Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T14:50:14.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2025

Yu-Sheng Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan
Hsuan-Han Chiu
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan Davidson School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University , West Lafayette, IN, USA
Han-Shu Jao
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan
Yu-Quan Kiew
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan
Bor-Yih Yu*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Taiwan University , Taipei, Taiwan
*
Corresponding author: Bor-Yih Yu; Email: boryihyu@ntu.edu.tw
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carbon capture technologies are considered essential for addressing global warming issues. To date, various capture technologies have been extensively investigated in the literature, both through experimental studies and simulations. This paper aims to briefly review the most recent advancements in the modeling of various CO2 capture processes. The progress in technologies, including chemical absorption, physical absorption, adsorption, membrane-based separation and chemical looping processes, is discussed. Existing evaluation results obtained from various simulation studies are summarized and compared. In addition to the advancements in each technology, the future research trends and the challenges that need to be addressed in the field of process modeling are identified.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. General flowsheets for various CO2 capture processes. (a) Physical absorption processes. (b) Chemical absorption processes. (c) Adsorption processes. (d) Membrane separation processes. (e) Chemical looping processes.

Figure 1

Table 1. The comparison between different carbon capture methods (Coppola et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021; Goel et al., 2022; Hou et al., 2022; Kamolov et al., 2023; Abad et al., 2024; Soo et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2025)

Figure 2

Table 2. Comparison of different processes for CO2 capture

Author comment: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Editors,

On behalf of all co-authors, here I am submitting our recent work, entitled “Progress in modeling of Carbon Capture Technologies” for possible publication in Cambridge Prism: Carbon Technologies. This is an invited submission from the journal.

This review paper aims to compile the latest findings in the field of carbon capture process modeling. The discussion encompasses various technologies, including physical absorption, chemical absorption, adsorption, membrane separation, and chemical looping processes. This paper clearly highlights the existing advancements in modeling these technologies within the literature, while also clarifying current trends and identifying research gaps in related fields. We believe that this paper will be beneficial for readers who are new to this area and wish to familiarize themselves with the subject.

According to the request from the journal office, we have significantly reduced the word count for this paper from over 13,000 to approximately 5,200 (without reference). This aligns with the journal’s regulation of word count of 5,750.

Should you need any further information regarding this paper, please don’t hesitate to contact me. On behalf of our research team, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to publish in this excellent journal.

Review: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of recent advancements in process modeling for carbon capture technologies, covering physical/chemical absorption, adsorption, membrane separation, and chemical looping. The authors have synthesized a substantial volume of literature, highlighting key findings, challenges, and future directions. While the work shows promise, there are several issues that should be addressed to improve its novelty and rigor. Therefore, the authors should perform a thorough revision of their manuscript before my final recommendation can be made.

1. The discussion of ionic liquids in physical absorption (Section 2.1) lacks critical analysis. For instance, ILs’ high viscosity and scalability challenge. A deeper critique of their practical viability is needed.

2. Page 7: “Chemical looping combustion generates flue gas rich in CO2 and water vapor.” Clarify whether this applies to all fuel types (e.g., biomass vs. natural gas).

3. Page 18: “Membrane-based DAC” is listed with 0.0314 GJ/ton energy consumption. This seems implausibly low; verify it.

4. Address some modeling limitations (e.g., assumptions in Aspen simulations) and contextualize performance claims (e.g., ILs’ viscosity trade-offs).

5. The manuscript frequently references simulation tools (e.g., Aspen Adsorption, CFD) but does not critically evaluate their limitations. For example: Are equilibrium-based models (e.g., RGibbs for chemical looping) sufficient for dynamic reactor simulations?

Review: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript provides an informative overview of recent progress in modeling carbon capture technologies. However, several key aspects need more depth and specificity. Below are detailed comments

In Section1, the authors introduce the importance of process modeling but only briefly mention “future research trends and challenges” without clarifying the exact nature of these challenges. A more explicit statement of research gaps (e.g., “lack of robust kinetics data,” “insufficient integration of reactor hydrodynamics,” etc.) would better guide readers.

Similarly, in Section2’s subsections (e.g., 2.1, 2.2), while the authors highlight high-level limitations (like “large equipment size” or “slow reaction kinetics”), they should provide at least one or two specific examples or references to illustrate these issues in detail. This level of specificity will strengthen the rationale for further study.

Table1 offers a snapshot of different capture methods. However, the basis for the stated TRL (Technology Readiness Level) values is not clearly cited. For instance, “8–9 (Selexol)” is mentioned, but no direct reference is provided to justify these numbers. Explicitly stating the source (e.g., a particular technology roadmap or a well-known industry report) would improve credibility.

The economic discussion in Section3 focuses on cost per ton of CO₂ but does not break down these costs into CAPEX (equipment, construction) and OPEX (utilities, maintenance). For instance, references to “<100USD/ton” appear several times, yet it is unclear how this figure was derived for different technologies. Including even a simplified cost breakdown (e.g., specifying the percentage of total cost attributed to solvents vs. equipment) would give readers a clearer picture of cost drivers.

For new or less mature processes like chemical looping, it would be useful to highlight the largest cost component (e.g., oxygen carrier synthesis) and discuss any existing pilot-scale data to validate these estimates.

Most of the modeling examples presented (e.g., in the chemical absorption and adsorption discussions) appear to be steady-state. However, actual flue gas conditions often fluctuate. A short subsection or paragraph on the importance of dynamic modeling—showing how control systems respond to operational changes—would strengthen real-world applicability.

Pointing out any known dynamic models or pilot-scale projects that have successfully demonstrated real-time adaptability in CO₂ capture would underline this gap more concretely.

Recommendation: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Author,

Thank you for your submission to Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies. After reviewing the manuscript and considering the reviewers' feedback, I have decided to offer a major revision decision. Substantial revisions are required to address the concerns raised. Please carefully review the attached comments and provide a detailed response with your revised manuscript.

I look forward to your revision. Let me know if you have any questions.

Decision: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R1/PR6

Comments

Invited Submission to Cambridge Prism: Carbon Technologies

Dear Editors,

On behalf of all co-authors, here I am submitting our revised manuscript, entitled “Progress in modeling of Carbon Capture Technologies” (CAT-2024-0005) for possible publication in Cambridge Prism: Carbon Technologies.

We sincerely thank the two reviewers for providing constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised it accordingly. The modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. The detailed responses to each comment can be found in a separate file.

Should you need any further information regarding this paper, please don’t hesitate to contact me. On behalf of our research team, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to publish in this excellent journal.

Yours sincerely,

Bor-Yih Yu

Associate Professor

Review: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests

Comments

The authors have carefully addressed my comments.

Review: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interest

Comments

my comments were addressed properly. i have no additional comments. great work

Recommendation: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Progress in modeling of carbon capture technologies — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.