G Model

JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jiec

Review

Factors affecting CO2 absorption efficiency in packed column: A review

L.S. Tan, A.M. Shariff *, K.K. Lau, M.A. Bustam
CO2 Management MOR, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a major greenhouse gas that results in the climate change. Hence, efforts are in
Received 13 December 2011 place to control CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. CO2 removal is also an essential step in many
Accepted 23 May 2012 industrial processing operations such as coal gasification, natural gas processing and hydrogen
Available online xxx
manufacturing. Thus far, absorption is the widely used process in industrial for capturing CO2. This paper
presents a review on the factors affecting the absorption efficiency for CO2 capture in packed column.
Keywords: Challenges related to the absorption efficiency improvement and the impacts to real application as well
CO2 capture
as future directions are highlighted.
Absorption
Packed column
ß 2012 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
Amine reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
2. Current technologies for CO2 removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
3. Overview on solvents commonly used for CO2 capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4. Factors affecting absorption efficiency in packed column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.1. Physical properties of solvent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.2. CO2 partial pressure/total system pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.3. Gas flow rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.4. Liquid flow rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.5. Absorbent concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.6. Liquid temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.7. CO2 loading of solvent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
4.8. Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
5. Major challenges and future prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000

1. Introduction shows that the world has been heating up since 1980s. It was
reported that greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious
The recent few years’ simultaneous weather-related cata- explanation for the rise in average global temperatures over the
strophes worldwide show the horrendous effects of global past 50 years [2]. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are
warming. The United Nation’s network of climate scientists – all long-lived greenhouse gases [3]. However, carbon dioxide (CO2)
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – has long is well accepted as major greenhouse gas which results in climate
predicted that rising global temperatures would produce more change due to the high ratio of CO2 released to the atmosphere
frequent and intense heat waves as well as rainfalls [1,2]. compared to other greenhouse gases [1,4]. Hence, CO2 is usually
Meanwhile, a report compiled by the National Oceanic and used as a reference for global warming potential [5,6].
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Unites States of America CO2 sources, associated with fossil-fuel energy usage namely
electricity and heat generation, industry and transport, account for
80% of the world’s total CO2 emissions [3,7]. Human activities are
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 5 368 7570; fax: +60 5 365 6176. primarily responsible for emissions of CO2 [8]. Based on estimation
E-mail address: azmish@petronas.com.my (A.M. Shariff). by International Energy Agency (IEA) [3], the global CO2 emission

1226-086X/$ – see front matter ß 2012 The Korean Society of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

2 L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Global CO2 emissions by sector for year 2000–2005 [7].
CO2 emissions by sector Emissions
2000
Gt CO2
Electricity and heat production 8 9.6
Industry 6.3
Transport 5 5.2
Residential 1.9
Fuel transformation 0.7
Commercial 0.7
Agriculture 0.6
Total 23.3
has increased from approximately 21,000 Mt in year 1990 to
28,000 Mt in year 2006. The CO2 emission rate in year 2010 was
estimated at 30,000 Mt and the amount was projected to double up
over the next 50 years [9]. In Malaysia, as a developing country, the
CO2 emission has significantly increased by more than 200% from
approximately 49 Mt in year 1990 to 154 Mt in year 2006 [3]. The
CO2 emission in Malaysia was projected to increase by more than
100% in year 2030 [10]. Table 1 shows the world CO2 emissions by
sector for year 2000–2005. Recent IEA analysis in Energy
Technology Perspective (ETP) 2008 projected that the CO2
emissions attributable to energy sector will increase by 130% by
2050 in the absence of new policies or supply constraints, largely
as a result of increased fossil fuel usage.
With the increased awareness on the severity of the global
warming, concerted efforts are in place to control CO2 emissions
into the atmosphere [6]. The commonly accepted target is to avoid
an increase of the average global temperature beyond 2 8C. It is
regarded as the threshold to avoid severe negative impact for life
on mother earth [5].
CO2 removal is also essential process in sweetening of natural
gas from underground reservoir. Natural gas generally contains a
large quantity of methane along with heavier hydrocarbons such
as ethane, propane, isobutene, normal butane and considerable
amount of CO2 [11]. CO2 must be removed from natural gas before
use. This is because CO2 is highly corrosive with presence of
moisture (water) and rapidly destroys pipelines and equipment. It
also reduces the heating value of a natural gas stream and wastes
pipeline capacity [12].
Natural gas in commercial operations includes varying amounts
of CO2 ranging from CO2-free natural gas in Siberia to as high as 90%
of CO2 content in natural gas in the Platong and Erawan fields in
Thailand. The Natuna field in the Greater Sarawak Basin in Indonesia
is the largest gas field in south Asia, with estimated 46 trillion cubic
Emissions feet of recoverable reserved. Unfortunately, it remains unexplored
2005 due to high CO2 content at 71% [7]. In Malaysia, CO2 content from
Gt CO2
natural gas fields varies from 28 to 87%. Over 13 trillions cubic feet of
natural gas reserves are undeveloped due to the presence of high CO2
6.8 contents [13]. High CO2 gas fields in Malaysia represent significant
CO2 capture and storage (CCS) opportunity.
2.2
0.9 While natural gas sweetening and post combustion CO2 capture
0.9 technology is readily implemented in plants commercially, there is
0.7 also emerging pre-combustion technology employed in natural gas
26.3 plants whereby the methane rich gas is converted into hydrogen
(H2) for combustion [14,15]. The by-product, CO2, produced during
the steam reforming of natural gas, needs to be separated from H2
before H2 could be fed into combustion turbine. The advantage of
pre-combustion process is lower energy penalty compared to post-
combustion CO2 capture due to higher CO2 concentration and
elevated pressure [16]. Kvamsdal et al. [17] conducted comparison
on natural gas fired power plants net efficiency and emission of
CO2 between post-combustion, oxy-fuel and pre-combustion
capture concepts. They concluded that oxy-fuel technology could
provide better net plant efficiency, but it has a distant future
perspective for realization.
Globally, there are 62 active or planned commercial scale
integrated CCS projects, comprising capture, transport and
sequestration elements, sequestering of CO2. However, only seven
projects are currently in the operational stage while the rest are in
the evaluation, definition, or execution stages [18]. As such, with
more insight generated by continuous and intense research on CCS,
it is expected to accelerate the transition from evaluation to
execution and operational stage.
2. Current technologies for CO2 removal
Most attention is currently focused on absorption and
membrane separation for the time being due to maturity of the
processes compared to the rest [7,19]. There are also emerging
novel technologies for CO2 capture such as biotechnology i.e.
enzyme based system [7,20,21], electrochemical pumps and
chemical looping [22,23] but extensive research still needs to be
conducted to establish the strategy for its integration in industrial
processes. Table 2 provides an overview of current CO2 capture
options, issues and their potential.
Notz et al. [24] compared the technologies available for CO2
capture and concluded that reactive absorption with aqueous

Table 2
CO2 capture technologies and its future directions [7,24–29].

