For reprint orders, please contact reprints@future-science.

com
Series Review

Part 1: Design, modeling and simulation of

post-combustion CO2 capture systems using
reactive solvents

Carbon Management (2011) 2(3), 265–288

Zhiwu Henry Liang1,2, Teerawat Sanpasertparnich1, Paitoon PT Tontiwachwuthikul†1,2,

Don Gelowitz1 & Raphael Idem1
The simulation and modeling of post-combustion CO2 capture systems are considered to be an important
strategy to obtain process integrity and gain design confidence for the construction and commissioning
of commercial post-combustion CO2 capture plants. It is therefore essential to obtain an understanding
of the fundamental concepts of designing and modeling. This article reviews the concepts of designing a
CO2 capture system with specific emphasis on the absorber for diameter and height. It covers several steps
(i.e., empirical design method, theoretical design method, laboratory method and pilot plant techniques)
used to design the absorber. A conceptual design of an overall CO2 capture process is also given in the
article. Process validations of the modeling using ProMax with four existing pilot plants. (the International
Test Centre of CO2 Capture pilot plant, the Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant, the Institute of Thermodynamics
and Thermal Process Engineering, Stuttgart pilot plant and the SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant) are presented.
Moreover, a discussion of process integration of the CO2 capture plant into a fossil fuel-fired power plant is
included in this paper.

Background CO2 emissions will reach 38 billion tons by 2030, rep-

The capture of CO2 from industrial flue gases has
become an important issue in recent years. The threat
of climate change from increased levels of GHGs in the
atmosphere is significant. Mean global temperatures are
on the rise and various regions of the world have been
experiencing adverse climate issues, for example, polar
ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, heat waves and
droughts are becoming commonplace, and the occur-
rence of violent weather has increased around the globe.
Therefore, the need for research and development of
cost-effective CO2 capture technologies is urgent.
The majority of industrial CO2 emissions come from
fossil fuel- (i.e., coal, natural gas and oil) fired power
stations, for example, electric utilities account for 29%
of all CO2 emissions in Canada. In addition, according
to the International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy
Outlook (2002) predictions, the world energy-related
1
International Test Centre for CO2 Capture, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina,
Saskatchewan, S4S0A2, Canada.
2
Joint International Center for CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilization (iCCS), Department of Chemical Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082,
People’s Republic of China.
†
Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 306 585 4160; E-mail: paitoon@uregina.ca
resenting an increase of approximately 1.8% per year
and 70% above 2000 levels [1] . Since coal is relatively
cheap, and exists in abundant quantities around the
world, it is likely that it will remain the fuel of choice
at thermal power stations for decades to come. If the
CO2 emission rates at these facilities can be reduced in
a cost-effective manner, the anthropogenic contribution
to global warming will be minimized.
There are three process options for CO2 capture:
pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel com-
bustion. Depending on the process, various technolo-
gies for CO2 capture can be used including absorption,
adsorption, membranes and hybrid applications of
these three. In the immediate future, post-combustion
capture via chemical absorption with amines appears
to be the leading candidate for CO2 removal at fossil
fuel fired power stations; however, several advances are

