Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.
2020, 14(3): 305–316
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-019-1860-x
REVIEW ARTICLE
Pilot plants of membrane technology in industry: Challenges
and key learnings
Colin A. Scholes (✉)
Peter Cook Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Department of Chemical Engineering,
The University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
© Higher Education Press 2020
Abstract Membrane technology holds great potential in
gas separation applications, especially carbon dioxide
capture from industrial processes. To achieve this potential,
the outputs from global research endeavours into mem-
brane technologies must be trialled in industrial processes,
which requires membrane-based pilot plants. These pilot
plants are critical to the commercialization of membrane
technology, be it as gas separation membranes or
membrane gas-solvent contactors, as failure at the pilot
plant level may delay the development of the technology
for decades. Here, the author reports on his experience of
operating membrane-based pilot plants for gas separation
and contactor configurations as part of three industrial
carbon capture initiatives: the Mulgrave project, H3 project
and Vales Point project. Specifically, the challenges of
developing and operating membrane pilot plants are
presented, as well as the key learnings on how to
successfully manage membrane pilot plants to achieve
desired performance outcomes. The purpose is to assist
membrane technologists in the carbon capture field to
achieve successful outcomes for their technology innova-
tions.
Keywords membrane gas separation, membrane contac-
tors, carbon capture, pilot plants, key learnings
1 Introduction
Membrane separation is a conceptually simple technology
that holds great promise in a range of chemical processing
industries [1], given its straightforwardness and ease of
operation, compact nature and orientation versatility,
scalability for increased throughput, lack of moveable
Received March 1, 2019; accepted May 14, 2019
E-mail: cascho@unimelb.edu.au
parts, modular and inexpensive fabrication, as well as
straightforward economics. These have made membranes
the technology of choice for water treatment [2,3] as well
as nano- [4,5], ultra- and microfiltration [6,7], and
membranes compete with other technologies in natural
gas processing [8–10], air enrichment and hydrocarbon
vapour recovery [11]. Carbon dioxide capture is one
application that membranes are increasingly being pre-
sented as a viable approach, and the subject of much
research endeavour.
Membrane research for carbon dioxide capture focuses
on two strategies, gas separation membranes and mem-
brane gas-solvent contactors. The first strategy utilises a
membrane material that has an affinity for CO2 over other
gases, generally a non-porous polymer, and selectively
separates CO2 from the feed gas through a partial pressure
driving force across the membrane [10]. The second
strategy is a hybrid approach that incorporates traditional
solvent absorption for CO2 capture [12], but the membrane
actively separates the feed gas and solvent phases, hence
representing the mass transfer area (Fig. 1). This achieves
greater mass transfer per unit volume than conventional
solvent columns, as well as avoiding other hydrodynamic
issues associated with column operation. Gas separation
membranes are commercialised for natural gas sweetening
and have been demonstrated to be feasible for pre-
combustion carbon capture [13] (separation of CO2 from
syngas at high pressure) as well as workable for post-
combustion carbon capture [14,15] (separation of CO2
from flue gas at low pressure). Membrane gas-solvent
contactors are viable for liquid-liquid extraction [12,16],
and demonstrated to be workable for natural gas sweet-
ening, as well as pre- and post-combustion carbon capture
[17].
Developing membranes for CO2 capture has been a
research hotspot for membrane technologists, for both gas
separation and contactor strategies. New polymers are
continually being synthesized and tested [18], while
306 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316
Fig. 1 Schematic of the membrane gas-solvent contactor process for CO2 separation from flue gas (post-combustion capture).
additives are being added to these polymers to construct
novel mixed matrix membranes that enhance CO2
permeance and selectivity [19]. New hollow fibre fabrica-
tion techniques are being trialled to reduce the thickness,
and therefore resistance, of the active membrane layer
while retaining the mechanical strength of the fibre to
withstand pressure conditions. Novel membrane process
configurations are also simulated, to validate the effec-
tiveness of membranes for CO2 capture [15]. However, for
all the laboratory and desktop research into membranes for
CO2 capture, there has been little industry uptake of the
technology, and most of these research endeavours remain
at the beginning of the technology commercialization
pathway.
The key to the implementation of both gas separation
membrane and membrane contactor technologies is the
need for successful trials of both technologies in pilot
plants located in industry, as this will demonstrate the
ability of both technologies to process industrial feed
conditions and effectively separate CO2. However, the
number of pilot plant trials of membrane technology for
carbon capture is limited. Gas separation membranes were
first commercialised in the 1980s for natural gas sweet-
ening with cellulose acetate and polyimide based polymers
[9]. This has created a very successful industry, and as such
there has been little industry incentive to test more recently
developed improved polymers. For membrane gas-solvent
contactors, there has been even less incentive from
industry for trials, because as an emerging technology
there are no current commercial examples of the process.
This is partly hampered by the professional animosity
between solvent and membrane technologists, both of
whom need to collaborate for membrane contactor
technology to be further refined.
The author has participated in three successful pilot
plant trials of membrane technology for carbon capture
(utilising both gas separation membranes and membrane
contactors), which have been reported on in the literature.
To assist in the future commercialisation of membrane
technology in carbon capture, and other gas separation
applications, the challenges and key learnings from these
pilot plant trials will be presented and analysed here. Key
issues will be highlighted and recommendations will be put
forward to ensure that other membrane technologists can
avoid setbacks and ensure increased probability for success
of their pilot plant process. The overall objective is to
enable other membrane technologists implementing pilot
plants to avoid potential pitfalls and assist in the
development of membrane technology for carbon capture.
