4.7 Article

Study on the performance of CO2 capture from flue gas with ceramic and PTFE membrane contactors

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 263, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.125677

Keywords

CO2 capture; Membrane gas separation; Ceramic membrane; PTFE membrane; Membrane module

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper investigates the differences in CO2 capture performance between ceramic and PTFE membranes and finds that ceramic membranes exhibit favorable CO2 capture performance under appropriate operating parameters.
Excessive CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, which may cause potential threat to survival of humans and other creatures, and it is necessary to take effective measures to curb CO2 emissions. Gas-liquid membrane contact CO2 separation technology is an emerging CO2 capture technology that combines advantages of membrane separation and chemical absorption. In this paper, differences of CO2 capture performance between ceramic and polytetrafluomethylene (PTFE) membranes with pore size of 10 nm and 100 nm are investigated comprehensively. The morphological structure, pore size distribution, wettability and membrane flux of ceramic and PTFE membranes are analyzed by membrane characterization. Moreover, with monoethanolamine (MEA) as absorbent, CO2 capture performance under different operating parameters (e.g., absorber flow rate and temperature, gas flow rate and pressure) is investigated through experiments based on ceramic and PTFE membrane modules. The CO2 capture efficiency of ceramic and PTFE membrane is 94.7% and 99.3%, respectively. However, the mass transfer rate of ceramic membrane is much higher than that of PTFE membrane. The results show that ceramic membrane exhibits favorable CO2 capture performance under appropriate operation parameters. This paper will provide theoretical and technical references for subsequent industrial CO2 capture applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available