IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jcltec/v3y2021i2p29-502d566855.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon Capture from Biogas by Deep Eutectic Solvents: A COSMO Study to Evaluate the Effect of Impurities on Solubility and Selectivity

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Quaid

    (Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering and Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901, USA)

  • M. Toufiq Reza

    (Department of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering and Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32901, USA)

Abstract

Deep eutectic solvents (DES) are compounds of a hydrogen bond donor (HBD) and a hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA) that contain a depressed melting point compared to their individual constituents. DES have been studied for their use as carbon capture media and biogas upgrading. However, contaminants’ presence in biogas might affect the carbon capture by DES. In this study, conductor-like screening model for real solvents (COSMO-RS) was used to determine the effect of temperature, pressure, and selective contaminants on five DES’ namely, choline chloride-urea, choline chloride-ethylene glycol, tetra butyl ammonium chloride-ethylene glycol, tetra butyl ammonium bromide-decanoic acid, and tetra octyl ammonium chloride-decanoic acid. Impurities studied in this paper are hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, water, nitrogen, octamethyltrisiloxane, and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane. At infinite dilution, CO 2 solubility dependence upon temperature in each DES was examined by means of Henry’s Law constants. Next, the systems were modeled from infinite dilution to equilibrium using the modified Raoults’ Law, where CO 2 solubility dependence upon pressure was examined. Finally, solubility of CO 2 and CH 4 in the various DES were explored with the presence of varying mole percent of selective contaminants. Among the parameters studied, it was found that the HBD of the solvent is the most determinant factor for the effectiveness of CO 2 solubility. Other factors affecting the solubility are alkyl chain length of the HBA, the associated halogen, and the resulting polarity of the DES. It was also found that choline chloride-urea is the most selective to CO 2 , but has the lowest CO 2 solubility, and is the most polar among other solvents. On the other hand, tetraoctylammonium chloride-decanoic acid is the least selective, has the highest maximum CO 2 solubility, is the least polar, and is the least affected by its environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Quaid & M. Toufiq Reza, 2021. "Carbon Capture from Biogas by Deep Eutectic Solvents: A COSMO Study to Evaluate the Effect of Impurities on Solubility and Selectivity," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:3:y:2021:i:2:p:29-502:d:566855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/3/2/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/3/2/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xie, Yujiao & Björkmalm, Johanna & Ma, Chunyan & Willquist, Karin & Yngvesson, Johan & Wallberg, Ola & Ji, Xiaoyan, 2018. "Techno-economic evaluation of biogas upgrading using ionic liquids in comparison with industrially used technology in Scandinavian anaerobic digestion plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 742-750.
    2. Li, Yebo & Park, Stephen Y. & Zhu, Jiying, 2011. "Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 821-826, January.
    3. Dou, Binlin & Wang, Chao & Song, Yongchen & Chen, Haisheng & Jiang, Bo & Yang, Mingjun & Xu, Yujie, 2016. "Solid sorbents for in-situ CO2 removal during sorption-enhanced steam reforming process: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 536-546.
    4. Zhang, Quanguo & Hu, Jianjun & Lee, Duu-Jong, 2016. "Biogas from anaerobic digestion processes: Research updates," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 108-119.
    5. Edyta Słupek & Patrycja Makoś & Jacek Gębicki, 2020. "Theoretical and Economic Evaluation of Low-Cost Deep Eutectic Solvents for Effective Biogas Upgrading to Bio-Methane," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-19, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rouches, E. & Herpoël-Gimbert, I. & Steyer, J.P. & Carrere, H., 2016. "Improvement of anaerobic degradation by white-rot fungi pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 179-198.
    2. Qi, Chuanren & Cao, Dingge & Gao, Xingzu & Jia, Sumeng & Yin, Rongrong & Nghiem, Long D. & Li, Guoxue & Luo, Wenhai, 2023. "Optimising organic composition of feedstock to improve microbial dynamics and symbiosis to advance solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    3. Zhao, Xinyue & Chen, Heng & Zheng, Qiwei & Liu, Jun & Pan, Peiyuan & Xu, Gang & Zhao, Qinxin & Jiang, Xue, 2023. "Thermo-economic analysis of a novel hydrogen production system using medical waste and biogas with zero carbon emission," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    4. Nicole Meinusch & Susanne Kramer & Oliver Körner & Jürgen Wiese & Ingolf Seick & Anita Beblek & Regine Berges & Bernhard Illenberger & Marco Illenberger & Jennifer Uebbing & Maximilian Wolf & Gunter S, 2021. "Integrated Cycles for Urban Biomass as a Strategy to Promote a CO 2 -Neutral Society—A Feasibility Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Sylwia Myszograj, 2019. "Biogas and Methane Potential of Pre-Thermally Disintegrated Bio-Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-12, October.
    6. Siswo Sumardiono & Gebyar Adisukmo & Muthia Hanif & Budiyono Budiyono & Heri Cahyono, 2021. "Effects of Pretreatment and Ratio of Solid Sago Waste to Rumen on Biogas Production through Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-11, July.
    7. Claudinei De Souza Guimarães & David Rodrigues da Silva Maia & Eduardo Gonçalves Serra, 2018. "Construction of Biodigesters to Optimize the Production of Biogas from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Sewage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-10, April.
    8. Dandikas, Vasilis & Heuwinkel, Hauke & Lichti, Fabian & Eckl, Thomas & Drewes, Jörg E. & Koch, Konrad, 2018. "Correlation between hydrolysis rate constant and chemical composition of energy crops," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 34-42.
    9. Zhang, Jingxin & Hu, Qiang & Qu, Yiyuan & Dai, Yanjun & He, Yiliang & Wang, Chi-Hwa & Tong, Yen Wah, 2020. "Integrating food waste sorting system with anaerobic digestion and gasification for hydrogen and methane co-production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 257(C).
    10. Qu, Guangfei & Lv, Pei & Cai, Yingying & Tu, Can & Ma, Xi & Ning, Ping, 2020. "Enhanced anaerobic fermentation of dairy manure by microelectrolysis in electric and magnetic fields," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 2758-2765.
    11. Apoorva Upadhyay & Andrey A. Kovalev & Elena A. Zhuravleva & Dmitriy A. Kovalev & Yuriy V. Litti & Shyam Kumar Masakapalli & Nidhi Pareek & Vivekanand Vivekanand, 2022. "Recent Development in Physical, Chemical, Biological and Hybrid Biogas Upgradation Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-30, December.
    12. Chadwick, Dara T. & McDonnell, Kevin P. & Brennan, Liam P. & Fagan, Colette C. & Everard, Colm D., 2014. "Evaluation of infrared techniques for the assessment of biomass and biofuel quality parameters and conversion technology processes: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 672-681.
    13. Zheng, Lei & Cheng, Shikun & Han, Yanzhao & Wang, Min & Xiang, Yue & Guo, Jiali & Cai, Di & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Dong, Taili & Li, Zifu & Yan, Zhengxu & Men, Yu, 2020. "Bio-natural gas industry in China: Current status and development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    14. Singh, Renu & Shukla, Ashish, 2014. "A review on methods of flue gas cleaning from combustion of biomass," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 854-864.
    15. Aguilar-Moreno, Guadalupe Stefanny & Navarro-Cerón, Elizabeth & Velázquez-Hernández, Azucena & Hernández-Eugenio, Guadalupe & Aguilar-Méndez, Miguel Ángel & Espinosa-Solares, Teodoro, 2020. "Enhancing methane yield of chicken litter in anaerobic digestion using magnetite nanoparticles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(P1), pages 204-213.
    16. Simioni, Taysnara & Agustini, Caroline Borges & Dettmer, Aline & Gutterres, Mariliz, 2022. "Enhancement of biogas production by anaerobic co-digestion of leather waste with raw and pretreated wheat straw," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    17. Irina N. Vikhareva & Guliya K. Aminova & Aliya K. Mazitova, 2022. "Resource Cycling: Application of Anaerobic Utilization Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Jiang, Zhiqiang & Liao, Mingzheng & Qi, Ji & Wang, Chao & Chen, Ying & Luo, Xianglong & Liang, Bo & Shu, Riyang & Song, Qingbin, 2020. "Enhancing hydrogen production from propane partial oxidation via CO preferential oxidation and CO2 sorption towards solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) applications," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 303-313.
    19. Hagos, Kiros & Zong, Jianpeng & Li, Dongxue & Liu, Chang & Lu, Xiaohua, 2017. "Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1485-1496.
    20. Hartung, Christina & Andrade, Diana & Dandikas, Vasilis & Eickenscheidt, Tim & Drösler, Matthias & Zollfrank, Cordt & Heuwinkel, Hauke, 2020. "Suitability of paludiculture biomass as biogas substrate − biogas yield and long-term effects on anaerobic digestion," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 64-71.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jcltec:v:3:y:2021:i:2:p:29-502:d:566855. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.