Membrane-Based Technologies for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Petros Gkotsis
,
Efrosini Peleka
,
Anastasios Zouboulis

Carbon dioxide (CO2), which results from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, accounts for a substantial part of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs). As a result, several carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies have been developed during the last decade. Chemical absorption, adsorption, cryogenic separation and membrane separation are the most widely used post-combustion CO2 capture technologies. 

  • greenhouse gases (GHG)
  • post-combustion CO2 capture
  • membrane-based technologies

1. CO2 capture with Membrane Technologies

1.1. Basic Principles and Mechanism of Membrane Gas Separation

During gas separation using membrane technology, a membrane acts as a filter that allows specific molecules to permeate (e.g., CO2) but prevents other molecules from entering the membrane (e.g., CH4 and H2O) (Figure 1) due to characteristics such as gas–membrane chemical interactions or the kinetic diameter. Membrane processes, such as micro-filtration, ultra-filtration, nano-filtration and reverse osmosis, are widely used in solid–liquid separations [1]; however, membrane gas separation is also attracting intensive research for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) during recent years [2][3].
Membranes 13 00898 g005
Figure 1. CO2 separation principles with the use of a membrane module.
For membranes with no permanent porosity, i.e., membranes that consist of dense polymeric materials, the most widely adopted mechanism/model for mass transport is the solution-diffusion model. According to this model, transport occurs in three steps: (1) dissolution or sorption of a gas into the membrane at the high-pressure material side, (2) diffusion of the sorbed gas through the membrane, and (3) desorption of the gas from the membrane at the low-pressure material side. The chemical potential difference between the high-pressure and low-pressure contacting phases controls the driving force, which is created through gas compression or vacuum. For ideal gas contacting phases, the gas flux across the membrane is calculated using the following equation:
J i = Q i δ · ( P r · x i − P p · y i )

where Ji is the flux across the membrane of species i (mol/m2/s); Qi is the membrane permeability for species i (mol·m/m2/s/Pa); δ is the effective membrane thickness (m); Pr and Pp are the feed/retentate high pressure and the permeate low pressure (Pa), respectively; and xi and yi are the high-pressure and low-pressure gas-phase mole fractions (mol/mol), respectively. The permeability is equal to the product of gas solubility and diffusivity in the membrane. The ratio of permeability to membrane thickness in Equation (1) is defined as the gas permeance: q ≡ 𝑄𝑖𝛿

· (mol/m2/s/Pa). Commonly, permeance is expressed in gas permeation units (GPUs), where 1 GPU = 3.35 · 10−10 (mol/m2/s/Pa).
Selectivity expresses the ability of a membrane to separate two gases. For a pair of gases, i and j, selectivity is defined as the ratio of gas permeabilities or permeances:
a i , j = Q i Q j = q i q j
where component i is the gas with the higher permeability, resulting in a selectivity greater than 1. In membrane technologies, selectivity and permeability are the most important parameters for efficient gas separation and determine the process economics; the energy (operating) cost is controlled by selectivity, whereas the membrane area (capital) cost is controlled by permeability. An increase in selectivity decreases the amount of gas that must permeate from the high-pressure feed to the low-pressure permeate to achieve the desired targets for product purity; this decreases the compression energy lost due to permeation. An increase in permeability or permeance, i.e., of the gas permeation flux per unit of driving force, reduces the area of the membrane and the capital cost that is necessary to achieve a specific feed or product flow rate [4][5]. The Robeson correlation is an empirical correlation that presents a trade-off between permeability and selectivity of gases, and its upper boundary is usually employed to assess the performance of membrane systems (Figure 2). To address the challenges in reducing carbon capture cost, a membrane material should be on the Robeson upper bound (or above it), i.e., in the region of high permeability/moderate selectivity [6][7].
Membranes 13 00898 g006
Figure 2. Robeson upper bound plot for gas separation membranes made from various materials (PVAm: polyvinylamine, MOFs: metal–organic frameworks, PEO: polyethylene oxide, TR: thermally rearranged polymers, PIMs: polymers of intrinsic microporosity) [6].

1.2. Membrane Configurations and Process Engineering

Typical membrane configurations for separating CO2 include hollow fiber (HF), flat-sheet (FS) and spiral-wound (SW) membranes (Figure 3). Hollow fiber membranes, which contain hundreds or thousands of hollow fibers packed into bundles, are the most studied membrane configuration due to their high surface area per unit volume, which promotes gas transfer. However, they present drawbacks, such as fiber fouling and significant pressure drops. On the contrary, flat-sheet membranes, which are usually stacked on top of each other, present lower pressure drops and enhanced mass transfer because they employ specially designed feed spacers. In addition, they can be easily fabricated and physically or chemically cleaned. Spiral-wound membranes actually consist of flat-sheet membranes that are rolled around a collection tube [8][9].
Membranes 13 00898 g007
Figure 3. Graphic illustration of the main membrane configurations: (a) flat-sheet membrane in cross flow, (b) hollow fiber membrane in co-current flow, and (c) spiral-wound membrane before and after spinning [8].
According to the employed process engineering configuration, gas separation using membranes can occur in a single-stage process with one membrane module or in a two- (or multi-)stage process with two (or more) membrane modules that are placed in series or in a parallel configuration (Figure 4) [10][11]. During the single-stage process (Figure 4a), high selectivity is needed to achieve 95% purity and 90% recovery of CO2. Consequently, it is difficult to achieve high targets using the single-stage membrane process, mainly because the purity of the final product is limited by the low CO2 content in the feed gas and by the trade-off effect between recovery and purity. On the contrary, high purity and recovery targets are achieved more easily in the two-stage membrane process (Figure 4b) as the gas recycling enhances the recovery of CO2 significantly. However, the two-stage membrane process consumes more power since more compressors (or vacuum pumps) are needed, and the gas recycling increases the required membrane area. Consequently, during membrane separation with two or more stages, the main target is to reduce energy consumption and membrane area [12].
Membranes 13 00898 g008
Figure 4. Process engineering configurations for CO2 capture from flue gases using membranes: (a) single-stage membrane configuration, and (b) two-stage membrane configuration [12].