Technology Industrial applications Critical issues for large scale application Future needs/emerging trends

Absorption Removal of CO2 from flue gas.
Purification of natural gas.
Energy requirement for regeneration. Improved process design.
Pretreatment of other acid gases. Solvents with high CO2 capacity and low
regeneration energy.
Rotating absorber.
Novel and improved contacting
equipment.

Membranes CO2 separation in H2 production. CO2 selectivity. Degradation/fouling issue. Ceramic facilitated transport.
Purification of natural gas. Cross-linking the mixed matrix
membranes to attain enhanced
permeability and selectivity.

Cryogenic distillation CO2 liquefaction from gas wells. Refrigeration <0 8C. Hybrid process.
Pretreatment for impurities that freeze Integration with sequestration
above operating temperature (e.g. H2S). processes.
Efficient refrigeration cycles.

Adsorption CO2 separation in H2 production. Adsorbents tend to have low capacity/selectivity. New adsorbents that adsorb CO2 in
Purification of natural gas. Energy penalty for regeneration. presence of water vapor.
Long cycle times. Carbon-based adsorbents.

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3

amine solutions is considered to be the only attractive option for
post-combustion capture. The other technologies are currently less
attractive either for economical reasons or because the technology
is still at a development stage that would only allow industrial
application at a later date. Hence, based on the mature technology
of absorption process, it can be implemented on a large scale in the
near future.
3. Overview on solvents commonly used for CO2 capture
Absorption processes with chemical solvents are currently the
most used technology for CO2 separation from natural gas and
post-combustion CO2 capture commercially because they are the
most efficient and have lower costs compared to other processes
thus far [27]. In gas processing industry, amine systems have been
widely used for years for removing entrained CO2 in raw gas [18].
Low hydrocarbon loss is observed in amine system and it could
meet the low CO2 specification required in processed natural gas
[29].
Absorption in a physical solvent relies on the solubility of CO2 in
the solvent rather than a chemical reaction with the solvent. The
solvent is regenerated by changing pressure or temperature.
However, since the CO2 concentration in flue gas from coal fired
power plant is typically up to 15% [4,7,25,30], chemical absorption
is generally preferred over physical absorption for CO2 capture in
flue gas because of their higher absorption capacity at a low partial
pressure of CO2 [31,32].
Among the solvents available, the most popular and widely
used solvent in industrial process for capturing CO2 is mono-
ethanolamine (MEA) [30,32]. Table 3 summarizes the advantages

Table 3
Summary of solvents commonly studied in chemical absorption process for commercial implementation.

Solvent Advantage Disadvantage Ref.

Monoethanolamine (MEA)
- High reactivity and fast absorption rate, - Limited CO2 loading capacity [14,32–38]
which allows absorption to take place due to formation of rather
in a shorter column. stable carbamates.
- Low absorption of hydrocarbon. - Degradation through irreversible
side reactions with CO2 and O2.
-Operational issue such as solvent
loss, foaming, fouling, increased
viscosity and corrosion.

Diethanolamine (DEA) - High reactivity and fast absorption rate. - Limited CO2 loading capacity. [33,34,39]
- The carbamate of DEA is not as stable - Prone to a certain extent of
as the carbamate of MEA. corrosion and solvent degradation.

Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA)
- Higher CO2 loading compared to MEA - Slow absorption kinetics with CO2. [16,30,33,
and DEA due to formation of the 34,37,39–43]
bicarbonate ion instead of carbamates.
- Low heat of reaction with the acid gases
which leads to lower energy requirements
for regeneration.
- Lower solvent degradation rate compared
to MEA and DEA.
- Not corrosive to carbon steel.

Diisopropanolamine (DIPA)
- Less corrosive than MEA or DEA solutions.
- Requires less heat in the regeneration of
the solution.
- Have moderate rates of reaction [33,35,44]
with CO2 and are prone to a certain
extent of corrosion and solvent
degradation.
- Have a greater selectivity for H2S
over CO2.

2-Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)
- Higher CO2 loading capacity compared - Lower absorption rate compared [38,45–47]
to MEA. to MEA.
- Requires relatively low energy consumption
for solvent regeneration.
- Induces less corrosion.
- Higher degradation resistance.

Piperazine (PZ) - Higher CO2 loading capacity compared to MEA.
- The reaction of CO2 with piperazine is much
faster than with conventional carbamate-forming
amines such as MEA and DEA.
- Resistant to thermal degradation up to 150 8C.
- Resistant to oxidative degradation.
- Less volatile than MEA.
- High concentration in solution is not [42,48–53]
possible due to its solubility limitation
in water. Hence, it is usually used as
promoter for amine systems to improve
CO2 mass transfer rates.

Ammonia - High absorption capacity and fast absorption rate.
- Salts formed from reaction with CO2 can be used
commercially as fertilizers.
- Low energy requirement since solvent regeneration
is required.
- Resistance to oxidative and thermal degradation.
- Temperature in absorber must be lower [14,30,54–57]
than 60 8C to prevent decomposition of
ammonium bicarbonate (by-product
from reaction with CO2).
- Highly volatile and often provides an
ammonia slip into the exit gas.

Potassium carbonate (K2CO3)
- Significantly lower absorption enthalpy compared
to amine solvent.
- Requires presence of promoting amines [11,24,58–61]
such as piperazine/high temperature of
solvent up to 75 8C to significantly
increase the otherwise low mass
transfer rate.
- Corrosive to carbon steel; required
corrosion inhibitor.

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

4 L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Summary of CO2 absorption in packed column experimental studies/pilot tests.

