Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de una licencia de uso y distribución CC BY-NC 4.0. Para ver
una copia de esta licencia visite http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
116
Mitigating Climate Change: A Review of Carbon Capture
and Separation Technologies
Mitigación del cambio climático: una revisión de las tecnologías de captura
y separación de carbono
Mitigando as mudanças climáticas: uma revisão das tecnologias de captura
e separação de carbono.
Haider Ali
1
(*), Nomaan Akhtar
2
(*), Saqib Shams
3
, Ali Karim
4
, Umair Naeem
5
Recibido: 09/01/2026 Aceptado: 25/03/2026
Summary. - Carbon capture and separation techniques (CCST) play a pivotal role in addressing the pressing challenge
of reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating climate change impacts. This review paper provides a detailed examination
of various CCST methodologies, focusing on their mechanisms, applications, and importance in the broader context of
environmental sustainability. The significance of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) strategies is
emphasized as an essential pathway for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Through an in-depth analysis, the paper
examines the diverse range of carbon capture technologies, including direct air capture, post-combustion, pre-
combustion, and chemical looping. Each technology is scrutinized for its efficiency, scalability, and suitability across
different industrial sectors. It also delves into carbon separation technologies, including absorption, adsorption,
cryogenic separation, and membrane separation, explaining their mechanisms and applications in CO2 capture.
Additionally, the review addresses the economic, regulatory, and environmental implications of CCST implementation,
highlighting challenges and opportunities for scaling up these technologies. This paper contributes to a clearer
understanding of CCST as a vital tool for combating climate change and achieving sustainable development goals.
Keywords: Absorption, Adsorption, Carbon capture and separation; Direct Air Capture; Post-combustion.
(*) Corresponding author.
1
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology (Pakistan), haider.ali@neduet.edu.pk,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8242-3696
2
Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology (Pakistan), nomaan.akhtar2@gmail.com,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2969-675X
3
Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology (Pakistan), saqibshams200204@gmail.com,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3932-6095
4
Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology (Pakistan), alikarimptcl@gmail.com,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0495-0237
5
Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NED University of Engineering & Technology (Pakistan), umairnaeem139@gmail.com,
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0763-4081
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
117
Resumen. - Resumen. - Las técnicas de captura y separación de carbono (CCST) desempeñan un papel fundamental
para abordar el desafío urgente de reducir las emisiones de CO2 y mitigar los impactos del cambio climático. Este
artículo de revisión ofrece un análisis detallado de diversas metodologías CCST, centrándose en sus mecanismos,
aplicaciones e importancia en el contexto más amplio de la sostenibilidad ambiental. Se destaca la importancia de las
estrategias de captura, utilización y almacenamiento de carbono (CCUS) como una vía esencial para reducir las
emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Mediante un análisis exhaustivo, el artículo examina la diversa gama de
tecnologías de captura de carbono, incluyendo la captura directa de aire, la postcombustión, la precombustión y el
ciclo químico. Cada tecnología se analiza en función de su eficiencia, escalabilidad e idoneidad en diferentes sectores
industriales. También profundiza en las tecnologías de separación de carbono, incluyendo la absorción, la adsorción,
la separación criogénica y la separación por membranas, explicando sus mecanismos y aplicaciones en la captura de
CO2. Además, la revisión aborda las implicaciones económicas, regulatorias y ambientales de la implementación de
CCST, resaltando los desafíos y las oportunidades para la ampliación de estas tecnologías. Este artículo contribuye a
una mejor comprensión de la captura y separación de carbono como herramienta fundamental para combatir el
cambio climático y alcanzar los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible.
Palabras clave: Absorción, Adsorción, Captura y separación de carbono, Captura directa de aire, Postcombustión.
Resumo. - As técnicas de captura e separação de carbono (CCST) desempenham um papel fundamental no
enfrentamento do desafio premente de reduzir as emissões de CO2 e mitigar os impactos das mudanças climáticas.
Este artigo de revisão fornece um exame detalhado de várias metodologias de CCST, com foco em seus mecanismos,
aplicações e importância no contexto mais amplo da sustentabilidade ambiental. A importância das estratégias de
Captura, Utilização e Armazenamento de Carbono (CCUS) é enfatizada como um caminho essencial para a redução
das emissões de gases de efeito estufa. Por meio de uma análise aprofundada, o artigo examina a diversidade de
tecnologias de captura de carbono, incluindo captura direta do ar, pós-combustão, pré-combustão e ciclo químico.
Cada tecnologia é analisada quanto à sua eficiência, escalabilidade e adequação a diferentes setores industriais. O
artigo também explora as tecnologias de separação de carbono, incluindo absorção, adsorção, separação criogênica
e separação por membrana, explicando seus mecanismos e aplicações na captura de CO2. Além disso, a revisão
aborda as implicações econômicas, regulatórias e ambientais da implementação de CCST, destacando os desafios e
as oportunidades para a ampliação dessas tecnologias. Este artigo contribui para uma compreensão mais clara da
CCST como uma ferramenta vital para combater as mudanças climáticas e alcançar os objetivos de desenvolvimento
sustentável.
Palavras-chave: Absorção, Adsorção, Captura e separação de carbono; Captura direta de ar; Pós-combustão.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
118
1. Introduction. -
1.1 Importance of Carbon Capture. - The greenhouse effect stands as a central mechanism driving global warming
and climate change, as widely reported in climate-change literature. As emphasized by multiple authors, the
repercussions of this phenomenon are profound, with current projections indicating serious future risk. Predictions
imply that unchecked global warming would cause the melting of polar ice caps, eventually leading to a considerable
rise in global sea levels and posing a catastrophic threat to coastal cities globally. Such forecasts are not mere
conjecture; they are grounded in scientific data and models that indicate a concerning trajectory. For instance,
according to projections cited from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) baseline period of 1961-
90, global warming is anticipated to escalate by as much as 4 °C by the year 2050, accompanied by a decrease in
rainfall across many regions. These forecasts highlight the importance of addressing climate change and implementing
policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The EU Commission on Climate
Change has recognized human activities, mainly the combustion of fossil fuels, as the principal cause of the increase
in CO2 levels. Indeed, by 2020, atmospheric CO2 levels had risen by an astounding 48% relative to pre-industrial levels
[1]. This disturbing trend highlights the critical need for global collaboration to address the main causes of climate
change and transition to a low-carbon future.
1.2 Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS). - CCUS techniques are important in the global effort to
reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change. As mentioned in Figure , the process begins with the capture of
carbon dioxide from a variety of sources, each with a different concentration. This captured CO₂ passes through a
series of essential stages, including separation from contaminants in the mixture. Once purified, the CO₂ can be directed
towards two main pathways: storage or utilization. In one scenario, the CO₂ is safely stored in depleted oil and gas
fields, preventing its release into the atmosphere and contributing to long-term CO₂ sequestration. Alternatively,
captured CO₂ can be utilized for commercial applications, thereby transforming a greenhouse gas into a valuable
resource. This multifaceted strategy not only reduces environmental impacts but also promotes innovation and
economic growth. Against the backdrop of rising climate concerns, this study examines the most recent breakthroughs
in carbon capture and separation technology. By providing insights into these trends, it emphasizes the significance of
CCUS methodologies and lays the groundwork for a sustainable future powered by effective carbon management
tactics.
Figure I. Life Cycle of Carbon Dioxide involved in the capture process.
1.3 Review Methodology. - This review was prepared by collecting literature on carbon capture and separation
technologies from major scholarly databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar.
Keywords included “carbon capture,” “carbon separation,” “CCUS,” “direct air capture,” “post-combustion capture,”
“pre-combustion capture,” “chemical looping,” “absorption,” “adsorption,” “membrane separation,” and “cryogenic
separation.” Peer-reviewed journal articles, review papers, and technically relevant studies were prioritized. Non-
scholarly sources and duplicate references were excluded where possible. Data extracted from the literature included
capture efficiency, Technology Readiness Level, study scale, operating conditions, energy/cost basis, advantages, and
limitations. Where conflicting numerical values were reported, ranges were presented and interpreted in relation to
study scale, assumptions, and system boundaries.
2. Carbon Capture Technologies. - Technologies aimed at capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a variety
of sources, mostly industrial operations and electricity production, are collectively referred to as carbon capture
technologies. By limiting the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, the aim is to lessen the influence of greenhouse gas
emissions on climate change. These technologies are illustrated in Figure .
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
119
Figure II. Carbon Capture Technologies.
2.1 Direct Air Capture. - Recently, significant research attention has been directed toward greenhouse gas removal
(GGR) technologies, which aim to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is
over 400 ppm and rising by about 2 ppm per year, mainly as a result of burning fossil fuels [2]. Fossil fuels continue
to be a major energy source, so we need technologies to capture and store CO2 directly from the air, referred to as
Direct Air Capture (DAC). Traditional carbon capture methods target specific sources like power plants, but DAC can
capture CO2 from any location, making it more versatile.
Some studies have questioned whether GGR is truly effective as a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In this
situation, Direct Air Capture (DAC) has the potential to support the achievement of net-zero emissions by removing
CO₂ directly from ambient air, regardless of the original emission source. DAC is a process that aims to remove CO2
from the atmosphere and store it permanently or use it for other purposes. DAC is considered one of the negative
emission technologies (NET) that are essential for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit global warming to
1.5°C [3]. Different methods of performing DAC exist, such as sorbent-based systems, membrane-based systems, or
biological systems. Previous studies on integrated DAC systems are summarized in Table I, whereas the merits and
demerits of DAC Technology are given in Table II.
Author
System Configuration
Major Results
D. Coppitters
et al. [4]
Direct Air Capture and Compression with
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM)
electrolyzer and methanation unit.
Exergy efficiency varies between 51.3% and
52.6%. Synthetic natural gas production costs
range from 130 €/MWh to 744 €/MWh.
T. Daniel et al.
[5]
DAC combined with Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
utilization using High-Temperature Steam
Electrolysis (HTSE).
The estimated cost is 382 $/t CO2.