1.3. Membrane Materials

Each membrane material presents advantages and disadvantages, which are concerned with the separation performance, material cost, lifetime and other characteristics, such as chemical and thermal stability, and mechanical strength. Organic (polymeric) membranes, inorganic membranes and mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) are the main membranes applied for post-combustion CO2 capture [13][14][15].
Among various membrane materials, polymeric materials present inherent advantages in terms of cost, variety and ease of processing. Polymers, including polyacetylene [16], polyaniline [17], polyamides [18], polyimides [19], polyetherimides [20], polycarbonates [21], poly(phenylene oxides) [22], poly(ethylene oxides) [23], polysulfones [24] and cellulose acetate [25], have been examined for post-combustion CO2 capture. Generally, the solution-diffusion transport mechanism and the facilitated transport mechanism are broadly adopted as the principal mechanisms when the design of new polymers is considered. Membranes which are made from the aforementioned polymeric materials follow the solution-diffusion mechanism. In facilitated transport membranes, CO2 transport is enhanced by the interaction between CO2 molecules through reversible reactions (see Section 5.5). Compared to other materials, polymeric materials can be regarded as the optimal materials due to many characteristics, such as thermal stability, mechanical strength and chemical resistance. By controlling the polymer preparation and chemical composition process, the permeability and selectivity of these membranes can be easily adjusted. In addition, polymeric membranes are one of the best options due to the development of membrane technologies in various industries, such as biogas upgrading and petrochemicals. However, CO2 adsorption via polymer-based materials can cause swelling and plasticization problems [26][27].
Non-polymeric materials, such as activated carbon, zeolites, silica and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), are also emerging for CO2 capture. These membranes are more stable than polymeric membranes and, therefore, they are strong candidates for the efficient separation of gas mixtures, especially under harsh operating conditions. However, although inorganic membranes can be used in adverse conditions, the construction and sealing of the relevant modules for applications of high temperatures are quite difficult, and the cost of production is often much higher in comparison with polymer membranes. Ceramic membranes, which usually consist of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), titanium oxide (TiO2) or carbon nanotubes (CN), are a group of inorganic membranes with improved properties in terms of mechanical strength, thermal stability and chemical stability. Nonetheless, they present short operating time and low flexibility to form HF or SW membranes; as a result, their utilization in CO2 capture is still under research [15][27][28].
The limitations of membranes that are made from pure polymeric or inorganic materials prevent their widespread utilization in gas separation processes. Although pure polymeric membranes present exceptional mechanical properties, which allow their easy processing, they are limited by the trade-off effect that prevents achieving both high selectivity and permeability. Pure inorganic membranes present high selectivity or permeability, but they are thick and fragile and, thus, it is difficult to use them on a full-scale level. Aiming to overcome the aforementioned issues, the co-blending of organic and inorganic materials has been proposed to fabricate composite or mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) with high permeability, selectivity, enhanced mechanical properties and potential for large-scale implementation. As a result, current research in membrane-based gas separation focuses mainly on the synthesis of composite membranes, which are usually fabricated via the integration of innovative inorganic materials, also known as ‘fillers’, into polymeric membranes [29][30]. The following section presents the latest developments regarding the use of these membranes for separating CO2.

2. State of the Art in CO2 Capture with the Use of Membrane Technologies

The application of membrane separation processes for CO2 capture is increasingly gaining traction during the last decade. Membrane technologies are environmentally friendly, energy-efficient and easily scalable, while also presenting cost-effectiveness and design simplicity [31]. As concerns carbon capture, membrane technologies are employed mainly for H2/CO2 separation during pre-combustion, CO2/N2 separation during post-combustion and O2/N2 separation during oxy-fuel combustion.
The most recent advances in CO2 capture using membrane technologies principally involve employing a membrane material; the vast majority of research studies that examine membrane-based technologies for post-combustion CO2 capture focus on the fabrication and application of novel membrane materials which selectively separate CO2 from N2. In most of them, a polymeric material (continuous phase) is combined with an inorganic material of micro- or nano-size (filler, dispersed phase) to form composite membranes or mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) with improved properties, i.e., enhanced intrinsic and surface characteristics. To achieve this, composite membranes employ a broad variety of materials, such as silica, zeolites and metal oxides [27][32][33][34].
The fillers, which are incorporated in MMMs, can be classified as non-porous (e.g., metal oxides and silica) or porous [35]. Generally, porous materials are classified into four groups [36][37]:
(i)
Inorganic materials, e.g., zeolites.
(ii)
Carbon-based materials, e.g., carbon nanotubes and carbon molecular sieves (CMSs).
(iii)
Organic-based materials, such as (a) porous organic frameworks (POFs), which include covalent organic frameworks (COFs), porous aromatic frameworks (PAFs), covalent organic polymers (COPs) and porous organic polymers (POPs), and (b) microporous polymers, which include polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIM) and thermally rearranged (TR) polymers.
(iv)
Hybrid materials, which are also known as metal–organic frameworks (MOFs).
Among the aforementioned materials, recent progress focuses mainly on the development and integration of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) and carbon molecular sieves (CMSs) into novel MMMs. Other types of MMMs, which are increasingly examined for their potential to improve CO2 separation, include nanocomposite membranes, which employ nano-sized fillers (of various materials); ionic liquid (IL)-based membranes, which employ ionic liquids as the continuous phase in the fabricated MMMs; and facilitated transport membranes (FTMs), where the gas diffusion mechanism is based on facilitated transport.