2 Pilot plants
There have been limited membrane pilot plants undertaken
for CO2 capture, of which only a few are mentioned here,
as generally industry sponsored pilot plants are not
reported in the literature. Notable gas separation membrane
pilot plants for post-combustion capture include the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU) and SINTEF’s trials at the Norcem cement
factory (Norway) [20] and the Sines bituminous coal
power station (Portugal) [21]. The Max Planck Institute of
Polymer Research has also undertaken post-combustion
trial of gas separation membranes at a black coal power
station (Germany) [22], while the University of New South
Wales has undertaken their post-combustion membrane
gas separation trial at a black coal power station in
Australia [23]. In terms of industry lead pilot plants,
Membrane Technology and Research Inc. (MTR) has
tested its membrane for post-combustion capture [24],
while the CO2CRC Ltd. currently operates a natural gas
sweetening gas separation membrane pilot plant in
 Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology
Australia [23], in collaboration with the University of New
South Wales and the University of Melbourne. Similarly,
Ohio State University has trialled their facilitated transport
membrane for post-combustion capture at the National
Carbon Capture Centre (USA).
For membrane gas-solvent contactors, Kvaerner with
NTNU have trialled porous contactor technology for
natural gas sweetening [25,26], with little success, while
Universita degli Studi di Genova have trialled pressurized
contactor technology for syngas separation [27]. Gas
Technology Institute Ltd. (GTI) have trialled their super-
hydrophobic PEEK based contactors for post-combustion
capture at the National Carbon Capture Centre (USA) [28].
The author has been the lead researcher on three pilot
plants testing membrane technology, based in Australia:
the CO2CRC’s Mulgrave project [29,30], a pre-combus-
tion process separating CO2 from unshifted air blown
syngas, the CO2CRC’s H3 project [31,32], a post-
combustion process separating CO2 from flue gas
generated by a brown coal fired power station and the
Vales Point project [23,33], a post-combustion process
separating CO2 from flue gas produced by a black coal
fired power station. Both the Mulgrave and H3 projects
trialled gas separation membranes and membrane con-
tactors simultaneously, while the Vales Point project only
trialled membrane contactor technology. Details about the
average feed stream and composition are provided in
Table 1, while photographs of the three membrane pilot
plants are provided in Figure 2. It is noteworthy that the
Mulgrave project feed stream was small at only 6 kg
CO2$d–1, the H3 project feed stream was an order of
magnitude higher processing 50 kg$d–1 and the Vales Point
project had the largest feed throughput of 120 kg$d–1.
The overall research objective of the Mulgrave project
was to expose several gas separation membranes to syngas
feed conditions and characterise the performance of them
under these conditions. For the membrane contactor, the
objective was to utilise different membrane modules and
solvents to maximise CO2 capture efficiency from syngas.
The overall research objective of the H3 project was to
Table 1 Average feed gas conditions and composition (dry basis) of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects
Feed/(kg CO2$d–1)
Pressure/(kPa$g)
Gas Composition/mol-%
CO2
N2
O2
H2
CO
CH4
Minor components
307
utilise gas separation membrane modules to undertake
post-combustion capture and to characterise the efficiency
of the process given the low-pressure driving force. The
membrane contactor component of this pilot plant was to
obtain CO2 solvent loadings comparable to a traditional
solvent process through various membrane modules and
operating conditions, for the one solvent. The overall
research objective of the Vales Point project was to
undertake a closed membrane contactor process that
undertook both CO2 capture and solvent regeneration for
an extended period. Both the Mulgrave and H3 projects did
not produce CO2 product streams of 95% purity, because
of their process configuration, with the main objective
characterising gas separation membranes exposed to feed
gas and process conditions. Details of the various
membrane materials and module configurations are
provided in Table 2.
3 Industrial partners
The design, construction, installation, operation and
decommissioning of any membrane pilot plant will involve
multiple commercial partners. This is compounded if an
external partner is providing the feed stream (natural gas,
syngas or flue gas) and the product CO2 is being utilised in
some manner (geosequestration, fly ash neutralisation or
food grade CO2). In addition, if the pilot plant trial is being
externally funded through public, private or a mixture of
public/private resources, there will be the granting body to
liaise with. The negotiation and contract relationships
between these parties and the pilot plant researchers are of
fundamental importance to the overall success of the pilot
plant projects. Each commercial partner will have their
own objectives for the pilot plant; these may be to assist in
the commercialisation of the technology, to gain knowl-
edge and experience working with membrane technology,
to prevent commercial rivals from accessing transforma-
tive membrane technology and for public relations
purposes. Some partners, usually small enterprises, operate
Mulgrave H3 Vales Point
6 50 120
698.7 50 50
16.2 12.0 10.9
63.2 80.5 78.7
– 7.5 8.6
9.8 – –
6.7 246 ppm –
2.8 – –
2+
H2S, C SOx, NOx SOx, NOx, HF
308 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316

Table 2 Membrane type, materials and module configuration trialled as part of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects
Pilot plant Membrane type Membrane material Module configuration
Mulgrave Gas separation Polydimethylsiloxane Asymmetric flat sheet
Polyethylene glycol Asymmetric flat sheet
PEBAX Asymmetric flat sheet
Carbon Porous composite flat sheet
Matrimid Asymmetric hollow fibre
Polysulfone Asymmetric hollow fibre
Contactor Polypropylene Porous hollow fibre
Polydimethylsiloxane Non-porous hollow fibre
H3 Gas separation Polysulfone Hollow fibre
Polypiperazine amide Spiral wound
Contactor Polypropylene Porous hollow fibre
Polydimethylsiloxane Non-porous hollow fibre
Vales Point Contactor Polyethylene Non-porous Spiral wound
Polydimethylsiloxane Composite non-porous hollow fibre

Fig. 2 Photographs of membrane pilot plants of the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point projects.

