A comprehensive review of carbon dioxide sequestration: Exploring diverse methods for effective post combustion CO<sub>2</sub> capture, transport, and storage

Sravanthi Veluturla; Swastik Singh; Sarah Fatima

doi:10.4491/eer.2023.452

Environ Eng Res > Volume 30(1); 2025 > Article

Veluturla, Singh, and Fatima: A comprehensive review of carbon dioxide sequestration: Exploring diverse methods for effective post combustion CO2 capture, transport, and storage

Review

Environmental Engineering Research 2025; 30(1): 230452.

Published online: July 3, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2023.452

A comprehensive review of carbon dioxide sequestration: Exploring diverse methods for effective post combustion CO₂ capture, transport, and storage

Sravanthi Veluturla^†

, Swastik Singh^*, Sarah Fatima^*

Department of Chemical Engineering, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore 560054, Karnataka, India

^†Corresponding author: E-mail: sravanthi.v@msrit.edu, Tel: +918023600822

* These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received July 27, 2023 Revised June 28, 2024 Accepted July 2, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is a prominent anthropogenic greenhouse gas known for its detrimental impact on climate change and contribution to global warming. The significant rise in CO₂ emissions has prompted extensive research into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The primary objective of CCS technology is to mitigate CO₂ levels in the atmosphere through the recovery of CO₂ from industrial flue gases, achieved through three key stages: CO₂ capture from flue gases, CO₂ transport, and subsequent storage. This review provides a comprehensive overview of various techniques employed to remove CO₂ from flue gases, focusing on physical, chemical and biological methods. The article included comprehensive information about the chemical process, including its benefits and limitations. An extensive overview of the biological and physical approaches was also provided. A brief discussion is given of the engineering aspects of CO₂ transfer via pipelines and ships, as well as its storage alternatives (oceanic, geological, and mineralization). Through an analysis of these various approaches, this review directs scientists and researchers toward improving their comprehension and use of effective CO₂ collection techniques, consequently tackling the problems associated with global warming.

Keywords: Carbon dioxide, Capture techniques, Global warming, Transport, Storage

Graphical Abstract

Keywords: Carbon dioxide, Capture techniques, Global warming, Transport, Storage

1. Introduction

The alarming rise in global temperatures and its catastrophic consequences have heightened the urgency to combat climate change. One of the key contributors to this phenomenon is the excessive emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), primarily carbon dioxide (CO₂) [1]. Fig. 1 shows the CO₂ trend in the atmosphere over the past few decades [2]. One of the main sources of CO₂ emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel combustion has been the backbone of global energy production for decades, due to its abundance and high energy density. However, the release of CO₂ during the combustion process significantly contributes to the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse effect and accelerating global warming [3]. Consequently, increased CO₂ levels in the atmosphere contribute to climate change, ocean acidification, melting ice and rising sea levels, health concerns and ecosystem disruption. Therefore, transitioning to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, such as renewables, has become imperative.

Renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, offer environmentally friendly alternatives for power generation by producing energy without the associated release of CO₂ and other harmful emissions, making them crucial in mitigating climate change. However, despite their growing adoption and advancements, the intermittent nature and limited scalability of renewable energy systems pose challenges to their widespread implementation as the sole solution [4].

To bridge this energy transition gap, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology has gained considerable attention as a complementary approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants [5,6]. CCS involves the capture, transportation, and secure geological storage of CO₂ emissions, preventing their release into the atmosphere [7].

This review paper aims to provide an overview of CCS technology, mainly focusing on the basic principles involved in post combustion capture techniques (such as adsorption and absorption), transportation methods and storage options. The use of dry alkali metal – based sorbents, aqueous amine solutions and hot potassium carbonate solutions has been highlighted along with their advantages, drawbacks and process modification suggestions. By critically examining the strengths and limitations of CCS technology, this review aims to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of its potential as a viable strategy for achieving climate change mitigation targets. Ultimately, this review can help inform policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders about the importance of CCS in the transition towards a more sustainable and low-carbon energy future.

2. Carbon Capture

The Carbon Capture and Storage technology involves recovery of carbon dioxide from flue gas streams followed by transportation to a safe storage space where it is sequestered and can be reused as a raw material in several processes such as production of methanol, manufacture of pharmaceutical products, etc. Fig. 2 shows an overview of the CCS technology. There are three types of CO₂ capture [8]:

• Pre-combustion capture
• Oxy – fuel combustion capture
• Post combustion capture

Among these, post combustion CO₂ capture is the most widely used method as it can be retrofitted into the existing power plants and industries without significant modifications to their existing infrastructures [9]. The main objective of this technology is to control CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere by removing it from flue gases via various physical, chemical, and biological separation techniques. Post-combustion capture system can reduce up to 90% of the CO₂ emissions [10]. However, its installation and operations are expensive [11,12]. Fig. 3 shows the classification of different methods of CO₂ capture that have been discussed in the following sections.

2.1. Chemical Methods

CO₂ sequestration through chemical methods involves absorption of CO₂ using solid sorbents or liquid solutions, followed by regeneration of the sorbent or solution. Dry alkali metal-based sorbents, aqueous amine solutions, and aqueous potassium carbonate solutions are the most common techniques used for the recovery of CO₂ from flue gases.

2.1.1. K₂CO₃ based sorbent

Absorption of CO₂ present in moist flue gases by solid K₂CO₃ sorbents is carried out at low temperatures of around 40–80°C resulting in the formation of potassium bicarbonate (KHCO₃) according to the carbonation reaction Eq. (1):

(1)

K_{2} {CO}_{3} + H_{2} O + {CO}_{2} \leftrightarrow 2 {KHCO}_{3}

K₂CO₃ must first be pre-treated with some quantity of moisture in order to activate the sorbent. The quantity of moisture used in the pre-treatment process significantly affects the CO₂ uptake capacity of the sorbent [13–16].

The chemical sorption of CO₂ on K₂CO₃ was considered to be a series mechanism consisting of two steps. In step 1, as shown by Eq. (2). K₂CO₃ is converted to its hydrated form K₂CO₃· 1.5 H₂O which is considered as the activated species. In step 2, the active K₂CO₃·1.5H₂O reacts with CO₂ via the carbonation reaction Eq. (3). and forms KHCO₃. However, Jayakumar et al. showed that hydration of K₂CO₃ to K₂CO₃· 1.5H₂O, and carbonation of K₂CO₃ to KHCO₃ are reversible reactions that occur in parallel rather than series Eq. (4). and Eq. (5) [17].

(2)

K_{2} {CO}_{3} + 1.5 H_{2} O \leftrightarrow K_{2} {CO}_{3} \cdot 1.5 H_{2} O

(3)

K_{2} {CO}_{3} \cdot 1.5 H_{2} O + {CO}_{2} \leftrightarrow 2 {KHCO}_{2} + 0.5 H_{2} O

Other reactions taking place are:

(4)

2 K_{2} {CO}_{3 (s)} + 2.5 H_{2} O_{(g)} + {CO}_{2 (g)} \leftrightarrow K_{4} H_{2} {({CO}_{3})}_{3} \cdot 1.5 H_{2} O (s)

(5)

K_{2} H_{2} {({CO}_{3})}_{3} \cdot 1.5 H_{2} O_{(s)} + {CO}_{2 (g)} \leftrightarrow 4 {KHCO}_{3 (s)} + 0.5 H_{2} O

Once the solid sorbent is saturated with CO₂, it is regenerated by heating so that it can be reused for another absorption cycle. K₄H₂(CO₃)₃·1.5H₂O_(s) plays an important role in affecting the carbonation process [18,19]. Formation of potassium bicarbonate is faster from K₄H₂(CO₃)₃·1.5 H₂O than from K₂CO₃·1.5H₂O [20].

While selecting the support material, it is important to take into consideration not only the absorption capacity but also the ease of regeneration of the sorbent. In an experiment conducted by Lee et al. although MgO supported sorbent showed the highest absorption capacity [21], its regeneration temperature was 350°C, whereas, in another experiment it was shown that TiO₂ could be regenerated at 150°C with a reasonably high capture capacity (83mg CO₂/g sorbent) [22]. Table 1 gives an overview of the use of different supports for K₂CO₃.

Concerning the physical properties of the support material, since K₂CO₃ is highly deliquescent, it requires a porous support material with a large surface area and pore volume [23,24]. As K₂CO₃ loading on the support increases, CO₂ capture capacity increases and becomes maximum at a certain limit, decreasing with further loading. This happens because the active material being less porous than the support, when loaded onto the support material beyond a certain limit, will tend to block the pores, thereby lowering the amount of CO₂ absorbed [25].

A two-stage integrated fluidized bed system was studied for continuous CO₂ capture using K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ sorbent [26,27]. The integrated system required a lower bed height and showed higher CO₂ uptake efficiency than conventional reactors. Similar studies were also conducted on CO₂ removal using K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ in a single stage circulating fluidized bed reactor [28,29]. Microfluidized bed reactors have been used to study the process optimization of carbon capture using K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ sorbent [30].

2.1.2. Aqueous amine solutions

One of the most common methods of CO₂ recovery from flue gases, natural gas etc. is the use of aqueous solutions of primary (MEA), secondary (DEA), tertiary (MDEA) and sterically hindered (AMP) alkanolamines [34]. The process involves the counter current flow of CO₂ rich flue gas upwards and aqueous amine solution downwards in an absorber resulting in chemical absorption of CO₂ from the gas phase into the liquid phase. After the amine solution is saturated with CO₂, it is heated and regenerated in a stripper to release the captured CO₂. Since the gas to liquid absorption process depends largely on the solubility of the gas in the liquid, extensive research has been done on the CO₂ + water + amine system [35–38]. Additionally, the literature contains detailed insights of CO₂ absorption using different solvents in the CCS technology [39,40].

Several researchers have studied the reaction mechanism and kinetics in order to analyse the effect of different types of amines on CO₂ capture capacity [41–46]. The kinetic data for the carbonation reaction of alkanolamines is overviewed in Table 2. The carbonation reaction of primary, secondary and sterically hindered amines with CO₂ follows the zwitterion mechanism, whereas tertiary amines follow the base catalysed hydration mechanism [48–50].

(6)

2 {RNH}_{2} + {CO}_{2} \to {RNHCOO}^{-} + {RNH}_{3}^{+}

(7)

{RNHCOO}^{-} + H_{2} O \to {RNH}_{2} + {HCO}_{3}^{-}

Two molecules of primary amines react rapidly with carbon dioxide to form one carbamate ion, as shown in Eq. (6). In Eq. (7). the carbamate ion is hydrolysed to regenerate one molecule of amine. However, owing to the stability of the carbamate ion, this regeneration does not occur readily [52]. Also, formation of the carbamate ion is associated with high heat of absorption which makes the regeneration of alkanolamines an expensive process in terms of cost and energy [53].

Tertiary amines are blended with primary or secondary amines, thereby combining the fast reaction kinetics associated with primary or secondary amines and the low heat of absorption associated with tertiary amines [54,55]. Gray et al. demonstrated that secondary amines have a stronger affinity towards CO₂ capture from flue gases than primary amines [56]. A novel computational screening method was developed by Orlov et al. which was able to detect tertiary amines that had faster CO₂ absorption kinetics than regular commercial solvents [57].