2.1. Metal–Organic Framework (MOF) Membraness

Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) comprise a new kind of porous materials, which are constructed from multidentate organic ligands and metal ions. In comparison with typical porous materials, e.g., zeolites and carbon nanotubes, MOFs can provide an ideal platform for gas absorption and separation, drug delivery, catalysts, electrode materials and semi-conductors due to their well-ordered architecture. MOFs present characteristics such as tunable pore size, large surface area and chemistry, which are favorable for gas separation and for unlocking efficient CO2 capture paths [38].
Apart from the development of typical fabrication techniques for MOF-based membranes, membranes that combine MOFs with other materials have also been generated in recent years. MOF membranes, which usually have a thickness of micrometers, present high mechanical stability; however, they have low separation performance due to high mass transfer resistances and result in low permeabilities. To deal with this drawback, ultrathin two-dimensional monolayer MOF membranes with a thickness of nanometers have been proposed [39][40]. Yao et al. (2023) [41] employed an anodic electrodeposition method to incorporate in situ different kinds of MOFs (HKUST-1, Cu-BDC and Cu-BDC-NH2) into the nanochannels of graphene oxide (GO), aiming to result in the formation of a new layer-by-layer structure confined by GO layers. The pore-size distribution of the obtained membranes was wider, and a significant increase in elastic modulus and hardness was observed. The membranes also presented high CO2 capture capacity and selectivity, providing a promising strategy to produce functional and mechanically strong MOFs for real-field applications. One of the most representative MOFs, which presents high affinity for CO2 due to its abundant CO2-philic groups and sites, is zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8) (Figure 5). ZIF-8 was incorporated as a filler by Wang et al. (2024) [42] into a Pebax matrix (60 wt % polyethylene oxide and 40 wt % polyamide 6), and the obtained MMM achieved enhanced CO2 separation performance. Other novel MOF-based membranes, which offer significant benefits, e.g., enhanced separation performance, defect-free structures and improved mechanical properties, include ionic liquid (IL)-MOF membranes, covalent organic framework (COF)-MOF membranes and MOF-glass membranes [43].
Membranes 13 00898 g009
Figure 5. Zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs): (a) design of a ZIF using tetrahedral metals and imidazolates to present tetrahedral topologies typically found in zeolites, (b) main imidazolate linkers which are applied during ZIF synthesis, and (c) crystal structures of a ZIF with various pore sizes and openings. Atom labelling scheme: C, black; O, red; N, green; Br, purple; Cl, orange; and Zn, blue polyhedra. H atoms are not depicted for clarity. Yellow spheres represent the space in the framework [44].

2.2. Carbon Molecular Sieve (CMS) Membranes

Carbon molecular sieves (CMSs) are a type of activated carbons with pores of a very low (molecule) size, which have been utilized for separating O2 from air and CO2 during biogas upgrading. However, they are much less investigated for CO2/N2 separation and carbon capture from flue gases [45]. The rigid pore structure of CMS membranes presents a bi-modal pore-size distribution, where the micropores (7–20 Å) improve gas permeability and the ultra-micropores (<7 Å) enhance gas selectivity through molecular sieving. Due to these properties, CMS membranes are often utilized for separating gases with similar molecular kinetic diameters [46][47]. CMS membranes have attracted worldwide attention as they exhibit higher chemical and thermal stability and enhanced gas separation performance compared to polymeric membranes. Several polymers are used to synthesize CMS membranes, such as polyimides, phenol formaldehyde, cellulose, poly(phenylene oxide), sol–gel polymers, poly(vinylidene chloride-co-vinyl chloride) and poly(furfuryl alcohol). Among the aforementioned materials, poly(furfuryl alcohol) is considered a strong possible precursor for manufacturing high-performance CMS membranes [48][49].
The development of MMMs which contain CMSs has been examined by various researchers. A suitable filler must withstand high temperatures and be easy to prepare, taking into account the preparation conditions of CMS membranes and the demand for economic efficiency [50]. Li et al. (2019) [51] adopted the strategy of filler design optimization with membrane carbonization to produce mixed-matrix CMS membranes incorporating a hierarchical zeolite 5A filler (Figure 6). Apart from its intrinsic micropores, the hierarchical filler also possessed mesopores of ∼8 nm that offered additional transport pathways to facilitate the diffusion of CO2 through the membrane carbon matrix. More recently, Zhang et al. (2023) [50] incorporated the zeolite ZSM-5 into the carbon matrix of a CMS membrane to fabricate a CMS/ZSM-5 MMM. The results showed that the gas permeabilities of CMS/ZSM-5 MMM for H2, CO2, O2, N2 and CH4 were significantly improved in comparison with the pure CMS membranes.
Membranes 13 00898 g010
Figure 6. Synthesis procedure of CMS membranes [51].

2.3. Nanocomposite Membranes

When the incorporated inorganic material (filler) is of nano-scale size, the obtained MMMs are also known as nanocomposite membranes. Nanofillers (usually between 1 and 100 nm) are increasingly incorporated in polymeric matrices to produce MMMs in recent years. Nanofillers present molecular sieving ability, an arranged pore structure, good mechanical properties and thermal stability, and their exceptional interfacial compatibility forms special nano-channels for the transportation of CO2 when they are combined with polymers. Nanofillers in MMMs are used to decrease the gas transport resistance and enlarge the chain spacing in the polymer. In addition, they increase CO2 solubility in MMMs, while the sieving ability of their porous structure improves significantly the gas selectivity and permeability [31].
Based on the number of dimensions, nanofillers (and their respective MMMs) can be zero-dimensional (0D), one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) (Figure 7). Zero-dimensional nanofillers are typically represented by nanoparticles, which include mainly gold, zinc, silver or metal oxides with a pore size of 1–50 nm usually. One-dimensional nanotubes, nano-wires, nano-rods and nano-fibers are nanomaterials of ‘needle’ shape, while two-dimensional nanomaterials are thin nanosheets with only one external nano-scale dimension. Two-dimensional nanomaterials can reach a few square microns, usually far exceeding their thicknesses. Nanoporous materials, such as zeolites, silicalites and MOFs of polycrystalline structures can be regarded as 3D nanofillers. It must be mentioned that bulk nanoparticles and bundles of 1D materials and multi-nanolayers are also regarded as 3D nanomaterials and, therefore, exhibit tunable properties based on their dispersion state [52].
Membranes 13 00898 g011
Figure 7. Mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) with (a) 0D nanomaterials (nanoparticles), (b) 1D nanomaterials (e.g., carbon nanotubes), (c) 2D nanomaterials (e.g., graphene oxide nanosheets) and (d) 3D nanomaterials (e.g., microporous nanomaterials) [52].
In recent years, various research studies have investigated the fabrication and utilization of nanocomposite membranes for efficient CO2 capture. Dai et al. (2023) [53] demonstrated that the addition of one-dimensional carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) between 2D g-C3N4 nanosheets is a promising material for CO2 separation membranes. Using the electrostatic self-assembly method, Zhao et al. (2023) [38] synthesized novel porous amino-functionalized nanosheets with polyethyleneimine (PEI-F-Ce) and combined them with a polyethylene oxide (PEO) matrix to fabricate an MMM (XLPEO/PEI-F-Ce) of high CO2/N2 selectivity. It was shown that XLPEO/PEI-F-Ce selectivity was significantly enhanced due to the combined improvement in solubility and reaction selectivity. Maleh et al. (2022) [54] suggested a novel polyethersulfone (PES)-based MMM for separating CO2 from natural gases and flue gases. These researchers also studied how polyurethane (PU) and clay nano-sheets affect the structure and the separating properties of three MMMs that were based on PES, and showed that the incorporation of PU and clay nano-sheets into the PES matrix significantly improved its gas permeation and separation properties.