J. Cui & M.
Aziz [6]
Implementation of DAC for ammonia and
methanol production.
Among the examined options, the infrastructure for
ammonia production demonstrates the most cost-
effective energy transmission of US$10.1/GJ.
P. Cheng et al.
[7]
Application of a DAC powered by a natural
gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant and
post-combustion carbon capture.
Positive net present value is considered to require
a CO2 price of between $150 and $225 per tonne
(NPV).
G. M. Cole et
al. [8]
DAC implementation based on algae-based
coating.
The method has a 44% to 51% carbon removal
effectiveness, accompanied by sequestration costs
per tonne of CO2 that vary from $702 to $1585.
C. Drechsler &
D. W. Agar [9]
DAC implementation with heat recovery
and electrolyser integration.
Per mole of CO2 captured, surplus heat output is
475 kJ with an equilibrium cell voltage of 1.5.
Table I. Summary of DAC integrated studies.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
120
The DAC plant consists of various chemical cycles and units designed to capture CO2 from the air and recycle the
solvents used in the process, as illustrated in Figure . Here is a simplified version of the process described by Slavin et
al. [10].
1. Air is pulled through a unit called the air contactor. In the contactor, CO2 reacts with a solution containing
KOH to form potassium carbonate (K2CO3).
2. The resulting K2CO3 solution is sent to the pellet reactor, which holds calcium carbonate (CaCO3) pellets.
Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] is added to the reactor, causing Ca(OH)2 to dissolve and CaCO3 to precipitate.
3. More CaCO3 pellets are added to the top of the reactor. They are removed from the bottom and sent to the
calciner.
4. In the calciner, the CaCO3 pellets are heated up to 900 °C, breaking them down into CO2 and calcium oxide
(CaO).
5. CO2 is finally compressed and cooled for storage or sale.
6. In the slaker unit, the CaO is mixed with water to form Ca(OH)2, which may be reused in the pellet reactor.
Simultaneously, the CO2 emitted from the calciner is directed into a Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell (SOEC) reactor,
where it mixes with steam. Inside the reactor, three processes take place at once: steam electrolysis, CO2 electrolysis,
and the reverse water-gas shift reaction. The output gases are then divided into two streams: the anode outlet, which
contains pure oxygen, part of which is recirculated back to the calciner, and the cathode outlet, which holds the
produced syngas along with any unreacted components [5].
Figure III. DAC Process Diagram [7].
In a typical DAC unit, captured emissions are typically stored in depleted gas and oil fields. However, by incorporating
a SOEC, the captured CO2 can be transformed into a valuable product. This may help offset the plant’s operating costs
[7].
Over the last twenty years, there has been a notable increase in reports discussing different materials used in DAC to
trap carbon dioxide. Recent advancements in DAC adsorbents require further evaluation, including the promising
MMO-based amine-functionalized DAC adsorbent. This review examines how well these materials can capture CO2,
how easily they can be regenerated for reuse, and the mechanisms behind their CO2 capture processes. Such efforts are
expected to play a significant role in advancing DAC technology from foundational research to practical, large-scale
applications [11]. Over time, there has been rapid progress in developing sorbents for capturing CO2. Porous solid
sorbents, known for their large surface area and adjustable pore structure, offer promising potential for CO2 capture,
addressing issues like equipment corrosion and high costs associated with traditional amine solutions. These sorbents
can be categorized into physisorbents and chemisorbents based on their adsorption mechanisms, with the porous
structure enhancing adsorption in various ways. Physisorbents benefit from increased interaction with CO2 molecules
in a porous environment, while chemisorbents utilize their porous structure to improve mass transport and adsorption
kinetics. Framework materials like MOFs and COFs further refine this control, offering finely tunable pore
characteristics [12]. Table contrasts the merits and demerits of direct air carbon capture technology.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
121
Merits
Demerits
It helps reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.
High initial capital investment is required.
Provides a way to remove CO2 from hard-to-reach
areas.
Energy-intensive process, leading to high operational
costs and potential environmental impacts.
Can be deployed in various locations globally.
The efficiency of CO2 capture may not be as high as
desired, leading to limited impact.
Offers potential for carbon utilization and storage.
Challenges with scalability for large-scale
deployment.
Contributes to global efforts in climate change
mitigation.
Technological uncertainties and risks may hinder
widespread adoption.
Table II. Merits and Demerits of DAC [13] [14].
2.2 Post-combustion. - Post-combustion carbon capture focuses on extracting carbon dioxide from the flue gases
produced by combustion plants. These gases mainly consist of nitrogen and carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures
(120–180°C), along with minor amounts of steam, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate fly ash [15].
According to emission standards, flue gas must be cleansed of toxic gases before its release [16]. Due to the lower
concentration of carbon dioxide (3–20%) in flue gas compared to the pre-combustion methods, chemical absorption is
commonly used to separate CO2 [17]. Because of the low concentration and partial pressure of carbon dioxide, highly
efficient separation methods are necessary. Monoethanolamine (MEA) aqueous solutions are frequently used due to
their ability to effectively absorb carbon dioxide and form carbamates [18]. The post-combustion carbon capture
process starts by passing the flue gas through a vessel with an absorber, usually MEA. The CO2 -laden solvent is then
moved to a separate vessel, where the CO2 is extracted, allowing the solvent to be reused in the system [19]. The
released CO2 is subsequently compressed and transported.
Post-combustion carbon capture methods are advantageous over pre-combustion methods due to their flexibility,
allowing integration into existing power plants, making them the preferred choice for current facilities [19]. However,
these methods significantly increase electricity costs due to the substantial energy required for solvent regeneration
and CO2 compression. For example, coal plants can capture up to 800 tons of CO2 per day, resulting in a 65% increase
in electricity costs [20]. Table compares the advantages and disadvantages of post-combustion carbon capture
technology.
Merits
It can be installed in existing infrastructure.
This technology helps industries and nations
meet emission reduction targets and regulatory
requirements.
Captured carbon dioxide can be used for several
applications, including enhanced oil recovery
(EOR), concrete carbonation, and the synthesis
of fuels and chemicals.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies
enable the long-term geological storage of CO2,
reducing its atmospheric concentration.
Table III. Merits and Demerits of Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Process [15] [21]
2.3 Pre-Combustion. - The growing concern over climate change and the need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
have driven considerable research into carbon capture technologies. Among these, pre-combustion carbon capture
processes have emerged as a promising avenue for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources.
As the name suggests, pre-combustion carbon capture involves capturing CO2 before the combustion of fossil fuels,
typically in gasification processes. The gasification of carbonaceous feedstocks, such as coal or natural gas, produces
syngas, which is then subjected to carbon capture before combustion.
The process begins with gasification of carbon-rich feedstocks. It is a thermochemical process that converts solid or
liquid carbon-containing materials into a gaseous mixture, primarily composed of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide
(CO). This is achieved by reacting the feedstock with a controlled amount of oxygen or steam at elevated temperatures
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
122
[22]. The output of the gasification process is syngas, which is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and trace
amounts of other gases such as methane. The composition of syngas depends on the type of feedstock and the specific
gasification conditions. Before the syngas is combusted, it undergoes a separation process to capture the carbon
dioxide. Several methods can be employed for carbon dioxide capture, including absorption, adsorption, and membrane
separation, which are discussed in the next section.
In many scenarios, the process is integrated with hydrogen production. The separated CO2 is often a by-product of
hydrogen production through water gas shift reactions or other hydrogen-producing processes. Figure illustrates a pre-
combustion carbon capture technology (CCT) system based on pressure-swing separation and stripping. Although pre-
combustion CCT can achieve substantial CO₂ emission reduction, its integration generally increases plant complexity,
capital cost, and energy requirements, which may affect overall system performance. The two most widely used
absorbent types in carbon capture are chemical and physical. Chemical absorbents react with CO2 to form stable
compounds like carbonates, bicarbonates, or hydroxide solutions, but their regeneration requires significant energy,
raising the plant's capital expenses. Physical solvents, on the other hand, are more effective at high pressures and low
temperatures. Commercially, various physical solvents, such as polypropylene carbonate, methanol (Rectisol),
dimethyl ether polyethylene glycol (DMEPEG or Selexol), and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (Purisol), have been
successfully employed for CCT [16].
Selexol technology physically absorbs CO2 from syngas using a liquid mixture of dimethyl ethers and polyethylene
glycol. The process, which may be configured for variable levels of H2S / CO2 selectivity and sulfur removal depth,
consists of two absorber units, where Selexol, preloaded with CO2, removes H2S first. The rich H2S solution undergoes
regeneration through pressure reduction, and the separated CO2 is further removed in a second absorber, resulting in
a purified gas with minimal uncaptured CO2 and a rich CO2 stream for transportation and storage [23].
The Rectisol process uses refrigerated methanol as a solvent to purify syngas produced by heavy oil and coal
gasification. The technique, which operates at low temperatures (-40 °C to -60 °C), effectively removes H2S to ppm
levels despite its complexity. A typical Rectisol arrangement incorporates preloading with CO2 in the first absorption
column for H2S removal, followed by regeneration by flashing and stripping, which can be customized to meet specific
process requirements. The rich H2S solution undergoes partial oxidation to recover elemental sulfur, and the
desulfurized gas returns to the CO2 absorption column, where CO2 is extracted. The concentrated CO2 solution is then
regenerated in a flash regeneration unit [24].
Purisol process employs N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone as a solvent to physically absorb H2S and CO2 from gas streams. Its
flow scheme is similar to that of the Selexol process. This process can be carried out at ambient temperatures or cooled
to around -15°C [24].
Physical absorbents use pressure swings and mild heating to remove absorbed gases, resulting in lower energy usage
compared to chemical absorbents, which require more energy for bond breakdown. When selecting a physical
absorbent, it is important to consider its CO2 solubility, absorption affinity, density, viscosity, vapor pressure, and other
properties.