Absorbent(s) Type of Name of packing Column inner Variables studied Ref.

packing diameter (mm)

Ammonia Random Pall Rings 597 Configuration of absorbers, packing height, solvent concentration, [62]
CO2 loading of lean solvent, gas flow rate, liquid flow rate
MEA Random Raschig Ring, Not disclosed Gas flow rate, liquid flow rate, type of packing [63]
Intalox Saddle
and Pro-Pak
MEA Random Super Mini Ring 76 Type of packing [64]
(SMR) and Pall Rings
MEA Random Pall Rings Not disclosed Gas flow rate, liquid temperature [65]
MEA Random Raschig Rings 250 Liquid/gas ratio, pressure and packing size [66]
Mixture of Random Raschig Ring 20 CO2 partial pressure, weight ratio of absorbents mixture [67]
MDEA and PZ
Novel amine Random Ring-shaped stainless Not disclosed Liquid flow rate [68]
based solution steel packing
AMP Structured Mellapak 250Y 150 Liquid flow rate, absorbent concentration, CO2 loading in solution, [69]
CO2 inlet concentration
NaOH Structured Mellapak 250Y 427 Surface tension [70]
Mellapak 500Y
NaOH Structured Mellapak 250Y 427 Viscosity and surface tension [71]
Mellapak 500Y
Flexipac 1Y
NaOH, MEA, AMP Structured Sulzer EX 19 Gas flow rate, CO2 partial pressure, liquid flow rate, liquid [72]
Gempak 4A temperature, solvent concentration, solvent type and structured
Sulzer BX packing type
MEA Structured Mellapak 250Y 150 Liquid temperature, gas temperature [73]
NaOH Structured HelieR, Mellapak 38 and 100 Geometric arrangements of packing, packing size, gas flow rate, [74]
250Y, Montz B1-200 liquid flow rate
KOH Structured Mellapak 350Y 100 CO2 loading of lean solvent [75]
AMP Structured Sulzer EX 19 CO2 partial pressure, gas flow rate, liquid flow rate, and solvent [76]
concentration
MDEA Structured Sulzer EX 25 CO2 loading of lean solvent [77]
MEA and blended Structured Sulzer DX 20 CO2 loading of lean solvent, alkanolamine concentration, CO2 [78]
MEA/MDEA partial pressure, temperature, liquid flow rate
MEA, AMP Structured Intalox Saddle, 76 Packing type, solvent type, presence of organic diluents [79]
and random BX gauze, Flexipac
MEA Structured Pall Rings, IMTP, 101 Solvent concentration, packing type, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, [80]
and random A4-structured packing inlet gas composition, CO2 loading of lean solvent
TS-1, MEA, AMP Not disclosed Not disclosed 160 Type of solvent [81]

and drawbacks of the solvents commonly used/studied in chemical
absorption process.
4. Factors affecting absorption efficiency in packed column
In recent years, various experimental works have been carried
out to further investigate on efficiency of packed column in CO2
removal. Packed column is commonly used as a means of
promoting efficient contact between gases and liquids because
it could offer high mass transfer efficiency with low pressure drop
[61]. The list of researches and pilot tests examining the effect of
operating condition and column packing structure experimentally
are summarized in Table 4. Insight from factors affecting
absorption performance in packed column is further discussed
in the following subsections.
reaction rate constant, k2, and surface tension for NaOH and MEA
aqueous solution. Although MEA has lower reaction rate constant
compared to NaOH, the overall mass transfer coefficient, KGav, for
MEA was higher due to its lower surface tension as indicated in
Fig. 1. Lower surface tension resulted in increased capability of
spreading and this behavior tended to maximize the effective area
of the packing [72].
However, the magnitude of impact depends on type of packing.
Tsai et al. [70] found that reducing surface tension from
approximately 72 mN/m to 35 mN/m minimally impacted the
effective mass transfer area of Mellapak 250Y but yielded
substantially higher areas for Mellapak 500Y. It was deduced that
this was due to the inhibition of capillary phenomena by the
reduced surface tension. This indicated that packings with higher

4.1. Physical properties of solvent

While viscosity was found to have no effect on the mass transfer

parameter [71], the influence of surface tension could sometimes
prevail over influence of reaction rate in certain cases. Such
behavior was observed by Aroonwilas et al. [72]. Table 5 shows the

Table 5
Second order reaction rate constant, k2, and surface tension for NaOH and MEA
aqueous solution [72].

Parameter NaOH aqueous solution MEA aqueous solution

k2 (m3/(kmol s)) 13,190 at 20 8C 5545 at 25 8C

Surface tension 70.9  103 at 2 kmol/m3 61.8  103 at 3 kmol/m3
at 30 8C (N/m) Fig. 1. KGav comparison between aqueous solutions of NaOH and MEA [72].

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

surface area are expected to experience a greater improvement in

effective mass transfer area than packings with lower surface area
under low surface tension conditions.

4.2. CO2 partial pressure/total system pressure

CO2 partial pressure is defined as [82]:

CO2 partial pressure ¼ mole fraction of CO2

 pressure of system (1)

As such, the effect of CO2 partial pressure and total system pressure
is discussed together since the variation of CO2 partial pressure
could be due to concentration of CO2 in inlet gas and/or variation of
the total system pressure itself.
According to Bailey and Feron [83], higher CO2 content in gas
stream resulted in a higher driving force for absorption. Zhang et al.
[67] found that the absorption rate of CO2 in MDEA + PZ was
enhanced at elevated CO2 partial pressure while Godini and Mowla
[66] observed similar increased absorption efficiency with increasing
of pressure for MEA system. At high CO2 partial pressure, there was an
increase of the interfacial tension resulting from the concentration
increase in the interface. This condition would increase the instability
of the gas/liquid-phase interface and lead to the interfacial
disturbance, which is called the Marangoni effect. Buzek et al. [84]
also observed that Marangoni effect significantly enhanced mass
transfer rate but it could easily be damped by a surface active agent.
Therefore, it was suggested that amine solutions used for absorption
should not be contaminated by traces of surfactants.
The inability of primary and secondary amine to load up with
CO2 much beyond 0.5 mol of CO2/mol of amine can be attributed to
the rather stable carbamates formed. However, a certain amount of
carbamate hydrolysis can occur with all amine, particularly at high
pressures, and loading for MEA and DEA may exceed 0.5 under this
condition [38]. Nevertheless, more investigation on kinetic at high
pressure condition needs to be carried out to confirm this matter.
However, Aroonwilas and Tontiwachwuthikul [32] found that
the overall mass transfer coefficient for NaOH increased when the
partial pressure of CO2 decreased from 10.0 to 1.0 kPa as shown in
Fig. 2. Although the effect was not significant in AMP [32,76],
further studies on impact of CO2 partial pressure need to be
conducted to establish deeper understanding on the effect of CO2
partial pressure.
4.3. Gas flow rate
Fig. 3. Effect of gas flow rate on the overall mass transfer coefficient using AMP [76].
aqueous solution as shown in Fig. 3. The authors expected that an
increase in the gas load allowed more CO2 molecules to travel from
gas bulk to the gas–liquid interface, which would result in higher
mass-transfer performance. Nevertheless, it was deduced that the
mass transfer process in the study was primarily controlled by the
resistance residing in the liquid phase. Hence, diffusion of solvent
molecules within the liquid phase was restricted, causing a
constant amount of CO2 absorbed regardless of the gas load values.
Aboudheir et al. [80] observed increase of CO2 removal
percentage with reducing the gas feed rate as shown in Fig. 4.
Higher CO2 removal efficiency using 30 wt% MEA was also
observed by Park et al. [63] at lower flue gas flow rate under
constant absorbent flow rate. The authors deduced that this was
due to shorter gas–liquid contact time with the increase of gas flow
rate.
Recently, Yan et al. [4] found that the overall mass transfer
coefficient, KGav, showed two distinct behaviors in two regions of
gas flow rate. In the first region where gas flow rate was below
37.5 kmol/(m2 h), KGav was less sensitive to the change in gas flow
rate. However, in the second region whereby gas flow rate was
above 37.5 kmol/(m2 h), the KGav values decreased significantly
with the increase of the gas flow rate. The high gas velocity in the
packed column could possibly entrain the solvents because of
the direct contact between liquid and gas phases and resulted in
the decrease of liquid flow rate spreading on the packing surface.

Aroonwilas et al. [32,72,76] observed no significant effect of

gas flow rate in the range of 46–97 kmol m2 h1 (0.29–
0.61 m3 m2 s1) for overall mass transfer coefficient using AMP

Fig. 2. Effect of CO2 partial pressure on the overall mass transfer coefficient for (a)
CO2–NaOH; (b) CO2–AMP [32]. Fig. 4. Effect of gas flow rate on the CO2 absorption [80].

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10
6 L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. Effect of liquid load on the CO2 absorption performance [33].
4.4. Liquid flow rate
In absorption operation, it was well agreed in various studies
that higher solution/liquid flow rate led to higher CO2 removal
efficiency [32,33,62,63,68,72,80,85]. Fig. 5 shows that the CO2
removal efficiency for 5 different types of amine increased with the
increase of liquid load/flow rate. The improvement was especially
obvious for MEA. This increasing trend was because the wetted
surface of the packing material for gas–liquid contact increased
with increase of solution flow rate [68]. Hence, there was an
increase in the effective area for mass transfer process [33,72].
According to Aroonwilas and Tontiwachwuthikul [76], there was
also higher liquid-side mass transfer coefficient and higher
availability of absorbent molecules reacting with CO2 per unit
time with increase of liquid flow rate.
However, it should be noted that during operation at industrial
stage, higher steam flow rate would be needed to regenerate the
higher flow rate solvent. Otherwise, there would be higher CO2
loading in the regenerated lean solvent and it would subsequently
lower the absorption performance as observed by Arashi et al. [68]
in Fig. 6.
4.5. Absorbent concentration
An increase in absorbent concentration generally leads to an
increase in mass transfer coefficient [32,62,72,78]. This was due to
higher amounts of solvent molecules per unit volume available for
absorbing more CO2 at the gas–liquid interface and it increased the
chance for CO2 to contact and react with the active absorbent.
Fig. 6. Relationship between solution flow rate (L/h) to (a) CO2 removal; (b) CO2 loading in lean solution at constant steam flow rate of 250 kg/h (for stripping process) [68].
Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
However, balanced consideration between absorption efficien-
cy and cost involved should be taken when increasing the
concentration of absorbent. Aboudheir et al. [80] experimented
with extra high concentration of MEA solutions and found that as
the MEA concentration was increased from 18 wt% to 30 wt%, the
CO2 removal efficiency increased from about 91% to 96%, with 5% of
enhancement achieved. It was observed that only 2% of enhance-
ment was achieved when MEA concentration was further
increased from 30 wt% to 54 wt% even though at a higher MEA
concentration, the net CO2 absorption per mole of MEA is less. The
authors deduced two reasons for the trend observed. First, the
acid-gas vapor pressure was higher over more concentrated
solutions at equivalent acid-gas/amine mole ratio. Second, the
higher heat of reaction in the more concentrated solution resulted
in a greater increase in temperature. This increase in temperature
would increase the CO2 vapor pressure over the solution.
According to Setameteekul et al. [78], the increasing viscosity of
the solutions from with increase of absorbent concentration also
possibly hindered the ability of the liquid to spread, which offset
the positive effect of increased availability of absorbent molecules.
4.6. Liquid temperature
In general, temperature is an important parameter influencing
reaction kinetics. For CO2 absorption kinetics, the reaction rate
constant normally is based on the Arrhenius expression [86]:
k ¼ AeEa =RT (2)
The natural log of the equation results in the following expression:
Ea 1
lnðkÞ ¼ lnðAÞ  (3)
R T
This indicates that the reaction rate constant is temperature
dependence and increasing temperature leads to a greater reaction
rate constant, k. It was confirmed in several studies that higher
temperature contributed to higher mass transfer efficiency [49,51].
However, Aroonwilas et al. [72,85] observed that too high of a
temperature induced efficiency deterioration. Fig. 7 shows that
when the temperature of MEA was increased from 25 to 36 8C, the
mass transfer coefficient increased. Nevertheless, when the
temperature was further increased to 45 8C, the removal efficiency
dropped. This was due to the thermodynamics of the exothermic
CO2 absorption system which could cause reversible reactions
when the temperature was too high. The increase in temperature
could also increase the CO2 vapor pressure over the solution which
leads to decrease of the physical solubility of CO2 in solvent [30,80].
Hence, there is a need to strike a balance between physical
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10

L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7

Table 6
Properties of structured and random packing.