2.4. Ionic Liquid (IL)-Based Membranes

Ionic liquids (ILs) are molten organic salts in liquid form, with typical melting points lower than 100 °C [55]. ILs are attracting attention in solvent-based post-combustion CO2 capture because they present some remarkable characteristics, such as high thermal stability, flammability and low volatility with huge tunability when selecting cations and anions. Due to these properties, high CO2 solubility and high separation potential for specific gas molecules can be achieved. However, pure ILs present a small surface area and a limited capacity for CO2 capture [56]. Recently, the combination of ILs with membranes has been reported as a potential separation system. With membrane support, an IL can keep its solvent properties and, consequently, improve its gas separation efficiency. Several distinct types of membrane processes combined with ILs have been investigated, including supported ionic liquid membranes (SILMs), IL composite polymer membranes (ILPMs), IL composite mixed-matrix membranes (ILMMM), poly(ionic liquid) membranes (PILMs), IL gel membranes (ILGMs) and IL membrane contactors (ILMCs). These systems have shown high gas separation efficiency [57].
In recent years, the number of research studies which employ ILs for the fabrication of MMMs with enhanced CO2 separation characteristics has increased. Mahboubi et al. (2023) [55] combined 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate, as an ionic liquid, with a polyether-block-amide polymer and aluminium oxide (Al2O3) nanoparticles, and prepared a novel ternary MMM with improved permeability and selectivity for CO2. Nabais et al. (2022) [58] also suggested the incorporation of different azo-porous organic polymers (azo-POPs) (Figure 8), as fillers, into ion gels with a high IL content (80 wt %) for the fabrication of MMMs with enhanced CO2 separation characteristics. Ahmad et al. (2018, 2021) [59][60] successfully employed an IL as the continuous phase in an MMM and enhanced its CO2 separation performance. According to Sanni et al. (2022) [57], among the membrane–ionic liquid systems, a hybrid system that is comprised of cellulose acetate, methyl ammonium nitrate and graphene oxide (CA-methyl ammonium nitrate-GO) is a possible candidate with high CO2 capture (>80%) due to its enhanced porosity, mechanical and thermal stability, good selectivity and low CO2 permeability.
Membranes 13 00898 g012
Figure 8. MMM containing azo-POP in ion gel [58].

2.5. Facilitated Transport Membranes (FTMs)

When CO2 permeates through a membrane, different transport mechanisms can take place, such as solution diffusion, Knudsen diffusion, convective diffusion, capillary condensation, molecular sieving and facilitated transport. In polymeric membranes, apart from the solution-diffusion mechanism, which is a common gas diffusion mechanism, especially in non-porous polymers, CO2 transport can be facilitated via reversible chemical reactions between CO2 and specific molecules (carriers) (Figure 9) [61]. These membranes, which are known as facilitated transport membranes (FTMs), can reversibly interact with CO2 and, thus, provide an ‘extra’ mechanism to promote its transport, while other components exclusively pass through the solution-diffusion model [1][30]. FTMs have shown great potential for superior gas separation performance and specifically for CO2 capture [62]. Through the incorporation of carrier agents into the polymer matrices to react with CO2 reversibly, FTMs provide high flux and selectivity. Mobile carriers and fixed carriers are the two predominant FTM types. A mobile carrier is also called a supported liquid membrane (SLM) or an ‘immobilized’ liquid membrane (ILM). This carrier initially reacts with CO2 on the feed side, and the subsequent product moves across the membrane. On the permeate side, CO2 is released and H2 (or other gas species) is not influenced by the facilitated transport. A fixed carrier, which is bonded covalently to the polymer backbone, has limited mobility. Each CO2 molecule reacts with one carrier site and then passes to the next site until it reaches the permeate side [31][63].
Membranes 13 00898 g013
Figure 9. Gas transport through a facilitated transport membrane [61].
Researchers have made attempts to establish FTMs in two directions: (i) development of innovative carriers that present high diffusivity and reactivity with CO2, and (ii) development of low-cost membranes that present very high selectivity. Stability in long-term operation is also necessary as membranes can be exposed to flue gases with NOx and SO2 impurities. Until now, only a small number of polymeric membranes have shown to be efficient for CO2 capture, especially in pilot plants. Polyvinylamine (PVAm), which is a weak linear cationic polyelectrolyte that contains many primary amine groups, is widely reported as appropriate for facilitated CO2 transportation following various pathways with the presence of water [33][64]. Janakiram et al. (2019) [65] used an FTM that consists of a selective layer based on the blend of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) with sterically hindered PVAm, and achieved 652 GPU of CO2 permeance, but a rather low CO2/N2 selectivity (41.3). In the following years, they scaled up and used three different hollow fiber FTMs with real flue gases from a cement plant [66] and simulated a two-stage membrane process using different classes of facilitated transport membranes, which were previously validated in industrial conditions, with promising results [67]. Wu et al. (2023) [9] also developed SW membrane modules for industrial use with an effective membrane area of 31 m2. The employed modules consisted of amine-based facilitated transport PVAm multilayer composite membranes, which were fabricated using roll-to-roll coating equipment. The results showed that a reduction in operating pressure increased the purity of CO2 but decreased the CO2 capture rate, and there was a trade-off between the power consumption and the membrane area demand. However, although PVAm-based modules have proven to be competitive, compared to most amine-based technologies, the difficulty in maintaining high performance in larger plants still prevents their full-scale application. Aiming to increase the mechanical strength of membranes, the main constituents of polymers coupled with other polymers or nanofillers, carbon nanotubes and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) are also considered in FTMs [33].