The cost of a carbon capture (CC)-integrated power plant is influenced by various factors such as location, utilities,
and the separation process. Additional costs encompass thermal recovery of absorbents, pumping, and heating or
cooling of both liquid and gas streams. The Selexol method is more energy-efficient for CO2 absorption than the
Rectisol and MDEA technologies. In a pre-combustion CCT power plant utilizing Selexol solvent, carbon emissions
were reduced by 90.9%, alongside a 5–7% decrease in the lower heating value (LHV), indicating improved thermal
efficiency [24]. Table contrasts the merits and demerits of pre-combustion carbon capture technology.
Merits
Demerits
Elevated CO2 concentrations enhance absorption
efficiency.
Significant energy demand for regenerating sorbents.
Well-established process.
Substantial capital and operational expenses for existing
sorption systems.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
123
Effectively utilized in various chemical processes,
including syngas production.
Temperature challenges related to heat transfer and
efficiency concerns are tied to H2-rich gas turbine fuel.
Possible to retrofit to existing plants.
Complexity and technical challenges.
Table IV. Merits and Demerits of Pre-Combustion Carbon Capture Process [15] [16]
Figure IV. Pre-combustion Carbon Capture Process [22]
Atsonios et al. [24] reported that the recent advancements have focused on integrating pre-combustion carbon capture
technologies with Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power
plants, showcasing the maturity of these techniques in the chemical industry.
Atsonios [25] proposed detailed optimization of plant design parameters such as column height and packed dimensions
to enhance the efficiency of pre-combustion capture processes using various solvents like alkanolamine, polyethylene
glycol dimethyl ethers, chilled methanol, and N-Methyl-2-pyrolidone.
Research has explored the use of innovative solvents such as dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol for pre-combustion
CO2 capture, showcasing enhanced energy efficiency and reduced specific emissions [26].
Olabi [16] reports that pre-combustion carbon capture technology (CCT) proves effective in mitigating pollution but
entails high costs, utilizing both chemical and physical absorbents for carbon capture. Its implementation not only aids
in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions but also aligns with UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly
SDG-13 and SDG-7, and brings benefits like cleaner air.
Carbo et al. [27] studied the impact of pre-combustion CO₂ capture on gas turbine operation and reported that gas
turbines designed for syngas demonstrate greater efficiencies than modified versions. Gas turbines play a vital role in
converting synthesis gas derived from coal gasification into electricity, with redesigned turbines for syngas exhibiting
higher efficiencies than those optimized for natural gas, although the lack of nitrogen utilization from air separation
units (ASUs) for syngas dilution can result in increased NOx emissions.
Babu et al. [28] investigated the hydrate-based gas separation. In the hydrate-based gas separation process utilizing
silica sand and silica gel, silica sand proves more effective for CO2 separation and exhibits higher water conversion
rates compared to silica gel. The significant impact of driving force on gas uptake in the silica sand bed is observed,
while employing a combination of depressurization and thermal stimulation results in the complete dissociation of
hydrates, showcasing the promising potential for efficient gas separation.
2.4 Chemical Looping. - Chemical looping is a technology used in carbon capture technologies that aims to extract
CO2 from combustion-byproduct flue gas without requiring energy-consuming separation procedures. A chemical
looping process breaks down a reaction into two or more smaller reactions. In this process, a cycle of reaction and
regeneration is experienced by the chemical intermediates. These chemical intermediates are usually oxides of metals.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
124
A simple example of a redox chemical looping system is shown in Figure V. In order to create desired products,
feedstock (fuel) must be fully or partially oxidized using oxygen carriers such as metal oxides. In the event of complete
oxidation, the products are H2O and CO2 with heat or electricity. When fossil fuels partially oxidize, the most frequent
byproduct is syngas, which is a mixture of CO and H2. It is possible to further convert syngas into finished goods like
chemicals, fuels, and hydrogen. When exposed to steam or air, the used oxygen carriers regenerate.
Figure V. Schematic of Redox Reaction [29]
(A) Calcium Looping. - Calcium looping is among the more mature looping-based CO₂ capture approaches.
According to Wang [30], for CO2 capture from industrial gas, carbonation-calcination cycles are used as illustrated in
Figure . The process consists of two steps:
1. Carbon Capture: Sorbent particles use metal oxide to absorb CO2 in the carbonator. While other gases pass
through unreacted, the metal oxide (MeO) sorbent combines with CO2 from the flue gas stream to generate metal
carbonate (MeCO3). For calcium looping, the reaction is given as,
  
2. Carbon Release: Metal Oxide (MeO) at high temperature releases a pure stream of CO2. The carbon regeneration
reaction is given as,


󰇒
󰇏

The most common sorbent used is calcium oxide. This is why the process is referred to as calcium looping.
Figure VI. Calcium Looping Cycle [30]
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
125
(B) In-situ Methanation. - In-situ Methanation is a process used for converting the captured CO2 directly into methane
using hydrogen as a reducing agent. The chemical reaction is carried out at temperature of 200 – 400 °C in the presence
of catalyst (usually Ni, Co, or Fe). The chemical reaction is given as:

󰇒
󰇏
 
Jin [30] has provided new insights into chemical looping CO2 capture and in-situ conversion (CL-ICCC) technologies
by the use of solid waste as a greener chemical looping alternative. The study discusses the establishment of low-
carbon and self-digestion industrial systems.
Zhang [12] integrated CO₂ capture via calcium-looping with in-situ dry reforming of methane through CaCO₃, allowing
the simultaneous decomposition of CaCO₃ to CaO and syngas. Furthermore, the study uses Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
for the production of valuable fuels from syngas.
Chirone [31] has found a reactor configuration for catalytic methanation using chemical looping and sorption enhanced
methanation, resulting in high methane yield with good temperature control and low operating pressure.
Kim [32] has carried out a thermodynamic analysis to determine viable metal oxides that can serve as oxygen carriers
in the chemical looping process.
Chen [33] provides a conceptual design and analysis on the use of Integrated Carbon Capture and Methane (ICCM) to
produce methane from flue gas using chemical-looping. Figure provides a simplified illustration of the ICCM process
using H2 from renewable sources.
Figure VII. ICCM Process Explained [34]
3. Carbon Separation Technologies. - Carbon separation technologies are used to selectively separate CO₂ from gas
mixtures generated in industrial processes and power plants. Some of the technologies are given in Figure .
Figure VIII. Carbon Separation Technologies
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
126
3.1 Absorption. - The petroleum and chemical industries frequently use absorption, a commercially accessible method
of removing carbon dioxide from flue gas. It uses a liquid absorbent that is regenerable by adjustments to pressure and
temperature [17]. The technology has two major categories: chemical absorption and physical absorption. Chemical
absorption involves chemical reactions, typically acid-base reactions, between CO2 and the solvent. In contrast,
physical absorption is governed by CO2 solubility in the solvent and depends mainly on temperature and pressure.
MEA is one of the most widely used benchmark solvents for CO2 absorption due to its high CO2 recovery (85%-90%
vol.), high capacity (4.09 mol CO2/kg), and CO2 purity exceeding 99% vol [18]. However, MEA requires a high amount
of energy during the regeneration of the solvent. The advantages and disadvantages of the physical absorption
processes are compared in Table .
Figure IX. Types of Absorption with some commonly used and emerging materials [15]
Recent developments in absorption techniques have focused on enhancing efficiency and reducing environmental
impact. One notable advancement involves the use of novel absorbent materials, such as advanced amines, ionic
liquids, phase-change solvents, and membrane contactors, which exhibit higher selectivity and capacity for capturing
target gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Additionally, there is increasing interest in process intensification techniques, such as reactive absorption or membrane
contactors, which offer improved mass transfer rates and lower energy requirements, thereby making absorption
processes more economically viable and sustainable. These developments signify a shift towards greener and more
efficient absorption technologies that play a crucial role in various industries, including gas processing, chemical
manufacturing, and environmental protection. W. Y. Hong [15] reported that recent studies have highlighted
advancements in selecting solvents for CO2 absorption, with a focus on novel solvents like dimethyl ethers of
polyethylene glycol and ionic liquids.
B. Sreenivasulu et al. [34] reported that research has shown improvements in absorption efficiency by using modified
activated carbons with MEA-MDEA, enhancing CO2 adsorption capabilities under pressure swing adsorption
conditions.
Advancements in absorption techniques have been integrated with advanced power plant concepts like IGCC,
showcasing the potential for efficiency gains and reduced CO2 emissions through innovative process configurations
[35].
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
127
Physical Absorption
Process
Advantages
Disadvantages
Selexol process
• High selectivity for H2S
• Water wash is not required for solvent
recovery.
• Chemically and thermally stable.
• Flexible, meaning it can be used for both
targeted and combination H2S and CO2
removal [36].
• Solvent loss is low.
• Able to remove moisture, owing to the
solvent's hydrophilic nature.
• High viscosity with decreased mass
transfer rate and tray efficiency at the
low end of the operating temperature
range, or 0–175 °C [37].
• Only appropriate for removing CO2
when CO2 concentration is higher
than H2S [38].
Rectisol process
• Good CO2 and H2S removal efficiency.
• Viscosity of the solvent is reasonable.
• Low loss of solvent [36].
• Low corrosivity.
• Low-temperature operation (i.e. -30
to -80 °C) [39].
• The potential for amalgam to form at
low temperatures as a result of
mercury absorption [38].
Purisol process
• High H2S selectivity.
• Flexible, meaning it can be used for both
targeted and combination H2S and CO2
removal [37].
• Water cleaning is necessary to
prevent excessive solvent loss due to
the volatile solvent [37].
Fluor process
• Non-corrosive with low-viscosity solvent.
• Allows for selective removal of H2S.
• Exhibit high carbon dioxide solubility.
• Does not require additional makeup water
[38].
• It is not cost-effective to get high
product purity.
• Need for a gas-liquid contactor with
increased efficiency [40].
• Expensive solvent.
Morphysorb process
• Minimal startup and ongoing expenses.
• Reduced energy consumption [41].
• Reduced need for recirculation.
• Decreased hydrocarbon co-absorption
[42].
• A relatively new process that is still in
the early phases of pilot testing and
laboratory trials. [42].