Amine based solid sorbents can be used to capture CO₂ from flue gases. Gray et al. showed that tertiary amine based solid sorbent was stable at temperatures of 298K – 360K and that the system required 30–50% lesser energy than aqueous amines [59].

Piperazine (PZ) can be used as a rate promoter to enhance CO₂ absorption by aqueous amines [62–65]. PZ is a diamine with a cyclic, symmetric structure. Theoretically, one mole of PZ can absorb two moles of CO₂, and it may favour rapid formation of carbamate ions [66]. Studies have been conducted on the PZ + water + CO₂ system to develop equations which predict the solubility of PZ in water and to determine the kinetics of the reaction of PZ with CO₂ [67–69]. PZ promoted amines have experimentally been proven to show higher CO₂ uptake capacity than neat aqueous amine solutions [70–73]. Impregnation of polyethylenimine (PEI) into a nanosilica support or activated carbon support is also an effective way to enhance the efficiency of neat aqueous amine solutions [74–78].

2.1.3. K₂CO₃ solution

Hot potassium carbonate solution facilitates the absorption and subsequent removal of CO₂ from the flue gas stream, as shown in Fig. S1. This carbon capture process is commonly referred to as “wet scrubbing” or “chemical absorption”. Advantages of process [79, 80]

• its resistance to high temperatures and pressures,
• ease of regeneration,
• low toxicity, and
• low cost of the solvent

The basic principle of CO₂ removal using aqueous K₂CO₃ solution involves passing the flue gases through a liquid scrubbing solution containing K₂CO₃. The CO₂ present in the flue gases reacts chemically with the K₂CO₃ in the liquid, forming a soluble compound known as potassium bicarbonate (KHCO₃) as shown in Eq. (8). and Eq. (9). The following reactions take place in the absorption process [81,82]:

(8)

2 H_{2} O \leftrightarrow H_{3} O^{+} + {OH}^{-}

(9)

K_{3} {CO}_{3 (s)} + H_{2} O_{(l)} \to 2 K^{+} + {HCO}_{3}^{-} + {OH}^{-}

(10)

{CO}_{2} + {CO}_{3}^{2 -} + H_{2} O \to 2 {HCO}_{3}^{-}

(11)

{CO}_{2} + {OH}^{-} \to {HCO}_{3}^{-}

Neat K₂CO₃ solution shows slow mass transfer (via absorption) of CO₂ into the liquid phase making it an undesirable choice for treatment of flue gases from coal fired power plants. The carbonation reaction rate depends on the hydroxyl ion concentration Eq. (10). The CO₂ hydrolysis reaction Eq. (11). being the slowest step, results in low hydroxyl ion concentration causing the overall carbonation reaction rate to slow down, consequently affecting the rate of mass transfer [82]. In order to overcome this problem, it is preferred to blend the K₂CO₃ solution with rate promoters which enhance the reaction rate, making the process faster and more efficient [83–88].

When amines are used as rate promoters with potassium carbonate solution, the rate of absorption increases due to the presence of amines, and CO₂ uptake capacity and ease of regeneration increase due to the carbonate-bicarbonate buffer effect [89]. Thee et al. added 5%wt and 10%wt MEA to 30%wt potassium carbonate solution and obtained a higher absorption rate by a factor of 16 and 45 respectively [90]. Between primary and secondary amines, secondary amines such as pipecolic acid and sarcosine are the best rate promoters [58, 91]. Two mechanisms – shuttle mechanism and homogeneous catalysis are used to explain the rate promotion effect of amines in potassium carbonate solutions [90, 92].

2.1.4. Chilled ammonia process

The chilled ammonia process (CAP) represents a viable approach for CO₂ sequestration, utilizing a regenerable solvent-based method that employs an aqueous ammonium solution to capture CO₂ by forming ammonium bicarbonate. Subsequently, the bicarbonate undergoes a heating process (100°–150°C) in the desorber to liberate CO₂, with the resulting carbonate being recycled back to the CO₂ absorption system for reuse [93]. CO₂ absorption takes place in the temperature range of 0°–20°C, or optimally 0°–10°C, effectively reducing the concentrations of moisture, acidic compounds, and volatile components [94]. Chehrazi et al. presented a review on the use of chilled ammonia process to recover CO₂ from ammonia plant flue gases and its utilization in a urea plant [95]. Fig. 4 illustrates the advantages of CAP over other aqueous amine processes [96–98].

2.2. Physical Methods

CO₂ can be sequestrated by physical methods such as adsorption or membrane technology. Some of the techniques for adsorption of CO₂ include the use of carbon nanotubes, electric swing adsorption, and zeolites.

2.2.1. Carbon nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are nanoscale cylindrical structures made of carbon atoms. Physical adsorption of CO₂ on the surface of CNT is highly effective owing to its porous structures with large surface area and high thermal stability [99–102]. After the CNT is saturated with CO₂, it is regenerated by heating to release the CO₂ so that the nanotube can be reused. CNTs exhibit exceptional CO₂ adsorption capacity attributed to their favourable kinetics, reversibility, and low regeneration energy requirements [103]. Fig. 5 shows the structural, physical properties and advantages of CNT. Researchers have explored the modifications of multi-walled CNTs such as addition of 3-aminopropyl-triethoxysilane(APTS), N-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl), diethylenetriamine,1,3–diaminopropane etc., to enhance the physicochemical characteristics and adsorption capacity of the nanotubes and promote CO₂ adsorption [104–106]. Recently, Heidari et al. introduced a novel method in which CNTs are used as additives to sol–gel based CaZrO₃ – CaO adsorbents to enhance their CO₂ capture capacity [107]. Additionally, a combined thermochemical method has been explored to improve the efficacy of CNTs in CO₂ capture. This involves subjecting the CNTs to a heating process at 300°C for 60 minutes, followed by immersion in a chemical solution, resulting in an increased CO₂ absorption capacity [108]. Although CNTs offer high adsorption capacity and selectivity for CO₂, the challenge lies in achieving cost – effective mass production of CNTs and maintaining their stability and recyclability over multiple cycles.

2.2.2. Electric swing adsorption

Electric Swing Adsorption (ESA), is an adsorption technique in which CO₂ is passed through a bed of adsorbent material such as activated carbon fibre, followed by application of an electric field to enhance the adsorption of CO₂ on the adsorbent [109]. Regeneration of the adsorbent material is done by reversing the electric field to desorb the CO₂. Application of electrical current results in an increase in temperature leading to generation of Joule’s heat in the adsorbent. This process is termed as electrothermal desorption [110]. ESA has been assessed for the removal of CO₂ from flue gases, particularly those emitted by natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants [111,112]. ESA has four basic steps, including feed, electrification, purge and cooling [113] Fig. S2 illustrates the ESA process. Faradaic electro-swing reactive adsorption offers a novel approach for carbon capture by utilizing PAQ-CNT material deposited on the electrodes of an electrochemical cell [114]. In this process, CO₂ is adsorbed onto the cathodes during the capture phase, forming a stable CO₂ adduct. The captured CO₂ can be subsequently released by applying a different potential to the cell, causing desorption from the electrodes and release back into the chamber. ESA is a second-generation technique that provides an efficient means for CO₂ capture, demonstrating its potential in addressing carbon emissions and climate change mitigation [115].

2.2.3. Membrane technology

Membranes can be used to separate CO₂ from flue gases or CO₂ rich sources [116, 117]. Membrane technology plays a significant role in efficient CO₂ separation, particularly when the CO₂ concentration exceeds 20%, with energy-efficient absorption for lower CO₂ inputs [118]. The underlying principle behind this technology is that the difference in partial pressures of the components of the flue gas is used to separate CO₂, enabling its capture and storage [119]. Combining moderate vacuum technology with membrane modules reduces energy requirements and enhance absorption capabilities [120]. The field of membrane-based CO₂ separation primarily focuses on two configurations: flat sheet and hollow fibres [120–122]. Liquid membranes offer advantages such as high diffusivity and the ability to be tailored for specific separation processes [123].

Ceramic porous membranes have demonstrated the capability to capture up to 90% of CO₂ from flue gas, while polymeric membranes exhibit excellent permeability and selectivity [124]. In recent developments, mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) and metallic-organic frameworks (MOFs) have emerged as promising materials for membrane-based CO₂ separation. These materials combine the transport and separation properties of polymeric matrices with the stabilization provided by nanoparticle/metallic fillers [121]. Moreover, the integration of membrane modules with moderate vacuum technology has proven effective in reducing energy requirements and enhancing the absorption capabilities of the system [125]. However, membrane units necessitate higher permeability and more intensive operations for efficient CO₂ transport [126,127]. Overall, membranes offer significant potential for efficient CO₂ separation, and require further research that focuses on improving their performance, stability, and scalability for practical application in CO₂ capture and mitigation strategies.

2.3. Biological Methods

Biological methods for post-combustion CO₂ capture involve utilizing living organisms, typically microorganisms or plants, to absorb and convert carbon dioxide from industrial emissions into biomass or other products. Some of the key biological methods commonly considered for CO₂ capture are discussed below.

2.3.1. Microalgae

Microalgae are microscopic, photosynthetic organisms that can uptake carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or flue gases and produce biomass through photosynthesis[128]. Microalgae have gained sufficient attention in recent years due to the following advantages:

• Potential for CO₂ capture and production of biofuel and other value-added products such as polysaccharides, proteins etc. [129–131] termed as biosequestration [132].
• Microalgae strains such as Botryococcus braunii, Chlorella s, Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus obliquus, and Scenedesmus s have demonstrated great potential in both CO₂ assimilation and lipid production for biodiesel generation.
• Using microalgae through photosynthesis allows fossil fuels to be used in an environmentally friendly manner by capturing carbon as biomass, creating a symbiotic relationship between power plants and microalgae farms to enhance CO₂ utilization and reduce greenhouse gas emissions [133,134].

A comparison of the performance of these microalgae is given in Table 3. Fig. S3 represents the Carbon dioxide sequestration using Microalgae representing the process in the simplest of manner.

2.3.2. Microbes

Microbial CO₂ sequestration uses microorganisms to convert CO₂ into biomass or minerals, reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere. However, improving efficiency remains a challenge due to CO₂ emissions from microbes [139]. This has led to the development of strategies like engineering of CO₂-fixing pathways, energy-harvesting systems, and metabolic rewiring to boost CO₂ fixation efficiency in microorganisms [140]. Microbial CO₂-fixing organisms are classified as:

• Autotrophs: Autotrophic microorganisms, which use CO₂ as their sole carbon source, primarily include bacterial and archaeal taxa such as Cyanobacteria, Crenarchaeota, and Betaproteobacteria [141]. Among these, cyanobacteria, such as Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 and Anabaena sp. PCC 7120, are the best-developed autotrophic cell factories [142]. Eukaryotic microalgae, like Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and Phaeodactylum tricornutum, and acetogens, such as Clostridium ljungdahlii are utilized in metabolic engineering to enhance CO₂ fixation and produce biofuels and chemicals.
• Heterotrophs: Heterotrophic microorganisms such as Propionibacterium pentosaceum, E. coli, and S. cerevisiae, fix CO₂ through carboxylation reactions in metabolic pathways, relying on organic substrates for both carbon and energy [143]. Despite the commercial potential, the application of microbial CO₂ fixation is still limited, with microalgae being the primary CO₂-fixing organisms used industrially [144].

Microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) enhance CO₂ sequestration by generating acid and alkali solutions that facilitate CO₂ absorption and carbonate precipitation, improving methane production in biogas by 16.9%. Biomimetic sequestration leveraging enzymes like carbonic anhydrase from bacteria such as Pseudomonas fragi can significantly boost CO₂ sequestration, with enzyme consortia achieving efficiencies up to 61%, compared to 17.8% with bovine carbonic anhydrase [145].

Microbial carbon capture cells (MCCs) combine algae with microbial systems, effectively sequestering CO₂ and generating power and biodiesel. For example, Chlorella vulgaris in MCCs can convert CO₂ into algal biomass, effectively eliminating CO₂ generated from the anode [146]. Furthermore, certain Bacillus species are capable of growing in supercritical CO₂ environments, suggesting their potential role in deep subsurface CO₂ sequestration. Studies have demonstrated that bacteria isolated from geologic carbon sequestration sites can thrive in scCO₂ conditions, indicating their influence on CO₂ fate and transport in such environments [147].

2.3.3. Bacteria

CO₂ sequestration using bacteria can be achieved through various biochemical pathways. The use of certain bacteria in CO₂ sequestration has been highlighted as follows:

• Cyanobacteria, such as Synechococcus sp. NIT18, has demonstrated high efficiency in sequestering CO₂, with a reported maximum sequestration rate of 71.02% under optimal conditions, producing valuable biomolecules such as proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids in the process [148].
• Marine bacteria, like Bacillus safensis, employ the enzyme carbonic anhydrase to catalyze the hydration of CO₂, significantly reducing CO₂ levels in soil microcosm studies [149]. Advances in genetic engineering have further optimized CO₂ fixation pathways in microorganisms, enhancing their metabolic efficiency for improved CO₂ sequestration and the concurrent production of biofuels and chemicals [150].
• Bacillus sp. strain ISTS2 has been shown to produce biosurfactants while sequestering CO₂, utilizing both carbonic anhydrase and RuBisCO enzymes, presenting a sustainable bioprocess for industrial CO₂ utilization [151]. Recent innovations also include a light-driven system in Escherichia coli, integrating CO₂ fixation and mitigation modules to significantly boost CO₂ sequestration efficiency and yield value-added chemicals [152].

2.3.4. Miscellaneous methods

Stable and efficient CO₂ absorption has been demonstrated by amino acid salts derived from inorganic bases, such as potassium hydroxide (KOH), whereas temperature sensitivity affects the CO₂ absorption capabilities of these salts [153]. Innovative approaches involve immobilizing different amines on zeolites such as zeolite 13X and HZSM-5 zeolites to create functionalized adsorbents for CO₂ capture [154–157]. Carbonation/calcination looping, employing two fluidized bed reactors, demonstrates potential for effective CO₂ collection [158, 159]. The calcium technology, widely employed in industries like cement production, offers a low-cost and highly efficient post-combustion CO₂ capturing method [159]. Hydrogen membrane reactors have emerged as a compelling solution for CO₂ capture in gas-fired power plants, enabling efficient conversion of natural gas into hydrogen (H₂) for power generation while simultaneously capturing the remaining CO₂ [160,161].

3. Transportation

On a commercial scale, CO₂ is mainly transported in the gaseous or liquid phase through pipelines or ships [162]. Once CO₂ is recovered from the source, it is subjected to conditioning, a process in which the impurities such as moisture content, H₂S, O₂, CH₄ and other hydrocarbons are removed in order to obtain the desired composition [163]. The dried gas is then compressed to the required pressure level (so as to meet the transportation criteria) before it is transported. Fig. S4 illustrates the steps involved in the transport and storage of CO₂. The distance to the storage location, volume of CO₂ to be transported, and the cost of the technology, all play a vital role in selecting the mode of CO₂ transportation. CO₂ transport of large capacities over short distances is suited to pipeline transport, whereas ship transport is preferred for small capacities and long distances [164].

3.1. Pipelines

Pipelines is the primary mode of CO₂ transport as it is the most economical method to transport large volumes of CO₂ [165]. Pipelines offer the advantage of a constant, steady CO₂ supply without the requirement for temporary storage along the transmission line [166].

The key factors of a pipeline transport system are [167–168]:

• Design and material of pipelines: The design and material considerations are based on the temperature and pressure of CO₂, which necessitates thicker walls or special coatings to prevent corrosion. Carbon steel is the most common material of construction.
• Planning of infrastructure: Infrastructure planning depends on whether the CO₂ transport pipelines are onshore or offshore depending on the location of the storage facility.
• Pressure and temperature of CO₂: Depending on the temperature and pressure, in the pipelines, CO₂ may be in the gaseous state, subcooled liquid state, or in the form of a supercritical fluid. The most efficient phase of CO₂ for pipeline transport is the supercritical fluid. When CO₂ is transported in this phase, it is denser, has a lower tendency to change phase, and undergoes lower pressure drop along the pipeline [169].

3.2. Ships

For international or offshore transport, CO₂ is mainly transported through ships in the liquid phase and is commonly used in the food and brewery industries [170]. Decarre et al. has given a detailed description of the complete CO₂ transport process through ships [173]. The main factors in the transport of CO₂ through ships are:

• Liquefaction of CO₂: CO₂ is cooled and pressurized to convert it into a liquid state, typically at temperatures around −50°C and pressures of about 7 MPa.
• Tanker design: Specialized tankers are designed to maintain low temperatures and high pressures.
• Loading and unloading: The ease of loading and unloading CO₂ depends on how far the source is located from navigable waterways. If this distance is significantly long, a pipeline network connecting the CO₂ source to the port terminals must be laid down [171,172].

3.2.1. Economics of transportation

Cost analysis and economic optimization are essential for evaluating the financial viability of CO₂ transport in the CCS technology. Several researchers have explored various cost-effective options to determine the economic feasibility of the CO₂ transport system [174–177]. Kazmierczak et al. developed an algorithm under the EU – funded GeoCapacity project to create low – cost pipeline networks connecting CO₂ sources and storage sites [178]. Similarly, one of the outcomes of the COATE European Project was the development of an economic model for the CO₂ transport network which minimized the overall transport cost [179]. In order to ensure safe and effective implementation of CO₂ transport, certain risks and challenges associated with the pipeline transport have to be addressed [180–182]. Guidelines for CO₂ capture, transport and storage are crucial for ensuring the safe, effective and environmentally responsible deployment of the CCS technology, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts and sustainable development [183,184].

4. Storage

To guarantee that CO₂ can be kept contained, a suitable location must be selected and evaluated for safety and feasibility before injection. A CO₂ storage site must be evaluated for the following characteristics:

• Safety and permanence – CO₂ must be stored safely and permanently away from the atmosphere.
• Capacity – the storage reservoir should have the capacity to store large volumes of CO₂.
• Leakage – it should be equipped with reliable monitoring systems that are easy to access and control to ensure safe, leak-proof storage of CO₂.

There are three types of CO₂ storage–ocean storage, geological storage and carbon mineralization, as shown in Fig. S5 [185].

4.1. Ocean storage

Oceans readily absorb atmospheric CO₂ [186] and are viewed as one of the largest carbon sinks [187]. Ocean storage of CO₂ is classified into the following two types based on the depth of CO₂ injection:

• Deep ocean injection: This process requires the deliberate injection of large amounts of CO₂ into the ocean at a certain depth. The deeper the injection, the larger is the fraction of CO₂ retained [185, 188]. The percentage of CO₂ that will remain sequestered for over 500 years is 74, 83, and 90 at depths of 1500m, 2500m, and 3000m respectively [189].
• Lake formation: For longer retention, CO₂ can be stored in the form of solid hydrates or by creating CO₂ lakes on the ocean floor. The storage process involves the transportation of compressed CO₂ via ships or offshore pipelines to the storage site, followed by direct injection of CO₂ into the seawater or deposition of CO₂ into CO₂ lakes on the ocean floor [185, 190].

Fig. S6 illustrates storage of CO₂ in oceans. Khoo et al. have given a brief outlook on the different techniques used to inject and store CO₂ in the ocean, including vertical injection, pipe carried by ship, inclined pipe, dry ice (blocks of solid CO₂), hydrates of CO₂ and gas lift advanced dissolution for low purity carbon dioxide gas [188].

Although the ocean has a great potential for CO₂ sequestration, it is also important to highlight the following risks and adverse effects associated with the large-scale implementation of such a technology [191–193]:

• Injection of CO₂ results in ocean acidification in which pH falls below 7.
• Increased CO₂ levels can harm marine organisms, especially those with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, such as corals, shellfish etc.
• Ocean acidification leads to ecosystem disruption, oxygen level depletion and other uncertain, unintended consequences which are hard to predict owing to the complex marine food webs and vast biodiversity of the ocean.

4.2. Geological Storage

Deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reserves (including Enhanced Oil Recovery), deep coal beds (including enhanced coal bed methane recovery), and mined caverns are suitable geological carbon sinks [194, 195]. Saline aquifers have the largest storage capacity followed by coal beds and oil and gas reserves [196].

4.2.1. Deep saline aquifers

These are large underground reservoirs of saltwater with high enough pressure and temperature to keep the CO₂ in a supercritical state [197]. Additionally, several researchers have presented detailed insights on storage of CO₂ in saline aquifers [198–200]. The factors affecting the storage efficiency of an aquifer are [201]:

• Temperature and pressure: The aquifer must handle high temperatures and pressures.
• Configuration of the aquifer: A horizontal aquifer has a better residual CO₂ trapping system.
• Caprock: Properties such as porosity, permeability, and heterogeneity determine the capacity and efficiency of the aquifer. Porous, water-wet rocks are highly efficient for CO₂ storage.

Zhang et al. studied the effects of a supercritical CO₂–water system on the geological, micromechanical, and mechanochemical properties of sandstone and reported that the introduction of such a system would lower the compressive strength of the rock [202].

4.2.2. Enhanced oil recovery

Another reliable method of CO₂ storage is through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) [203–206]. In this process, the overall cost of CO₂ storage is reduced by integrating oil and gas recovery from reservoirs with CO₂ storage [207–209]. The advantages of this method include [210]:

• Large storage capacity,
• Compensation of CO₂ sequestration cost by revenues obtained from producing oil,
• Since the oil or gas reservoir has already been geologically surveyed and analysed, expenditure on the geological characterization of the site is saved.

However, storage through EOR is thermodynamically sustainable only if the energy produced from the recovered oil is greater than the energy consumed in the CCS process [211]. Dai et al. developed an economic model to estimate the profitability of the CO₂ - EOR system [212]. Raza et al. developed a new analytical method to estimate the amount of residual CO₂ trapped in depleted oil and gas reservoirs [213]. CO₂ storage through enhanced oil recovery is summarized in Fig. S7.

4.2.3. Coal seams

Coal seams are underground coal beds that are suited to the geological storage of large volumes of CO₂. They have a large surface area due to the presence of a highly porous, heterogeneous matrix onto which methane molecules are stored in the adsorbed state. When CO₂ is injected into the coal seams, having a greater affinity towards coal than methane, the injected CO₂ readily gets adsorbed onto coal by displacing methane (desorption) [214]. Such a process in which methane is recovered by injection of CO₂ into coal beds is called Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM) recovery [215–218]. The following characteristics of coal seams have been studied:

• Porosity: Li et al. studied the effects of a deionized H₂O-CO₂ mixture on the porosity of different types of coal, and reported that the interaction of the mixture enhances the development of macropores, thus improving the capacity of the coal seam [219].
• Geochemical interaction of CO₂ with coal: The fast reaction of carbonate minerals, the continuous dissolution of sodium and potassium, and the change in pore structure due to CO₂ acid fluid are the important geochemical reactions to be considered [220].
• Adsorption behaviour: With the adsorption of CO₂, the permeability of the coal seam first reduces due to adsorption swelling, and then increases due to reduced stress [221].

Other aspects of CO₂ sequestration such as coal wettability have been studied in order to gain a better understanding of this technology [222].

4.2.4. Leakage

One of the most important aspects of geological sequestration of CO₂ that is to be considered is underground leakage [223]. Although the sedimentary basins contain impermeable cap – rocks that are capable of trapping CO₂, there is always a risk of slow leakage of the stored CO₂ into the surroundings [224]. Leakage can be due to natural causes such as open faults, or man – made causes such as abandoned wells. CO₂ leakage can increase the pH of the surroundings and cause acidification of potable water present in nearby aquifers [225]. The financial risks associated with the underground leakage of CO₂ must also be given due attention [226]. The Leakage Risk Monetization Model (LRiMM) was developed by Bielicki et al. to quantify the loss incurred in case of CO₂ leakage [227]. In addition to proper design and monitoring systems, in order to minimize the potential risks of underground CO₂ leakage, effective gas leakage detection techniques must also be implemented [228]. Alcalde et al. presented a numerical program which estimates CO₂ storage security and the amount of CO₂ leakage into the atmosphere over a period of 10,000 years [229].

4.2.5. Carbon mineralization

In this method, CO₂ is injected into the ground and made to react with alkaline minerals such as oxides of calcium and magnesium or alumino – silicates and magnesium silicates so as to form thermodynamically stable carbonates[230,231]. CO₂ storage through carbon mineralization does not require any monitoring system as there are no chances of leakage of the stored CO₂ [209, 232]. However, this method of storage has low efficiency (32.9% – 49.7%) and is expensive in terms of overall cost and energy of the CCS process [233]. These barriers can be overcome by (i) use of recyclable residues such as solid waste residue, alkaline industrial residues (such as fly ash), steel residues etc. to mineralize CO₂ [209, 234] and (ii) optimization of the heat energy produced by the exothermic carbonation reaction [233, 235].

Recently, carbon mineralization using Basalt, a common type of volcanic rock containing calcium, magnesium and iron, has been recognized as an effective method of CO₂ sequestration. However, it is still an emerging field, and there are ongoing research and development efforts to optimize the process and determine its scalability and long – term effectiveness [236–239]. Sim et al. introduced a novel concept in which CO₂ is stored through carbonation reaction with NaOH and oxalic acid along with simultaneous recovery of rare earth elements [240].

5. Future Scope

Countries worldwide are making ambitious commitments to reduce CO₂ emissions and combat climate change. However, there are challenges associated with CCS technology, particularly in terms of energy consumption during the capture and compression of CO₂. Improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of CCS operations is crucial for its widespread deployment. Research and development efforts should focus on advancing CCS technologies to enhance carbon capture efficiency and reduce operational costs. As the world strives to meet climate targets and transition to a low-carbon future, exploring and developing more efficient and economically viable CCS technologies is a promising avenue for further research. Continued innovation in CCS holds the potential to significantly contribute to global emissions reduction and facilitate the transition to a sustainable and decarbonized energy system.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this review paper comprehensively examined the various aspects of CO₂ capturing, transportation, storage, and modern technologies in the context of carbon capture and storage (CCS). The focus was placed on post-combustion capturing methods, including sorption techniques such as K₂CO₃ dry alkali metal sorbents, aqueous amine, and PEI. Transportation of captured CO₂ was explored, encompassing different methods such as ships, trucks, and pipelines. The storage of CO₂ was also extensively discussed, covering ocean storage, geological storage, carbon mineralization, and storage in coal seams. Each storage approach was evaluated in terms of its feasibility and potential environmental impact.

Furthermore, this paper highlighted modern technologies that show promise in CO₂ capture, including CAP (chilled ammonia process), CNTs (carbon nanotubes), microalgae, membranes, and ESA (electric swing adsorption). These methods offer innovative approaches to enhance efficiency and address the challenges associated with CCS technology. Looking towards the future, it is evident that there is a pressing need to reduce the cost of CCS technology and increase its overall efficiency.

Continued research and development efforts should be directed towards optimizing existing methods and exploring new techniques to meet the growing demand for carbon capture and storage. By improving the cost-effectiveness and performance of CCS systems, we can contribute significantly to global efforts in mitigating climate change and achieving sustainable energy systems.

Supplementary Information

eer-2023-452-supplementary.pdf

Acknowledgement

Authors are thankful to M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology for providing the necessary support.

Notes

Conflict-of-Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Authors Contributions

S.F. (B.Tech student) have done extensive literature review on the present work and compiled the information. S.S. (B.Tech student) contributed for the preparation of the manuscript. S.V. (Assistant Professor) have critically supervised and improved the manuscript in various aspects.

References

1. Ritchie H, Roser M, Rosado P. CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions. Our world in data. 2020;

2. Global Monitoring Laboratory. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 2023;

3. Siddik M, Islam M, Zaman A, Hasan M. Current status and correlation of fossil fuels consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Int. J. Energy Environ. Econ. 2021;28:103–19.

4. Azarpour A, Suhaimi S, Zahedi G, Bahadori A. A review on the drawbacks of renewable energy as a promising energy source of the future. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013;38:317–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-012-0436-6

5. Bui M, Gazzani M, Pozo C, Puxty GD, Soltani SM. The role of carbon capture and storage technologies in a net-zero carbon future. Front. Energy Res. 2021;9:733968. https://doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.733968

6. Rahman FA, Aziz MMA, Saidur R, et al. Pollution to solution: Capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and its utilization as a renewable energy source for a sustainable future. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017;71:112–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.011

7. Anwar M, Fayyaz A, Sohail N, et al. CO₂ capture and storage: a way forward for sustainable environment. J. Environ. Manage. 2018;226:131–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.009

8. Wilberforce T, Baroutaji A, Soudan B, AlAlami AH, Olabi AG. Outlook of carbon capture technology and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;657:56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.424

9. Chao C, Deng Y, Dewil R, Baeyens J, Fan X. Post-combustion carbon capture. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021;138:110490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110490

10. Hammond GP, Akwe SO, Williams S. Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Energy. 2011;36(2)975–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.12.012

11. Budinis S, Krevor S, Mac Dowell N, Brandon N, Hawkes A. An assessment of CCS costs, barriers and potential. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2018;22:61–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003

12. Durmaz T. The economics of CCS: Why have CCS technologies not had an international breakthrough? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018;95:328–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.007

13. Guo Y, Zhao C, Li C, Lu S. Application of PEI–K₂CO₃/AC for capturing CO₂ from flue gas after combustion. Appl. energy. 2014;129:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.003

14. Lee SC, Choi BY, Ryu CK, et al. The effect of water on the activation and the CO₂ capture capacities of alkali metal-based sorbents. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2006;23:374–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02706737

15. Luo H, Chioyama H, Thurmer S, Ohba T, Kanoh H. Kinetics and structural changes in CO₂ capture of K₂CO₃ under a moist condition. Energy Fuels. 2015;29(7)4472–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00578

16. Seo Y, Jo SH, Ryu HJ, et al. Effect of water pretreatment on CO₂ capture using a potassium-based solid sorbent in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2007;24:457–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-007-0079-6

17. Jayakumar A, Gomez A, Mahinpey N. Post-combustion CO₂ capture using solid K₂CO₃: Discovering the carbonation reaction mechanism. Appl. Energy. 2016;179:531–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.149

18. Veselovskaya JV, Derevschikov VS, Kardash TY, Okunev AG, Direct CO. 2015. https://doi.org/10.7243/2052-6237-3-1

19. Zhao C, Chen X, Zhao C, Liu Y. Carbonation and hydration characteristics of dry potassium-based sorbents for CO₂ capture. Energy Fuels. 2009;23(3)1766–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef800889m

20. Zhao C, Chen X, Zhao C. Carbonation behavior of K₂CO₃ with different microstructure used as an active component of dry sorbents for CO₂ capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010;49(23)12212–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie1018035

21. Lee SC, Kim JC. Dry potassium-based sorbents for CO₂ capture. Catal Surv Asia. 2007;11:171–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10563-007-9035-z

22. Lee SC, Choi BY, Lee TJ, et al. CO₂ absorption and regeneration of alkali metal-based solid sorbents. Catal. Today. 2006;111(3–4)385–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2005.10.051

23. Qin C, Yin J, Ran J, Zhang L, Feng B. Effect of support material on the performance of K₂CO₃-based pellets for cyclic CO₂ capture. Appl. energy. 2014;136:280–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.043

24. Veselovskaya JV, Derevschikov VS, Kardash TY, Okunev AG. Direct CO₂ capture from ambient air by K₂CO₃/alumina composite sorbent for synthesis of renewable methane. Renew. Bioresour. 2015;3(1)1–7. https://doi.org/10.7243/2052-6237-3-1

25. Hayashi H, Taniuchi J, Furuyashiki N, et al. Efficient recovery of carbon dioxide from flue gases of coal-fired power plants by cyclic fixed-bed operations over K₂CO₃-on-carbon. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1998;37(1)185–91. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie9704455

26. Bao X, Ma J, Wu Y, Chen X, Liu D, Liang C. Gas-Particle Flows in a Two-Stage Integrated Bubbling-Transport Fluidized Bed for CO₂ Capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022;61(25)8973–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c00523

27. Ma J, Zhong J, Bao X, et al. Continuous CO₂ capture performance of K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ sorbents in a novel two-stage integrated bubbling-transport fluidized reactor. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;404:126465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126465

28. Ma J, Xu Y, Wu Y, et al. Continuous CO₂ capture performance of K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ sorbents in a novel integrated bubbling-transport fluidized reactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019;58(43)19733–40. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b02404

29. Sengupta S, Amte V, Das AK, et al. Circulating fluid-bed studies for CO₂ capture from flue gas using K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ adsorbent. Energy Fuels. 2018;32(8)8594–604. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b01383

30. Amiri M, Shahhosseini S. Optimization of CO₂ capture from simulated flue gas using K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ in a micro fluidized bed reactor. Energy Fuels. 2018;32(7)7978–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b00789

31. Li L, Li Y, Wen X, et al. CO₂ capture over K₂CO₃/MgO/Al₂O₃ dry sorbent in a fluidized bed. Energy Fuels. 2011;25(8)3835–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200499b

32. Zhao C, Chen X, Zhao C. Carbonation behavior and the reaction kinetic of a new dry potassium-based sorbent for CO₂ capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012;51(44)14361–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie302497r

33. Zhao C, Chen X, Zhao C. Multiple-cycles behavior of K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ for CO₂ capture in a fluidized-bed reactor. Energy Fuels. 2010;24(2)1009–12. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef901018f

34. Aroonwilas A, Veawab A. Characterization and comparison of the CO₂ absorption performance into single and blended alkanolamines in a packed column. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004;43(9)2228–37. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0306067

35. Asadi E, Haghtalab A, Shirazizadeh HA. Experimental measurement of carbon dioxide solubility in aqueous N-methyldiethanolamine 2-(2-aminoethylamino) ethanolsulfolane and diethanolamine 2-(2-aminoethylamino) ethanol sulfolane hybrid solvents at various temperatures and high pressure. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2020;66(1)415–26. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.0c00739

36. Hwang SJ, Kim J, Kim H, Lee KS. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous solutions of three secondary amines: 2-(butylamino) ethanol, 2-(isopropylamino) ethanol, and 2-(ethylamino) ethanol secondary alkanolamine solutions. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2017;62(8)2428–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.7b00364

37. Kumar S, Mondal MK. Equilibrium solubility of CO₂ in aqueous binary mixture of 2-(diethylamine) ethanol and 1, 6-hexamethyldiamine. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2018;35:1335–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-018-0044-6

38. Kumar S, Padhan R, Mondal MK. Equilibrium solubility measurement and modeling of CO₂ absorption in aqueous blend of 2-(diethyl amino) ethanol and ethylenediamine. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2020;65(2)523–31. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.9b00699

39. Meng F, Meng Y, Ju T, et al. Research progress of aqueous amine solution for CO₂ capture: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022;168:112902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112902

40. Vega F, Baena-Moreno F, Fernandez LMG, et al. Current status of CO₂ chemical absorption research applied to CCS: Towards full deployment at industrial scale. Appl. Energy. 2020;260:114313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114313

41. Cadours R, Roquet D, Perdu G. Competitive absorption–desorption of acid gas into water–DEA solutions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007;46(1)233–41. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie060019w

42. Liu H, Chen G, Liang Z. Toward rational selection of amine solutions for PCC applications: CO₂ absorption kinetics and absorption heat in tertiary aqueous solutions. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2016;50:206–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.020

43. Liu H, Xiao M, Liang Z, Tontiwachwuthikul P. The analysis of solubility, absorption kinetics of CO₂ absorption into aqueous 1-diethylamino-2-propanol solution. AIChE J. 2017;63(7)2694–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15621

44. Liu S, Gao H, Luo X, Liang Z. Kinetics and new mechanism study of CO₂ absorption i nto water and tertiary amine solutions by stopped-Flow technique. AIChE J. 2019;65(2)652–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.16469

45. Singto S, Supap T, Idem R, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Tantayanon S. The effect of chemical structure of newly synthesized tertiary amines used for the post combustion capture process on carbon dioxide (CO₂): Kinetics of CO₂ absorption using the stopped-flow apparatus and regeneration, and heat input of CO₂ regeneration. Energy Procedia. 2017;114:852–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1227

46. Yang Q, Bown M, Ali A, et al. A carbon-13 NMR study of carbon dioxide absorption and desorption with aqueous amine solutions. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)955–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.127

47. Mahajani V, Joshi J. Kinetics of reactions between carbon dioxide and alkanolamines. Gas Sep. Purif. 1988;2(2)50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-4214(88)80013-6

48. Rinker EB, Ashour SS, Sandall OC. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous blends of diethanolamine and methyldiethanolamine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000;39(11)4346–56. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990850r

49. Sema T, Naami A, Liang Z, et al. Part 5b: Solvent chemistry: reaction kinetics of CO₂ absorption into reactive amine solutions. Carbon Manag. 2012;3(2)201–20. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.12.13

50. Vaidya PD, Kenig EY. CO₂-alkanolamine reaction kinetics: a review of recent studies. Chemical Engineering & Technology. Ind. Chem. Plant Equip. Process Eng. Biotechnol. 2007;30(11)1467–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200700268

51. El Hadri N, Quang DV, Goetheer EL, Zahra MRA. Aqueous amine solution characterization for post-combustion CO₂ capture process. Appl. Energy. 2017;185:1433–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.043

52. Filburn T, Helble J, Weiss R. Development of supported ethanolamines and modified ethanolamines for CO₂ capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005;44(5)1542–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0495527

53. Vrachnos A, Kontogeorgis G, Voutsas E. Thermodynamic modeling of acidic gas solubility in aqueous solutions of MEA, MDEA and MEA–MDEA blends. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006;45(14)5148–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie0600792

54. Bishnoi S, Rochelle GT. Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous piperazine: reaction kinetics, mass transfer and solubility. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000;55(22)5531–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(00)00182-2

55. Xiao M, Cui D, Yang Q, et al. Role of mono-and diamines as kinetic promoters in mixed aqueous amine solution for CO₂ capture. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2021;229:116009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2020.116009

56. Gray M, Soong Y, Champagne K, et al. Improved immobilized carbon dioxide capture sorbents. Fuel Process. Technol. 2005;86(14–15)1449–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.01.005

57. Orlov AA, Valtz A, Coquelet C, et al. Computational screening methodology identifies effective solvents for CO₂ capture. Commun. Chem. 2022;5(1)37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-022-00654-y

58. Park S, Song HJ, Lee MG, Park J. Screening test for aqueous solvents used in CO₂ capture: K₂CO₃ used with twelve different rate promoters. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2014;31:125–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-013-0200-y

59. Gray M, Champagne K, Fauth D, Baltrus J, Pennline H. Performance of immobilized tertiary amine solid sorbents for the capture of carbon dioxide. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2008;2(1)3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00088-6

60. Jiang B, Wang X, Gray ML, et al. Development of amino acid and amino acid-complex based solid sorbents for CO₂ capture. Appl. energy. 2013;109:112–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.070

61. Yue MB, Sun LB, Cao Y, et al. Efficient CO₂ capturer derived from as-synthesized MCM-41 modified with amine. Chem. Eur. J. 2008;14(11)3442–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.200701467

62. Khan BA, Ullah A, Saleem MW, et al. Energy minimization in piperazine promoted MDEA-based CO₂ capture process. Sustain. 2020;12(20)8524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208524

63. Liu Z, Esmaeili A, Zhang H, Xiao H, Yun J, Shao L. Carbon dioxide absorption with aqueous amine solutions promoted by piperazine and 1-methylpiperazine in a rotating zigzag bed. Fuel. 2021;302:121165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121165

64. Nwaoha C, Saiwan C, Tontiwachwuthikul , et al. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture: Absorption-desorption capabilities of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), piperazine (PZ) and monoethanolamine (MEA) tri-solvent blends. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016;33:742–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.06.002

65. Zhang R, Zhang X, Yang Q, Yu H, Liang Z, Luo X. Analysis of the reduction of energy cost by using MEA-MDEA-PZ solvent for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture (PCC). Appl. energy. 2017;205:1002–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.130

66. Samanta A, Roy S, Bandyopadhyay SS. Physical solubility and diffusivity of N₂O and CO₂ in aqueous solutions of piperazine and (N-methyldiethanolamine+ piperazine). J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2007;52(4)1381–5. https://doi.org/10.1021/je700083b

67. Aroua MK, Mohd Salleh R. Solubility of CO₂ in aqueous piperazine and its modeling using the Kent-Eisenberg approach. Chemical Engineering & Technology. Ind. Chem. Plant Equip. Process Eng. Biotechnol. 2004;27(1)65–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200401852

68. Norouzbahari S, Shahhosseini S, Ghaemi A. Chemical absorption of CO₂ into an aqueous piperazine (PZ) solution: development and validation of a rigorous dynamic rate-based model. RSC Adv. 2016;6(46)40017–32. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA27869D

69. Yuan Y, Rochelle GT. CO₂ absorption rate and capacity of semi-aqueous piperazine for CO₂ capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2019;85:182–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.03.007

70. Bishnoi S, Rochelle GT. Absorption of carbon dioxide in aqueous piperazine. AIChE J. 2002;48(12)2788–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690481208

71. Dugas RE, Rochelle GT. CO₂ absorption rate into concentrated aqueous monoethanolamine and piperazine. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 2011;56(5)2187–95. https://doi.org/10.1021/je101234t

72. Bougie F, Iliuta MC. CO₂ absorption into mixed aqueous solutions of 2-amino-2-hydroxymethyl-1, 3-propanediol and piperazine. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010;49(3)1150–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie900705y

73. Dash SK, Samanta AN, Bandyopadhyay SS. Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous solution of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol and piperazine. Fluid Phase Equil. 2011;307(2)166–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2011.05.009

74. Goeppert A, Meth S, Prakash GS, Olah GA. Nanostructured silica as a support for regenerable high-capacity organoamine-based CO₂ sorbents. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010;3(12)1949–60. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EE00136H

75. Li K, Jiang J, Tian S, Yan F, Chen X. Polyethyleneimine–nano silica composites: a low-cost and promising adsorbent for CO₂ capture. J. Mater. Chem. A. 2015;3(5)2166–75. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4TA04275A

76. Li K, Jiang J, Yan F, Tian S, Chen X. The influence of polyethyleneimine type and molecular weight on the CO₂ capture performance of PEI-nano silica adsorbents. Appl. Energy. 2014;136:750–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.057

77. Meth S, Goeppert A, Prakash GS, Olah GA. Silica nanoparticles as supports for regenerable CO₂ sorbents. Energy Fuels. 2012;26(5)3082–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef300289k

78. Quang DV, Dindi A, Rayer AV, Hadri NE, Abdulkadir A, AbuZahra MR. Effect of moisture on the heat capacity and the regeneration heat required for CO₂ capture process using PEI impregnated mesoporous precipitated silica. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2015;5(1)91–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1427

79. Tosh JS, Field JH, Benson HE, Haynes WP. Equilibrium study of the system potassium carbonate, potassium bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water. US Dep Inter, Bur Mines. 1959;

80. Borhani TNG, Azarpour A, Akbari V, Alwi SRW, Manan ZA. CO₂ capture with potassium carbonate solutions: A state-of-the-art review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2015;41:142–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.026

81. Kim YE, Choi JH, Nam SC, Yoon YI. CO₂ absorption characteristics in aqueous K₂CO₃/piperazine solution by NMR spectroscopy. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011;50(15)9306–13. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie102489r

82. Savage D, Sartori G, Astarita G. Amines as rate promoters for carbon dioxide hydrolysis. Faraday Discuss. Chem. Soc. 1984;77:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1039/DC9847700017

83. Fu D, Xie J. Absorption capacity and viscosity for CO₂ capture process using [N1111][Gly] promoted K₂CO₃ aqueous solution. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2016;102:310–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2016.07.026

84. Hu G, Nicholas NJ, Smith KH, Mumford KA, Kentish SE, Stevens GW. Carbon dioxide absorption into promoted potassium carbonate solutions: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2016;53:28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.020

85. Kim YE, Choi JH, Nam SC, Yoon YI. CO₂ absorption capacity using aqueous potassium carbonate with 2-methylpiperazine and piperazine. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2012;18(1)105–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2011.11.078

86. Pachitsas S, Bonalumi D. Parametric investigation of CO₂ capture from industrial flue gases using aqueous mixtures of ammonia (NH₃) and potassium carbonate (K₂CO₃). Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2022;114:103567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103567

87. Shen S, Feng X, Zhao R, Ghosh UK, Chen A. Kinetic study of carbon dioxide absorption with aqueous potassium carbonate promoted by arginine. Chem. Eng. J. 2013;222:478–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.02.093

88. Smith KH, Anderson CJ, Tao W, et al. Pre-combustion capture of CO₂—Results from solvent absorption pilot plant trials using 30 wt% potassium carbonate and boric acid promoted potassium carbonate solvent. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2012;10:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.018

89. Tseng P, Ho W, Savage D. Carbon dioxide absorption into promoted carbonate solutions. AIChE J. 1988;34(6)922–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690340604

90. Thee H, Suryaputradinata YA, Mumford KA, et al. A kinetic and process modeling study of CO₂ capture with MEA-promoted potassium carbonate solutions. Chem. Eng. J. 2012;210:271–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.08.092

91. Kang D, Lee MG, Yoo Y, Park J. Absorption characteristics of potassium carbonate-based solutions with rate promoters and corrosion inhibitors. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018;20:1562–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0719-4

92. Li L, Kang YT. Enhancement mechanisms of mass transfer performance by nanoabsorbents during CO₂ absorption process. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2021;164:120444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120444

93. Darde V, Thomsen K, VanWell WJ, Stenby EH. Chilled ammonia process for CO₂ capture. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1035–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.137

94. Gal E. Ultra cleaning of combustion gas including the removal of CO₂ . Google Patents. 2010;

95. Chehrazi M, Moghadas BK. A review on CO₂ capture with chilled ammonia and CO₂ utilization in urea plant. J. CO₂ Util. 2022;61:102030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102030

96. Bak C, Asif M, Kim WS. Experimental study on CO₂ capture by chilled ammonia process. Chem. Eng. J. 2015;265:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.11.145

97. Bandyopadhyay A. Amine versus ammonia absorption of CO₂ as a measure of reducing GHG emission: a critical analysis. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy. 2011;13:269–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-010-0299-z

98. Kozak F, Petig A, Morris E, Rhudy R, Thimsen D. Chilled ammonia process for CO₂ capture. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1419–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.186

99. Burchell TD, Judkins RR. Passive CO₂ removal using a carbon fiber composite molecular sieve. Energy Convers. Manage. 1996;37(6–8)947–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(95)00282-0

100. See CH, Harris AT. A review of carbon nanotube synthesis via fluidized-bed chemical vapor deposition. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007;46(4)997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie060955b

101. Yan Y, Miao J, Yang Z, et al. Carbon nanotube catalysts: recent advances in synthesis, characterization and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015;44(10)3295–346. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CS00492B

102. Zhang Q, Huang JQ, Qian WZ, Zhang YY, Wei F. The road for nanomaterials industry: Rev. Carbon Nanotube Prod. Post-treat. Bulk Appl. Compos. Energy Storage . Small. 2013;9(8)1237–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201203252

103. Figueroa JD, Fout T, Plasynski S, McIlvried H, Srivastava RD. Advances in CO₂ capture technology—the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2008;2(1)9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00094-1

104. Gui MM, Yap YX, Chai SP, Mohamed AR. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified with (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane for effective carbon dioxide adsorption. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2013;14:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.01.004

105. Lourenco MA, Fontana M, Jagdale P, Pirri CF, Bocchini S. Improved CO₂ adsorption properties through amine functionalization of multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;414:128763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.128763

106. Rahimi K, Riahi S, Abbasi M, Fakhroueian Z. Modification of multi-walled carbon nanotubes by 1, 3-diaminopropane to increase CO₂ adsorption capacity. J. Environ. Manage. 2019;242:81–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.036

107. Heidari M, Mousavi SB, Rahmani F, Clough PT, Ozmen S. The novel Carbon Nanotube-assisted development of highly porous CaZrO₃-CaO xerogel with boosted sorption activity towards high-temperature cyclic CO₂ capture. Energy Convers. Manage. 2022;274:116461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022;116461

108. Lu C, Wu B, Chen W, Lin YK, Bai H. Capture of carbon dioxide by modified multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Environanotechnol. 2010;55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-054820-3.00004-6

109. An H, Feng B, Su S. CO₂ capture by electrothermal swing adsorption with activated carbon fibre materials. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2011;5(1)16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.03.007

110. Petkovska M, Tondeur D, Grevillot G, Granger J, Mitrovic M. Temperature-swing gas separation with electrothermal desorption step. Sep. Sci. Technol. 1991;26(3)425–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496399108050482

111. Grande CA, Ribeiro RP, Rodrigues AE. CO₂ capture from NGCC power stations using electric swing adsorption (ESA). Energy Fuels. 2009;23(5)2797–803. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef8010756

112. VanderSpek M, Ramirez A, Faaij A. Challenges and uncertainties of ex ante techno-economic analysis of low TRL CO₂ capture technology: Lessons from a case study of an NGCC with exhaust gas recycle and electric swing adsorption. Appl. Energy. 2017;208:920–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.058

113. Zhao R, Liu L, Zhao L, Deng S, Li H. Thermodynamic analysis on carbon dioxide capture by Electric Swing Adsorption (ESA) technology. J. CO₂ Util. 2018;26:388–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2018.05.026

114. Voskian S, Hatton TA. Faradaic electro-swing reactive adsorption for CO₂ capture. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019;12(12)3530–47. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ee02412c

115. Grande CA, Ribeiro RP, Oliveira EL, Rodrigues AE. Electric swing adsorption as emerging CO₂ capture technique. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1219–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.160

116. EstradaGraf A, Hernandez S, Morales M. Biomitigation of CO₂ from flue gas by Scenedesmus obtusiusculus AT-UAM using a hybrid photobioreactor coupled to a biomass recovery stage by electro-coagulation-flotation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020;27:28561–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08240-2

117. Hafeez S, Safdar T, Pallari E, et al. CO₂ capture using membrane contactors: A systematic literature review. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2021;15:720–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-020-1992-z

118. Hou R, Fong C, Freeman BD, Hill MR, Xie Z. Current status and advances in membrane technology for carbon capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022;300:121863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.121863

119. He X, Hagg MB. Energy efficient process for CO₂ capture from flue gas with novel fixed-site-carrier membranes. Energy Procedia. 2014;63:174–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.018

120. Russo G, Prpich G, Anthony EJ, et al. Selective-exhaust gas recirculation for CO₂ capture using membrane technology. J. Membr. Sci. 2018;549:649–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.10.052

121. Favre E. Carbon dioxide recovery from post-combustion processes: can gas permeation membranes compete with absorption? J. Membr. Sci. 2007;294(1–2)50–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.02.007

122. Lee HJ, Park YG, Kim MK, Lee SH, Park JH. Study on CO₂ absorption performance of lab-scale ceramic hollow fiber membrane contactor by gas/liquid flow direction and module design. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019;220:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.03.011

123. Rodrigues MA, de Souza Ribeiro J, de Souza Costa E, de Miranda JL, Ferraz HC. Nanostructured membranes containing UiO-66 (Zr) and MIL-101 (Cr) for O₂/N₂ and CO₂/N₂ separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2018;192:491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.10.024

124. Anselmi H, Mirgaux O, Bounaceur R, Patisson F. Simulation of post-combustion CO₂ capture, a comparison among absorption, adsorption and membranes. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2019;42(4)797–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800667

125. Cui Q, Liu S, Xu L, Tu T, He Q, Yan S. Modification of rich-split carbon capture process using ceramic membrane for reducing the reboiler duty: Effect of membrane arrangements. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020;235:116148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.116148

126. Nieminen H, Jarvinen L, Ruuskanen V, Laari A, Koiranen T, Ahola J. Insights into a membrane contactor-based demonstration unit for CO₂ capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020;231:115951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.115951

127. Merkel TC, Lin H, Wei X, Baker R. Power plant post-combustion carbon dioxide capture: An opportunity for membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2010;359(1–2)126–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.10.041

128. Maghzian A, Aslani A, Zahedi R. Review on the direct air CO₂ capture by microalgae: Bibliographic mapping. Energy Rep. 2022;8:3337–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.125

129. Vale MA, Ferreira A, Pires JC, Goncalves AL. CO₂ capture using microalgae. Adv Carbon Capture. 2020;381–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819657-1.00017-7

130. Choi YY, Patel AK, Hong ME, Chang WS, Sim SJ. Microalgae Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): An emerging sustainable bioprocess for reduced CO₂ emission and biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019;7:100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100270

131. Klinthong W, Yang YH, Huang CH, Tan CS. A review: microalgae and their applications in CO₂ capture and renewable energy. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2015;15(2)712–42. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2014.11.0299

132. Nguyen LN, Vu MT, Vu HP, et al. Microalgae-based carbon capture and utilization: A critical review on current system developments and biomass utilization. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023;53(2)216–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2022.2047141

133. Cheah WY, Show PL, Chang JS, Ling TC, Juan JC. Biosequestration of atmospheric CO₂ and flue gas-containing CO₂ by microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 2015;184:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.026

134. Stephenson AL, Kazamia E, Dennis JS, et al. Life-cycle assessment of potential algal biodiesel production in the United Kingdom: a comparison of raceways and air-lift tubular bioreactors. Energy Fuels. 2010;24(7)4062–77. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef1003123

135. Hoang AT, Sirohi R, Pandey A, et al. Biofuel production from microalgae: challenges and chances. Phytochem Rev. 2022;1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-022-09819-y

136. Rodas-Zuluaga LI, Castaneda-Hernandez L, Castillo-Vacas EI, et al. Bio-capture and influence of CO₂ on the growth rate and biomass composition of the microalgae Botryococcus braunii and Scenedesmus sp . J. CO2 Util. 2021;43:101371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2020.101371

137. Yadav G, Meena DK, Sahoo AK, Das BK, Sen R. Effective valorization of microalgal biomass for the production of nutritional fish-feed supplements. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;243:118697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118697

138. Chou HH, Su HY, Song XD, et al. Isolation and characterization of Chlorella sp. mutants with enhanced thermo-and CO₂ tolerances for CO₂ sequestration and utilization of flue gases. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 2019;12(1)1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1590-9

139. VanDenBerghe M, Walworth NG, Dalvie NC, et al. Microbial Catalysis for CO₂ Sequestration: A Geobiological Approach. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2023;16. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041673

140. Hu G, Li Y, Ye C, Liu L, Chen X. Engineering Microorganisms for Enhanced CO₂ Sequestration. Trends Biotechnol. 2019;37:532–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.008

141. Liang B, Zhao Y, Yang J. Recent Advances in Developing Artificial Autotrophic Microorganism for Reinforcing CO₂ Fixation. Front Microbiol. 2020;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592631

142. Malatinszky D, Steuer R, Jones PR. A Comprehensively Curated Genome-Scale Two-Cell Model for the Heterocystous Cyanobacterium Anabaena sp. PCC 7120. Plant Physiol. 2017;173:509–523. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.01487

143. Gimpel JA, Henriquez V, Mayfield SP. Metabolic Engineering of Eukaryotic Microalgae: Potential and Challenges Come with Great Diversity. Front Microbiol. 2015;6: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01376

144. Saini R, Kapoor R, Kumar R, Siddiqi TO, Kumar A. CO₂ utilizing microbes — A comprehensive review. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29:949–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.009

145. Zhu X, Logan BE. Microbial electrolysis desalination and chemical-production cell for CO₂ sequestration. Bioresour. Technol. 2014;159:24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.062

146. Yaashikaa PR, Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Thamarai P, Rangasamy G. Role of microbial carbon capture cells in carbon sequestration and energy generation during wastewater treatment: A sustainable solution for cleaner environment. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2024;52:799–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.05.307

147. Mitchell AC, Phillips AJ, Hiebert R, Gerlach R, Spangler LH, Cunningham AB. Biofilm enhanced geologic sequestration of supercritical CO₂ . Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2009;3:90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.05.002

148. Upendar G, Singh S, Chakrabarty J, Chandra Ghanta K, Dutta S, Dutta A. Sequestration of carbon dioxide and production of biomolecules using cyanobacteria. J. Environ. Manage. 2018;218:234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.031

149. Jaya P, Nathan VK, Ammini P. Characterization of marine bacterial carbonic anhydrase and their CO₂ sequestration abilities based on a soil microcosm. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019;49:891–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826068.2019.1633669

150. Onyeaka H, Ekwebelem OC. A review of recent advances in engineering bacteria for enhanced CO₂ capture and utilization. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023;20:4635–4648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04303-8

151. Sundaram S, Thakur IS. Biosurfactant production by a CO₂ sequestering Bacillus sp. strain ISTS2. Bioresour. Technol. 2015;188:247–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.029

152. Hu G, Li Z, Ma D, et al. Light-driven CO₂ sequestration in Escherichia coli to achieve theoretical yield of chemicals. Nat Catal. 2021;4:395–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-021-00606-0

153. Hu G, Smith KH, Wu Y, Mumford KA, Kentish SE, Stevens GW. Carbon dioxide capture by solvent absorption using amino acids: A review. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2018;26(11)2229–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2018.08.003

154. Bezerra DP, da Silva FW, de Moura PA, et al. CO₂ adsorption in amine-grafted zeolite 13X. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014;314:314–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.06.164

155. Chatti R, Bansiwal AK, Thote JA, et al. Amine loaded zeolites for carbon dioxide capture: Amine loading and adsorption studies. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2009;121(1–3)84–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2009.01.007

156. Cheng H, Song H, Toan S, et al. Experimental investigation of CO₂ adsorption and desorption on multi-type amines loaded HZSM-5 zeolites. Chem. Eng. J. 2021;406:126882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126882

157. Karka S, Kodukula S, Nandury SV, Pal U. Polyethylenimine-modified zeolite 13X for CO₂ capture: adsorption and kinetic studies. ACS omega. 2019;4(15)16441–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b02047

158. Lisbona P, Martinez A, Romeo LM. Hydrodynamical model and experimental results of a calcium looping cycle for CO₂ capture. Appl. Energy. 2013;101:317–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.067

159. Perejon A, Romeo LM, Lara Y, Lisbona P, Martinez A, Valverde JM. The Calcium-Looping technology for CO₂ capture: On the important roles of energy integration and sorbent behavior. Appl. Energy. 2016;162:787–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.121

160. Johannessen E, Jordal K. Study of a H₂ separating membrane reactor for methane steam reforming at conditions relevant for power processes with CO₂ capture. Energy Convers. Manage. 2005;46(7–8)1059–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.06.030

161. Ma C, Sun L, Jin L, et al. Effect of polypropylene on the pyrolysis of flame retarded high impact polystyrene. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015;135:150–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.12.011

162. Roussanaly S, Bureau-Cauchois G, Husebye J. Costs benchmark of CO₂ transport technologies for a group of various size industries. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2013;12:341–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.008

163. Aspelund A, Jordal K. Gas conditioning: The interface between CO₂ capture and transport. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2007;1(3)343–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00040-0

164. Roussanaly S, Brunsvold AL, Hognes ES. Benchmarking of CO₂ transport technologies: Part II–Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2014;28:283–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.019

165. Svensson R, Odenberger M, Johnsson F, Stromberg L. Transportation systems for CO₂ application to carbon capture and storage. Energy Convers. Manage. 2004;45(15–16)2343–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.11.022

166. Serpa J, Morbee J, Tzimas E. Technical and economic characteristics of a CO₂ transmission pipeline infrastructure. JRC62502. 2011;1–43. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2790/30861

167. Middleton RS, Bielicki JM. A comprehensive carbon capture and storage infrastructure model. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1611–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.211

168. Morbee J, Serpa J, Tzimas E. Optimal planning of CO₂ transmission infrastructure: The JRC InfraCCS tool. Energy Procedia. 2011;4:2772–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.180

169. Zhang Z, Wang G, Massarotto P, Rudolph V. Optimization of pipeline transport for CO₂ sequestration. Energy Convers. Manage. 2006;47(6)702–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.06.001

170. Al Baroudi H, Awoyomi A, Patchigolla K, Jonnalagadda K, Anthony EJ. A review of large-scale CO₂ shipping and marine emissions management for carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Appl. Energy. 2021;287:116510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116510

171. Forbes SM, Verma P, Curry TE, Friedmann SJ, Wade SM. Guidelines for carbon dioxide capture, transport and storage. Guidelines Carbon Dioxide Capture Transp Storage. 2008; http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_guidelines.pdf

172. Jung JY, Huh C, Kang SG, Seo Y, Chang D. CO₂ transport strategy and its cost estimation for the offshore CCS in Korea. Appl. Energy. 2013;111:1054–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.055

173. Decarre S, Berthiaud J, Butin N, GuillaumeCombecave JL. CO₂ maritime transportation. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2010;4(5)857–64. https://doi:10.1016/J.IJGGC.2010.05.005

174. Desideri U, Arcioni L, Tozzi M. Feasibility study for a carbon capture and storage project in northern Italy. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008;32(12)1175–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1454

175. Jakobsen J, Tangen G, Nordbo O, Molnvik M. Methodology for CO₂ chain analysis. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2008;2(4)439–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.06.003

176. Kuby MJ, Middleton RS, Bielicki JM. Analysis of cost savings from networking pipelines in CCS infrastructure systems. Energy Procedia. 2011;4:2808–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.185

177. Neele F, Hendriks C, Brandsma R. Geocapacity: economic feasibility of CCS in networked systems. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)4217–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.232

178. Kazmierczak T, Brandsma R, Neele F, Hendriks C. Algorithm to create a CCS low-cost pipeline network. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1617–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.212

179. Coussy P, Roussanaly S, BureauCauchois G, Wildenborg T. Economic CO₂ network optimization model COCATE European Project. Energy Procedia. 2013;37:2923–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.178

180. Koornneef J, Spruijt M, Molag M, Ramirez C, Turkenburg W, Faaij A. Quantitative risk assessment of CO₂ pipelines: a review of uncertainties and their impacts. J Hazard Mater. 2009;1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.068

181. Onyebuchi VE, Kolios A, Hanak DP, Biliyok C, Manovic V. A systematic review of key challenges of CO₂ transport via pipelines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018;81:2563–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.064

182. Vianellob C, Macchiettoa S, Maschiob G. Risk assessment of CO₂ pipeline network for CCS–a UK case study. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013;31:13–18. https://doi:10.3303/CET1331003

183. Eldevik F, Graver B, Torbergsen LE, Saugerud OT. Development of a guideline for safe, reliable and cost-efficient transmission of CO₂ in pipelines. Energy Procedia. 2009;1(1)1579–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.207

184. Havercroft I, KCRMH , Stewart R. Carbon Capture and Storage: emerging legal and regulatory issues. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2018.

185. Metz B, Davidson O, De Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/230961

186. Hori M, Bayne CJ, Kuwae T. Blue carbon: characteristics of the ocean’s sequestration and storage ability of carbon dioxide. Blue carbon in shallow coastal ecosystems: Carbon dynamics, policy, and implementation. 2019. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1295-3_1

187. Lackner KS, Brennan S. Envisioning carbon capture and storage: expanded possibilities due to air capture, leakage insurance, and C-14 monitoring. Clim. Change. 2009;96(3)357–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9632-0

188. Khoo HH, Tan RB. Life cycle investigation of CO₂ recovery and sequestration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006;40(12)4016–24. https://doi.org/10.1021/es051882a

189. Herzog HJ. CO₂ mitigation strategies: Perspectives on the capture and sequestration option. Energy Environ. 1996;7(2)223–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X9600700209

190. Johnston P, Santillo D, Stringer R, Parmentier R, Hare B, Krueger M. Ocean disposal/sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel production and use: an overview of rationale, techniques and implications. Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Technical Note. 1999;1:99.

191. Seibel BA, Walsh PJ. Biological impacts of deep-sea carbon dioxide injection inferred from indices of physiological performance. J. Exp. Biol. 2003;206(4)641–50. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00141

192. Shirayama Y. Biodiversity and biological impact of ocean disposal of carbon dioxide. Waste Manage. 1998;17(5–6)381–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(97)10040-X

193. Takeuchi K, Fujioka Y, Kawasaki Y, Shirayama Y. Impacts of high concentration of CO₂ on marine organisms; a modification of CO₂ ocean sequestration. Energy Convers. Manage. 1997;38:S337–S41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(96)00291-9

194. Espinoza D, Kim S, Santamarina J. CO₂ geological storage—Geotechnical implications. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2011;15:707–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-011-0011-9

195. Lokhorst A, Wildenborg T. Introduction on CO₂ Geological storage-classification of storage options. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2005;60(3)513–5. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2005033

196. McCoy ST. The Economics of CO₂ . Transport by Pipeline and Storage in Saline Aquifers and Oil Reservoirs. 2008;

197. Eccles JK, Pratson L, Newell RG, Jackson RB. Physical and economic potential of geological CO₂ storage in saline aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009;43(6)1962–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/es801572e

198. Bachu S. Review of CO₂ storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2015;40:188–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.007

199. Ji X, Zhu C. CO₂ storage in deep saline aquifers. Novel Mater Carbon Dioxide Mitig Technol. 2015;299–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63259.3.00010-0

200. Ringrose PS, Furre AK, Gilfillan SM, et al. Storage of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers: Physicochemical processes, key constraints, and scale-up potential. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2021;12:471–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-093020-091447

201. AlKhdheeawi EA, Vialle S, Barifcani A, Sarmadivaleh M, Iglauer S. Influence of injection well configuration and rock wettability on CO₂ plume behaviour and CO₂ trapping capacity in heterogeneous reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017;43:190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.016

202. Zhang G, Zhou D, Wang P, Zhang K, Tang M. Influence of supercritical CO₂ water on the micromechanical properties of sandstone. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2020;97:103040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103040

203. Abedini A, Torabi F. On the CO₂ storage potential of cyclic CO₂ injection process for enhanced oil recovery. Fuel. 2014;124:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.084

204. Ampomah W, Balch R, Cather M, et al. Evaluation of CO₂ storage mechanisms in CO₂ enhanced oil recovery sites: application to morrow sandstone reservoir. Energy Fuels. 2016;30(10)8545–55. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01888

205. Sæle AM, Graue A, Alcorn ZP. Unsteady-state CO₂ foam injection for increasing enhanced oil recovery and carbon storage potential. 2022. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3057120

206. Seyyedi M, Sohrabi M, Sisson A, Ireland S. Quantification of oil recovery efficiency, CO₂ storage potential, and fluid-rock interactions by CWI in heterogeneous sandstone oil reservoirs. J. Mol. Liq. 2018;249:779–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.10.070

207. Dai Z, Middleton R, Viswanathan H, et al. An integrated framework for optimizing CO₂ sequestration and enhanced oil recovery. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014;1(1)49–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez4001033

208. Li L, Zhang X, Liu J, et al. Research Progress and Prospect of Carbon Dioxide Utilization and Storage Based on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development. Energies. 2022;15(24)9383. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249383

209. Zhang Z, Huisingh D. Carbon dioxide storage schemes: technology, assessment and deployment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;142:1055–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.199

210. Godec ML, Kuuskraa VA, Dipietro P. Opportunities for using anthropogenic CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery and CO₂ storage. Energy Fuels. 2013;27(8)4183–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef302040u

211. Farajzadeh R, Eftekhari AA, Dafnomilis G, Lake L, Bruining J. On the sustainability of CO₂ storage through CO₂–Enhanced oil recovery. Appl. Energy. 2020;261:114467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114467

212. Dai Z, Viswanathan H, Middleton R, et al. CO₂ accounting and risk analysis for CO₂ sequestration at enhanced oil recovery sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016;50(14)7546–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01744

213. Raza A, Gholami R, Rezaee R, Bing CH, Nagarajan R, Hamid MA. Assessment of CO₂ residual trapping in depleted reservoirs used for geosequestration. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017;43:137–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.04.001

214. Kou Z, Wang T, Chen Z, Jiang J. A fast and reliable methodology to evaluate maximum CO₂ storage capacity of depleted coal seams: A case study. Energy. 2021;231:120992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120992

215. Liu Z, Cheng Y, Wang Y, Wang L, Li W. Experimental investigation of CO₂ injection into coal seam reservoir at in-situ stress conditions for enhanced coalbed methane recovery. Fuel. 2019;236:709–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.09.062

216. Mukherjee M, Misra S. A review of experimental research on Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM) recovery via CO₂ sequestration. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2018;179:392–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.02.018

217. Ozdemir E. Modeling of coal bed methane (CBM) production and CO₂ sequestration in coal seams. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2009;77(1–2)145–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2008.09.003

218. Zhang C, Wang E, Li B, et al. Laboratory experiments of CO₂-enhanced coalbed methane recovery considering CO₂ sequestration in a coal seam. Energy. 2023;262:125473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125473

219. Li W, Liu H, Song X. Influence of fluid exposure on surface chemistry and pore-fracture morphology of various rank coals: implications for methane recovery and CO₂ storage. Energy Fuels. 2017;31(11)12552–69. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b02483

220. Zhang K, Sang S, Liu C, Ma M, Zhou X. Experimental study the influences of geochemical reaction on coal structure during the CO₂ geological storage in deep coal seam. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019;178:1006–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.03.082

221. Ren J, Niu Q, Wang Z, et al. CO₂ adsorption/desorption, induced deformation behavior, and permeability characteristics of different rank coals: Application for CO₂ Enhanced coalbed methane recovery. Energy Fuels. 2022;36(11)5709–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.2c00635

222. Ibrahim AF, Nasredin HA. Effect of water salinity on coal wettability during CO₂ sequestration in coal seams. Energy Fuels. 2016;30(9)7532–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01205

223. Huerta NJ, Hesse MA, Bryant SL, Strazisar BR, Lopano C. Reactive transport of CO₂-saturated water in a cement fracture: Application to wellbore leakage during geologic CO₂ storage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2016;44:276–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.02.006

224. VanDerZwaan B, Gerlagh R. Economics of geological CO₂ storage and leakage. Clim. Change. 2009;93(3–4)285–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9558-6

225. Harvey OR, Qafoku NP, Cantrell KJ, Lee G, Amonette JE, Brown CF. Geochemical implications of gas leakage associated with geologic CO₂ storage: A qualitative review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013;47(1)23–36. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3029457

226. Bielicki JM, Pollak MF, Fitts JP, Peters CA, Wilson EJ. Causes and financial consequences of geologic CO2 storage reservoir leakage and interference with other subsurface resources. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2014;20:272–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.024

227. Bielicki JM, Pollak MF, Deng H, Wilson EJ, Fitts JP, Peters CA. The leakage risk monetization model for geologic CO₂ storage. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016;50(10)4923–31. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05329

228. Thiruchittampalam S, Raval SA, Glenn NF, LeHussain F. Indirect remote sensing techniques for long term monitoring of CO₂ leakage in geological carbon sequestration: A review. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2022;100:104488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104488

229. Alcalde J, Flude S, Wilkinson M, et al. Estimating geological CO₂ storage security to deliver on climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 2018;9(1)2201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04423-1

230. Gadikota G, Matter J, Kelemen P, Brady PV, Park AHA. Elucidating the differences in the carbon mineralization behaviors of calcium and magnesium bearing alumino-silicates and magnesium silicates for CO₂ storage. Fuel. 2020;277:117900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117900

231. Menefee AH, Ellis BR. Carbon mineralization in reactive silicate zones. ACS EST Engg. 2021;1(8)1193–204. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00066

232. Matter JM, Stute M, Snaebjornsdottir SO, et al. Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Science. 2016;352(6291)1312–4. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8132

233. Khoo H, Bu J, Wong R, Kuan S, Sharratt P. Carbon capture and utilization: Preliminary life cycle CO₂, energy, and cost results of potential mineral carbonation. Energy Procedia. 2011;4:2494–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.145

234. Ibrahim MH, ElNaas MH, Benamor A, AlSobhi SS, Zhang Z. Carbon mineralization by reaction with steel-making waste: a review. Processes. 2019;7(2)115. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7020115

235. Gadikota G. Carbon mineralization pathways for carbon capture, storage and utilization. Commun. Chem. 2021;4(1)23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-021-00461-x

236. Depp CT, Miller QR, Crum JV, Horner JA, Schaef HT. Pore-scale microenvironments control anthropogenic carbon mineralization outcomes in basalt. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2022;6(12)2836–47. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00165

237. McGrail BP, Schaef HT, Ho AM, Chien YJ, Dooley JJ, Davidson CL. Potential for carbon dioxide sequestration in flood basalts. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 2006. 111B12 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB004169

238. Polites EG, Schaef HT, Horner JA, et al. Exotic carbonate mineralization recovered from a deep basalt carbon storage demonstration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022;56(20)14713–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c03269

239. White SK, Spane FA, Schaef HT, et al. Quantification of CO₂ mineralization at the Wallula basalt pilot project. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020;54(22)14609–16. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05142

240. Sim G, Hong S, Moon S, et al. Simultaneous CO₂ utilization and rare earth elements recovery by novel aqueous carbon mineralization of blast furnace slag. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022;10(2)107327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107327

Fig. 1

Global Monthly Mean CO₂

Fig. 2

Overview of CCS Technology

Fig. 3

CO₂ Capture Techniques

Fig. 4

Advantages of Chilled Ammonia Process

Fig. 5

Properties and Advantages of CNTs

Table 1

An overview of K₂CO₃ - based sorbents

Material (% loading)	Temperature (°C)	Conditions	Capacity	Reactor/Adsorber	Regeneration temperature (°C)	Ref.
K₂CO₃/MgO/Al₂O₃ (10%+30%)	60	10% CO₂, 12% H₂O, 12 m³/hr	109.6 mg/g	Fluidized Bed	60–480	[31]
K₂CO₃	65	15% CO₂, 6% H₂O, 500 L/min	81.7% conv	Fixed Bed	160	[32]
K₂CO₃-RC^**	50	2.34% CO₂, 2.13% H₂O, 0.06 mL/s	50% conv	Fixed Bed	150	[17]
K₂CO₃-AR^*	50	2.34% CO₂, 2.13% H₂O, 0.06 mL/s	20% conv	Fixed Bed	150	[17]
PEI/AC (43%)	60	8% CO₂, 10% H₂O, 500 ml/min	2.4 mmol of CO₂	Fixed Bed	130	[13]
K₂CO₃/AC (58%)	60	8% CO₂, 10% H₂O, 500 ml/min	1.64 mmol CO₂	Fixed Bed	130	[13]
K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ (35%)	60	15% CO₂, 10% H₂O, 115 mL/min	71 mg CO₂/g	Fluidized Bed	180	[23]
K₂CO₃/Clay (35%)	60	15% CO₂, 10% H₂O, 115 ml/min	63 mg CO₂/g	Fluidized Bed	180	[23]
K₂CO₃/TiO₂ (30%)	50–60	1% CO₂, 9% H₂O, 40 ml/min	83–87 mg CO₂/g	Fixed bed	130–150	[21]
K₂CO₃/Al₂O₃ (24.5%)	60	13% CO₂, 13%H₂O, 2.3 m³/hr	73 mg CO₂/g	Fluidized bed	350	[33]

K₂CO3-AR^* (Sigma Aldrich, ACS reagent, ≥99.0%), and K₂CO₃-RC^** Recrystallized K₂CO₃ was made by dissolving 1 g of the K₂CO₃ reagent in 10 ml of deionized water in a stainless-steel crucible and drying it for 24 hours at 70°C.

Table 2

Reaction kinetics of various alkanolamines with CO₂

Temperature (K)	Alkanolamine	Concentration (kmole/m³)	Overall order	Rate constant (m³/kmol – s)	Ref.
298	MEA	0.0265 – 0.0828	2	6000	[47]
298	TEA	0.02 – 0.08	2	2.85
298	DEA	0.031 – 0.088	2	1400
298.15	MDEA	0.19 – 0.8	2	17.1	[51]
293	DEA	0.25 – 0.82	3	849	[49]
294	AMP	0.5 – 2.00	2	473
298	TEA	0.1 – 1.00	3	2.7
298	DIPA	0.33 – 2.16	2	467	[34]
298	MDEA	0 – 1.14	2	7.8	[34]

The CO₂ capture pathways for aqueous solutions of primary amines can be represented by the below reactions [13].

Table 3

CO₂ Biomass production using different microalgae

Species	Aeration rate (vvm^*)	Percentage of CO₂	Biomass production rate (g/L)	Culture medium	Ref
Botryococcus braunii	0.1	10	0.41	BG – 11^**	[135]
Scenedesmus s	0.1	10	0.9	BG - 11	[135]
Chlorella s	0.5	10	1.69	3N – BBM^***	[136]
Chlorella vulgaris	0.1	25	0.15	BG - 11	[137]
Scenedesmus obtusiusculus	-	4 – 5	1.09	BG - 11	[138]

vvm^* - volume of gas per volume of liquid per minute; BG – 11^** - Blue Green algae; 3N – BBM^*** - Bold Basal Medium with 3 – fold Nitrogen

A comprehensive review of carbon dioxide sequestration: Exploring diverse methods for effective post combustion CO2 capture, transport, and storage