3. Commercially Applied Membrane Modules for Industrial CO2 Capture

Three commercial membrane modules have been successfully demonstrated at a relatively high TRL (5–7) for post-combustion capturing of CO2 from flue gases of fossil fuel-fired and cement facilities: PolarisTM, PolyActiveTM and PRISMTM modules [68].
PolarisTM, which was developed by Membrane Technology and Research (MTR) (USA), has been broadly examined and assessed for capturing CO2 from flue gases of coal-fired power plants. PolarisTM Gen 1, which presents a CO2 permeance of 1000 GPU and a CO2/N2 selectivity of 50, has been tested commercially already [69][70][71]. During the years 2012–2015, PolarisTM spiral-wound membranes exhibited prolonged membrane performance (>111,000 h) and achieved >90% CO2 capture on a bench scale (0.05 MWe or 1 tons of CO2/day). A larger pilot-scale system (1 MWe or 20 tons of CO2/day) also presented stable operation (>6 months), achieving 90% CO2 capture. In this unit, a plate-and-frame module with low-pressure drop, increased packing density and lower power cost (~10 MWe saving) was successfully operated as well. Polaris Gen 2, with twice the CO2 permeance but similar CO2/N2 selectivity, showed higher CO2 separation performance (60–70%), compared to Gen 1, and also exhibited stable performance for >40 h when it was tested on a laboratory scale. These efforts from MTR have advanced this membrane technology from TRL 2–3 to TRL 6. Aiming to capture 200 tons of CO2 per day from a coal-fired power plant, a large pilot system is under design with an expected CO2 purity > 99%. After the successful operation of such a plant, the commercial maturity of this membrane technology for CO2 capture is expected to increase to TRL 8. Finally, PolarisTM membrane performance exhibited high stability (>168 h) during real field tests in 2021 at Jiangyou Power Plant (Jiangyou, China), which operated under dynamic conditions (power plant load ranged between 54 and 84%). The aforementioned results confirm the efficiency of PolarisTM modules under varying operating conditions [72][73].
Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (Geesthacht, Germany) developed PolyActiveTM module, which showed high CO2 permeance, namely 3068 m3 (STP)/m2/h/bar (1136 GPU), and high CO2/N2 selectivity (60), with a CO2 recovery of 42.7% and a CO2 purity of 68.2% [72][74]. Nowadays, PolyActive™ membranes are broadly applied. Brinkman et al. [75] showed how temperature affects the transport properties of different multilayer PolyActive™ membranes; temperature increased permeance but decreased selectivity. At the optimal temperature (~40 °C), the permeance reached 2000 GPU and the CO2/N2 selectivity was almost 45. More information about the mechanical properties of PolyActive™ membranes (structure and thickness) is presented in the work by Schuldt et al. [76]. It was shown that when CO2 pressure is >8 bar, PolyActive™ swells with CO2, resulting in lower selectivity [76][77].
PRISM™ module, developed by the company Air Products (Allentown, PA, USA), was employed by Scholes et al. [78] at a Victorian brown coal-fired power plant. Initially, the pressure of the flue gas was increased to 150 kPa. The dried flue gas entered the membrane at 45 °C and 3.5 kg/h. After the blower discharge of a direct contact cooler, the module was placed under clean flue gas. However, water condensation on the membrane was the most important drawback of the process. Both selectivity and permeance were greatly reduced after a few hours of operation, which was attributed to membrane plasticization and swelling by water. After some time of operation, they increased slightly, but not up to the initial values. Apart from CO2, impurities of NOx and SO2 also passed through the membrane. Scholes et al. [78] concluded that the main challenge was the fluctuations in humidity and the challenging regulation of the experimental setup in terms of temperature control. Due to humidity, significant changes can happen in membrane transport properties [77].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/membranes13120898