Table V. Comparison of Merits and Demerits of Physical Absorption Processes
Merits
Demerits
Higher absorption performance is usually greater than
90%.
Energy-intensive and costly solvent recovery.
Heat and/or depressurization can be used to recover
sorbents.
Sorbent breakdown caused by repeated heating and
cooling cycles.
The most widely established carbon capture method.
Absorption capacity may decrease under unfavorable
temperature and pressure conditions.
Suitable for high CO2 concentrations.
Low-cost solvent.
Table VI. Merits and demerits of the absorption technique of CCS [15] [16]
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
128
3.2 Adsorption. - Adsorption is a surface-based separation process in which gas molecules adhere to the surface of a
solid adsorbent through physical or chemical interactions. The success of CO2 capture depends on the selection of the
adsorbent material. Adsorbents with a high specific affinity for CO2 and surface area are generally favored. Activated
carbon, zeolites, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), and materials functionalized with amines are examples of
commonly used adsorbents. The method of CO2 collection entails contacting the adsorbent material with flue gas or
other streams containing CO2. This can be carried out in a variety of reactor types, including packed-bed, fluidized-
bed, and fixed-bed reactors. Physical or chemical interactions cause the CO2 molecules to stick to the adsorbent's
surface.
3.2.1 Adsorption techniques based on the separation method: TSA (Temperature Swing Adsorption) and VSA
(Vacuum Swing Adsorption) are both techniques used in gas separation processes, particularly in the purification of
gases. These processes utilize the principles of adsorption to separate different components from a gas mixture.
(A) Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA): In TSA, the adsorption and desorption of gases occur at different
temperatures. Typically, this process involves adsorbing a target gas at a relatively low temperature and then desorbing
it at a higher temperature. The adsorbent material selectively adsorbs the target gas at lower temperatures. Then, by
increasing the temperature, the adsorbent releases the adsorbed gas, thus regenerating itself. TSA is commonly used
for the purification of gases, such as hydrogen, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide, from mixed gas streams in various
industries, including petrochemical, chemical, and environmental.
(B) Vacuum Swing Adsorption (VSA): In VSA, adsorption generally occurs at near-atmospheric or moderate pressure,
while desorption is promoted by reducing the pressure below atmospheric conditions. VSA is often used for gas
separation processes where the target gas can be separated from the feed gas stream by exploiting differences in
adsorption capacities under different pressure conditions. This technique is commonly used in applications such as
oxygen generation, hydrogen purification, and natural gas processing. Table contrasts the merits and demerits of
adsorption-based carbon separation.
Merits
Demerits
Adsorption techniques can selectively separate target
components from gas mixtures based on their affinity for
the adsorbent material.
Regeneration of the adsorbent material can require
additional energy inputs or complex process conditions,
which may increase operational costs.
Adsorption processes often require lower energy inputs.
Adsorbent materials can degrade or lose their adsorption
capacity due to factors such as fouling.
Adsorption techniques can be applied to a wide range of
gas mixtures and can effectively remove impurities.
Adsorption processes can be relatively complex to
design, operate, and optimize.
Adsorption processes can be operated continuously,
allowing for steady-state operation and continuous
production of purified gases.
The initial capital investment for adsorption equipment
and systems can be higher.
Adsorption systems can be designed in a modular
fashion, allowing for scalability and flexibility.
Adsorption systems may require significant space for
installation, especially when considering factors such as
adsorbent beds and regeneration equipment.
Table VII. Merits and Demerits of Adsorption [36] [43]
3.2.2 Adsorption using Fixed-Bed Reactor: Figure illustrates the process of adsorption using a fixed-bed reactor.
The Ca-looping process, typically carried out in a dual fluidized bed reactor, is regarded as the cornerstone of cutting-
edge CO2 reduction technology. Research on the use of fine activated carbon in sound-assisted fluidization to capture
CO2 from flue gases has shown improved adsorption. Studies on the impact of water on carbon dioxide adsorption
with activated carbon in fixed beds have shown that the presence of water decreases the efficiency of the process. In
comparison to fluidized beds, the use of fixed beds for CO2 capture from flue gases has been less extensively
researched.
A gas mixture comprising carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2) is introduced into the column from gas cylinders.
To precisely measure the flow rates of each gas, mass flow controllers (F1 and F2) are installed, with dedicated flow
control valves (V1 and V2) regulating the flow rates accordingly. Additionally, a separate mass flow meter (F3) is
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
129
utilized to monitor the overall flow entering the infrared (IR) detector. Before commencing experimental runs, the
mass flow meters undergo calibration to minimize measurement uncertainties. The pressure within the column is
monitored by a pressure gauge (P1), while the concentration of CO2 at the column outlet is determined using a
calibrated IR sensor.
In the experiment, the gas mixture of CO2 and N2 undergoes separation, primarily through the adsorption of CO2 onto
the surface of adsorbents. The CO2-N2 mixture enters the fixed bed in an ideal plug flow manner, with only CO2 being
adsorbed by the sorbents and subsequently removed from the gas phase. Temperature control is facilitated by a PID
temperature controller, which regulates the water temperature. Additionally, a column bypass is incorporated into the
system for calibration purposes.
As part of the experimental protocol, a controlled flow of nitrogen (4 L/min) is initially passed through the bed
containing sorbents for a duration of 2 hours (7200 seconds). This process ensures the removal of any residual traces
of oxygen and CO2 from the bed. The same experimental approach is replicated to obtain the data under different
operating conditions.
Figure X. Fixed Bed Reactor [44]
3.2.3 Adsorption using Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs): In the past decade, MOFs (Metal-Organic
Frameworks) and MOF-functionalized materials have emerged as novel classes of materials renowned for their
exceptional properties, including ultrahigh porosity, large surface area, tunable structures, and thermal stability [45].
Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) are crystalline porous materials made up of metal ions connected to organic
ligands via coordinate covalent bonds, often referred to as coordination polymers or metal-organic polymers [46]. They
find applications across various fields, such as catalysis [47] [46] [48], adsorption [49] [50], and sensing [51] [52] [53]
[54]. Despite their advantages, MOFs face challenges in adsorption, including low capacity at low pressures, sensitivity
to moisture and gas mixtures, and high synthetic costs, limiting their widespread use [55].
Researchers have turned to impregnated MOF-based adsorbents for post-combustion carbon capture due to their
excellent physisorption and chemisorption characteristics [56]. They [56] investigated the adsorption efficiency of
amine-functionalized MOF-177 variants, such as PEI, TEPA, and DETA. They found TEPA-impregnated MOF-177
to exhibit a significant enhancement (4.8 times) in CO2 capturing compared to unmodified MOF-177 at 298 K.
Similarly, Quan et al. [57] developed diamine-appended MOF/polymer composite hollow fiber sorbents,
demonstrating higher CO2 capture (2.5 mmol CO2 /g-MOF) at relatively low pressures. Additionally, Wu et al. [58]
studied a copper-based MOF with distinct pore structures, achieving a CO2 uptake of 4.63 mmol/g at 100 kPa and 2.92
mmol/g at 15 kPa, outperforming other MOFs due to the presence of strong electrostatic interaction sites.
Addressing limitations of MOFs, Qazvini et al. [59] synthesized MUF-16, a hydrogen-bonded water-stable
microporous material coated with PVDF, aiming for large-scale industrial applications with affordable production
costs and long-term chemical stability. MUF-16 exhibited promising CO2 uptake of 47.8 and 61.1 cm3/g of CO2 at 1
and 20 bar, respectively.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
130
A detailed comparison of these adsorbents, including surface area (m2/g), pore size (nm), regeneration cycles, and
adsorption capacity (Qmax), is provided in Table.
3.2.4 Scale of Experimental Validation: Carbon capture technologies are evaluated across multiple levels of
experimental maturity, including bench-scale, pilot-scale, and commercial systems. Bench-scale studies are generally
performed under controlled laboratory conditions to evaluate material performance, whereas pilot-scale systems
operate under more realistic scenarios and provide information regarding system integration, operational challenges,
and scalability [60].
3.2.5 Bench-scale experimental studies and boundary conditions: Bench-scale investigations are mainly conducted
to validate adsorption performance under controlled environments. These studies are characterized by laboratory-scale
setups, well-defined operating conditions, and a strong focus on material-level behavior such as adsorption capacity,
selectivity, and stability [60].
Some features of bench-scale studies include:
• Controlled laboratory conditions
• Emphasis on adsorbent performance
• Simplified system boundaries
For example, a representative bench-scale study conducted under conditions simulating a coal-fired power plant
employed a flue gas stream with approximately 15% CO2 by volume and an adsorption temperature range of 50–90
°C. Under these conditions, the presence of impurities such as SO2 (100 ppm) was found to significantly affect
performance, resulting in an approximate 30% reduction in adsorption capacity after 100 adsorption–regeneration
cycles. These findings highlight the sensitivity of adsorbent materials to flue gas contaminants, which is often not fully
captured under ideal laboratory conditions [60].
3.2.6 Pilot-scale experimental studies: Pilot-scale systems represent an intermediate step between laboratory research
and full-scale industrial deployment. These systems are designed to replicate real plant conditions more closely and
are essential for evaluating process feasibility, energy requirements, and economic performance.
Key characteristics of pilot-scale studies include:
• Operation under realistic flue gas conditions
• Inclusion of impurities and temperature fluctuations
• Improved estimation of cost and energy performance
A typical pilot-scale study may simulate a coal-fired supercritical power plant (e.g., ~10 MW equivalent capacity)
using sorbents such as 35 wt% K₂CO₃. Such systems are significantly larger in scale, with dimensions on the order of
tens of meters (e.g., 34 m × 15 m × 59 m), and operate at adsorption temperatures around 80 °C with regeneration
temperatures reaching approximately 200 °C.
Compared to bench-scale studies, pilot-scale investigations provide more reliable insights into process integration and
operational challenges, although they still involve certain assumptions and simplifications relative to full commercial
systems [61].
