4.8 Review

Carbon capture with ionic liquids: overview and progress

Journal

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 6668-6681

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2ee21152a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21036007]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2009CB219900]
  3. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2011AA050606]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As an emerging carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technology, separating CO2 from industrial gases with ionic liquids is increasingly attracting remarkable interests. In this paper, the research progress on CO2 capture with ionic liquids is reviewed with particular attention on the viewpoint of potential industrial applications. We investigate and compare the CO2 capture capacities of pure ionic liquids, including conventional and task-specific ionic liquids, and ionic liquid-based mixtures. The mechanisms of chemisorption and physisorption are explained with experimental characteristics and molecular simulation, which show more and more important roles for screening suitable ionic liquids from tremendous candidates. Considering the scaling up of novel units for ionic liquid-based fluids, the studies on the transport properties and hydrodynamics of ionic liquid fluids are presented. The process design and assessment of ionic liquid processes are discussed, including the research progress on thermodynamic properties and prediction models. Besides giving an overview of research for each issue above, we also provide discussions for future work to try to identify the gap between the current work and the demand by real industrial applications. Finally, we present some perspectives of ionic liquid-based novel technologies, and the challenges which will be faced while developing industrially available technologies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available