Type of Name of packing Surface Void Ref.

packing area fraction
(m2/m3) (%)

Structured Flexipac 1Y 453 91 [87]

Flexipac 2Y 223 95 [88]
Flexipac 3Y 115 96 [88]
Gempak 1A 115 95 [88]
Gempak 2A 223 96 [88]
Gempak 4A 446 92 [89]
Mellapak 500Y 500 91 [89]
Mellapak 500X 500 91 [89]
Mellapak 350Y 351 95 [90]
Mellapak 250Y 250 95 [91]
Mellapak 250X 250 95 [91]
Sulzer-BX 492 90 [91]
Sulzer-DX 900 78 [92]
Sulzer-EX 1710 86 [93]
Fig. 7. The overall mass transfer coefficient in CO2–MEA system at various liquid Optiflow 210 98 [85]
temperature [85]. Montz-Pak B1-200 200 98 [94]
Montz-Pak B1-250 245 98 [88]
solubility and reaction kinetics while increasing temperature to Montz-Pak B2-300 300 93 [94]
enhance the absorption efficiency. Random 1 in. Pall Rings 205 94 [91]
1.5 in. Pall Rings 130 95 [91]
4.7. CO2 loading of solvent 2 in. Pall Rings 115 96 [91]
Raschig Super-Rings 0.5 236 96 [95]
Raschig Super-Rings 0.7 176 97 [95]
Increase of CO2 loading in solvent reflected lower available active Raschig Super-Rings 1 156 98 [95]
absorbent concentration in the solution and this condition could IMTP #25 230 97 [91]
significantly reduce the mass transfer coefficient for 30 wt% MEA IMTP #40 154 97 [91]
and ammonia as depicted in Fig. 8 [30]. It is noted that the operating IMTP #50 98 98 [91]
1 in. Intalox Saddles 256 72 [32,96]
temperature of ammonia is much lower than MEA since ammonia is
1.5 in. Intalox Saddles 194 73 [32,96]
highly volatile and the low temperature is necessary to prevent 2 in. Intalox Saddles 118 75 [32,96]
ammonia slip (as explained in Table 3). Arashi et al. [68] observed 1 in. Raschig Rings 190 68 [94]
that when CO2 loading in the lean solution was high, the driving 1.5 in. Raschig Rings 121 72 [32,96]
2 in. Raschig Rings 95 83 [94]
force of mass transfer from gas to solution became small and the
1 in. Berl Saddles 250 68 [91]
decrease in CO2 removal efficiency could not be compensated even 1.5 in. Berl Saddles 150 71 [91]
with the increase of solution flow rate. The strong influence of CO2 2 in. Berl Saddles 105 72 [91]
loading to the mass transfer coefficient was also discovered by
Setameteekul et al. [78]. Among the process parameter of
alkanolamine concentration, CO2 partial pressure in feed gas, mass-transfer coefficient than random packing [72,79,80]. Aroon-
temperature, CO2 loading of solvent and liquid circulating rate, wilas et al. [72] found that Gempak 4A provides almost two fold
the authors observed that CO2 loading of the solution was the most mass-transfer performance (KGav) superior to #25 and 1 in. Pall
influential process parameter on overall mass-transfer coefficient. Rings. This was perhaps due to a considerably higher geometric
surface area per unit volume of the structured packing in
4.8. Packing comparison with those of random packings as indicated in Table
6. A study conducted by Marcia et al. [97] indicated that structured
Packing is instrumental in creating longer gas–liquid contact packing provided more evenly distributed flow of solution
time during CO2 absorption process. Table 6 lists the properties of throughout the column packing compared to the Pall Rings
commercial packing. random packing.
In recent years, there are increasing findings that structured Generally, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient increased
packing in an absorber can provide a much higher overall with increase of surface area [98]. However, surface area of packing
should not be the only judging criteria for higher mass transfer
coefficient estimation as there are also other influencing factors
such as pattern of packing arrangement, corrugation angle and
crimp height in the case for structured packing [89]. According to
Aroonwilas et al. [85], for arrangements of successive packing
elements, the 908 and 458 rotation around the column axis
provided better efficiency compared to 08 rotation.
Meanwhile, higher void fraction generally indicates lower
pressure drop. Nevertheless, liquid holdup could cause reduction
of void space in small-size packing. Hence, careful consideration on
shape and size of packing should be taken into account as larger-
size packing could minimize the liquid entrainment capacity [96].

5. Major challenges and future prospects

Fig. 8. Overall mass transfer co-efficient for CO2 absorption with aqueous ammonia Although MEA is an effective and popular solvent, strong bonds
and 30% (w/w) MEA solvents as a function of CO2 loading [30]. are created between the solvent and CO2 and the breaking of these

Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10
8 L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Fig. 9. (a) Woven carbon fibers which were braided into tubes; (b) the final structure after the tubes were fitted together [106].
bonds requires large amounts of energy [31]. Alternative solvents
which could overcome the problem are being sought after.
Ultimately, improvement in the performance of current amine-
based system and reduction in energy penalty can reduce the
future cost of CO2 capture [99]. Ideally, the newly developed
solvent should have high reactivity, low vapor pressure in order to
reduce the loss of solvent in desorption, low degradation with time,
low-cost and as harmless as possible [27,31]. In recent years, new
chemical absorbents such as sterically hindered amines are being
examined since the bonding between the solvent and CO2 is
weaker and subsequently, the recovery energy could be reduced
[7].
Eimer identified three alternative solvents which have about
30% lower energy consumption and significantly lower degrada-
tion rates compared to MEA i.e. Mitsubishi’s KS-1, Universiti of
Regina’s PSR and Praxair’s solvent [26]. KS-1 is already imple-
mented commercially at a fertilizer plant in Malaysia [7,27] while
PRS and Praxair’s solvent is still in testing stage but they could soon
be available commercially [26]. KS-1 solvent is also not a corrosive
substance in contrast to MEA. Hence, it does not require a corrosion
inhibitor [14,100]. Meanwhile, integrated projects supported by
European Commission have so far developed several versions of
new solvent such as CASTOR1, CASTOR2, CESAR1 and CESAR2
[101,102]. The pilot plant study on the solvents indicated that
CESAR1 could provide reduction of about 20% in the regeneration
energy and 45% in the solvent flow rate compared to MEA [103].
CASTOR2 also showed significantly lower energy requirement than
MEA [104]. While various researches are intensively conducted to
produce new solvents with low regeneration heat duty, it should
be noted that the sensible heat needed to raise the solvent from
absorber to desorber temperature and the heat of evaporation
required to produce the stripping steam in the reboiler should also
be taken into consideration on top of the heat necessary to desorb
the CO2 from the solution (heat of absorption) [83,105].
Cost-effective and energy-efficient process is also important in
order to reduce the cost of CO2 capture. Hence, the development of
novel generation of column internals which can provide enhanced
mass transfer performance and relatively low pressure drop is an
area of study which is worth exploring. Recently, there are
emerging researches on development of novel packing. A novel
structured packing which had high effective area, low density,
significant structural cohesion and provided low pressure drop
was developed using the corrosion-resistant and inert carbon
fibres (Fig. 9) [106]. There was also development of ‘honeycomb’
and straight strips of packing manufactured from porous PVC
which could increase the volumetric mass-transfer coefficient for
extremely low liquid flow rate [107,108]. Tremendous studies still
Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
need to be done to confirm the efficiency when it is scaled up, but
these innovative structures could pave way for new generation of
packing evolution.
There are efforts on enhancing mass transfer rate between gas
and liquid via rotating packed bed (RPB) in which liquid and gas are
contacted in the presence of a high centrifugal field. Lin et al. [109]
found that the CO2 removal efficiency in a rotating packed bed was
comparable to packed tower while Tan and Chen [110] observed
more effective mass transfer in RPB than that in a packed tower.
Although usage of RPB could provide saving in size and space
[49,111,112], further study needs to be conducted in order to
overcome the mechanical maintenance issue if it were to be
applied commercially. Recently, there are emerging studies on
using spray column for CO2 removal and it was observed to be
capable of removing CO2 from gas streams at a higher rate than the
packed column due to greater interfacial area provided [113,114].
Besides, there is opportunity for alternative form of CCS
whereby CO2 is captured in solid formation after reacting with
solvent [115,116]. Currently, the strategy for CO2 storage is to have
the CO2 dispersed in pores in a geological formation, eventually
dissolved in formation water and reacted with rocks. However,
there is a need for suitable selection of storage location, injection
system design and monitoring during and after injection process
[117,118]. CO2 could be captured in bicarbonate salts form using
amino acids and it is optional to degas it outside the column [116].
CO2 could also be captured in the form of calcium carbonate after
reaction with aqueous MEA containing calcium nitrate while stable
salts formation could be produced from reaction between CO2 and
ammonia which could be used commercially as fertilizers [55,119–
121]. This kind of solvent would require a different post-
absorption process strategy such as filtration and sedimentation
instead of the conventional stripping process. Nevertheless, this
alternative form of CO2 storage, i.e. chemically bonded, offers a
great potential for bulk CO2 storage as opposed to the current deep
sea sequestration option which requires substantial cost for the
implementation [24,122]. In addition to that, direct injection of
CO2 into the mid-water oceanic column requires consideration for
the environmental impacts such as lowered pH of the exposed
waters and associated ecological impact [123]. This kind of post-
absorption strategy could also be considered for offshore applica-
tion whereby regeneration process is not a feasible option due to
limited space and unavailability of huge heating utility system.
6. Conclusion
With the increase of weather-related catastrophes occurring, it
is of utmost importance to consolidate all the available resources
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10
L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
and knowledge worldwide to curb the CO2 emission into
atmosphere to minimize the global warming effect. Although
there are emerging new technologies for CO2 removal, it was well
acknowledged that absorption process is the most popular method
of separation of CO2 from flue gas or natural gas. Various important
operating factors affecting the absorption efficiency were dis-
cussed in this paper. It hoped that with the continuous studies
conducted worldwide currently, the challenges related to the
absorption process can be overcome and more CO2 capture project
can be integrated and materialized in the industrial process.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank YUTP Fundamental Research
Grant for providing financial support on CO2 absorption research
which has resulted in this article.
References
[1] H.-J. Leimkuhler, in: H.-J. Leimkuhler (Ed.), Managing CO2 Emissions in the
Chemical Industry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010, p. 1.
[2] C.J. Hanley, The Star (2010) T2-3.
[3] International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, OCDE/IEA,
France, 2008.
[4] S. Yan, M. Fang, W. Zhang, W. Zhong, Z. Luo, K. Cen, Energy Conversion and
Management 49 (11) (2008) 3188.
[5] M. Wolf, B. Himmelreich, J. Korte, in: H.-J. Leimkuhler (Ed.), Managing CO2
Emissions in the Chemical Industry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010, p. 33.
[6] S. Bouzalakos, M.M. Maroto-Valer, in: M.M. Maroto-Valer (Ed.), Developments
and Innovation in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology, vol. 1,
Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC, Cornwall, 2010, p. 1.
[7] International Energy Agency, CO2 Capture and Storage: A Key Carbon Abatement
Option, OECD/IEA, France, 2008.
[8] D.J. Wuebbles, A.K. Jain, R.G. Watts, in: R.G. Watts (Ed.), Innovative Energy
Strategies for CO2 Stabilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002,
p. 1.
[9] C. Tsouris, D.S. Aaron, K.A. Williams, Environmental Science & Technology 44
(11) (2010) 4042.
[10] S. Ahmad, M.Z.A.A. Kadir, S. Shafie, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 15
(2) (2011) 897.
[11] R. Faiz, M. Al-Marzouqi, Separation and Purification Technology 76 (3) (2011)
351.
[12] M. Safari, A. Ghanizadeh, M.M. Montazer-Rahmati, The International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (1) (2009) 3.
[13] N.H. Darman, A.R. Harun, The Petroleum Policy and Management Project, 4th
Workshop on the China-Shichuan Basin Case Study, Beijing, 2006.
[14] A.A. Olajire, Energy 35 (6) (2010) 2610.
[15] L.O. Nord, R. Anantharaman, O. Bolland, The International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 3 (4) (2009) 385.
[16] D.M. D’Alessandro, B. Smit, J.R. Long, Angewandte Chemie-International Edition
49 (35) (2010) 6058.
[17] H.M. Kvamsdal, K. Jordal, O. Bolland, Energy 32 (1) (2007) 10.
[18] P.E. Hardisty, M. Sivapalan, P. Brooks, International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 8 (5) (2011) 1460.
[19] D. Aaron, C. Tsouris, Separation Science and Technology 40 (1) (2005) 321.
[20] M.C. Trachtenberg, R.M. Cowan, D.A. Smith, D.A. Horazak, M.D. Jensen, J.D.
Laumb, A.P. Vucelic, H. Chen, L. Wang, X. Wu, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 353.
[21] J.D. Figueroa, T. Fout, S. Plasynski, H. McIlvried, R.D. Srivastava, The International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2 (1) (2008) 9.
[22] E.J. Granite, T. O’Brien, Fuel Processing Technology 86 (14–15) (2005) 1423.
[23] O. Brandvoll, O. Bolland, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power 126
(2) (2004) 316.
[24] R.J. Notz, I. Tönnies, N. McCann, G. Scheffknecht, H. Hasse, Chemical Engineering
& Technology 34 (2) (2011) 163.
[25] D.C. Thomas, H.R. Kerr, in: D.C. Thomas (Ed.), Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage
in Deep Geologic Formation, vol. 1, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005.
[26] D. Eimer, in: D.C. Thomas (Ed.), Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep
Geologic Formation, vol. 1, Elsevier, Oxford, 2005, p. 91.
[27] U. Desideri, in: M.M. Maroto-Valer (Ed.), Developments and Innovation in
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology, vol. 1, Woodhear
Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC, Cornwall, 2010, p. 155.
[28] A. Basile, A. Iulianelli, in: M.M. Maroto-Valer (Ed.), Developments and Innova-
tion in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology, vol. 1, Woodhead
Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC, Cornwall, 2010, p. 203.
[29] S. Sridhar, B. Smitha, T.M. Aminabhavi, Separation & Purification Reviews 36 (2)
(2007) 113.
[30] N. Dave, T. Do, G. Puxty, R. Rowland, P.H.M. Feron, M.I. Attalla, Energy Procedia 1
(1) (2009) 949.
[31] F. Schwendig, in: H.-J. Leimkuhler (Ed.), Managing CO2 Emissions in the Chemical
Industry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010, p. 391.
Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
9
[32] A. Aroonwilas, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, Separation and Purification Technology 12
(1) (1997) 67.
[33] A. Aroonwilas, A. Veawab, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 43 (9)
(2004) 2228.
[34] O.F. Dawodu, A. Meisen, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 39 (3) (1994)
548.
[35] E.E. Isaacs, F.D. Otto, A.E. Mather, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 22
(1) (1977) 71.
[36] H. Lepaumier, D. Picq, P.L. Carrette, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 893.
[37] K.P. Shen, M.H. Li, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 37 (1) (1992) 96.
[38] G. Sartori, D.W. Savage, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 22 (2)
(1983) 239.
[39] D.M. Austgen, G.T. Rochelle, C.C. Chen, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 30 (3) (1991) 543.
[40] F. Barzagli, F. Mani, M. Peruzzini, Energy & Environmental Science 3 (6) (2010)
772.
[41] S. Bishnoi, G.T. Rochelle, Fluid Phase Equilibria 168 (2) (2000) 241.
[42] S. Bishnoi, G.T. Rochelle, Chemical Engineering Science 55 (22) (2000) 5531.
[43] G.-W. Xu, C.-F. Zhang, S.-J. Qin, W.-H. Gao, H.-B. Liu, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 37 (4) (1998) 1473.
[44] A. Henni, J.J. Hromek, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Chakma, Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 48 (4) (2003) 1062.
[45] P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Meisen, C.J. Lim, Chemical Engineering Science 47 (2)
(1992) 381.
[46] A. Aboudheir, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, R. Idem, Industrial & Engineering Chemis-
try Research 45 (8) (2006) 2553.
[47] E. Alper, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 29 (8) (1990) 1725.
[48] S.A. Freeman, R. Dugas, D.H. Van Wagener, T. Nguyen, G.T. Rochelle, The
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2) (2010) 119.
[49] H.-H. Cheng, C.-S. Tan, Journal of Power Sources 162 (2) (2006) 1431.
[50] G. Xu, C. Zhang, S. Qin, Y. Wang, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 31
(3) (1992) 921.
[51] R. Notz, N. Asprion, I. Clausen, H. Hasse, Transactions of the IChemE Part A:
Chemical Engineering Research & Design 85 (A4) (2007) 510.
[52] X. Chen, F. Closmann, G.T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 101.
[53] G. Rochelle, E. Chen, S. Freeman, D. Van Wagener, Q. Xu, A. Voice, Chemical
Engineering Journal 171 (3) (2011) 725.
[54] W.-J. Choi, B.-M. Min, J.-B. Seo, S.-W. Park, K.-J. Oh, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 48 (8) (2009) 4022.
[55] G. Pellegrini, R. Strube, G. Manfrida, Energy 35 (2) (2010) 851.
[56] G. Puxty, R. Rowland, M. Attalla, Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2) (2010) 915.
[57] A.C. Yeh, H. Bai, Science of the Total Environment 228 (2–3) (1999) 121.
[58] D. Wappel, A. Khan, D. Shallcross, S. Joswig, S. Kentish, G. Stevens, Energy
Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 125.
[59] P. Behr, A. Maun, K. Deutgen, A. Tunnat, G. Oeljeklaus, K. Görner, Energy Procedia
4 (2011) 85.
[60] X. Zhao, M.A. Simioni, K.H. Smith, S.E. Kentish, W. Fei, G.W. Stevens, Energy &
Fuels 23 (10) (2009) 4768.
[61] A.L. Kohl, R.B. Nielsen, Gas Purification, Gulf Publishing Company, Texas, 1997.
[62] H. Yu, S. Morgan, A. Allport, A. Cottrell, T. Do, J. McGregor, L. Wardhaugh, P. Feron,
Chemical Engineering Research & Design 89 (8) (2011) 1204.
[63] S.-Y. Park, B.-M. Min, J.-S. Lee, S.-C. Nam, K.-H. Han, J.-S. Hyun, Preprint Papers -
American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 49 (1) (2004) 249.
[64] H. Habaki, J.M. Perera, S.E. Kentish, G.W. Stevens, W. Fei, Separation Science and
Technology 42 (4) (2007) 701.
[65] A.J. Cottrell, J.M. McGregor, J. Jansen, Y. Artanto, N. Dave, S. Morgan, P. Pearson,
M.I. Attalla, L. Wardhaugh, H. Yu, A. Allport, P.H.M. Feron, Energy Procedia 1 (1)
(2009) 1003.
[66] H.R. Godini, D. Mowla, Chemical Engineering Research & Design 86 (4) (2008)
401.
[67] X. Zhang, J. Wang, C.-f. Zhang, Y.-h. Yang, J.-j. Xu, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 42 (1) (2003) 118.
[68] N. Arashi, N. Oda, M. Yamada, H. Ota, S. Umeda, M. Tajika, Energy Conversion and
Management 38 (Suppl. 1) (1997) S63.
[69] J. Gabrielsen, H.F. Svendsen, M.L. Michelsen, E.H. Stenby, G.M. Kontogeorgis,
Chemical Engineering Science 62 (9) (2007) 2397.
[70] R.E. Tsai, P. Schultheiss, A. Kettner, J.C. Lewis, A.F. Seibert, R.B. Eldridge, G.T.
Rochelle, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 47 (4) (2008) 1253.
[71] R.E. Tsai, A.F. Seibert, R.B. Eldridge, G.T. Rochelle, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009)
1197.
[72] A. Aroonwilas, A. Veawab, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 38 (5) (1999) 2044.
[73] F.A. Tobiesen, H.F. Svendsen, O. Juliussen, AIChE Journal 53 (4) (2007) 846.
[74] P.M. Launaro, A. Paglianti, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 38 (9)
(1999) 3481.
[75] R. Thiele, R. Faber, J.U. Repke, H. Thielert, G. Wozny, Chemical Engineering
Research & Design 85 (1) (2007) 74.
[76] A. Aroonwilas, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Re-
search 37 (2) (1998) 569.
[77] P.J.G. Huttenhuis, E.P. van Elk, G.F. Versteeg, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 1131.
[78] A. Setameteekul, A. Aroonwilas, A. Veawab, Separation and Purification Tech-
nology 64 (1) (2008) 16.
[79] J.T. Yeh, H.W. Pennline, K.P. Resnik, Energy & Fuels 15 (2) (2001) 274.
[80] A. Aboudheir, D. deMontigny, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Chakma, SPE Gas Tech-
nology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1998.
[81] T. Ogawa, Y. Ohashi, S.u. Yamanaka, K. Miyaike, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 721.
G Model
JIEC-957; No. of Pages 10
10 L.S. Tan et al. / Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
[82] Y.A. Cengel, M.A. Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, McGraw-
Hill, United States of America, 1998.
[83] D.W.P. Bailey, H.M. Feron, Oil & Gas Science and Technology 60 (3) (2005) 461.
[84] J. Buzek, J. Podkanski, K. Warmuzinski, Energy Conversion and Management 38
(Suppl. 1) (1997) S69.
[85] A. Aroonwilas, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Chakma, Separation and Purification
Technology 24 (3) (2001) 403.
[86] T. Engel, G. Drobny, P. Reid, Physical Chemistry for the Life Sciences, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2008.
[87] M.R. Khosravi Nikou, M.R. Ehsani, International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer 35 (9) (2008) 1211.
[88] I. Iliuta, C.F. Petre, F. Larachi, Chemical Engineering Science 59 (4) (2004) 879.
[89] A. Aroonwilas, A. Chakma, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Veawab, Chemical Engi-
neering Science 58 (17) (2003) 4037.
[90] H. Chang, S.-C. Chuang, Energy 28 (12) (2003) 1203.
[91] R.H. Perry, D. Green, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1997.
[92] D. deMontigny, A. Aboudheir, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, A. Chakma, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 45 (8) (2006) 2594.
[93] J. Fernandes, P.C. Simões, J.P.B. Mota, E. Saatdjian, Journal of Supercritical Fluids
47 (1) (2008) 17.
[94] R. Billet, M. Schultes, Chemical Engineering Research & Design 77 (6) (1999) 498.
[95] S. Nakov, N. Kolev, L. Ljutzkanov, D. Kolev, Chemical Engineering and Processing:
Process Intensification 46 (12) (2007) 1385.
[96] R.F.J. Strigle, Random Packings and Packed Towers: Design and Applications,
Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, 1987.
[97] S. Marcia, D. deMontigny, P. Tontiwachwuthikul, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009)
1155.
[98] N. Kolev, S. Nakov, L. Ljutzkanov, D. Kolev, Chemical Engineering and Processing
45 (6) (2006) 429.
[99] A.B. Rao, E.S. Rubin, Environmental Science & Technology 36 (20) (2002) 4467.
[100] M.S. Gronvold, O. Falk-Pedersen, N. Imai, K. Ishida, in: D.C. Thomas (Ed.), Carbon
Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geological Formations, vol. 1, Elsevier,
Oxford, 2005, p. 133.
[101] H.P. Mangalapally, R. Notz, S. Hoch, N. Asprion, G. Sieder, H. Garcia, H. Hasse,
Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 963.
[102] H.P. Mangalapally, H. Hasse, Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 1.
Please cite this article in press as: L.S. Tan, et al., J. Ind. Eng. Chem. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2012.05.013
[103] H.P. Mangalapally, H. Hasse, Chemical Engineering Science 66 (22) (2011) 5512.
[104] R. Notz, I. Tönnies, H.P. Mangalapally, S. Hoch, H. Hasse, The International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (3) (2011) 413.
[105] J. Oexmann, A. Kather, The International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (1)
(2010) 36.
[106] V. Bessou, D. Rouzineau, M. Prévost, F. Abbé, C. Dumont, J.-P. Maumus, M. Meyer,
Chemical Engineering Science 65 (16) (2010) 4855.
[107] N. Kolev, E. Razkazova-Velkova, Chemical Engineering and Processing 40 (5)
(2001) 471.
[108] N. Kolev, E. Razkazova-Velkova, P. Lozanov, Chemical Engineering and Proces-
sing 43 (1) (2004) 1.
[109] C.-C. Lin, W.-T. Liu, C.-S. Tan, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 42
(11) (2003) 2381.
[110] C.-S. Tan, J.-E. Chen, Separation and Purification Technology 49 (2) (2006) 174.
[111] M.S. Jassim, G. Rochelle, D. Eimer, C. Ramshaw, Industrial & Engineering Chem-
istry Research 46 (9) (2007) 2823.
[112] H.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Shen, C.-S. Tan, The International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 4 (3) (2010) 525.
[113] J. Kuntz, A. Aroonwilas, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 47 (1)
(2008) 145.
[114] J. Kuntz, A. Aroonwilas, Energy Procedia 1 (1) (2009) 205.
[115] E.S. Fernandez, E.L.V. Goetheer, Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 868.
[116] G.F. Versteeg, P.S. Kumar, J.A. Hogendoorn, P.H.M. Feron, Method for Absorption
of Acid Gases, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Natuurwetenschappelijk Onder-
zoek TNO, 2011.
[117] H. Chalmers, J. Gibbins, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 224 (3) (2010) 505.
[118] B. Dressel, D. Deel, T. Rodosta, S. Plasynski, J. Litynski, L. Myer, International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8 (2) (2011) 300.
[119] M. Vucak, J. Peric, A. Zmikic, M.N. Pons, Chemical Engineering Journal 87 (2)
(2002) 171.
[120] M. Vucak, J. Peric, R. Krstulovic, Powder Technology 91 (1) (1997) 69.
[121] M. Vucak, J. Peric, M.N. Pons, S. Chanel, Powder Technology 101 (1) (1999) 1.
[122] R. Steeneveldt, B. Berger, T.A. Torp, Chemical Engineering Research & Design 84
(9) (2006) 739.
[123] L. Ametistova, J. Twidell, J. Briden, Science of the Total Environment 289 (1–3)
(2002) 213.