3.2.7 Future challenges: Despite promising results at laboratory and pilot scales, several challenges remain in scaling
adsorption-based carbon capture technologies to commercial deployment. One major limitation is the high cost
associated with large-scale production of advanced adsorbent materials.
In addition, process-related challenges such as heat management and temperature control are significant, particularly
due to the endothermic nature of adsorption–desorption cycles. Maintaining adsorption capacity over repeated cycles
while ensuring efficient thermal management remains a key technical hurdle.
Operational issues such as pressure drop and material handling also pose challenges, especially when dealing with fine
adsorbent powders in large-scale systems. These factors collectively highlight the complexity of transitioning from
laboratory-scale validation to industrial implementation.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
131
Parameter
Bench-Scale studies
Pilot-Scale studies
Typical objective
Evaluation of performance and screening
of material.
Process validation under realistic scenarios.
Efficiency of Capture
Often high under controlled conditions.
Affected by real flue gas conditions;
therefore, it varies from moderate to high.
Energy Penalty
Not fully evaluated.
Varies significantly depending upon the
process design.
TRL
Low (3-5).
Medium (5-7).
Key limitation
Lack of scalability.
High cost and complex scalability.
Table VIII. Comparison of Bench-Scale and Pilot-Scale Adsorption-Based PCC Systems [61]
Types of
Adsor-bent
Adsorbent
Surface
Area
(m²/g)
Pore
Size
(nm)
Operation
Parameters
Adsorption
Capacity
Author
Chemical
adsorbent
70T-MM-550
monolithic adsorbent
impregnated with
TEPA
10.46
0.02
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
75
151.1 mg g⁻¹
T. Chitsiga et al.
[62]
PAA-100% MA
2.94
30.9
Pressure
(bar): 1.1,
Temp. (°C):
40
44.2 g kg⁻¹
A. Ra Cho et al.
[63]
2.0PO-PEHA/MPS
472
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
50
1.8 mmol g⁻¹
S. Ahmed et al.
[64]
50 wt.% TEPA-
functionalized Si-
MCM-41
11
1.8
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
75
70.41 mg g⁻¹
E. Atta-Obeng et
al. [65]
Si-MCM-41
993
3.1
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
75
54.65 mg g⁻¹
M. A. O.
Lourenço et al.
[66]
L350
2.8
-
Pressure
(bar): 0.9,
Temp. (°C):
30
1.54 mmol
g⁻¹
R. R. Kondakindi
et al. [67]
Physical
adsorbent
Li-LSX zeolite
662
0.08-
0.18
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
25
4.43 mmol
g⁻¹
D. Panda et al.
[68]
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
132
HZAA-1–3 with urea
126
0.4-
5.5
Pressure
(bar): 0.2,
Temp. (°C):
25
2.86 mmol
g⁻¹
K. J. Hwang et al.
[69]
Basalt-based zeolite
4A
726
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
50
5.9 mmol g⁻¹
W. Liang et al.
[70]
20% EDHy Zeolite
-
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
25
1.76 mmol
g⁻¹
D. Panda et al.
[71]
IBA-Z4A
32
3.8
Pressure
(bar): 1.2,
Temp. (°C):
40
2.56 mmol
g⁻¹
S. Y. Lee & S. J.
Park [72]
3D-printed monolith
activated carbons
-
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
30
3.17 mol kg⁻¹
L. Jiang et al. [73]
chitosan/MWCNTs
-
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
90
3 mg g⁻¹
Krishnamurthy et
al. [74]
3D-printed
PEI/(MWCNT)
27
30
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
25
0.064 mol
kg⁻¹
Jayakaran et al.
[75]
Hybrid
adsorbents
20% TEPA-
impregnated MOF-
177
585
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
25
4.6 mmol g⁻¹
W. Quan et al.
[58]
2-ampd-Mg2(dobpdc)
-
-
Pressure
(bar): 1,
Temp. (°C):
25
2.5 mmol g⁻¹
H. Wu et al. [59]
Copper-based MOF-
11
-
-
Not reported
4.63 mmol
g⁻¹
Qazvini & S. G.
Telfer
[60]
Table IX. Adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture [61]
3.3 Membrane. - Membranes are materials that selectively separate CO2 from gas mixtures, such as the flue gases
from combustion. Membrane separation is based on the difference in permeability of the gases. Membrane separation
is driven by partial-pressure differences, and performance is governed by the trade-off between CO₂ permeability and
CO₂ selectivity. Some of the common types of membranes include:
3.3.1 Polymeric Membranes. - These membranes are composed of polymers and selectively separate gases based on
size, shape, and chemical affinity. Jana [76] has compared the performance of different polymer-based membranes for
the separation of a CO2 and N2 mixture. These polymers include materials such as PE (Poly Ethylene) and PVC (Poly
Vinyl Chloride), with nanofillers. Additionally, membrane performance can be enhanced by the use of grafting. Lai
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
133
[77] has shown that by adding ZIF-8 filler to poly (ionic-liquid) membranes, membrane permeance can be enhanced
for improved CO2 and N2 separation.
3.3.2 Mixed Matrix Membranes. - Combining a polymeric matrix with inorganic fillers or nanoparticles, these
membranes enhance selectivity and permeability in gas separation.
3.3.3 Zeolite Membranes. - Utilizing crystalline aluminosilicate structures, zeolite membranes employ molecular
sieving properties for effective gas separation. Shi [78] has performed molecular dynamics simulation on MER Zeolite
to determine its adsorption behavior in CO2, CH4, and N2. Results show that CO2 has the least diffusion activation
energy (4.38 kJ/mol). This makes MER Zeolite suitable for separation of gas mixtures like CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2.
3.3.4 Ceramic Membranes. - Made from ceramic materials, these membranes are known for durability and stability
at high temperatures, making them suitable for harsh industrial environments.
3.3.5 Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Membranes. - These porous materials with high surface areas and tunable
structures show promise in gas separation due to unique adsorption properties. In Majumdar [79], Mg-MOF-74 crystals
were synthesized to create polymer/Mg-MOF-74 mixed matrix membranes (MMM) for CO2/CH4 separation.
3.4 Cryogenic Separation. - Cryogenic CO2 capture builds on the idea of cryogenic distillation, a well-known method
for separating different molecules in a mixture based on their boiling points by cooling them. Originally used in
industries like oil and gas for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen production, this technique has been adapted
to remove CO2 from flue gases. The process involves drying and compressing the gas, then cooling it to separate CO2
from other components through partial condensation and distillation. Depending on temperature and pressure, CO₂
may be separated either by condensation as a liquid or by desublimation as a solid. Sometimes, an upfront process
called PSA is needed to concentrate the CO2 further [80].
In this approach, various compression techniques are used at normal pressure and temperature to separate gases. This
method works well for producing liquid CO2 and is effective for capturing high concentrations of carbon dioxide. It
offers advantages over amine-based scrubbing, such as being more environmentally friendly, resistant to corrosion,
using cheaper chemicals, and requiring less water. It supports the production of liquid CO2 and operates at normal
pressure, which helps with the financial aspects of transmitting CO2. However, there are limitations to cryogenic
separation. It has a narrow operating temperature range, leading to high energy consumption and operating expenses.
Ice formation in the process can clog pipes, reducing pressure and posing safety risks. Therefore, it is crucial to remove
moisture from flue gases before starting the separation process. Implementing a cryogenic CO2 removal system in a
power plant can increase its operating costs by up to 50% [81].
Cryogenics technology is most commonly associated with post-combustion carbon capture, where it can effectively
capture carbon dioxide from flue gases emitted by power plants and industrial facilities after the combustion process.
However, it can also be utilized in pre-combustion carbon capture processes, particularly in combination with
technologies like gasification. Direct air capture (DAC) typically involves different capture methods, not usually
cryogenic, as it aims at capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric cryogenic carbon capture in
cold climates is a novel approach for reducing atmospheric CO₂ emissions. Leveraging the naturally cold temperatures
of these regions, this method involves capturing CO2 directly from the air using cryogenic technology. By utilizing the
cold ambient air, the process can potentially be more energy-efficient compared to traditional carbon capture methods.
This innovative approach holds promise for mitigating climate change through reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
in regions with cold climates.
The method utilizes the high phase-transition temperature of CO2 compared to other atmospheric gases, except water
vapor. By employing desiccant wheels or cooling methods like low ambient temperatures or conventional refrigeration,
water vapor can be easily eliminated. Figure depicts the relationship between the desublimation temperature and the
mass fraction of CO2 de-sublimated. Cryogenic distillation is highlighted as the most promising technique for its ability
to produce pure CO2 in solid, liquid, or gas forms, making it economically valuable and easily storable. It does not
require new material development and can be quickly scaled up for industrial use [82].
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
134
Figure XI. De-sublimation temperature as a function of mass fraction of CO2 de-sublimated [83]
Cryogenic separation for CO2 capture is gaining popularity as a technology due to its ability to produce high-purity
CO2 without the need for additional chemicals, reducing pollution in the capture process. This eco-friendly approach
holds significant promise and practical value. However, the challenge lies in the demanding cryogenic cooling
conditions and capacity required for efficient capture, which have hindered the widespread adoption and advancement
of this method [83].
To remove CO2 from industrial flue gas or the surrounding air, a process known as cryogenic desublimation is
employed. This method involves cooling the gas, eliminating water vapor from the mixture, and then freezing the CO2
into a solid. Studies have shown that significant amounts of CO2 can be captured using evaporator temperatures
ranging from -99 °C to -122 °C. Further research has focused on reducing water content through defrosting and multi-
stage condensation. Another proposed method includes cooling, drying, and moderate compression before freezing,
achieving a 99% capture rate at -135 °C. Stirling coolers have also been utilized to achieve a 96% capture rate at an
energy cost of 1.5 MJ/kg CO2. Additionally, the minimum energy required for CO2 separation from air at -20 °C is
estimated to be 419 MJ/tonne CO2 [84].