future science group 10.4155/CMT.11.19 © 2011 Future Science Ltd ISSN 1758-3004 265
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem
Key terms being made with the other technol-
Amines: Organic compounds ogy options. Two recent events, the
containing the amino functional group IEA-sponsored 10th International
with one or more alkyl or aryl groups Conference on Greenhouse Gas
attached to the nitrogen. They can be
Control Technologies (GHGT-
classified as primary, secondary and
tertiary amines depending on the 10, September 18–22, 2010,
numbers of alkyl or aryl groups Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and
attached to the nitrogen of the amino the 7th IEA CO2 Capture Network
functional group.
(September 29–30, 2009, Regina,
Front-end-engineering design (FEED): Canada) illustrate the demand
A conceptual process design for
industry and engineering projects. It
for knowledge in this area. This
includes material and energy balances, underscores the need for techno-
2D/3D models, equipment designs and logical breakthroughs to support as
lists, process layout, schedule/plan, well as facilitate the CO2 emissions
estimate, purchase-ready equipment
specification and so on. Essentially, mitigation efforts.
engineering project undergoes with The purpose of post-combustion
these steps: pre-FEED; FEED; detailed capture is to capture CO2 from an
design; procurement; construction; industrial flue gas stream using a
testing; and commissioning.
regenerable absorbent. Conversely,
the specific objective of emerging
technologies for the post-combustion CO2 capture
process is to optimize the technology to capture CO2
with high efficiency, but with low capital and operat-
ing expenses (CAPEX and OPEX). These technolo-
gies include the use of CO2-capture absorbents, metal
organic frameworks [2] , enzyme-based systems [3] and
ionic liquids [4] . However, it has been reported that CO2
capture based on regenerable absorbents is the most
mature and probably the most promising technology
amongst all the aforementioned technologies [5] .
For absorbents-based CO2 capture, there are many
types of absorbents that can be used, generally including
physical, chemical or combined physical and chemical
absorbents (or solvents). Chemical solvents using amines
are the most likely to be used for post-combustion cap-
ture, as they have better effectiveness and efficiency to
absorb CO2 at low partial pressures and total pressures
than physical solvents. It is known that the partial pres-
sure of CO2 in the flue gas is relatively low, typically in
the range of 4–15% by volume, depending on the type
of fossil fuel used. Thus, it is anticipated that amine-
based absorbents (i.e., chemical solvents) will be used
for the first-stage of post-combustion capture of CO2.
This can be seen from existing facilities that do partial
scrubbing of CO2 from the flue gases of commercial
power plants (e.g., IMC Global Soda Ash Plant, Warrior
Run Power Plant and Sumitomo Chemicals Plant [6])
using amines. Based on these demonstration plants,
it appears that up-scaling the technology to integrate
into the full-scale power plant operation is promisingly
feasible [101,7] .
The chemical absorbent (otherwise called chemical
solvent) needs to be regenerated or stripped of the CO2
it absorbed before it is recycled back to the absorber. It is
266 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
found that chemical solvents require more heat in order
to break the strong chemical interaction between the
CO2 and the solvent. Furthermore, there may be some
operational issues, which can impede the process of CO2
capture from flue gas using amines. These include deg-
radation of solvents and corrosion of equipment, both
of which are caused by the presence of CO2, oxygen
and some impurities in the gas stream such as oxides
of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen and fly ash. Nevertheless,
chemical solvent can efficiently remove CO2 from the
flue gas in the presence of a large amount of non-con-
densable gas, and remedies, such as the use of inhibitors,
can be provided to counteract some of the disadvan-
tages, specifically solvent degradation and equipment
corrosion [8]
ƒƒ Process simulators to model post-combustion
CO2 capture using regenerable absorbent
Regardless of chemical reactions, the design of a conven-
tional absorber is generally based on standard chemical
engineering principles or techniques. However, these
principles and techniques have not been previously
applied in the design of a plant for the capture of CO2
from power plants. In addition, the necessary design
parameters that are unique to this process are not avail-
able in commercial design packages and neither have
they been validated in the literature. Therefore, it is
worthwhile that an important step to confirming the
feasibility of building a large CO2 capture plant is to
set up a pilot plant or a demonstration plant. Another
step requires performing process design and simulation.
A front end engineering design (FEED) study that uses
simulation techniques is also necessary to improve plant
reliability and increase productivity before actually con-
structing the plant, especially for designs developed for
new technologies. Process simulation can provide some
of the results that would otherwise be gained through
laboratory and/or pilot plant tests, and such simulation
should be used as it would reduce the need for pro-
cess revamping and improve start-up times. Although
laboratory and especially pilot plant tests are important
to get a good feel for the design, these tests could be
expensive in regards to material and energy consump-
tion and costs. Process simulation then becomes a tool
that can be used successfully to compliment laboratory
and pilot plant tests.
The development of process-design calculations from
open literatures and also chemical process simulators
from engineering developers has helped in the design of
equipment and process. The early computer simulation
tools could only be used for single operating unit, and it
was difficult to get convergence for a complicated pro-
cess integrated with many units. Up-to-date simulation
software tools are reliable for completing a simulation of
future science group
 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review
a power plant integrated with a CO2 capture plant. The
heat efficiency of power generation is a critical factor.
A power plant with a post-combustion, amine-based
CO2 capture system will have reduced efficiency com-
pared with one without CO2 capture because of the
steam requirement for stripping CO2 from the amine
solution (i.e., absorber regeneration). Reboiler heat duty
for CO2 stripping clearly impacts the steam cost, hence
process-configuration optimization becomes an efficient
approach for system energy integration to minimize the
heat duty. A number of process simulation tools, such as
EBSILON®, GateCycle®, GT Pro®, PROATES®, Steam
Pro® (for power plant simulation), Aspen Plus®, Aspen
HYSYS®, CHEMASIM®, ProMax®, ProTreat® (for CO2
capture simulation), GT Pro/Master®, IECM®, Steam
Pro/Master® and ThermoFlex® (for process integration)
and other in-house software, have been developed for
power plant and CO2 capture simulation [102,9–17] . Even
though such chemical simulators would help engineers
to design and simulate the post-combustion capture
system, the comprehension of the fundamental con-
cepts and process validation is a must in order to verify
whether the design is acceptable. Therfore, this article
discusses these two issues. In addition, the concept to
integrate the CO2 capture into fossil fuel fired power
plant is discussed in the article.
CO2 capture plant design
ƒƒ Description of process flow diagram of Co2
capture unit
Figure 1 demonstrates the typical schematic diagram of
the CO2 capture process using regenerable absorbent.
For a general description of the process, the liquid solu-
tion containing the chemical absorbent is supplied to
the top of the absorber while the flue gas stream from
the industrial process flows counter-currently from the
bottom to the top of the absorber by passing through
the absorber column. The absorber column contains
internals such as tray or random packing or structured
packing, each of which provides the surface area of con-
tact between the liquid and the gas. This contact allows
the desired component to be transferred from the gas
phase to the liquid phase. In the CO2 capture process,
the liquid chemical absorbent preferentially removes
CO2 from the gas stream while the other components
of the gas stream that do not react with the chemi-
cal absorbent are vented to the atmosphere from the
absorber top. The CO2-rich liquid solution exits at the
bottom of the absorber. Then, the CO2-rich solution is
pumped through the lean/rich heat exchanger before it
enters the regenerator at the top for solvent regeneration
and CO2 stripping. The carryover vapor stream of the
solution is condensed back to the top of the regenerator,
leaving mostly wet CO2 out of the stripping process as
future science group
the CO2 product. The reboiler receiving the thermal
heat primarily extracted from the steam-power cycle
or other sources supplies the energy to the solution in
the stripper. After regeneration, the lean solution car-
rying a lean amount of CO2 from the reboiler is passed
through the rich-lean heat exchanger to transfer heat to
the CO2-rich heat solution before the former is pumped
through a cooler to cool the temperature down to
35–45°C before reintroducing into the absorber at the
top. Provision is made for chemical absorbent makeup
next to the CO2-lean liquid solution pump if necessary
to maintain the solvent concentration at the specified
operating level.
ƒƒ Design methods for CO2 absorber
One of the important units in the absorbent-based
post combustion CO2 capture unit is the absorber. The
design of the absorber involves determining or specify-
ing the proper absorber size required for a given CO2
capture operation. There are several steps to design an
absorber size. These are given in Figure 2 [18–20] . The
specific operating designs are defined in terms of the
independent parameters (e.g., flow rate of gas and
liquid-phases and flue-gas compositions and gas–liq-
uid contacting system). Physical properties data on
both phases must then be obtained to determine the
superficial velocities and absorber diameter based on
flooding conditions.
ƒƒ Absorber diameter
In order to calculate the diameter of CO2 absorber,
the solubility of CO2 in chemical absorbent under a
specified temperature and equilibrium should be con-
ducted  [21] . A solubility plot from experiment or open
literature between mole fraction of CO2 in gas and liq-
uid phases provides the operating line of (L/G) operating
and minimum operating line of (L/G)min. An example
of the solubility plot and operating line is demonstrated
in Figure 3.
With the specified gas flow rate inlet, the liquid
flow rate would be obtained from (L/G) operating. The
calculation of the flow parameter (FLG ) should later be
performed by using the following equation.
FLG = L c tG m
0.5
G tL
Equation 1
Where L, G, rG and ri denote liquid flow rate (kg/
min), gas flow rate (kg/min), gas density (kg/m3) and
liquid density (kg/m3), respectively. The physical prop-
erties such as density can be obtained from experiment,
open literature or chemical process simulation software
(e.g.,  Aspen and ProMax) [22–25] . Following this step is
www.future-science.com 267
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

to determine ordinate (e) from the flooding curve [26] . fraction of component A in gas bulk; and y*A is mole
The mass flow rate of gas per unit cross sectional area fraction of component A which is in equilibrium with
of column is calculated from Equation 2 . liquid bulk.
By simplifying Equations 5 & 6, the column height can
be expressed as:
f = G Fzn
l2 0.2

tG tL gc
Equation 2
z = Gl
YA,Gout
#
dy A,G
Where G´, F, f, gc and µ are mass flow rate of gas per
2
YA,Gin KG av P1
c - y A,G m c y A,G - y A m
*

unit cross sectional area of column (kg/ m2 s), packing

factor, ratio of specific gravity of the liquid and water, Equation 7
gravitational constant (m 2 /s) and viscosity of liquid
(cP), respectively. Diameter of the absorber can be The mass-transfer coefficient can be assumed as an
computed by: independent parameter of the absorbed component con-
centration. Therefore, the column height is presumably
A= G simplified to:
fGl Equation 3
YA,Gout
G1 dy A,G
z= #
KG a v P ^1 - y A,Gh2 ^ y A,G - y A h
*
D = c 4A m
0.5
YA,Gin
r
Equation 4 Equation 8
Where A and f represent cross sectional area (m2)
and flooding factor, respectively. Where, GI/KGaV P represents the height of a transfer
unit (HTU), while the following equation represents
ƒƒ Absorber height the number of transfer units (NTU) [28] .
Empirical design method
There are several studies that use the empirical design YA,out
dy A
approach to design the column height [21,27] . The #
^1 - y A,Gh2 ^ y A,G - y A h
*
calculation step of this method is given in Figure 2 at YA,in

Route #1. To calculate the packing height of the tower, a

material balance of the transferred component A should The mass transfer coefficient can be obtained from
be performed as: experimental measurement at the bottom and top of
the absorber. This is called the average overall volu-
yA
N A a v dz = G1 d; E metric mass transfer coefficient, (KGav)ave, which can
^1 - y A h
be given as:
Equation 5

y A,G y A,G
c
1 - y A,G mbottom c 1 - y A,G mtop
by: -
N A = KG P^ y A,G - y*Ah ^KG a v have = G l
zP^ y A,G - y*Ahlm
Equation 6A
Equation 9

N A = KL ^C - C A,Lh
*
A
Where, the log-mean driving force, (YA.G – Y*A)lm,
Equation 6B can be identified by:
^ y A,G - y *A hbottom - ^ y A,G - y *A htop
Where av denotes interfacial area per unit volume ^ y A,G - y *A hlm =
^ y A,G - y *A hbottom
of packing (m 2 /m 3); C A,L is concentration of A on the ln= G
^ y A,G - y *A htop
liquid bulk (kmol/m3); C*A is concentration of com-
ponent A in equilibrium with gas phase (kmol/m 3); Equation 10
GI ; is is inert gas molar flow rate (kmol/m 2 s); KG is
overall gas mass transfer coefficient (kmol/m 2 s kPa); The volumetric mass transfer coefficient is assumed
K L is overall liquid mass transfer coefficient (m/s); to be constant along the column height and it is basically
NA is mass transfer flux of the absorbed component correlated as a function of the operating parameters such
A (kmol/m 2 s); P is total pressure (kPa); yA,G is mole as flow rates, pressure and temperature. Although the

268 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review
empirical design method requires experimental data, it
is unreliable when chemical reactions get involved and
where the enhancement factor significantly changes,
unless the data are obtained under conditions equivalent
to a full-scale absorber.
Theoretical design method
The theoretical design method procedure is given in
Route #2 in Figure 2. The theoretical design for absorp-
tion with chemical reaction was first proposed by Astarita
(1967) and Danckwerts (1970) [29,30] . Their efforts were
primarily directed towards developing expressions for
the local mass transfer coefficients. A set of design equa-
tions for isothermal gas absorbers with chemical reaction
was later developed by Joshi et al. (1981) [31] . However,
assuming adiabatic conditions would have been more
realistic because heat losses are generally small in indus-
trial absorbers [32,33] . A rigorous design procedure for
adiabatic gas absorption with chemical reaction was
subsequently described by Pandya (1983) [33] . The pro-
cedure was based on Treybal’s concepts (1969) [32] for
adiabatic, physical gas absorption and Danckwert’s work
(1970) [30] on isothermal gas absorption with chemical
reaction. Pandya’s procedure accounted for the heats of
absorption and reaction, solvent evaporation and con-
densation, chemical reactions in the liquid phase and
heat and mass transfer resistances in both phases [33] .
A mathematical model based on Pandya’s algorithm
(1983) [33] is used to illustrate the theoretical design
approach. The assumptions that are typically invoked
are: the reaction is fast and takes place only in the liquid
film; heat and mass transfer resistances for the liquid
phase are negligible; the interfacial area is the same for
heat and mass transfer; axial dispersion is negligible.
The principal model equations are presented as follows.
Overall differential material balance: tion duty, the above equations must be solved concur-
yA
dc
1 - yA m
Gl = - c L m dCB
dz v AB dz
Equation 11
Liquid-side mass transfer:
yA
dc m
1 - yA
Gl = IkoL a v ^C A,i - C Ah
dz
Equation 12
Mass transfer for component A and S: relations. However, considerable discrepancies between
yA
dc
1 - yA m
Gl = kG,A a v P^ y A - y A,ih
dz
Equation 13
future science group
yS
dc
1 - yS m
Gl = kG,S a v P^ yS - yS,ih
dz
Equation 14
Interfacial equilibrium:
Py A,i
C A,i =
H
Equation 15
Heat balance for liquid phase:
LCP,L dTL = G l `/ j YC
j P,j j
dTG + GI HS dYS + GI HR dYA
dz dz dz dz
Equation 16
Heat balance for gas phase:
G l `/ j YC
j P,j j
dTG = hG a v ^TG - TLh
dz
Equation 17
Where vAB denotes stoichiometry; CP,L is heat capacity
of solution (kJ/m3 K); CP,j is heat capacity of component
j in the gas (kJ/kmol K); hG is heat transfer coefficient
(kJ/m2 s K); H is Henry’s constant (kPa m3/kmol); HR
is heat of absorption and reaction (kJ/kmol); HS is heat
of vaporization of solvent S (kJ/kmol); I is enhance-
ment factor; kG is gas mass transfer coefficient (kmol/
m 2 s kPa); k LO is physical liquid mass transfer coeffi-
cient (m/s); T is temperature (K); and Y is mole ratio.
Five components are presented in a subscript which is
comprised of an inert carrier gas (I), an acid gas (A)
(i.e. CO2), an inert liquid solvent (S) (i.e., water vapor),
a reactant (B) in the liquid and a reaction product (C).
To determine the packing height for a given absorp-
rently. Since the equations are nonlinear, numerical
methods need to be employed. For designing an absorber
operating in countercurrent mode, the temperatures and
compositions of the lean absorbent and raw feed gas
are usually known while the properties of the off gas
and rich solution are partially specified. As a result, the
conditions at either end of the absorber are known and
a two-point boundary value problem can be defined.
Before the model equations can be evaluated, various
parameters (e.g., mass transfer coefficients, solubility,
reaction rate constant and so on) are required. They may
be obtained from experimental measurements or cor-
reported data must be taken into account and they can
strongly effect the results [34,35] .
For physical gas absorption data, correlations are avail-
able for some standard systems and conditions. When cor-
relations are unavailable, the data have to be determined
www.future-science.com 269
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem
experimentally. The physicochemical data such as solu-
bility, diffusivity and rate constants are also required for
the case of absorption with chemical reaction. These data
have to be obtained for each system at the specific condi-
tions. Although the reaction kinetics and the equilibrium
solubility may be obtained experimentally, performing
these experiments is time consuming.
Even though the CO2-amine systems have been stud-
ied for many years and are common in gas-sweetening
industries, the understanding of the reaction kinetics
is still required. Some researchers agree on the reaction
mechanism but even then, they find that the rate con-
stants may differ by orders of magnitude [36] . High dis-
crepancies can also appear in the equilibrium solubility
data. Austgen et al. (1989) reported that the differences
among the data reported in the open literature for the
CO2 amine system can be as high as 50%  [37] . It is also
difficult to measure the diffusivity and solubility for CO2
absorption with chemical reaction owing to the fact that
diffusion and reaction take place simultaneously in the
liquid phase. Besides the experiments, solubilities and dif-
fusitivities of gases in liquids can be estimated by using the
method developed by Morsi and Charpentier (1981) [38] .
The most important step in the theoretical design method
is the determination of the enhancement factor, I, which
is a function of the reaction mechanism and the proper-
ties of all components in the liquid film. To calculate the
enhancement factor, a set of partial differential equations
have to be solved with the simultaneous diffusional mass
transfer and chemical reactions in the liquid film. The 1D
diffusion equation for species j can be defined by:
dC j dC j
Dj c m-c m - rj = 0
dx 2 dt
Equation 18
Where Dj, rj, x and t represent diffusitivity (m2/s),
rate of reaction of the solute gas in the liquid film
(kmol/m3 s), distance from gas-liquid interface (m)
and contact time (s), respectively.
The simplified enhancement factor can be obtained
from the empirical models proposed by Rase (1977)
and Astarita (1983) (for instantaneous irreversible reac-
tion) [39,40], DeCoursey and Thring (1989) (for irreversible
reaction of finite rate) [41] , Perry and Green (1984) (for
first-order and pseudo first-order irreversible reactions) [27]
and Decoursey (1982), Decoursey and Thring (1989), and
Winkelman et al. (1992) (for reversible reaction) [41–43] .
Laboratory Method
According to the previous discussion, physicochemical
data and enhancement factors are difficult to identify
and, consequently, laboratory models for designing
270 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
gas absorbers with chemical reaction have been pro-
posed [44–47] . The step of this method is demonstrated
in Figure 2 in Route #3. The rate of absorption per unit
interfacial volume or mass transfer rate (Rv, kmol/m3 s)
is assumed on the basis of the absorber hydrodynamics
and the concentrations of reactants in gas and liquid
phases. Figure 4 illustrates a small cell that is a gas–liquid
contactor at steady state, and two stirrers that keep the
concentrations in the bulk of the gas and liquid phases
to be uniform.
YA,out
# 1
z = Gl c R a 1 - y 2 m dy A,G
v v^ A,G h
YA,in
Equation 19
The advantage of this method eliminates having to
determine parameters such as reaction rate, solubil-
ity and diffusivity. It is noted that such a model can
be used when the reaction rate is fast enough to take
place in the liquid film near the interface, which can
imply no reaction in the bulk of the liquid. Alper and
Danckwerts (1976) developed a new model, the so
called complete model [45] . This model was developed
from string-of-sphere column as given in Figure 5  [45] .
The absorber height by using this model can be
calculated by:
L
c m
z = av
` zm j Lm
ca m
v,m
Equation 20
Where subscript m(m) respectively represents the
model column.
Pilot plant technique method
This method was proposed by Tontiwachwuthikul et al.
(1989–1994) [18–20] . The method is intended to scale up
a pilot plant or bench-scale plant to an industrial scale
plant as illustrated in Figure 6 [18–20] . However, such a
method needs to assume that hydrodynamic charac-
teristics of the pilot plant or bench-scale plant are the
same as those of the industrial scale plant. The material
balance around the absorber is given by:
y A,out y A,Z
G I cc = L^C A,in - C A,Zh + c L m $ ^CB,in - CB,Zh
1 - y A,out m c 1 - y A,Z mm
-
zv AB
Equation 21
There are several methods to determine Rv. However,
most of them cannot be used when certain parameters
are unknown. Using this method can help to determine
Rv by assuming it as a function of the fluid concentration
as given by Equation 22.
future science group
 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review
yA
Gl d c
1 - yA m
Rv =
dz
Equation 22
Rv can also be obtained from the absorption rate from
the liquid composition profile as follows:
R v = L dC A + c L m $ dCB
dz v AB dz
Equation 23
The absorber height can then be calculated by
Equation 19. This method does not require the hydro-
dynamic and physicochemical parameters. The step of
this method is demonstrated in Figure 2 in Route #4.
Another advantage of this method is that it is applicable
to all cases regardless of whether the rate of absorption
is obtained by the reaction in the liquid film or in the
bulk of the liquid or both, and no matter how fast or
slow the reaction rate is.
The PPT approach has been successfully applied to
a packed tower in which CO2 is absorbed into NaOH
solutions and aqueous solutions of 2-amino-2-methyl-
1-propanol (AMP), the most commonly used sterically
hindered amine. The validation results were reported
in [18–20] , which show a good agreement within 12%.
In conclusion, for designing absorbers using reactive
solvents, the empirical design method is not recom-
mended for design of the absorber for gas absorption
with chemical reaction. This implies that it would carry
significant error when the method is used in the CO2
capture process in which there is a chemical reaction
between the absorbent and CO2. Using this method
potentially leads to over design of the absorber height.
The theoretical design method is accurate for the CO2
absorber design since it requires all the involved param-
eters as discussed previously. However, the calcula-
tion step is complicated since it is difficult to obtain
all the parameters, especially the hydrodynamic and
the physicochemical properties. Lack of know­ledge of
some of these parameters may cause significant error.
Meanwhile, the laboratory method is applicable when
the reaction mechanism and kinetics may not be
acquired. Nevertheless, a limitation of this method is
how laboratory experimental setup (e.g., a stirred cell)
can be represented as a full-scale absorber.
However, for many practical situations, very lit-
tle is known about the system (e.g., CO2 absorp-
tion into mixed reactive solvents using structured
packed towers). Under such conditions, the use of the
PPT is advantageous and practical in real industrial
environments [18–20] .
future science group
Process design
A comprehension of experimental pilot plants becomes
essential to develop the process flow diagram of CO2
capture for use in commercial or large scale plants.
Therefore, this section gives some examples of the
model validation results obtained from four differ-
ent pilot plants: the International Test Centre for
CO2 Capture  [103] , the Esbjerg CASTOR Pilot Plant
(DONG), Institute of Thermodynamics and Thermal
Process Engineering (ITT), Stuttgart pilot plant, and
the SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant. This review dis-
cusses the validation of temperature, CO2 concentra-
tion profile, CO2 mass balance and reboiler heat duty.
The experimental results are validated with simulation
results by means of the coefficient of correlation (i.e.,
R 2 coefficient). The average absolute deviation (percent-
age AAD) of each parameter output is discussed. The
process validation provides the necessary confidence to
scale up the pilot plants to large scale plants. It should be
noted that the full details of the four pilot plant simula-
tions using Aspen, ProMax, CHEMASIM, ProTreat
and CO2SIM are available in Luo et  al. (2009) [15]
under the consortium of International Cooperation
and Exchange CO2 Capture using Amine Processes
(CAPRICE) [104] . Finally, a discussion of the integra-
tion of large-scale CO2 plant to coal-fired and natural
gas-fired power plant is discussed in next subsection.
ƒƒ Brief description of each pilot plant
The schematic diagrams for the four pilot plants are
given in Figure 7A and 7B  [15] . Figure 7A demonstrate the
schematic diagrams of the International Test Centre of
CO2 Capture (ITC), Esbjerg CASTOR and ITT pilot
plants. Those three pilot plants have in similar design
concept. They have an absorber composed of 2 sections
(i.e., wash water and absorber sections) packed with
packing material. A wash water section, on top of the
top section, is use to cool down the solution to minimize
monoethanolamine (MEA) loss. Treated gas (V3) is
released at the top of the absorber while the liquid solu-
tion flows downwards to the bottom of the absorber. A
rich amine pump (P1) is used to increase the liquid pres-
sure before flowing through the lean-rich heat exchanger
(HEX1) and then the regenerator. The regenerator is
packed with packing material. At the top section of
the regenerator, there is a condenser that condenses the
regenerator overhead, in order to aid the separation of
the condensed stream into the reflux stream (mainly
containing water [L10]) and the CO2 product (V4).
The reflux stream is subsequently recirculated back to
the regenerator. A reboiler at the bottom of the regenera-
tor is used to heat the liquid solution. The lean amine
solution (L2) is cooled down by a cooler (HEX2) and in
turn is introduced back to the absorber. Figure 7B shows
www.future-science.com 271
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem
the schematic diagram of SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.
The conceptualized design of this plant is similar to
ITC, Esbjerg CASTOR and ITT pilot plants as previ-
ously mentioned but this plant has no wash water sec-
tion on the top section of the absorber. In addition, the
process uses recycled gas from the condenser (HEX3)
outlet to return to the top section of the absorber. This
condenser also works as a separator that separates liquid
(L11) to the bottom tank. The liquid directly flows to
the reboiler. It should be noted that these four different
pilot plants used 30% wt. MEA as the chemical absor-
bent to capture CO2. A brief summary of each plant
configuration is given in Table 1.
Modeling approach
This review article shows only the ProMax simula-
tion for four different pilot plants. The use of other
software, which includes Aspen Rad Frac, Protreat,
Promax, Aspen Rate Sep, CHEMASIM and CO2SIM
is not discussed in the paper. However, its detail can
be found in our collaborative work [15] . All simulations
appearing in this article were performed at the ITC in
the University of Regina, Canada. Four datasets from
each of the ITC and SINTEF/NTNU pilot plants, and
one data set from each of the other two plants (Esbjerg
CASTOR, and ITT Stuttgart pilot plants) were used
to validate the simulation results.
The parameter inputs used in the simulation are
summarized as follows:
ƒƒ Configurations of absorber and regenerator (e.g., pack-
ing type, flooding factor, system factor, residence time
of liquid holdup and pressure drop), and configura-
tions of pumps, intercoolers and heat exchanger (e.g.,
pressure and efficiency). These parameters are assigned
by each individual pilot plant design.
ƒƒ Temperature approach between rich amine inlet and
lean amine outlet in lean-rich heat exchanger (LRX).
It is to be noted that the simulation does not fix or
assign any lean and rich solution temperature inlet
and outlet in LRX, absorber and regenerator. These
temperatures are calculated on the basis of
thermodynamics and chemical reactions.
Table 1. Brief description of process parameters in four different pilot plants.
Packing type ITC, Regina
Wash water section Flexipac700Y
Absorber section Flexipac700Y
Stripper section Flexipac700Y
Wash water diameter/height (m) 0.33/2.93
Absorber diameter/height (m) 0.33/7.05
Stripper diameter/height (m) 0.33/9.97
Data from [15].
272 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
ƒƒ Reflux temperature at the top section of the regenera-
tor. The temperature is set by the process parameters
obtained from each four different pilot plants.
ƒƒ Capture performance. This is assigned to control the
percentage of CO2 capture capability between
absorber inlet and outlet. It should be noted that the
liquid flow rate and CO2 loading of lean and rich
solutions are not assigned as process inputs. These
parameters are optimized by the capture performance.
ƒƒ Simulation results
ITC pilot plant
Figures 8A–11A demonstrate the CO2 concentration pro-
file of the 10-m absorber height of the ITC pilot plant.
It should be noted that all figures set the top section
of the absorber as the beginning level (z = 0). The fig-
ures show that the CO2 concentration obtained from
simulation is lower than the experiment. In addition,
the simulation roughly predicts the CO2 concentration
profile in the washing water section but predicts the
profile in the absorber section well. Both simulation
and experimental results are in very good agreement.
Figures 8B–11B demonstrate a validation of temperature
profile between simulation and experimental results. It
was found that both results are in a good correlation.
Figures 12A–12D shows the parity plot of CO2 con-
centration, temperature profile, CO2 mass balance and