References

  1. Gkotsis, P.K.; Zouboulis, A.I. The use of bio-carriers and zeolite in a lab-scale MBR for membrane fouling mitigation. Glob. Nest J. 2018, 21, 58–63.
  2. Kim, S.; Scholes, C.A.; Heath, D.E.; Kentish, S.E. Gas-liquid membrane contactors for carbon dioxide separation: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 41, 128468.
  3. Ji, G.; Zhao, M. Membrane Separation Technology in Carbon Capture. In Recent Advances in Carbon Capture and Storage; Yun, Y., Ed.; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2017.
  4. Da Conceicao, M.; Nemetz, L.; Rivero, J.; Hornbostel, K.; Lipscomb, G. Gas Separation Membrane Module Modeling: A Comprehensive Review. Membranes 2023, 13, 639.
  5. Rafiq, S.; Deng, L.; Hägg, M.B. Role of Facilitated Transport Membranes and Composite Membranes for Efficient CO2 Capture—A Review. ChemBioEng Rev. 2016, 3, 68–85.
  6. Tong, Z.; Sekizkardes, A.K. Recent Developments in High-Performance Membranes for CO2 Separation. Membranes 2021, 11, 156.
  7. Castro-Dominguez, B.; Leelachaikul, P.; Messaoud, S.B.; Takagaki, A.; Sugawara, T.; Kikuchi, R.; Oyama, S.T. The optimal point within the Robeson upper boundary. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2015, 97, 109–119.
  8. Rivero, J.R.; Nemetz, L.R.; Da Conceicao, M.M.; Lipscomb, G.; Hornbostel, K. Modeling gas separation in flat sheet membrane modules: Impact of flow channel size variation. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2023, 6, 100093.
  9. Wu, H.; Li, Q.; Guo, B.; Sheng, M.; Wang, D.; Mao, S.; Ye, N.; Qiao, Z.; Kang, G.; Cao, Y.; et al. Industrial-scale spiral-wound facilitated transport membrane modules for post-combustion CO2 capture: Development, investigation and optimization. J. Membr. Sci. 2023, 670, 121368.
  10. Ahmed, S.F.; Mofijur, M.; Tarannum, K.; Chowdhury, A.T.; Rafa, N.; Nuzhat, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.-V.N.; Lichtfouse, E.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Biogas upgrading, economy and utilization: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 4137–4164.
  11. Hidalgo, D.; Sanz-Bedate, S.; Martín-Marroquín, J.M.; Castro, J.; Antolín, G. Selective separation of CH4 and CO2 using membrane contactors. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 935–942.
  12. Xu, J.; Wu, H.; Wang, Z.; Qiao, Z.; Zhao, S.; Wang, J. Recent advances on the membrane processes for CO2 separation. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2018, 26, 2280–2291.
  13. He, X. A review of material development in the field of carbon capture and the application of membrane-based processes in power plants and energy-intensive industries. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2018, 8, 34.
  14. Zhu, B.; He, S.; Yang, Y.; Li, S.; Lau, C.H.; Liu, S.; Shao, L. Boosting membrane carbon capture via multifaceted polyphenol-mediated soldering. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 1697.
  15. Chen, G.; Chen, C.; Guo, Y.; Chu, Z.; Pan, Y.; Liu, G.; Liu, G.; Han, Y.; Jin, W.; Xu, N. Solid-solvent processing of ultrathin, highly loaded mixed-matrix membrane for gas separation. Science 2023, 381, 1350–1356.
  16. Chen, M.; Hu, G.; Shen, T.; Zhang, H.; Sun, J.Z.; Tang, B.Z. Applications of Polyacetylene Derivatives in Gas and Liquid Separation. Molecules 2023, 28, 2748.
  17. Vostiňáková, M.; Lupínková, S.; Ryšánek, P.; Stejskal, J.; Kolská, Z. Polyaniline/aramid composite for carbon dioxide capture. Polym. Int. 2023, 72, 552–557.
  18. Quian, H.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, S. Preparation of microporous polyamide networks for carbon dioxide capture and nanofiltration. Polymer 2013, 54, 557–564.
  19. Jankowski, A.; Grabiec, E.; Nocoń-Szmajda, K.; Marcinkowski, A.; Janeczek, H.; Wolińska-Grabczyk, A. Polyimide-Based Membrane Materials for CO2 Separation: A Comparison of Segmented and Aromatic (Co)polyimides. Membranes 2021, 11, 274.
  20. Naim, R.; Ismail, A.F.; Matsuura, T.; Rudaini, I.A.; Abdullah, S. Polyetherimide hollow fiber membranes for CO2 absorption and stripping in membrane contactor application. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 3556.
  21. Hauenstein, O.; Rahman, M.M.; Elsayed, M.; Krause-Rehberg, R.; Agarwal, S.; Abetz, V.; Greiner, A. Biobased Polycarbonate as a Gas Separation Membrane and “Breathing Glass” for Energy Saving Applications. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2017, 2, 1700026.
  22. Sridhar, S.; Smitha, B.; Ramakrishna, M.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Modified poly(phenylene oxide) membranes for the separation of carbon dioxide from methane. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 280, 202–209.
  23. Zhu, B.; Jiang, X.; He, S.; Yang, X.; Long, J.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, L. Rational design of poly(ethylene oxide) based membranes for sustainable CO2 capture. J. Mater. Chem. A. 2020, 8, 24233–24252.
  24. Suhail, F.; Batool, M.; Anjum, T.; Shah, A.T.; Tabassum, S.; Khan, A.L.; AlMohamadi, H.; Najam, M.; Gilani, M.A. Enhanced CO2 separation performance of polysulfone membranes via incorporation of pyrazole modified MCM-41 mesoporous silica as a nano-filler. Fuel 2023, 350, 128840.
  25. Akbarzadeh, E.; Shockravi, A.; Vatanpour, V. High performance compatible thiazole-based polymeric blend cellulose acetate membrane as selective CO2 absorbent and molecular sieve. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 252, 117215.
  26. Singh, P.; Shah, S.; Rai, S.K. Post-combustion carbon capture by polymeric membrane: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 62, 318–324.
  27. Chen, G.; Wang, T.; Zhang, G.; Li, G.; Jin, W. Membrane materials targeting carbon capture and utilization. Adv. Membr. 2022, 2, 100025.
  28. Koros, W.J.; Zhang, C. Materials for next-generation molecularly selective synthetic membranes. Nat. Mater. 2017, 16, 289–297.
  29. Golmakani, A.; Nabavi, S.A.; Wadi, B.; Manovic, V. Advances, challenges, and perspectives of biogas cleaning, upgrading, and utilisation. Fuel 2022, 317, 123085.