Inspired by Mars' CO2 ice cap, a cryogenic direct-air capture (DAC) system proposal suggests locating it in Antarctica,
Earth's coldest region, where CO2 extraction could be economically feasible. This setup would use closed-loop vapor
compression refrigeration cycles powered by nearby wind farms to capture atmospheric CO2 and convert it into solid
" CO2 snow" for storage. Experimental prototypes showed promising reductions in CO2 concentrations. However,
challenges like the remote location, extreme cold, and maintenance issues persist despite advantages like abundant
wind energy [84].
In cryogenic direct-air capture (DAC) systems, a thermodynamic model was proposed to analyse a prototype
comprising a deposition chamber, cryogenic refrigeration cycle, and precooler heat exchanger. The precooler aims to
lower the incoming air temperature, reducing the workload for the cryocooler. Various locations, including Antarctica,
were considered for this setup. Subsequent research refined the thermodynamic model, focusing on optimizing CO2
de-sublimation efficiency through precooling. It was found that achieving higher CO2 removal rates incurs greater
energy penalties due to lower required temperatures. Precoolers with high effectiveness can lead to fouling issues,
impacting system performance. Another aspect studied was precompression, which increases the CO2 partial pressure
but incurs energy penalties, particularly in cryogenic DAC systems with low CO2 partial pressures. Adding turbine
recovery to precompression showed limited energy savings under specific conditions. However, these findings are
based on idealized scenarios and may differ in practical applications [84].
4. Comparison of Different Carbon Capture and Separation Techniques. - The following section discusses and
compares the carbon capture and separation technologies, presenting their efficiency and Technology Readiness Level
(TRL), as well as their advantages and disadvantages. Table compares the various carbon capture and separation
techniques to provide an overview of their strong and weak points.
CO2 capture efficiency is a critical metric defining the effectiveness of a carbon capture system in removing CO2 from
a gas stream, such as flue gas from power plants or industrial processes. Expressed as a percentage, it represents the
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
135
proportion of CO2 captured relative to the total CO2 entering the system. Higher capture efficiency signifies a greater
reduction in emissions, highlighting the importance of optimizing capture technologies to mitigate climate change
impacts.
Concurrently, the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework, originally developed by NASA and now widely
used across various industries, provides a systematic approach to evaluating the maturity of CO2 capture technologies.
The TRL scale ranges from 1 to 9, encompassing stages from basic research (TRL 1-3), where new materials and
concepts are explored, through lab-scale validation and pilot testing (TRL 4-6), to full-scale demonstration and
commercial deployment (TRL 7-9) [84].
4.1 Comparative Assessment. -
TRL
Study
type/Scale
Energy /
Cost basis
CO2 capture
efficiency (%)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reference
Pre-combustion
9
Not
specified in
the source
Not
reported
84–93
- Suitable for large-
scale H2
production.
- Low energy
penalty (10–15%).
- High efficiency.
- Lower potential
cost.
- Applicable to
thermal power
plants.
- Retrofit
opportunity for
existing plants.
- Still
undergoing
development.
- Requires
substantial
capital
investment.
- Novel
materials needed
for high-
temperature CO2
capture.
- Complex
process scheme.
[85]
Oxyfuel combustion
7
Not
specified in
the source
Not
reported
92
- Minimal
equipment required
due to reduced gas
volume.
- Utilizes mature
air separation
techniques.
- Enhanced
absorption
efficiency in high
CO2 environments.
- Corrosion
issues may arise.
- Cryogenic O2
production is
expensive.
- Incurs a high
energy penalty
and efficiency
reduction.
[86] [87]
Post-combustion
9
Bench
scale
$75.2/tonne
CO2
55–98
- Retrofitting
feasible for existing
plants.
- Mature
technology
compared to other
methods.
- Efficiency
affected by low
CO2
concentrations.
[62] [87]
Absorption
7–9
Not
specified in
the source
Not
reported
80–95
- Effective at
various CO2
pressures.
- Minimal
hydrocarbon losses.
- High selectivity
and efficiency.
- Standard for coal-
fired and natural
gas power plants.
- Established
technology.
- Solvent
degradation,
corrosion, and
emissions.
- High energy
penalty for
solvent
regeneration in
some cases.
- Limited to
thermal power
plants.
[88] [89]
[90]
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
136
Table X. Carbon Capture Efficiencies & Separation Techniques
Note: Data are compiled from multiple studies with different operating conditions, scales, and system boundaries.
Therefore, the reported TRL, capture efficiency, energy, and cost values should be interpreted as indicative rather than
directly comparable. Where contextual information was not available in the cited source, it is explicitly marked as “Not
specified in source”.
5. Conclusion. - The paper provides a comprehensive and insightful overview of the latest advancements in carbon
capture and separation technologies, pivotal in the global effort to combat climate change. This review examines the
four principal types of carbon capture methods: pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture, chemical looping,
and direct air capture, highlighting their respective efficiencies, technological readiness levels, and the challenges they
TRL
Study
type/Scale
Energy /
Cost basis
CO2 capture
efficiency (%)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Reference
Membrane technology
5–6
Not
specified in
the source
Not
reported
≤90
- Effective at
various CO2
pressures.
- Small footprint.
- Chemical-free
operation without
regeneration.
- Suitable for large-
scale natural gas
processing.
- Unsuitable for
low CO2
concentrations.
- Balancing
permeability and
selectivity.
- Hydrocarbon
losses.
- Requires gas
compression.
[91] [92]
Adsorption
3-4
Modeling
study
3.23 MJ/kg
CO2
95% purity,
~81%
recovery
- High adsorption
efficiency (>85%).
- Reversible
process with
recyclable
adsorbents.
- High energy
requirement for
CO2 desorption.
- Specific
adsorbents
required at high
temperatures.
[93]
Chemical
looping
6
Not
specified in
source
Not
reported
>90
- Bypasses energy-
intensive air
separation.
- Separates CO2
from combustion
gases.
- Still under
development.
- Limited large-
scale operational
experience.
[85]
Direct capture
7
Not
specified in
source
Not
reported
79–91
- Suitable for
localized CO2
capture.
- Can be deployed
in various
locations, including
non-arable land.
- Significant in
climate change
mitigation.
- Expensive
implementation.
- High energy
demand.
- Technical
complexities.
[94] [88]
Cryogenic separation
9
Not
specified in
source
Not
reported
90–99
- Effective at high
CO2
concentrations.
- No need for
compressors.
- Minimal
hydrocarbon losses.
- High selectivity.
- Established
technology for
natural gas
processing.
- Risk of CO2
freezing.
- Energy-
intensive
refrigeration is
required.
[15] [95]
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
137
face. By evaluating these methods, the literature underscores the critical role each technology plays in reducing CO2
emissions and the specific hurdles that must be overcome to enhance their viability and efficiency.
The review summarizes current findings and accomplishments, establishing the groundwork for a larger conversation
about lowering carbon dioxide emissions. It emphasizes the importance of continued research and innovation in
overcoming present technological hurdles and increasing the efficiency and scalability of these solutions. The findings
presented in this paper illustrate the potential of existing technology while underlining the importance of future
discoveries. These activities are critical to attaining long-term sustainability and tackling the pressing global challenge
of climate change.
Acknowledgment. - The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Sindh Higher Education Commission
through the project SRSP/NPS SC. & Tech-09/314/2023-24.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
138
References
[1] J. Gallinger, M. Rid-Moneta, C. Becker, A. Reineke, and J. Gross, “Altered volatile emission of pear trees under
elevated atmospheric CO2 levels has no relevance to pear psyllid host choice,” Environ Sci Pollut Res, vol. 30, no. 15,
pp. 43740–43751, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-25260-w.
[2] J. G. Canadell et al., “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon
intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 104, no. 47, pp. 18866–18870, Nov. 2007,
doi: 10.1073/pnas. 0702737104.
[3] F. Bisotti, K. A. Hoff, A. Mathisen, and J. Hovland, “Direct Air capture (DAC) deployment: A review of the
industrial deployment,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 283, p. 119416, Jan. 2024, doi:
10.1016/j.ces.2023.119416.
[4] D. Coppitters et al., “Energy, Exergy, Economic and Environmental (4E) analysis of integrated direct air capture
and CO 2 methanation under uncertainty,” Fuel, vol. 344, p. 127969, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127969.
[5] T. Daniel, A. Masini, C. Milne, N. Nourshagh, C. Iranpour, and J. Xuan, “Techno-economic Analysis of Direct Air
Carbon Capture with CO2 Utilisation,” Carbon Capture Science & Technology, vol. 2, p. 100025, Mar. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.ccst.2021.100025.
[6] J. Cui and M. Aziz, “Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen transportation infrastructure using ammonia and
methanol,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 48, no. 42, pp. 15737–15747, May 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.096.
[7] P. Cheng et al., “Modeling and optimization of carbon-negative NGCC plant enabled by modular direct air capture,”
Applied Energy, vol. 341, p. 121076, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121076.
[8] G. M. Cole et al., “Integrated techno-economic and life cycle assessment of a novel algae-based coating for direct
air carbon capture and sequestration,” Journal of CO2 Utilization, vol. 69, p. 102421, Mar. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.jcou.2023.102421.
[9] C. Drechsler and D. W. Agar, “Intensified integrated direct air capture - power-to-gas process based on H2O and
CO2 from ambient air,” Applied Energy, vol. 273, p. 115076, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115076.
[10] B. Slavin, R. Wang, D. Roy, J. Ling-Chin, and A. P. Roskilly, “Techno-economic analysis of direct air carbon
capture and hydrogen production integrated with a small modular reactor,” Applied Energy, vol. 356, p. 122407, Feb.
2024, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122407.
[11] J. Sun, M. Zhao, L. Huang, T. Zhang, and Q. Wang, “Recent progress on direct air capture of carbon dioxide,”
Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, vol. 40, p. 100752, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2023.100752.
[12] C. Zhang, Y. Li, Z. Chu, Y. Fang, K. Han, and Z. He, “Analysis of integrated CO2 capture and utilization via
calcium-looping in-situ dry reforming of methane and Fischer-Tropsch for synthetic fuels production,” Separation and
Purification Technology, vol. 329, p. 125109, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125109.
