3.8 Review

Hollow fiber membrane contactor for CO2 capture: A review of recent progress on membrane materials, operational challenges, scale-up and economics

Journal

CARBON CAPTURE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccst.2023.100160

Keywords

Hollow fiber membrane contactors (HFMCs); Gas-liquid membrane contactor; CO 2 capture; Thin-film composite (TFC); Mixed matrix membrane (MMM); Scale-up and economic study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review compares different types of HFMC systems to clarify their advantages and disadvantages. It emphasizes the importance of the feedback loop between the lab and industrial scale, as well as the future direction to accelerate HFMC development and achieve practical CO2 absorption.
Membrane technology scientists proposed hollow fiber membrane contactors (HFMCs) as an alternative to conventional CO2 absorption-desorption columns due to their promising advantages and outstanding performance for CO2 capture. However, the HFMC systems suffer from wetting phenomena; hence, the HFMC studies focus on optimizing the membrane material, liquid absorber, and operating conditions. As scientists have addressed the wetting phenomenon with these solutions, new issues have emerged. In addition, the feedback loop between the lab and the industrial scale has been ignored. In this review, the characteristics of different HFMC systems based on their membrane types, including porous, dense, and composite (e.g., thin-film composite and mixed matrix) membranes, are compared to clarify their advantages and disadvantages. Also, the scale-up and economic conditions were discussed in terms of HFMC's feasibility to highlight the importance of the lab and industry loop. Furthermore, the future direction is stated to accelerate the HFMCs' development and provide a clear strategy for achieving practical and theatrical CO2 absorption through HFMCs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available