  30. Luo, W.; Li, F.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liang, Y.; Huang, G. From 0D to 3D nanomaterial-based composite membranes for CO2 capture: Recent advances and perspectives. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2023, 11, 110657.
  31. Chen, D.; Wang, K.; Yuan, Z.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, M.; Li, Y.; Tang, J.; Liang, Z.; Li, Y.; Chen, L.; et al. Boosting membranes for CO2 capture toward industrial decarbonization. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2023, 7, 100117.
  32. Asghar, U.; Rafiq, S.; Anwar, A.; Iqbal, T.; Ahmed, A.; Jamil, F.; Khurram, M.S.; Akbar, M.M.; Farooq, A.; Shah, N.S.; et al. Review on the progress in emission control strategies for the abatement of CO2, SOx and NOx from fuel combustion. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 106064.
  33. Basile, A.; Gugliuzza, A.; Iulianelli, A.; Morrone, P. Membrane technology for carbon dioxide (CO2) capture in power plants. In Advanced Membrane Science and Technology for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Applications; Woodhead Publishing Limited; Elsevier: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 113–159.
  34. Shah, Y.T. CO2 Capture, Utilization and Sequestration Strategies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
  35. Wu, H.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, S.; Guo, R.; Jiang, Z.; Wu, C.; Xin, Q.; Lu, X. Facilitated transport mixed matrix membranes incorporated with amine functionalized MCM-41 for enhanced gas separation properties. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 465, 78–90.
  36. Prasetya, N.; Himma, N.F.; Sutrisna, P.D.; Wenten, I.G.; Ladewig, B.P. A review on emerging organic-containing microporous material membranes for carbon capture and separation. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 391, 123575.
  37. Shan, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Yarulina, I.; Seoane, B.; Karteijin, F.; Gascon, J. Facile manufacture of porous organic framework membranes for precombustion CO2 capture. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, 1698.
  38. Zhao, M.; Guo, J.; Xin, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; Ding, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, L.; Ye, H.; Li, H.; et al. Novel aminated F-Ce nanosheet mixed matrix membranes with controllable channels for CO2 capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2023, 324, 124512.
  39. Liu, M.; Xie, K.; Nothling, M.D.; Gurr, P.A.; Tan, S.S.L.; Fu, Q.; Webley, P.A.; Qiao, G. Ultrathin Metal-Organic Framework Nanosheets as A Gutter Layer for Flexible Composite Gas Separation Membranes. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 11591–11599.
  40. Liu, M.; Nothling, M.D.; Webley, P.A.; Jin, J.; Fu, Q.; Qiao, G.G. High-throughput CO2 capture using PIM-1@MOF based thin film composite membranes. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 396, 125328.
  41. Yao, B.; Wang, Y.; Fang, Z.; Hu, Y.; Ye, Z.; Peng, X. Electrodepositing MOFs into laminated graphene oxide membrane for CO2 capture. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2023, 361, 112758.
  42. Wang, J.; Li, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, J. Constructing double-faced CO2-capture domains by sandwich-like fillers in membranes for efficient CO2 separation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2024, 283, 119374.
  43. Demir, H.; Aksu, G.O.; Gulbalkan, H.C.; Keskin, S. MOF Membranes for CO2 Capture: Past, Present and Future. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2022, 2, 100026.
  44. Rungtaweevoranit, B.; Diercks, C.S.; Kalmutzki, M.J.; Yaghi, O.M. Spiers Memorial Lecture: Progress and prospects of reticular chemistry. Faraday Discuss. 2017, 201, 9–45.
  45. Gutierrez-Ortega, A.; Montes-Morán, M.A.; Parra, J.P.; Sempere, J.; Nomen, R.; Gonzalez-Olmos, R. Comparative study of binderless zeolites and carbon molecular sieves as adsorbents for CO2 capture processes. J. CO2 Util. 2022, 61, 102012.
  46. Sanyal, O.; Hays, S.S.; León, N.E.; Guta, Y.A.; Itta, A.K.; Lively, R.P.; Koros, W.J. A Self-Consistent Model for Sorption and Transport in Polyimide-Derived Carbon Molecular Sieve Gas Separation Membranes. Angew. Chem. 2020, 132, 20525–20891.
  47. Wang, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, X.; Li, J. Co@NC@ZIF-8-hybridized carbon molecular sieve membranes for highly efficient gas separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2023, 682, 121781.
  48. Cheng, L.-H.; Fu, Y.-J.; Liao, K.-S.; Chen, J.-T.; Hu, C.-C.; Hung, W.-S.; Lee, K.-R.; Lai, J.-Y. A high-permeance supported carbon molecular sieve membrane fabricated by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition followed by carbonization for CO2 capture. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 460, 1–8.
  49. Dasgupta, S.; Rajasekaran, M.; Roy, P.K.; Thakkar, F.M.; Pathak, A.D.; Ayappa, K.G.; Maiti, P.K. Influence of chain length on structural properties of carbon molecular sieving membranes and their effects on CO2, CH4 and N2 adsorption: A molecular simulation study. J. Membr. Sci. 2022, 664, 121044.
  50. Zhang, Y.; Sun, M.; Li, L.; Xu, R.; Pan, Y.; Wang, T. Carbon molecular sieve/ZSM-5 mixed matrix membranes with enhanced gas separation performance and the performance recovery of the aging membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2023, 660, 120869.
  51. Li, W.; Goh, K.; Chuah, C.Y.; Bae, T.-H. Mixed-matrix carbon molecular sieve membranes using hierarchical zeolite: A simple approach towards high CO2 permeability enhancements. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 588, 117220.
  52. Yang, G.; Xie, Z.; Cran, M.; Wu, C.; Gray, S. Dimensional Nanofillers in Mixed Matrix Membranes for Pervaporation Separations: A Review. Membranes 2020, 10, 193.
  53. Dai, Y.; Niu, Z.; Fang, T.; Wang, Y.; Zhong, S.; Mu, P.; Li, J. 1D-2D intercalated network CMC@g-C3N4/IL membrane with high permeability and selectivity for the CO2 capture. J. Membr. Sci. 2023, 686, 122019.