in the pilot plant space as their business model. Under-
standing these objectives and managing them is vital for
the success of any membrane-based pilot plant.
In some cases, national institutes allow pilot plant
researchers to avoid many of the issues in working with
industry partners. Good examples of these are the National
Carbon Capture Centre (Alabama, USA), the Clean Energy
Technologies Research Institute (Saskatchewan, Canada)
and Technology Centre Mongstad (Norway).
The author has worked with many industry and
commercial partners in the scope of leading the three
aforementioned pilot plants, and the relationships with
these partners have significantly affected the outcomes of
all three pilot plants.
The most important industry partner for a membrane
pilot plant is the feed gas industry provider, which for CO2
capture purposes is generally a large energy company. It is
the author’s experience that these energy companies have
traditional hierarchical management structures. The key
managers were all very favourable and supportive of the
membrane pilot plant trials on site, as they perceived
outcomes for potential commercialisation as well as
opportunities to address their carbon emissions. However,
within these companies, competing priorities severely
affected the commissioning and operation of each of the
pilot plants, for example, on-site operators who were
concerned about the potential for the added-on pilot plants
to impact the operation of their process, the additional
utilities demand of the pilot plant impacting existing on-
site supplies, responsibility for waste and disposal, health
and safety concerns about experimental equipment not
covered by regulatory standards, the presence of chemical
solvents on-site, as well as traditional mindset of energy
operators. There were also human resources issues around
 Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology
workplace relations with the feed gas provider, union
representation and in one pilot plant trial, lack of car
parking capacity, all of which needed to be addressed and
solved before pilot plants could be installed. The solution
to these issues is an effective and patient project manager,
external to the pilot plant operational team. The manager
should not be the pilot plant research leader, as that person
is too focused on addressing issues arising from design and
construction of the pilot plant, implementing the technol-
ogy and meeting the research objectives of the pilot plant
trial. The project manager as a separate role can adequately
address key industry partners’ concerns and ensure the
researchers can focus on their roles.
Decommissioning is an issue that needs to be addressed
with industry partners before the pilot plant project begins,
as the industry site owner/operate is unlikely to claim the
pilot plant once the testing period has completed and hence
the pilot plant will need to be removed from site. However,
membrane pilot plant rigs are large pieces of equipment
that cannot readily be stored elsewhere, especially in a
laboratory environment. For example, the Vales Point
project pilot plant dimensions were 1.8 m (w)  4 m (l) 
2.5 m (h). Hence, provisions must be made before
construction for the dismantling and final resting place of
the pilot plant.
If the pilot plant is trialling commercial membrane
modules, as both the H3 and Vales Point projects did,
obtaining the necessary modules can be difficult. This is
because membrane manufacturers strongly control their IP
in the gas separation sector and have major concerns about
the use of their modules in untested applications that are
outside of their direct control. This is the opposite to the
water treatment space where membrane modules can be
bought online through common e-commerce websites with
no purpose needing to be stated. Hence, obtaining
commercial membrane modules can only be achieved
through the building of strong collaborative relationships
with membrane companies, which the author’s research
network has built up over a decade. Even with these
relationships, there is still opposition to the use of
membrane company names and/or use of module identi-
fiers if the data is to be published. This is mainly to control
the IP around the membrane module. These concerns from
membrane manufacturers have prevented the author from
testing and publishing on a range of potential membranes
that they believed had potential, which presented a
significant limitation on the outcomes of his three pilot
plant trials.
4 Design and construction
The design and construction of the membrane pilot plant is
a vital component of the overall trial, as incorrect design
and/or construction can severely jeopardise the pilot plant
309
operation. There are some major differences between
designing and constructing membrane pilot plants com-
pared to laboratory based rigs, as well as conventional
industrial projects. Unfamiliarity with the membrane
process among the various parties during the design
phase can lead to a range of problems later during
operations. A key issue is the difference in operability of
the various process units in an industrial environment and
the presence of real feed gas. Equipment that is viable in a
laboratory will inevitably fail in the pilot plant due to the
harsher conditions [34], and industrial equipment that is
standard for a power station is generally difficult to source
at the smaller scale required for a membrane pilot plant.
Examples the author experienced include gas blowers and
compressors (corrosion and seals), vacuum pumps (liquid
ring leading to downstream flooding), solvent pumps
(difficulty in sizing), mass flow controllers and meters
(water/hydrocarbon condensate build-up in the mass flow
sensor blocking operations), pressure actuated values (wet
flue gas corrosion preventing valve movement) and even
rotameters (build-up of condensate sticking to the float).
Examples of the difficulties in obtaining the correct sizing
of industrial equipment and equipment fouling are
provided in Fig. 3.
The layout of the pilot plant and location on-site is
another significant issue, and the ability to access all the
components, controllers and gauges is vital. This needs to
be made clear to the fabrication partner, as they are likely
unfamiliar with the specifics of membrane technology,
given the nature of the pilot plant. The author has
experienced difficulty in physically accessing valves and
gauges on two of the pilot plants he was involved in due to
the poor relaying of information during construction. In
addition, the membrane pilot plant should be located as
close as possible to the feed gas source (e.g., gasifier or
boiler); however, available space around major unit
operations on-site is generally in high demand, and the
only option is often to locate the pilot plant some distance
from the feed gas source. This led to a feed gas pipeline of
15 m for the Mulgrave project, over 50 m for the H3
project, and over 25 m for the Vales Point project. These
distances and gas throughput made insulation irrelevant,
and hence the feed gas reached the membrane pilot plant at
ambient temperature, and the water/hydrocarbon conden-
sate would be present upstream, requiring periodic
draining. There is also the need for exhaust gas removal
as well as pure CO2 product exit pipework. For most CO2
capture processes, the exhaust gas cannot just be vented to
the atmosphere at the pilot plant because of the dangers of
exposing operational personnel to syngas/flue gas. For one
of the pilot plants the author led, the exhaust gas was
vented to the atmosphere through a small stack linked in
with the facilities’ exhaust system, while for the other two
pilot plants the exhaust gas was returned to the power
station flue gas stack.
310 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316

Fig. 3 (a) Rotameter fouling in downstream lines and (b) oversized commercial heat exchanger sized for Vales Point project operation.

5 Membrane modules was to expose CO2-selective rubbery polymeric mem-

A critical consideration for all membrane pilot plants is the
scale in which the process is to be undertaken; this ranges
from samples of membrane materials (e.g., flat sheet), a
few hollow fibres in a bundle to small-scale module
constructed in-house, commercial-scale module or a full
membrane process with multiple stages. A key question
dictating the scale of the pilot plant is the ability to obtain
the necessary quantity of membrane materials. Most novel
polymeric membranes can only be synthesised in small
quantities and as such only flat sheet or a small hollow fibre
bundle can be tested. At that scale, the pilot plant is
studying the resilience of the novel membrane material to
the industrial conditions and the change in permeance/
selectivity compared to laboratory results. An example of
this was the Mulgrave project gas separation membrane
component (Fig. 4), where part of the pilot plant objectives
branes to syngas and determine if the materials still
retained CO2 selectivity against H2. This was dictated by
the lack of data in the literature at the time of membranes
processing syngas [13]. Only polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS) met performance targets in terms of CO2
permeability and CO2/H2 selectivity for a viable tempera-
ture/pressure range [29]. Similar scale pilot plants are also
operated elsewhere and there has been considerable
expansion of membrane laboratory facilities globally to
test novel membranes with gas mixtures that mimic
industrial conditions.
The scale of the H3 project for gas separation
membranes enabled larger-scale modules to be tested,
both commercially and in-house constructed. This enabled
a module to be tested for CO2 recovery from the flue gas,
producing an enriched CO2 permeation and the ability to
alter the stage-cut of the process to maximise separation

Fig. 4 Scale of the membranes tested at the Mulgrave, H3 and Vales Point pilot plants.
 Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology
performance. However, the scale of this operation meant
that the membrane is limited to polymeric materials that
can be obtained in the quantity required to fabricate the
necessary area. It is possible to trial novel membrane
material at this scale, but the author has experienced
significant difficulty in getting a membrane fabricator to
take on the challenge of the novel material. The reason is
that membrane fabricators do not wish to adjust their
operations for a novel, untested, polymeric system, as well
as the potential for the novel polymeric system to have
unforeseen consequences on their spinnerets. One of the
interesting outcomes from the H3 trial was that membranes
commercialised for water processing can be adapted to
undertake CO2 separation efficiently, when water has
accumulated within the membrane structure [32].
For membrane contactor pilot plants (Mulgrave, H3 and
Vales Point), at the various scales of operation, commercial
membrane modules were utilised. For the Mulgrave
project, this consisted of porous and non-porous mem-
branes that were commercially obtained from medical
suppliers, given the small size required; for the H3 project,
commercial modules were adapted from those commercia-
lised for aeration purposes; while the Vales Point project
utilised gas separation membranes that could be adapted
for a solvent contactor configuration because of their non-
porous nature. For each of these contactor pilot plants, the
objective was not to develop new materials but utilise
existing contactor materials for CO2 capture through
solvent absorption, and test the contactor process. A
major issue for the membrane contactors trialled at all three
pilot plants was degradation in the adhesives binding the
hollow fibres as well as the seals within the membrane
modules. It is well recognized that the most common point
of failure in a membrane system is the adhesive seals [35].
This is compounded in membrane contactor systems
because of the presence of a high pH solvent, which
chemically degrades common seal materials, such as
Viton. Furthermore, it was found that the solvent would
structurally weaken the module housing when it was
Fig. 5 Membrane contactor module housing failures due to solvent degradation.
311
polycarbonate and fibre glass composite, especially at
points of stress and with the high temperature operation
required for solvent regeneration. Hence, steel-based
modules were determined to be the safest for contactor
operation at high temperature as they could withstand the
conditions. Such a change in module housing has
implications for the economics of the contactor process.
Examples of failures in the module housing at the various
pilot plants run by the author are shown in Fig. 5.
6 Feed stream
One of the key findings from the author’s pilot plants was
that their scale relative to the feed gas source significantly
impacted their operability. The Mulgrave project pilot
plant was 0.0013% in size in terms of CO2 to the gasifier
feed source, while the H3 project pilot plant was 0.015% in
size to the boiler feed source and that for the Vales Point
project pilot plant was 0.022%. The smaller the relative
size of the pilot plant is, the greater the variability in the
feed stream conditions and composition is, impacting pilot
plant operation. This is because volume upstream of the
membrane module, in the form of pipework and process
units, is required to dampen fluctuations in the source
operation, to limit the propagation of sudden changes in
conditions down to the membrane and impact perfor-
mance. The Mulgrave pilot plant had no pretreatment, and
hence the only upstream volume was associated with the
feed gas pipework, while both the H3 and Vales Point pilot
plants had direct contact coolers upstream to cool the flue
gas and remove ash.
Feed gas pressure had the largest variation in all three
pilot plants, caused by changing process conditions
upstream in the gasifier (syngas) or boiler (flue gas). The
magnitude of these changes in the feed stream could be
significant, occurring on both short (less than 10 s) and
long-time frames (5 min or more). These fluctuations in
feed pressure impacted the operability of the plant, given
312 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316
pressure is a major control parameter in a membrane
process. The pressure differential across gas separation
membranes in the three pilot plants undertaken by the
author is provided in Fig. 6. The pressure fluctuation of the
Mulgrave pilot plant was the largest and changed over time
frames due to no damping available by the small volume
present upstream of the membrane module, as well as
gasifier operation. As such, the pressure control valve on
the Mulgrave pilot plant could not adequately respond to
many of these rapid pressure fluctuations. At times this
resulted in a significant variation to the pressure drop
experienced across the gas separation membranes being
tested. In contrast, pressure fluctuation in the Vales Point
pilot plant was essentially negligible because of the larger
volume upstream in the feed pipework and direct contactor
cooler, damping sudden fluctuations in the feed system.
This enabled a response time frame in which the pressure
control valve could adequately control the process.
Rapid pressure fluctuation had serious ramifications for
the membrane contactor process, where the pressure
differential between the solvent and gas phases must be
rigidly controlled to ensure bubbling does not occur in the
solvent phase, and the solvent does not leak into the gas
phase [36]. Ideally, the solvent pressure should always be
higher than the gas phase, but not too high that the pressure
differential becomes greater than the breakthrough pres-
sure of the membrane. The fluctuations in the feed pressure
observed in the three pilot plants (Fig. 6) followed into
fluctuations in the pressure differential across the con-
tactor, where pressure fluctuations of high magnitude and
frequency are observed in the Mulgrave pilot plant
contactor because of the small volume on the feed gas
side and the inability for the pressure control valve to
response in time. There were several times during the trial
that the pressure differential crossed the breakthrough
pressure and hence solvent wetting of the gas side of the
membrane occurred. To prevent this, the solvent pressure
was set significantly higher than the design gas phase
pressure and controlled rigidly at that pressure. For the H3
project, there was greater fluctuation in the solvent
Fig. 6 Fluctuations in the feed gas pressure (kPa) at the (a) Mulgrave, (b) H3 and (c) Vales Point projects over different time scales. The
dashed lines in (a) correspond to periodic breaks in operation.
pressure in the contactor, because the solvent was sourced
from a solvent absorption process, and hence feed and
return pressures were dependent on the operation of that
external process’s columns. The pressure differential
fluctuations were not as significant for the H3 project, in
part because of the higher volume of the system dampened
the impact of upstream fluctuations. This has already been
reported previously [31]. However, for the membrane
contactor system, the solvent pressure fluctuated signifi-
cantly because it was sourced from an adjacent chemical
solvent process. To give an indication of this fluctuation,
the pressure differential across the membrane within the
contactor is provided in Fig. 7, for both the inlet and outlet
of the contactor module. The Vales Point project absorp-
tion contactor solvent and gas phase pressure fluctuations
were insignificant, due to the larger throughput and volume
of the pilot plant providing protection from sudden
pressure spikes. Hence, from a pressure perspective, larger
membrane pilot plants were easier to control, and having
volume capacity upstream that enabled rapid fluctuations
in feed gas conditions to be damped ensured controllable
operations.
The impact of fly ash on the membrane pilot plant was
significant for larger pilot plants, with the H3 project
suffering performance loss over time due to the build-up of
ash on the entry ports of the membrane modules. The
Mulgrave pilot plant experienced almost no impact from
ash. This was associated with the relative feed gas
throughput and the length of the pipework before entry
into the pilot plant process. The Mulgrave project’s low
throughput enabled most of the entrained ash to be
deposited along the long feed pipework. For the H3
project, the larger gas throughput kept more of the ash
entrained in the feed and therefore entered the pilot plants.
This is even with the presence of a direct contact cooler
upstream of both pilot plants, partly to reduce the ash
content of the feed gas [23,33]. Ash build-up on the entry
to the membrane module is shown in Fig. 8, which resulted
in an increased pressure drop along the modules, reducing
performance. If there is sufficient humidity present in the
 Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology
Fig. 7 Differential pressure across the membrane contactor over
time at the H3 project for solvent inlet (black) and solvent outlet
(grey) (reproduced with permission from [31]).
feed gas, it wets the ash deposit leading to cake formation
on the module. This cake significantly decreases the
performance of the module, depending on the type of ash
[37], as it can essentially block the entry ports of the
module. The author’s only solution to this was to attempt
to dry the cake and remove it manually.
The humidity of the feed gas was consistently the
biggest issue experienced in all the author’s membrane
pilot plants, given that the feed streams were saturated at
ambient temperature (5°C–25°C, depending on the time of
year). For almost all polymeric membranes, water has a
higher permeance than CO2 [34], and indeed for all three
pilot plants at times the process was more about water
separation from the feed gas rather than CO2 recovery. This
Fig. 8 Ash build-up on membrane modules at the H3 project for (a) the membrane contactor and (b) gas separation membrane.
313
separation of water caused considerable issues with the gas
separation membranes over time, as water condensation
can build up in the porous support if conditions fall below
the dew point, which occurred on several occasions. One
of the future challenges in gas separation membranes for
carbon capture will be dealing with water, as larger-scaled
membrane plants will be drawing flue gas at temperature,
and hence must handle higher humidity levels. This will
have consequences for membrane materials, as well as
condensation prevention downstream.
Membrane contactor technology was less susceptible to
humidity in the feed gas, and only minor water flux was
observed across the various contactor modules trialled in
all three pilot plants. This was due to the solvent present on
the permeate side of the membrane, and hence there
existed only a small water mass transfer driving force
across the membrane contactor. However, solvent dilution
was observed at the Vales Point pilot plant over time, due
to continual circulation of the solvent leading to water
build-up. This is similar to traditional solvent column
process, where water accumulation in the solvent is a
common problem.
7 Utilities
Several key challenges for successful pilot plant operation
are associated with the utilities requirements. Firstly,
access to the necessary utilities is vital and sometimes
difficult to achieve. All of the pilot plants mentioned
required process water, for heat exchangers and vacuum
pumps; electricity both 3 phase (415 V) and single phase
(240 V); compressed air for pneumatic actuator valves and
instrumentation. In addition, the Vales Point pilot plant
required steam (120 kg$h–1, 180°C, 1000 kPa) for heating
purposes and cooling water (100 kg$h–1, 20°C) for the
314 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316
regenerated solvent. For every utility listed here, signifi-
cant effort was required to ensure access and enough
capacity was available on-site. This is because most
industrial sites operate near capacity for these utilities and
the additional demands of a membrane pilot plant may not
be met. For electricity, the H3 pilot plant required a new
transformer to specifically be installed for the plant, as the
existing electricity grid at the power station was running at
capacity. Similarly, for the Vales Point project, a new
transformer had been installed prior to the membrane pilot
plant arriving on-site. Compressed air was supplied at the
H3 and Vales Point project through a specifically
purchased air compressor, while for the Mulgrave project
cylinder N2 was used, as there was uncertainty that the
site’s air compressor could meet demand, due to the
gasifier operation. Steam at the Vales Point project was
generated through a specifically purchased steam gen-
erator. Connecting the pilot plant to the waste steam of the
power station was not a viable option, because of the
uncertainty this would have on the power station operation
and safety considerations. The cooling water at the Vales
Point power station was obtained from a specifically
purchased portable cooling water system, and not from the
power station’s cooling water circuit. Again, this was
because accessing the power station’s cooling water was
not viable from process and safety concerns.
Utilities supplied to the membrane pilot plants in this
manner relieved concerns about operability and control of
the plants, as the design conditions of these utilities,
especially the steam and cooling water, could be
controlled. However, undertaking operation in this manner
raises issues about the techno-economic evaluation of the
pilot plant process, as the conditions and costs associated
with the utilities are artificial from what an industrial sized
process would be. This is especially true for the Vales Point
project, as access to waste steam and cooling water are part
of the larger membrane contactor process design. Hence,
such pilot plants can demonstrate the effectiveness of
membrane technology and determine operational condi-
tions to maximise membrane separation performance, but
subsequent economic analysis can be questionable as the
costs associated with integrating the membrane process
into the power generator are not fully known.
Another key aspect of membrane pilot plants that differ
from larger industrial processes is the additional manual
labour requirements of the pilot plant, which would be
undertaken by automation in an industrial plant. A good
example of this was gas sampling of feed, retentate and
permeate streams of gas separation membranes along with
lean and rich solvent sample of membrane contactors. This
was undertaken manually by collecting gas and solvent
samples, or drawing off a slipstream of gas into portable
gas detectors. Such manual sampling and subsequent
analysis should not be overlooked in a pilot plant process,
as these activities dominated the researchers’ time during
the operation of all three membrane pilot plants mentioned
here. In a large-scale membrane process, such analysis
would be done in line, as it requires less amount of
information, reducing time-intensive tasks.
8 Waste stream
The CO2 product from the three pilot plants was not stored:
CO2 from the H3 and Vales Point projects was returned to
the flue gas, and CO2 from the Mulgrave project was
vented to the atmosphere through the industrial facility’s
exhaust system. No storage was undertaken for the
straightforward reason that no readily available storage
option was present at the industrial sites. The H3 project
did have a fly ash neutralization option for the CO2
product, but the amount of CO2 captured by the membrane
pilot plant was not enough to make this option feasible.
Hence, none of the membrane pilot plants achieved carbon
capture and storage, only carbon capture. From a
technology viewpoint, this was not a concern as the
membrane pilot plants operated successfully at CO2
capture and met their research and technology objectives.
However, from a wider view of carbon capture and storage,
the inability to store the CO2 from these pilot plants could
be considered a wasted effort. This inability to store the
captured CO2 is not limited to the membrane pilot plants
operated by the author, as many of the other carbon capture
pilot plants suffer from the same limitation. Only one
proposed pilot plant has addressed this somewhat, with the
aim of bottling the captured CO2 for food and beverage
purposes. However, this application may not be considered
true carbon capture and storage, as the captured CO2 will
eventually be released to the atmosphere. Hence, one
major aspect of carbon capture pilot plants going forward
will be the need to collaborate more strongly with storage
options to ensure a complete carbon capture and storage
(CCS) process is achieved with the novel technology being
trialled.
9 Key learnings
Several key learnings have been identified by the author in
regards to membrane pilot plants for CO2 capture, which
could also be extrapolated to membrane pilot plants for
other applications.
Firstly, the objectives of the pilot plant trials should be
clearly known to all parties involved in the testing
campaign, and be maintained for the duration of the
testing campaign. Deviation from these objectives, for
whatever reason, will lead to compromise in the pilot plant
outcomes, delays in the project, and has the potential to
waste the research opportunity.
The researchers must identify the key parameters about
 Colin A. Scholes. Pilot plants of membrane technology
the membrane process that need to be monitored, so the
performance outcomes can be determined and analysed.
Equally important, the key variables of the membrane
process should be identified and the approximate values
anticipated before testing campaign begins, though it is
highly likely these will change as the researchers adapt to
the specifics of their pilot plant. There should be no
compromise on the quality of the plant’s instrumentation
and subsequent data generated. It is vital to remember that
pilot plants require more instrumentation and on time
analysis than a conventional industrial process, given the
novelty in the technology and the need to understand as
much as possible about the process during operation.
Pilot plants require committed researchers for the entire
timeline of the project, from conception, through design
and construction, as well as operation and decommission-
ing. Ideally, each membrane pilot plant needs a champion
who is both dedicated and driven to commercialise the
technology and lead the entire project. Many problems the
author experienced with his three pilot plants can all be
linked back to personnel problems, where staff were not
committed to the pilot plants and/or left the project without
the necessary hand-over. The overall pilot plant process
should also have a strong and effective project manager,
who is somewhat separated from the membrane technol-
ogy, and will coordinate the various parties involved in the
process.
The time line of the pilot plant projects is also critical,
especially the period allocated to the design and construc-
tion phases. It is the author’s experience that the design and
construction phase should be double what is initially
estimated. The membrane process will be novel, to a
degree, and time is required to review the design to ensure
all aspects have been considered in terms of operation and
research objectives. This is especially true as industry
partners, such as power stations, will not be familiar with
the technology and addressing their operational concerns
will take time. The construction phase will also take
considerable time, as the novelty of the process will often
baffle plant fabricators, leading to caution on their behalf.
One aspect that should be focused on is compatibility of
materials and corrosion. It is often the case in pilot plants to
choose cheaper materials for construction, because there is
generally a fixed budget and the pilot plant will only be
operational for a fixed period. This in the author’s
experience is a mistake, as corrosive and material
compatibility issues can be intensified in a pilot plant
due to the considerable downtime between operational
periods. It is recommended that all pilot plant personnel
consider the entire process as any major engineering
project and have the view that the pilot plant is built to last.
Finally, the pilot plant operators need to be adaptable
and have willingness to experiment with the process. This
is vital as membrane pilot plants will require significant
troubleshooting and process optimisation before they can
achieve the design objectives. In the author’s experience,
315
having operators who are willing to take the initiate in
controlling and optimising the pilot plant will make all the
difference to the research outcomes.
10 Conclusions
To conclude, membrane technology has strong potential
for carbon capture applications and there will be growing
interest in the technology in the coming decades. Pilot
plants of membranes undertaking carbon capture will
increasingly be implemented globally to demonstrate the
potential of the technology and determine membrane
viability and economics compared to alternative technol-
ogies. However, pilot plants present distinct challenges for
membrane technologists, especially if they do not have a
strong background in processing engineering, and have
instead been focused on material and/or module develop-
ment. It is hoped that the challenges and key learnings put
forward here, based on the author’s experience of three
membrane pilot plants, will assist other membrane
researchers in the development and implementation of
their technology.
Acknowledgements The author thanks the CO2CRC Ltd., especially Dr.
Abdul Qader and Mr. Barry Hooper; Process Group (now Suez Oil & Gas
Systems), especially Dr. Trina Dreher; Pilot Plant Management & Services
Pty Ltd., especially Mr. Kurt Luttin; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO), especially Mr. Dan Maher and Mr. Phillip
Green; Furnace Engineering; HRL Technology Pty Ltd.; Engie (formerly
GDF Suez); Delta Electricity; the Victorian Government’s Energy Technol-
ogy Innovation Strategy (ETIS) and Victoria Fellowship; as well as Coal
Innovation New South Wales.
References
1. Baker R W. Advanced Membrane Technology and Applications. Li
N N, Fane A G, Ho W S W, Boylewoo T M, eds. New Jersy: John
Wiley & Sons, 2008, 559–580
2. Van der Bruggen B, Vandecasteele C, Van Gestel T, Doyen W,
Leysen R. A review of pressure-driven membrane processes in
wastewater treatment and drinking water production. Environmental
Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2004, 22(1): 46–56
3. Matsuura T. Progress in membrane science and technology for
seawater desalination—a review. Desalination, 2001, 134(1-3): 47–
54
4. Hilal N, Al-Zoubi H, Darwish N A, Mohammad A W, Abu Arabi M.
A comprehensive review of nanofiltration membranes: Treatment,
pretreatment, modelling, and atomic force microscopy. Desalina-
tion, 2004, 170(3): 281–308
5. Mohammad A W, Teow Y H, Ang W L, Chung Y T, Oatley-
Radcliffe D L, Hilal N. Nanofiltration membranes review: Recent
advances and future prospects. Desalination, 2015, 356: 226–254
6. Porcelli N, Judd S. Chemical cleaning of potable water membranes:
A review. Separation and Purification Technology, 2010, 71(2):
137–143
7. Padaki M, Surya Murali R, Abdullah M S, Misdan N, Moslehyani
316 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2020, 14(3): 305–316
A, Kassim M A, Hilal N, Ismail A F. Membrane technology
enhancement in oil-water separation. A review. Desalination, 2015,
357: 197–207
8. Sridhar S, Smitha B, Aminabhavi T M. Separation of carbon dioxide
from natural gas mixtures through polymeric membranes—a review.
Separation and Purification Reviews, 2007, 36(2): 113–174
9. Baker R W, Lokhandwala K. Natural gas processing with
membranes: An overview. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 2008, 47(7): 2109–2121
10. Scholes C A, Stevens G W, Kentish S E. Membrane gas separation
applications in natural gas processing. Fuel, 2012, 96(1): 15–28
11. Bernardo P, Drioli E, Golemme G. Membrane gas separation: A
review/state of the art. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 2009, 48(10): 4638–4663
12. Klaassen R, Jansen A E. The membrane contactor: Environmental
applications and possibilities. Environmental Progress, 2001, 20(1):
37–43
13. Scholes C A, Smith K H, Kentish S E, Stevens G W. CO2 capture
from pre-combustion processes—strategies for membrane gas
separation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
2010, 4(5): 739–755
14. Scholes C A, Ho M T, Wiley D E, Stevens G W, Kentish S E. Cost
competitive membrane—cryogenic post-combustion carbon cap-
ture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 17:
341–348
15. Merkel T C, Lin X, Wei X, Baker R W. Power plant post-
combustion carbon dioxide capture: An opportunity for membranes.
Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 359(1-2): 126–139
16. Klaassen R, Feron P H M, Jansen A E. Membrane contactors in
industrial applications. Chemical Engineering Research & Design,
2005, 83(3): 234–246
17. Falk-Pedersen O, Gronvold M S, Nokleby P, Bjerve Y, Svendsen H
F. CO2 capture with membrane contactors. International Journal of
Green Energy, 2005, 2(2): 157–165
18. Powell C E, Qiao G G. Polymeric CO2/N2 gas separation
membranes for the capture of carbon dioxide from power plant
flue gases. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 279(1-2): 1–49
19. Rezakazemi M, Amooghin A E, Montazer-Rahmati M M, Ismail A
F, Matsuura T. State-of-the-art membrane based CO2 separation
using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): An overview on current
status and future directions. Progress in Polymer Science, 2014,
39(5): 817–861
20. Hägg M B, Lindbrathen A, He X, Nodeland S G, Cantero T. Pilot
demonstration reporting on CO2 capture from a cement plant using
hollow fiber process. Energy Procedia, 2017, 114: 6150–6165
21. Sandru M, Kim T J, Capala W, Huijbers M, Hagg M B. Pilot scale
testing of polymeric membranes for CO2 capture from coal fired
power plants. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 6473–6480
22. Pohlmann J, Bram M, Wilkner K, Brinkmann T. Pilot scale
separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases by membrane
technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016,
53: 56–64
23. Qader A. Carbon capture and storage demonstration by CO2CRC.
In: Carbon Management. Houston, TX: AIChE Academy, 2017,
3.15–3.45
24. White L S, Wei X, Pande S, Wu T, Merkel T C. Extended flue gas
trials with a membrane-based pilot plant at a one-ton-per-day carbon
capture rate. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 496(1): 48–57
25. Falk-Pedersen O, Bjerve Y, Glittum G, Ronning S. Separation of
carbon dioxide from offshore gas turbine exhaust. Energy Conver-
sion and Management, 1995, 36(6-9): 393–396
26. Falk-Pedersen O, Dannstrom H. Separation of carbon dioxide from
offshore gas turbine exhaust. Energy Conversion and Management,
1997, 38: S81–S86
27. Comite A, Costa C, Demartini M, Di Felice R, Oliva M. Exploring
CO2 capture from pressurized industrial gaseous effluents in
membrane contactor-based pilot plant. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 2017, 67: 60–70
28. Li S, Rocha D J, Zhou S J, Meyer H S, Bikson B, Ding Y. Post-
combustion CO2 capture using super-hydrophobic, polyether ether
ketone, hollow fiber membrane contactors. Journal of Membrane
Science, 2013, 430: 79–86
29. Scholes C A, Bacus J, Chen G Q, Tao W X, Li G, Qader A, Stevens
G W, Kentish S E. Pilot plant performance of rubbery polymeric
membranes for carbon dioxide separation from syngas. Journal of
Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 470–477
30. Scholes C A, Simioni M, Qader A, Stevens G W, Kentish S E.
Membrane gas-solvent contactor trials of CO2 absorption from
syngas. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2012, 195-196: 188–197
31. Scholes C A, Qader A, Stevens G W, Kentish S E. Membrane gas-
solvent contactor trials of CO2 absorption from flue gas. Separation
Science and Technology, 2014, 49(16): 2449–2458
32. Scholes C A, Qader A, Stevens G W, Kentish S E. Membrane pilot
plant trials of CO2 separation from flue gas. Greenhouse Gases.
Science and Technology, 2015, 5(3): 1–10
33. Qader A, Hooper B, Stevens G. Demonstrating carbon capture.
Chemical Engineering (Albany, N.Y.), 2009, 11: 30–31 (TCE)
34. Scholes C A, Kentish S E, Stevens G W. Effects of minor
components in carbon dioxide capture using polymeric gas
separation membranes. Separation and Purification Reviews,
2009, 38(1): 1–44
35. Scholes C A, Motuzas J, Smart S, Kentish S E. Membrane
adhesives. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2014,
53(23): 9523–9533
36. deMontigny D, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Chakma A. Comparing the
absorption performance of packed columns and membrane
contactors. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2005,
44(15): 5726–5732
37. Alharthi K, Christianto Y, Aguiar A, Stickland A D, Stevens G W,
Kentish S E. Impact of fly ash on the membrane performance in
postcombustion carbon capture applications. Industrial & Engineer-
ing Chemistry Research, 2016, 55(16): 4711–4719