[13] W. Y. Hong, “A techno-economic review on carbon capture, utilisation and storage systems for achieving a net-
zero CO2 emissions future,” Carbon Capture Science & Technology, vol. 3, p. 100044, Jun. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.ccst.2022.100044.
[14] A. G. Olabi et al., “Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into sustainable development
goals SDGs using novel indicators,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 153, p. 111710, Jan. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2021.111710.
[15] Council, Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010,
p. 12785. doi: 10.17226/12785.
[16] C. Ma, F. Pietrucci, and W. Andreoni, “Capture and Release of CO2 in Monoethanolamine Aqueous Solutions:
New Insights from First-Principles Reaction Dynamics,” J. Chem. Theory Comput., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 3189–3198, Jul.
2015, doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00379.
[17] H. Li, D. Yan, Z. Zhang, and E. Lichtfouse, “Prediction of CO2 absorption by physical solvents using a
chemoinformatics-based machine learning model,” Environ Chem Lett, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1397–1404, Sep. 2019, doi:
10.1007/s10311-019-00874-0.
[18] T. Wilberforce, A. Baroutaji, B. Soudan, A. H. Al-Alami, and A. G. Olabi, “Outlook of carbon capture technology
and challenges,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 657, pp. 56–72, Mar. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.424.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
139
[19] M. Kanniche, R. Gros-Bonnivard, P. Jaud, J. Valle-Marcos, J.-M. Amann, and C. Bouallou, “Pre-combustion,
post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 30,
no. 1, pp. 53–62, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005.
[20] F. Wu, M. D. Argyle, P. A. Dellenback, and M. Fan, “Progress in O2 separation for oxy-fuel combustion–A
promising way for cost-effective CO2 capture: A review,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 67, pp.
188–205, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2018.01.004.
[21] T. Wilberforce, A. G. Olabi, E. T. Sayed, K. Elsaid, and M. A. Abdelkareem, “Progress in carbon capture
technologies,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 761, p. 143203, Mar. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143203.
[22] “Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into sustainable development goals SDGs using
novel indicators - ScienceDirect.” Accessed: May 09, 2026. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121009849
[23] A. Padurean, C.-C. Cormos, and P.-S. Agachi, “Pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture by gas–liquid absorption
for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plants,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 7,
pp. 1–11, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.12.007.
[24] H. Ahn, Z. Kapetaki, P. Brandani, and S. Brandani, “Process simulation of a dual-stage Selexol unit for pre-
combustion carbon capture at an IGCC power plant,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 1751–1755, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.182.
[25] K. Atsonios, K. D. Panopoulos, A. Doukelis, A. Koumanakos, and E. Kakaras, “Cryogenic method for H2 and
CH4 recovery from a rich CO2 stream in pre-combustion carbon capture and storage schemes,” Energy, vol. 53, pp.
106–113, May 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.026.
[26] L. Meng, T. Kai, S. Nakao, and K. Yogo, “Modeling of pre-combustion carbon capture with CO2-selective
polymer membranes,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 123, p. 103830, Feb. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103830.
[27] M. C. Carbo, D. Jansen, J. W. Dijkstra, J. P. Van Buijtenen, and A. H. M. Verkooijen, “Pre-combustion
decarbonisation in IGCC: Gas turbine operating window at variable carbon capture ratios,” Energy Procedia, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 669–673, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.088.
[28] P. Babu, R. Kumar, and P. Linga, “Pre-combustion capture of carbon dioxide in a fixed bed reactor using the
clathrate hydrate process,” Energy, vol. 50, pp. 364–373, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.10.046.
[29] D. Wang, A. Joshi, and L.-S. Fan, “Chemical looping technology – a manifestation of a novel fluidization and
fluid-particle system for CO2 capture and clean energy conversions,” Powder Technology, vol. 409, p. 117814, Sep.
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2022.117814.
[30] B. Jin et al., “Chemical looping CO2 capture and in-situ conversion as a promising platform for green and low-
carbon industry transition: Review and perspective,” Carbon Capture Science & Technology, vol. 10, p. 100169, Mar.
2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ccst.2023.100169.
[31] R. Chirone, A. Paulillo, A. Coppola, and F. Scala, “Carbon capture and utilization via calcium looping, sorption
enhanced methanation and green hydrogen: A techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment study,” Fuel, vol.
328, p. 125255, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125255.
[32] Y. Kim, H. S. Lim, H. S. Kim, M. Lee, J. W. Lee, and D. Kang, “Carbon dioxide splitting and hydrogen production
using a chemical looping concept: A review,” Journal of CO2 Utilization, vol. 63, p. 102139, Sep. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102139.
[33] L. Chen, Y. Chen, G. Wei, and K. Liu, “Conceptual design and assessment of Integrated capture and methanation
of CO2 from flue gas using chemical-looping scheme of dual function materials,” Energy Conversion and Management,
vol. 299, p. 117847, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117847.
[34] B. Sreenivasulu, D. V. Gayatri, I. Sreedhar, and K. V. Raghavan, “A journey into the process and engineering
aspects of carbon capture technologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 1324–1350, Jan.
2015, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.029.
[35] G. D. Oreggioni, D. Friedrich, S. Brandani, and H. Ahn, “Techno-Economic Study of Adsorption Processes for
Pre-Combustion Carbon Capture at a Biomass CHP Plant,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 6738–6744, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.709.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
140
[36] D. Jansen, M. Gazzani, G. Manzolini, E. V. Dijk, and M. Carbo, “Pre-combustion CO2 capture,” International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 40, pp. 167–187, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.028.
[37] G. Ebenezer, S. J. S., “Removal of carbon dioxide from natural gas for LNG production.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.scribd.com/document/167628194/Removal-of-Carbon-Dioxide-From-Natural-Gas-for-Lng-Production
[38] S. H. Park, S. J. Lee, J. W. Lee, S. N. Chun, and J. B. Lee, “The quantitative evaluation of two-stage pre-
combustion CO2 capture processes using the physical solvents with various design parameters,” Energy, vol. 81, pp.
47–55, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.055.
[39] W.-H. Chen, S.-M. Chen, and C.-I. Hung, “Carbon dioxide capture by single droplet using Selexol, Rectisol and
water as absorbents: A theoretical approach,” Applied Energy, vol. 111, pp. 731–741, Nov. 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.051.
[40] J. D. Figueroa, T. Fout, S. Plasynski, H. McIlvried, and R. D. Srivastava, “Advances in CO2 capture technology—
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 9–20, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-1.
[41] R. Ducroux and P. Jeanbaptiste, “Technologies, methods and modelling for CO2 capture,” in Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies 7, vol. II, Elsevier, 2005, pp. 1835–1839. doi: 10.1016/B978-008044704-9/50222-6.
[42] Fahim, Fundamentals of Petroleum Refining. Elsevier, 2010. doi: 10.1016/C2009-0-16348-1.
[43] J. Thilagan, B. Gayathri, and M. Sugumar, “CO<SUB align="right">2 capture by adsorption and hydrate-based
separation: a technological review,” IJEWM, vol. 22, no. 1/2/3/4, p. 147, 2018, doi: 10.1504/IJEWM.2018.094103.
[44] M. K. Al Mesfer, M. Danish, Y. M. Fahmy, and Md. M. Rashid, “Post-combustion CO2 capture with activated
carbons using fixed bed adsorption,” Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2715–2724, Sep. 2018, doi:
10.1007/s00231-018-2319-1.
[45] M. Safaei, M. M. Foroughi, N. Ebrahimpoor, S. Jahani, A. Omidi, and M. Khatami, “A review on metal-organic
frameworks: Synthesis and applications,” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 118, pp. 401–425, Sep. 2019,
doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2019.06.007.
[46] Y. Wang, L. You, and K. Zhou, “Origin of the N-coordinated single-atom Ni sites in heterogeneous electrocatalysts
for CO2 reduction reaction,” Chem. Sci., vol. 12, no. 42, pp. 14065–14073, 2021, doi: 10.1039/D1SC04094D.
[47] G. Li et al., “Evaluation of CO2 separation performance with enhanced features of materials – Pebax® 2533 mixed
matrix membranes containing ZIF-8-PEI@[P(3)HIm][Tf2N],” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 181,
pp. 195–208, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2022.03.023.
[48] S. Zhang, Q. Fan, R. Xia, and T. J. Meyer, “CO2 Reduction: From Homogeneous to Heterogeneous
Electrocatalysis,” Acc. Chem. Res., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 255–264, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00496.
[49] X. Wang, X. Lu, L. Wu, and J. Chen, “3D metal-organic framework as highly efficient biosensing platform for
ultrasensitive and rapid detection of bisphenol A,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 65, pp. 295–301, Mar. 2015,
doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2014.10.010.
[50] M. Younas et al., “Recent progress and remaining challenges in post-combustion CO2 capture using metal-organic
frameworks (MOFs),” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 80, p. 100849, Sep. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100849.
[51] W. Cheng, X. Tang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, and W. Yang, “Applications of metal-organic framework (MOF)-based
sensors for food safety: Enhancing mechanisms and recent advances,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 112,
pp. 268–282, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.04.004.
[52] X. Fang, B. Zong, and S. Mao, “Metal–Organic Framework-Based Sensors for Environmental Contaminant
Sensing,” Nano-Micro Lett., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 64, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s40820-018-0218-0.
[53] C.-S. Liu et al., “Highly stable aluminum-based metal-organic frameworks as biosensing platforms for assessment
of food safety,” Biosensors and Bioelectronics, vol. 91, pp. 804–810, May 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2017.01.059.
[54] S. Gaikwad, Y. Kim, R. Gaikwad, and S. Han, “Enhanced CO2 capture capacity of amine-functionalized MOF-
177 metal organic framework,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 105523, Aug. 2021,
doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2021.105523.
[55] N. Tsubouchi, M. Nishio, and Y. Mochizuki, “Role of nitrogen in pore development in activated carbon prepared
by potassium carbonate activation of lignin,” Applied Surface Science, vol. 371, pp. 301–306, May 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.02.200.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
141
[56] W. Quan et al., “Scalable Formation of Diamine-Appended Metal–Organic Framework Hollow Fiber Sorbents for
Postcombustion CO2 Capture,” JACS Au, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 1350–1358, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1021/jacsau.2c00029.
[57] H. Wu et al., “Highly Efficient Capture of Postcombustion Generated CO2 through a Copper-Based Metal–
Organic Framework,” Energy Fuels, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 610–617, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c03144.
[58] O. T. Qazvini and S. G. Telfer, “MUF-16: A Robust Metal–Organic Framework for Pre- and Post-Combustion
Carbon Dioxide Capture,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 12141–12148, Mar. 2021, doi:
10.1021/acsami.1c01156.
[59] S. C. Tiwari, A. Bhardwaj, K. D. P. Nigam, K. K. Pant, and S. Upadhyayula, “A strategy of development and
selection of absorbent for efficient CO2 capture: An overview of properties and performance,” Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, vol. 163, pp. 244–273, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.05.025.
[60] T. E. Akinola, P. L. Bonilla Prado, and M. Wang, “Experimental studies, molecular simulation and process
modelling\simulation of adsorption-based post-combustion carbon capture for power plants: A state-of-the-art review,”
Applied Energy, vol. 317, p. 119156, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119156.
[61] A. Allangawi et al., “Carbon Capture Materials in Post-Combustion: Adsorption and Absorption-Based
Processes,” C, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 17, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/c9010017.
[62] T. Chitsiga, M. O. Daramola, N. Wagner, and J. Ngoy, “Effect of the Presence of Water-soluble Amines on the
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Adsorption Capacity of Amine-grafted Poly-succinimide (PSI) Adsorbent During CO2
Capture,” Energy Procedia, vol. 86, pp. 90–105, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.01.010.
[63] A. Ra Cho et al., “Epoxide functionalization of a pentaethylenehexamine adsorbent supported on macroporous
silica for post-combustion CO2 capture,” Fuel, vol. 325, p. 124938, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124938.
[64] S. Ahmed, A. Ramli, S. Yusup, and M. Farooq, “Adsorption behavior of tetraethylenepentamine-functionalized
Si-MCM-41 for CO 2 adsorption,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 122, pp. 33–42, Jun. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.cherd.2017.04.004.
[65] E. Atta-Obeng, B. Dawson-Andoh, E. Felton, and G. Dahle, “Carbon Dioxide Capture Using Amine
Functionalized Hydrothermal Carbons from Technical Lignin,” Waste Biomass Valor, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 2725–2731,
Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12649-018-0281-2.
[66] M. A. O. Lourenço, M. Fontana, P. Jagdale, C. F. Pirri, and S. Bocchini, “Improved CO2 adsorption properties
through amine functionalization of multi-walled carbon nanotubes,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 414, p.
128763, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.128763.
[67] R. R. Kondakindi, G. McCumber, S. Aleksic, W. Whittenberger, and M. A. Abraham, “Na2CO3-based sorbents
coated on metal foil: CO2 capture performance,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 15, pp. 65–69,
Jul. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.038.
[68] D. Panda, E. A. Kumar, and S. K. Singh, “Introducing mesoporosity in zeolite 4A bodies for Rapid CO2 capture,”
Journal of CO2 Utilization, vol. 40, p. 101223, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101223.
[69] K.-J. Hwang et al., “Synthesis of zeolitic material from basalt rock and its adsorption properties for carbon
dioxide,” RSC Adv., vol. 8, no. 17, pp. 9524–9529, 2018, doi: 10.1039/C8RA00788H.
[70] W. Liang et al., “Amine-immobilized HY zeolite for CO2 capture from hot flue gas,” Chinese Journal of Chemical
Engineering, vol. 43, pp. 335–342, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cjche.2022.02.004.
[71] D. Panda, E. A. Kumar, and S. K. Singh, “Amine Modification of Binder-Containing Zeolite 4A Bodies for Post-
Combustion CO2 Capture,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 58, no. 13, pp. 5301–5313, Apr. 2019, doi:
10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03958.
[72] S.-Y. Lee and S.-J. Park, “A review on solid adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture,” Journal of Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, vol. 23, pp. 1–11, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.09.001.
[73] L. Jiang, A. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. Ling-Chin, A. P. Roskilly, and A. J. Smallbone, “Post-combustion CO2 capture
from a natural gas combined cycle power plant using activated carbon adsorption,” Applied Energy, vol. 245, pp. 1–
15, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.006.
[74] S. Krishnamurthy, R. Blom, K. A. Andreassen, V. Middelkoop, M. Rombouts, and A. B. Borras, “3D Printed PEI
Containing Adsorbents Supported by Carbon Nanostructures for Post-combustion Carbon Capture From Biomass Fired
Power Plants,” Front. Clim., vol. 3, p. 733499, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fclim.2021.733499.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
142
[75] P. Jayakaran, G. S. Nirmala, and L. Govindarajan, “Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Graphene-Based
Adsorbents in Wastewater Treatment,” International Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 2019, pp. 1–17, Jul. 2019,
doi: 10.1155/2019/9872502.
[76] A. Jana and A. Modi, “Recent progress on functional polymeric membranes for CO2 separation from flue gases:
A review,” Carbon Capture Science & Technology, vol. 11, p. 100204, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100204.
[77] W.-H. Lai, D. K. Wang, M.-Y. Wey, and H.-H. Tseng, “ZIF-8/styrene-IL polymerization hollow fiber membrane
for improved CO2/N2 separation,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 372, p. 133785, Oct. 2022, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133785.
[78] Q. Shi, “Molecular dynamics simulation of diffusion and separation of CO2/CH4/N2 on MER zeolites,” Journal
of Fuel Chemistry and Technology, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1531–1539, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/S1872-5813(21)60095-6.
[79] S. Majumdar et al., “Mg-MOF-74/Polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) mixed matrix membranes for CO2 separation,”
Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 238, p. 116411, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.116411.
[80] S. Rezaei, A. Liu, and P. Hovington, “Emerging technologies in post-combustion carbon dioxide capture &
removal,” Catalysis Today, vol. 423, p. 114286, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cattod.2023.114286.
[81] P. Ganeshan et al., “Bioenergy with carbon capture, storage and utilization: Potential technologies to mitigate
climate change,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 177, p. 106941, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106941.
[82] S. K. S. Boetcher, J. B. Perskin, Y. Maidenberg, M. J. Traum, and T. Von Hippel, “Direct atmospheric cryogenic
carbon capture in cold climates,” Carbon Capture Science & Technology, vol. 8, p. 100127, Sep. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.ccst.2023.100127.
[83] M. Shen et al., “Cryogenic technology progress for CO2 capture under carbon neutrality goals: A review,”
Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 299, p. 121734, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2022.121734.
[84] J. A. Garcia, M. Villen-Guzman, J. M. Rodriguez-Maroto, and J. M. Paz-Garcia, “Technical analysis of CO2
capture pathways and technologies,” Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 108470, Oct.
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2022.108470.
[85] G. S. Grasa and J. C. Abanades, “CO2 Capture Capacity of CaO in Long Series of Carbonation/Calcination
Cycles,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 45, no. 26, pp. 8846–8851, Dec. 2006, doi: 10.1021/ie0606946.
[86] B. Dziejarski, R. Krzyżyńska, and K. Andersson, “Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage
technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment,” Fuel, vol. 342, p. 127776, Jun. 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776.
[87] D. Y. C. Leung, G. Caramanna, and M. M. Maroto-Valer, “An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture
and storage technologies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 39, pp. 426–443, Nov. 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093.
[88] H. J. Herzog, “Scaling up carbon dioxide capture and storage: From megatons to gigatons,” Energy Economics,
vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 597–604, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.11.004.
[89] A. I. Osman, M. Hefny, M. I. A. Abdel Maksoud, A. M. Elgarahy, and D. W. Rooney, “Recent advances in carbon
capture storage and utilisation technologies: a review,” Environ Chem Lett, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 797–849, Apr. 2021, doi:
10.1007/s10311-020-01133-3.
[90] G. T. Rochelle, “Thermal degradation of amines for CO2 capture,” Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, vol.
1, no. 2, pp. 183–190, May 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.coche.2012.02.004.
[91] A. Almena, P. Thornley, K. Chong, and M. Röder, “Carbon dioxide removal potential from decentralised
bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the relevance of operational choices,” Biomass and Bioenergy,
vol. 159, p. 106406, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106406.
[92] S. Kim and Y. M. Lee, “High performance polymer membranes for CO2 separation,” Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 238–244, May 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.coche.2013.03.006.
[93] M. Clausse, J. Merel, and F. Meunier, “Numerical parametric study on CO2 capture by indirect thermal swing
adsorption,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1206–1213, Sep. 2011, doi:
10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.036.
[94] M. Fajardy, J. Morris, A. Gurgel, H. Herzog, N. Mac Dowell, and S. Paltsev, “The economics of bioenergy with
carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world,” Global Environmental Change, vol. 68,
p. 102262, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102262.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
143
[95] M. J. Tuinier, M. Van Sint Annaland, G. J. Kramer, and J. A. M. Kuipers, “Cryogenic CO 2 capture using
dynamically operated packed beds,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 114–119, Jan. 2010, doi:
10.1016/j.ces.2009.01.055.
H. Ali, N. Akhtar, S. Shams, A. Karim, U. Naeem
Memoria Investigaciones en Ingeniería, núm. 30 (2026). pp. 116-144
https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.30.9
ISSN 2301-1092 • ISSN (en línea) 2301-1106 – Universidad de Montevideo, Uruguay
144
Author contribution:
1. Conception and design of the study
2. Data acquisition
3. Data analysis
4. Discussion of the results
5. Writing of the manuscript
6. Approval of the last version of the manuscript
HA has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
NA has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
SS has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
AK has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
UN has contributed to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Acceptance Note: This article was approved by the journal editors Dr. Rafael Sotelo and Mag. Ing. Fernando A.
Hernández Gobertti.