  54. Maleh, M.S.; Kiani, S.; Raisi, K. Study on the advantageous effect of nano-clay and polyurethane on structure and CO2 separation performance of polyethersulfone based ternary mixed matrix membranes. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2022, 179, 27–40.
  55. Mahboubi, R.; Joudaki, E.; Behbahani, R.M.; Azizi, N. Enhancing CO2/(light gases) separation performance of Pebax-based mixed-matrix membranes by ionic liquid. Mater. Today Commun. 2023, 36, 106542.
  56. Mulk, W.U.; Ali, S.A.; Shah, S.N.; Shah, M.U.H.; Zhang, Q.-J.; Younas, M.; Fatehizadeh, A.; Sheikh, M.; Rezakazemi, M. Breaking boundaries in CO2 capture: Ionic liquid-based membrane separation for post-combustion applications. J. CO2 Util. 2023, 75, 102555.
  57. Sanni, S.E.; Vershima, D.A.; Okoro, E.E.; Oni, B.A. Technological advancements in the use of ionic liquid-membrane systems for CO2 capture from biogas/flue gas—A review. Heliyon 2022, 8, 12233.
  58. Nabais, A.R.; Ahmed, S.; Younis, M.; Zhou, J.-X.; Pereira, J.R.; Freitas, F.; Mecerreyes, D.; Crespo, J.G.; Huang, M.H.; Neves, L.A.; et al. Mixed matrix membranes based on ionic liquids and porous organic polymers for selective CO2 separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2022, 660, 120841.
  59. Ahmad, N.N.R.; Leo, C.P.; Mohammad, A.W.; Ahmad, A.L. Interfacial sealing and functionalization of polysulfone/SAPO-34 mixed matrix membrane using acetate-based ionic liquid in post-impregnation for CO2 capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2018, 197, 439–448.
  60. Ahmad, N.N.R.; Leo, C.P.; Mohammad, A.W. Enhancement on the CO2 separation performance of mixed matrix membrane using ionic liquid. Mater. Lett. 2021, 304, 130736.
  61. Guo, H.; Wei, J.; Ma, Y.; Deng, J.; Yi, S.; Wang, B.; Deng, L.; Jiang, X.; Dai, Z. Facilitated transport membranes for CO2/CH4 separation—State of the art. Adv. Membr. 2022, 2, 100040.
  62. Zheng, W.; Tian, Z.; Wang, Z.; Peng, D.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. Dual-function biomimetic carrier based facilitated transport mixed matrix membranes with high stability for efficient CO2/N2 separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 285, 120371.
  63. Kilner, J.A.; Skinner, S.J.; Irvine, S.J.C.; Edwards, P.P. Chapter 7.3.2—Facilitated transport membranes. In Functional Materials for Sustainable Energy Applications; Woodhead Publishing Limited; Elsevier: Sawston, UK, 2012.
  64. He, X. Polyvinylamine-Based Facilitated Transport Membranes for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture: Challenges and Perspectives from Materials to Processes. Engineering 2021, 7, 124–131.
  65. Janakiram, S.; Yu, X.; Ansaloni, L.; Dai, Z.; Deng, L. Manipulation of fibril surfaces in nanocellulose-based facilitated transport membranes for enhanced CO2 capture. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 33302–33313.
  66. Janakiram, S.; Santinelli, F.; Costi, R.; Lindbråthen, A.; Nardelli, G.M.; Milkowski, K.; Ansaloni, L.; Deng, L. Field trial of hollow fiber modules of hybrid facilitated transport membranes for flue gas CO2 capture in cement industry. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 413, 127405.
  67. Janakiram, S.; Lindbråthen, A.; Ansaloni, L.; Peters, T.; Deng, L. Two-stage membrane cascades for post-combustion CO2 capture using facilitated transport membranes: Importance on sequence of membrane types. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2022, 119, 103698.
  68. He, X.; Chen, D.; Liang, Z.; Yang, F. Insight and Comparison of Energy-efficient Membrane Processes for CO2 Capture from Flue Gases in Power Plant and Energy-intensive Industry. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2022, 2, 100020.
  69. Kniep, J.; Richard, B.; Casillas, C.; Chan, K.; Huang, I.; Merkel, T.; Nguyen, V.; Sun, Z.; Wang, X. Small Pilot Test Results from a Polaris Membrane 1 MWe CO2 Capture System. In Proceedings of the 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 21–26 October 2018. (GHGT-14).
  70. Baker, R.; Freeman, B.; Casillas, C.; Chan, K.; Hofmann, T.; Huang, I.; Kniep, J.; Merkerl, T.; Nguyen, V.; Sun, Z.; et al. CO2 Capture from Power Plant Flue Gas with the MTR PolarCap™ Process: Update on Field Demonstration Tests; Membrane Technology and Research (MTR), Report: Houston, TX, USA, 2019.
  71. Merkerl, T.; Kniep, J. Scale-up and Testing of Advanced Polaris Membrane CO2 Capture Technology (DE-FE0031591). Membrane Technology and Research (MTR), Report: Newark, CA, USA, 2018.
  72. Hou, R.; Fong, C.; Freeman, B.D.; Hill, M.R.; Xie, Z. Current status and advances in membrane technology for carbon capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 300, 121863.
  73. Cui, Q.; Wang, B.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, G.; He, Z.; Long, Y.; Sun, Y.; Ku, A.Y. Post-combustion slipstream CO2-capture test facility at Jiangyou Power Plant, Sichuan, China: Performance of a membrane separation module under dynamic power-plant operations. Clean Ener. 2021, 5, 742–755.
  74. Pohlmann, J.; Bram, M.; Wilkner, K.; Brinkmann, T. Pilot scale separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases by membrane technology. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2016, 53, 56–64.
  75. Brinkmann, T.; Lillepärg, J.; Notzke, H.; Pohlmann, J.; Shishatskiy, S.; Wind, J.; Wolff, T. Development of CO2 selective poly(ethylene oxide)-based membranes: From laboratory to pilot plant scale. Engineering 2017, 3, 485–493.
  76. Schuldt, K.; Pohlmann, J.; Shishatskiy, S.; Brinkmann, T. Applicability of polyactive™ thin film composite membranes for CO2 separation from C2H4 containing multicomponent gas mixtures at pressures up to 30 bar. Membranes 2018, 8, 27.
  77. Kárászová, M.; Zach, B.; Petrusová, Z.; Červenka, V.; Bobák, M.; Šyc, M.; Izák, P. Post-combustion carbon capture by membrane separation, Review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 238, 116448.
  78. Scholes, C.A.; Qader, A.; Stevens, G.W.; Kentish, S.E. Membrane pilot plant trials of CO2 separation from flue gas. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 229–237.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback