PHYSICAL ADSORBENTS
Activated Carbon [35]1103031.58
NiO-ACs [35]1012982.227
Na-Y [36]101.322734.9
NaKA [35]101.323733.88
MWNT [37]1013031.7
CNT at (Cu3(btc)2) [36]181829813.52
MOF-177 [38]454529833.5
Pd-GNP Nanocomposite [39]11112984.5
Table 3. CO2 removal efficiency of different polymeric membranes under varying temperature conditions with different absorbents [58,59,60,61,62,63].
Table 3. CO2 removal efficiency of different polymeric membranes under varying temperature conditions with different absorbents [58,59,60,61,62,63].
Membrane MaterialAnalysis Condition/AbsorbentGas MixtureTemperature
(in K)
CO2 Removal
(%)
PVDF [58]DI WaterCO2299.151.84
PVDF [58]0.5 M NaOH9:91 CO2:CH4298.1594.00
Poly Propane (PP) [59]3 M Potassium glycinate14% CO2/air298.1586.29
PEI [60]-CO2298.1560.32
PEI-fSiO2 [60,61]2 M Sodium taurinateCO2298.1583.40
PEEK [62]1.64 M activated K2CO313:87 CO2:N237–5787.40
PEEK [63]2.93 M DEA13:87 CO2:N237–5793.10
Table 4. Comparison of different parameters of CO2-separation processes [2,3,5,6,7,8,9,16,83,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119].
Table 4. Comparison of different parameters of CO2-separation processes [2,3,5,6,7,8,9,16,83,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119].
ParameterChemical Absorption
[2,5,100,102,105]
Physical Absorption
[2,5,16,100,102,105]
Adsorption
[3,5,6,7,46,101,102,112]
Chemical Looping
[8,9,83,102,103,108,114,118,119]
Hydrate-Based Separation
[107,109,110,111,117]
Membrane
[98,99,102,115,116]
Cryogenic
[5,102,104,113]
Biological CO2 Separation
[95,96,97,102,103,104]
TechniqueAmine, Chilled Ammonia, and Amino Acid Salt SolventRectisol, Selexol, Etc. Integrated Gasification Combined CyclePressure- Temperature Swing adsorptionFeO, CuO, MnO and NiONatural gas hydrate cage structuresPolymeric inorganic and mixed membraneCryogenic distillationMicrobial and algal CO2 separation agents
CO2 Concentration<30.4>59.328–343–83511.8<903–5
CO2 Capture (%)95>90<8552–60999099.930
Cost ($/Ton)26.225.16.9416–2440–1003–1032.71–40
Purity99<9999.98>96999599.95-
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rath, G.K.; Pandey, G.; Singh, S.; Molokitina, N.; Kumar, A.; Joshi, S.; Chauhan, G. Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies: Applicable to Net Zero. Energies 2023, 16, 4100. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104100

AMA Style

Rath GK, Pandey G, Singh S, Molokitina N, Kumar A, Joshi S, Chauhan G. Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies: Applicable to Net Zero. Energies. 2023; 16(10):4100. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104100

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rath, Gourav Kumar, Gaurav Pandey, Sakshi Singh, Nadezhda Molokitina, Asheesh Kumar, Sanket Joshi, and Geetanjali Chauhan. 2023. "Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies: Applicable to Net Zero" Energies 16, no. 10: 4100. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104100

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop