Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 1823 word(s) 1823 2021-10-28 09:09:24 |
2 format correction Meta information modification 1823 2021-10-29 06:02:38 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Luis, P. Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 24 June 2024).
Luis P. Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 24, 2024.
Luis, Patricia. "Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 24, 2024).
Luis, P. (2021, October 28). Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture. In Encyclopedia.
Luis, Patricia. "Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture." Encyclopedia. Web. 28 October, 2021.
Top-Down Polyelectrolytes for Membrane-Based Post-Combustion CO2 Capture

Modern definition of polyelectrolytes (PEs) according to various sources describes them as polymer chains with charged monomer units that can dissolve into a charged macroion and small counterions upon the PE dissolution in a polar solvent. The PEs properties can be ascribed to three major categories: origin, matrix, and charge. The PEs origin associates with the source of the raw polymer precursor, where the molecules such as proteins, cellulose, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) represent the natural PEs. Opposed, with the development of chemical synthesis and especially polymeric chemistry a large field of synthetic polyelectrolytes have emerged to accommodate the needs of petrochemical, pharmaceutical, water recovery, and other industries. These synthetic routes may roughly be distinguished as ‘bottom-up’ by monomer polymerisation and ‘top-down’ by post-synthetic modification of neutral polymers.

polyelectrolytes polymerised ionic liquids gas separation CO2 capture flue gas quaternisation self-assembly

1. Introduction

The steep increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the last century, i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (NOx), water vapour (H2O), etc. led to irreversible environmental changes observed today [1]. These changes were spurred by the intensified fossil fuels consumption to sustain fast industrial and economic growth. High fuel consumption rate accelerated the release and accumulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere disrupting the natural cycle of carbon.
Carbon capture, sequestration, and use (CCSU) strategies promote the responsible usage of fossil fuel through minimisation and treatment of exhaust GHG. CCSU directly implies the necessity to capture CO2 on-site at the production facilities, i.e., power plants, and to store it in suitable locations or to valorise it as a valuable source [2]. The CO2 release into atmosphere ought to be restricted through use of pre-combustion, oxy-fuel combustion and post-combustion capture. The post-combustion CO2 capture offers simpler control strategy for emissions containing low CO2 content or flue gas (<15 mol %), as it enables a direct integration of a purification step in the existing plant facilities (retrofitting) [3].
Post-combustion CO2 capture balances on a justifiable comparison between the most advanced CO2 separation technologies, including physical adsorption, chemical absorption, membrane separation and cryogenic distillation (Figure 1) [4]. The three main parameters to assess are CO2 content in the feed stream, energy required per kilogram of CO2 captured, and the purity of the CO2 reach product stream (permeate). Although the first three technologies offer robust solutions already at low CO2 concentrations in the feed (1–15%) and achieving the threshold of 80% CO2 purity, their energy demands vary drastically (Figure 1) [5][6][7][8]. Cryogenic distillation becomes financially attractive only if the feed already contains more than 90% CO2 [9]. This makes its direct application for one-stage post-combustion CO2 capture impossible and renders the membrane-based CO2 separation an aspiring technology for innovative development and research.
Figure 1. Comparison of existing CO2 capture technologies based on the energy demand for achieving certain volumetric ratio of CO2 in product stream and respective CO2 content in feed stream presented alongside the most common advantages and disadvantages of each process. The numerical data is collected across several publications and presented as reported [4][5][6][7][8][9].
Membrane gas separation offers several advantages over conventional CO2 capture technologies (i.e., amine scrubbing, regenerative solvents and cryogenic distillation), such as moderate energy requirements, as well as operational and maintenance simplicity [10]. However, the implementation of membrane-based systems for CO2 recovery from post-combustion flue gases is hindered by low partial pressure of CO2 in the feed [11]. To compete with more mature technologies, membrane systems with advanced separation characteristics ought to be developed [7].
Membranes for flue gas CO2 capture processes should have suitable combination of CO2 permeability and carbon dioxide versus nitrogen (CO2/N2) selectivity, be thermally and chemically stable, and exhibit no plasticisation and/or physical ageing, while maintaining low cost and ease of module manufacturing [12]. Currently polyimide membranes occupy a major position on the post-combustion membrane-based separation market due to robustness [12][13]. Versatile chemical structures of these polymers provides increased CO2 solubility in the polymer matrix, and tailored chain packing density ensures faster diffusion rates through the selective layer [14][15]. Many alternative membrane concepts emerged based on polymers of intrinsic micro-porosity [16][17][18], thermally-rearranged polymers [19][20][21][22], organic/inorganic hybrid materials (mixed matrix membranes) [23][24][25][26], or facilitated transport materials [27][28][29][30]. Facilitated transport materials are often associated with the quaternary ammonium groups also present in polyelectrolytes [31][32]. However, the scope of using polyelectrolytes in membrane-based CO2 separation from flue gas is much broader.
Polyelectrolytes have started gaining broad attention of the membrane community since the first publications emerged in the end of the last century. Later the unprecedented success of the ionic liquids (IL) have shifted the interest towards the monomer polymerisation approach with polymerisable ionic liquids (PILs) coming to the front line of the research on CO2 capture from flue gas (Figure 2a) [33][34][35][36][37]. This interest arose following the reports of high CO2 sorption capacities of IL and desire to improve long-term stability performance of IL membranes through combining the polymer chain flexibility and robustness with the physico-chemical potential of IL. Several detailed reviews were published in the last few years extensively covering all aspects of PIL synthesis and processing [38][39][40][41][42]. Thus, this review will mainly focus on ‘top-down’ functionalisation of existing and commercially available polymer precursors yielding advanced polyelectrolyte materials for CO2 separation (Figure 2b).
Figure 2. Crucial difference between polymerised ionic liquids (PILs) (a) and post-synthetic or ‘top-down’ modification of polyelectrolytes (b) stems from chemical origin of polymer chain bearing the ionic charges. In PILs it forms by polymerisation of ionic monomers, and in ‘top-down’ polyelectrolytes it is already present in parent material.

2. Post-Synthetic Modification of Polyelectrolytes

The early development of polyelectrolytes relied on industrial producers who aim at customer satisfaction and commercial attractiveness of the product, which often limits the fundamental understanding of underlying chemical interactions and their influence on application performance [43]. Despite the long history of polyelectrolyte application, research interest strongly persists in polyelectrolyte synthesis focused on their properties transfer to functional polymers, including strong long-range interaction, ionic conductivity, and hydrophilicity [44]. Polymer precursors used for the post-synthetic modification of polyelectrolytes maybe grouped into three categories according to the charge presence and sign (Figure 3): uncharged polymers (a), anionic polyelectrolytes (b), and cationic polyelectrolyte (c). All of these groups include both natural and synthetic precursors.
Figure 3. Chemical structures of polymers and polyelectrolytes used as precursors for post-synthetic material modification in membrane-based CO2 capture.
The precursors chemical structure allows several pathways for its synthetic modification. Figure 4 presents the conceptual summary of the four most implemented methods: ionisation (a), quaternisation (b), sulphation (c), cross-linking (d).
Figure 4. Major approaches for post-synthetic modification of polymer to produce ‘top-down’ polyelectrolytes include (a) ionisation, (b) quaternisation, (c) sulphation, (d) cross-linking. XDC abbreviates p-Xylylene dichloride.

3. Membrane Preparation

The industrial application of membranes for fluid streams separation (liquid and gas) became possible with the invention of phase inversion process for the preparation of polymeric asymmetric membranes by Loeb and Sourirajan [45]. This process ensured the formation of a thin selective dense layer on the surface of the membrane supported by the bulk porous structure. The thinner selective layer provides the faster mass transfer of the desirable component across the layer which is described by solution-diffusion mechanism [46]. In this case, the flux across the membrane exhibits a trade-off behaviour with the selectivity, comprehensively represented by a Robeson plot for gas separation of CO2/N2 [47]. Vast efforts were directed at the development of alternative membranes to combat the trade-off behaviour yielding materials with alternative transport mechanisms: molecular sieving effect, facilitated transport, and various combinations of thereof [48]. PEs materials proved to be a suitable material to enhance facilitated transport of CO2 molecules from flue gas. The stable PE-based membranes for CO2 capture were prepared as thin dense films using four main methods: solvent-casting layer deposition, Langmuir–Blodgett (LB) process, layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly, and chemical grafting on/to the support.

4. PE-Based Membranes Show High Selectivities for CO2 in Flue Gas Separation

The fast growing numbers of newly synthesised polymer materials prompted Robeson to propose an empirical boundary for their gas separation performance evaluation in terms of permeability and selectivity for the given gas [47][49]. The boundary for various gas pairs including CO2/N2 is based on theoretical limit associated with the kinetic diameter of gas molecules. While the Robeson plot provides a comprehensive representation of material properties in comparison to theoretically possible, a similar plot proposed by Merkel et al. compares the membrane performance to industrially relevant standard and best market case in terms of permeance and selectivity for the given gas [50].
This review attempts to show the prospective of PE application in membranes for CO2 separation from flue gas on industrial level. Thus, the practical solution would be to combine Robeson and Merkel plot in one. For this purpose, all the PE-based membranes separation parameters reported in the literature for this application and discussed in the previous sections were converted to CO2 permeance (GPU) and CO2/N2 selectivity (dimensionless). If a hypothetical layer of the PE material is assumed to have a thickness of 1 micron then Robeson and Merkel plots can be merged and the permeability value will match the permeance value. Further in the text it is referred to as a joint R-M plot.
Figure 5 positions all materials covered in this review of the R-M plot. The majority of the materials discussed are situated in the top half of the plot. The exceptions are the first attempts to produce PE based membranes for CO2 capture by LbL assembly that show no selectivity for CO2 [51][52]. This supposedly was due to minor defects present in the deposited PE films.
Figure 5. Comparison of PE-based membranes for CO2 separation from flue gas on the R-M plot where the value indicated with the cyan square represents the market standard for CO2 removal from natural gas and the value indicated with the black square represents the best performing membrane for CO2 capture available on the market. The striped area suggests the desirable separation performance of CO2 selective membranes for efficient capture from flue gas
PE-based membranes prepared by LB and LbL methods shows outstanding selectivities for CO2 and are positioned in the top left plot quarter in the vicinity of the Robeson boundary (Figure 5 in green oval). Several exemplars even overcome the Robeson boundary suggesting further possibilities for the performance improvement. However, these membranes demonstrate low CO2 permeance that cannot compete with the industrial market cellulose acetate (CA)-based standard for natural gas processing. This presents a drawback for industrial application as the selective layer matrix is highly cross-linked ionically and restricts fast transport of CO2 molecules across the membrane.
The thin-film composite membranes and a few LB composite membranes appear in the middle area of the plot. They show moderate performance in terms of selectivities comparable or inferior to market standard. However, some of these membranes have considerably improved CO2 permeances, which brings them closed towards the desirable area on the R-M plot. Such performance characteristics together with the ease of solvent-casting production technology, broadly available on the membrane market, make they a suitable candidate for further industrial upscaling of PE-based membranes for CO2 separation from flue gas.


  1. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; Farahani, E.; Kadner, S.; Seyboth, K.; Adler, A.; Baum, I.; Brunner, S.; Eickemeier, P.; et al. (Eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 418–510.
  2. Figueroa, J.D.; Fout, T.; Plasynski, S.; 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.
  3. Luis, P.; Van Gerven, T.; Van der Bruggen, B. Recent developments in membrane-based technologies for CO2 capture. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38, 419–448.
  4. Audus, H. Greenhouse gas mitigation technology: An overview of the CO2 capture and sequestration studies and further activities of the IEA greenhouse gas R and D programme. Energy 1997, 22, 217–221.
  5. Göttlicher, G.; Pruschek, R. Comparison of CO2 removal systems for fossil-fuelled power plant processes. Energy Convers. Manag. 1997, 38, 173–178.
  6. Wong, S.; Bioletti, R. Carbon Dioxide Separation Technologies. Carb. Energy Manag. 2002, 1–14.
  7. Brunetti, A.; Drioli, E.; Lee, Y.M.; Barbieri, G. Engineering evaluation of CO2 separation by membrane gas separation systems. J. Memb. Sci. 2014, 454, 305–315.
  8. Gibson, J.A.A.; Mangano, E.; Shiko, E.; Greenaway, A.G.; Gromov, A.V.; Lozinska, M.M.; Friedrich, D.; Campbell, E.E.B.; Wright, P.A.; Brandani, S. Adsorption Materials and Processes for Carbon Capture from Gas-Fired Power Plants: AMPGas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 3840–3851.
  9. Hart, A.; Gnanendran, N. Cryogenic CO2 capture in natural gas. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 697–706.
  10. Aaron, D.; Tsouris, C. Separation of CO2 from flue gas: A review. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2005, 40, 321–348.
  11. 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.
  12. Powell, C.E.; Qiao, G.G. Polymeric CO2/N2 gas separation membranes for the capture of carbon dioxide from power plant flue gases. J. Memb. Sci. 2006, 279, 1–49.
  13. Wind, J.D.; Paul, D.R.; Koros, W.J. Natural gas permeation in polyimide membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2004, 228, 227–236.
  14. Kentish, S.E.; Scholes, C.A.; Stevens, G.W. Carbon Dioxide Separation through Polymeric Membrane Systems for Flue Gas Applications. Recent Patents Chem. Eng. 2010, 1, 52–66.
  15. Sanders, D.F.; Smith, Z.P.; Guo, R.; Robeson, L.M.; McGrath, J.E.; Paul, D.R.; Freeman, B.D. Energy-efficient polymeric gas separation membranes for a sustainable future: A review. Polymer 2013, 54, 4729–4761.
  16. Budd, P.M.; Ghanem, B.S.; Makhseed, S.; McKeown, N.B.; Msayib, K.J.; Tattershall, C.E. Polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs): Robust, solution-processable, organic nanoporous materials. Chem. Commun. 2004, 4, 230–231.
  17. McKeown, N.B.; Budd, P.M. Polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs): Organic materials for membrane separations, heterogeneous catalysis and hydrogen storage. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006, 35, 675–683.
  18. Lasseuguette, E.; Carta, M.; Brandani, S.; Ferrari, M.C. Effect of humidity and flue gas impurities on CO2 permeation of a polymer of intrinsic microporosity for post-combustion capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 50, 93–99.
  19. Park, H.B.; Jung, C.H.; Lee, Y.M.; Hill, A.J.; Pas, S.J.; Mudie, S.T.; Van Wagner, E.; Freeman, B.D.; Cookson, D.J. Polymers with cavities tuned for fast selective transport of small molecules and ions. Science 2007, 318, 254–258.
  20. Shamsipur, H.; Dawood, B.A.; Budd, P.M.; Bernardo, P.; Clarizia, G.; Jansen, J.C. Thermally rearrangeable PIM-polyimides for gas separation membranes. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 5595–5606.
  21. Cersosimo, M.; Brunetti, A.; Drioli, E.; Fiorino, F.; Dong, G.; Woo, K.T.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y.M.; Barbieri, G. Separation of CO2 from humidified ternary gas mixtures using thermally rearranged polymeric membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2015, 492, 257–262.
  22. Woo, K.T.; Dong, G.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.S.; Do, Y.S.; Lee, W.H.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, Y.M. Ternary mixed-gas separation for flue gas CO2 capture using high performance thermally rearranged (TR) hollow fiber membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2016, 510, 472–480.
  23. Dai, Y.; Johnson, J.R.; Karvan, O.; Sholl, D.S.; Koros, W.J. Ultem®/ZIF-8 mixed matrix hollow fiber membranes for CO2/N2 separations. J. Memb. Sci. 2012, 401–402, 76–82.
  24. Burmann, P.; Zornoza, B.; Téllez, C.; Coronas, J. Mixed matrix membranes comprising MOFs and porous silicate fillers prepared via spin coating for gas separation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2014, 107, 66–75.
  25. Li, Y.; Xin, Q.; Wu, H.; Guo, R.; Tian, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, S.; He, G.; Pan, F.; Jiang, Z. Efficient CO2 capture by humidified polymer electrolyte membranes with tunable water state. Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 1489–1499.
  26. Fernández-Barquín, A.; Casado-Coterillo, C.; Palomino, M.; Valencia, S.; Irabien, A. Permselectivity improvement in membranes for CO2/N2 separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2016, 157, 102–111.
  27. Ward, W.J.; Robb, W.L. Carbon dioxide-oxygen separation: Facilitated transport of carbon dioxide across a liquid film. Science 1967, 156, 1481–1484.
  28. Way, J.D.; Noble, R.D. Facilitated transport. In Membrane Handbook; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 833–866.
  29. Deng, L.; Kim, T.J.; Hägg, M.B. Facilitated transport of CO2 in novel PVAm/PVA blend membrane. J. Memb. Sci. 2009, 340, 154–163.
  30. Zhang, H.; Tian, H.; Zhang, J.; Guo, R.; Li, X. Facilitated transport membranes with an amino acid salt for highly efficient CO2 separation. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 78, 85–93.
  31. Qu, Z.; Wu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, L.; Wu, X.; Wu, Y.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, N.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, Z. Constructing interconnected ionic cluster network in polyelectrolyte membranes for enhanced CO2 permeation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2019, 199, 275–284.
  32. Lilleby Helberg, R.M.; Dai, Z.; Ansaloni, L.; Deng, L. PVA/PVP blend polymer matrix for hosting carriers in facilitated transport membranes: Synergistic enhancement of CO2 separation performance. Green Energy Environ. 2019.
  33. Morozova, S.M.; Shaplov, A.S.; Lozinskaya, E.I.; Vlasov, P.S.; Sardon, H.; Mecerreyes, D.; Vygodskii, Y.S. Poly(ionic liquid)-based polyurethanes having imidazolium, ammonium, morpholinium or pyrrolidinium cations. High Perform. Polym. 2017, 29, 691–703.
  34. Teodoro, R.M.; Tomé, L.C.; Mantione, D.; Mecerreyes, D.; Marrucho, I.M. Mixing poly(ionic liquid)s and ionic liquids with different cyano anions: Membrane forming ability and CO2/N2 separation properties. J. Memb. Sci. 2018, 552, 341–348.
  35. Whitley, J.W.; Jeffrey Horne, W.; Shannon, M.S.; Andrews, M.A.; Terrell, K.L.; Hayward, S.S.; Yue, S.; Mittenthal, M.S.; O’Harra, K.E.; Bara, J.E. Systematic Investigation of the Photopolymerization of Imidazolium-Based Ionic Liquid Styrene and Vinyl Monomers. J. Polym. Sci. Part A Polym. Chem. 2018, 56, 2364–2375.
  36. Nellepalli, P.; Tomé, L.C.; Vijayakrishna, K.; Marrucho, I.M. Imidazolium-Based Copoly(Ionic Liquid) Membranes for CO2/N2 Separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 2017–2026.
  37. Zulfiqar, S.; Mantione, D.; El Tall, O.; Ruipérez, F.; Sarwar, M.I.; Rothenberger, A.; Mecerreyes, D. Pyridinium Containing Amide Based Polymeric Ionic Liquids for CO2/CH4 Separation. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 10241–10247.
  38. Yuan, J.; Mecerreyes, D.; Antonietti, M. Poly(ionic liquid)s: An update. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013, 38, 1009–1036.
  39. Nishimura, N.; Ohno, H. 15Th Anniversary of Polymerised Ionic Liquids. Polymer 2014, 3289–3297.
  40. Xu, W.; Ledin, P.A.; Shevchenko, V.V.; Tsukruk, V.V. Architecture, Assembly, and Emerging Applications of Branched Functional Polyelectrolytes and Poly(ionic liquid)s. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 12570–12596.
  41. Shaplov, A.S.; Ponkratov, D.O.; Vygodskii, Y.S. Poly(ionic liquid)s: Synthesis, properties, and application. Polym. Sci. Ser. B 2016, 58, 73–142.
  42. Tomé, L.C.; Marrucho, I.M. Ionic liquid-based materials: A platform to design engineered CO2 separation membranes. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2016, 45, 2785–2824.
  43. Mortimer, D.A. Synthetic polyelectrolytes—A review. Polym. Int. 1991, 25, 29–41.
  44. Laschewsky, A. Recent trends in the synthesis of polyelectrolytes. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 17, 56–63.
  45. Loeb, S.; Sourirajan, S.; Weaver, D.E. High Flow Porous Membranes for Separating Water From Saline Solutions. US 3133137, 12 May 1964.
  46. Paul, D.R. Gas transport in homogeneous multicomponent polymers. J. Memb. Sci. 1984, 18, 75–86.
  47. Robeson, L.M. The upper bound revisited. J. Memb. Sci. 2008, 320, 390–400.
  48. Baker, R.W.; Low, B.T. Gas separation membrane materials: A perspective. Macromolecules 2014, 47, 6999–7013.
  49. Robeson, L.M. Correlation of separation factor versus permeability for polymeric membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 1991, 62, 165–185.
  50. Merkel, T.C.; Lin, H.; Wei, X.; Baker, R. Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: An opportunity for membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 2010, 359, 126–139.
  51. Krasemann, L.; Tieke, B. Composite membranes with ultrathin separation layer prepared by self-assembly of polyelectrolytes. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 1999, 8–9, 513–518.
  52. Van Ackern, F.; Krasemann, L.; Tieke, B. Ultrathin membranes for gas separation and pervaporation prepared upon electrostatic self-assembly of polyelectrolytes. Thin Solid Films 1998, 327–329, 762–766.
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 721
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Oct 2021
Video Production Service