reboiler heat duty between simulation and experimen-
tal results. All parity plots have R 2 greater than 0.8.
Particularly, the correlation of CO2 mass balance and
reboiler heat duty has an R 2 higher than 0.95. This
implies that the simulation can predict the experimental
process outputs obtained from the ITC pilot plant.
Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant (DONG)
Figure 13A and B demonstrate the validation of the
CO2 concentration and temperature profile of the 20
meter absorber height of the Esbjerg CASTOR pilot
plant [15] . The simulation results are slightly lower than
the experimental results but their trends are consistent.
Figures 14A–D show the parity plot of CO2 concen-
tration, temperature profile, CO2 mass balance and
reboiler heat duty. The R 2 of all plots is relatively high.
CASTOR, Dong ITT, Stuttgart SINTEF/NTNU
Mellapak252Y Mellapak250Y
IMTP50 Mellapak250Y Mellapak250Y
IMTP50 Mellapak250Y Mellapak250Y
1.1/3 0.125/0.42
1.1/17 0.125/4.2 0.15/4.36
1.1/10 0.125/2.52 0.1/3.89
future science group
 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review
This indicates that the process simulator gives results
that are able to predict the actual experimental process
parameters in the Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant.
ITT Stuttgart pilot plant
Figures 15A and 15B show the validation of CO2 con-
centration and temperature profile for the 4.6 meter
absorber height of the ITT pilot plant [15] . The simula-
tion gives a slightly lower CO2 concentration and tem-
perature profile than the experimental results. At the top
of the absorber, the temperature is slightly inconsistent
(Figure 15B) . The temperature outlet of the experiment
is 40°C while that of the simulation is approximately
above 50°C.
Figures 16A–D show the parity plot of CO2 concen-
tration, temperature profile, CO2 mass balance, and
reboiler heat duty. The CO2 concentration, reboiler
heat duty obtained from the simulation are in an
excellent correlation (R 2 = 0.99) with the experi-
mental result whereas the temperature profile and
CO2 mass balance do not properly correlate with the
experimental result (R 2 < 0.67). The poor simulation
results  rom the ITT pilot plant might be attributed
to the following:
ƒƒ Over simplification of the schematic diagram of the
model used for simulation as compared with the
actual pilot plant, which is more complicated
(e.g., extra hidden equipment);
ƒƒ The positions of the temperature probe attached along
the absorber height in the pilot plant may not be the
same as in the model.
SINTEF/NTNU Pilot Plant
Figures 17A–D demonstrate the temperature profile for
the 4.4 meter absorber height of the SINTEF/NTNU
pilot plant. All four data sets have been selected to
further validate the simulation results with the experi-
mental results since it has no CO2 concentration pro-
file recorded by SINTEF/NTNU. The figures show
that temperature profile obtained from the simulation
is obviously lower than the experiment. However, the
temperature at the bottom of the absorber for both
simulation and experiment are comparable. In general,
both simulation and experiment are consistent with R 2
of 0.90 (Figure 18A) .
Figures 18B and C demonstrate the parity plot of CO2
mass balance and reboiler heat duty. It was found
that both simulation and experiment are excellently
correlated with an R 2 above 0.99.
The simulation using ProMax gave satisfac-
tory results. The deviation between simulation
and experimental outputs for all parameters from
future science group
the ITC, Esbjerg Dong and Key term
SINTEF/NT NU pilots were Steam turbine: Prime mover used to
small (ADD  =  10.9%) whereas convert dynamic and pressured steam
the deviation between simulation into energy by turning blades of a series
of turbines; for example, high pressure
and experimental outputs for ITT
turbine (HP), intermediate pressure
were high for CO2 mass balance turbine (IP) and low pressure
and temperature (ADD = 43.7%) turbine (LP).
but small for other parameters
(ADD = 9.35%).
A comparison of the simulation and experimental
results from all the four pilot plants are plotted in
the same parity plot in Figure 19. The average R 2 and
%AAD for the four pilot plants were measured for
various parameters. The average R 2 and%AAD for
CO2 concentration were 0.95 and 27.9%, respectively
(Figure 19A) ; for temperature profile, they were 0.84
and 5.0%, respectively (Figure  19B) ; for CO2 mass
balance, they were 0.97 and 15.0%, respectively
(Figure 19C) ; and for the reboiler heat duty, they were
0.99 and 4.4%, respectively (Figure 19D) . These imply
that this process simulator could be used to simulate
the pilot plants.
Process integration
The post-combustion CO2 capture using amines is
commonly integrated into large point CO2 sources
of which the process captures CO2 after the com-
bustion has taken place in fossil fuel-fired power
plant (e.g.,  coal-fired power plant or natural gas-
fired combined cycle gas turbine [CCGT]) [5,6] . The
steam is extracted from a series of steam turbines in
the power plant to the reboiler in the CO2 capture
process. Figures 20A & 20B show an example of steam
extraction from coal-fired and natural gas-fired power
plants, respectively  [16,48] . According to the figures,
superheated steam is extracted from the crossover
pipe between the intermediate pressure (IP) and low
pressure (LP) ports. The steam as a thermal energy
source is fed to the reboiler located at the bottom of
the regenerator. Such energy is used to obtain a lean-
CO2 loaded amine solution from a rich-CO2 loaded
amine solution. Then, the used steam (as condensate)
is routed back to the deaerator in the power plant.
Apart from extracting the steam from the crossover
pipe between the IP and the LP ports as shown in the
figures, another option is to extract superheated steam
from the LP port. It is found from Romeo et al. and
Sanpasertparnich et al. that extracting the steam from
the LP port offers a lower heat duty for regenerating
the amine by stripping the CO2 [13,16] . A high pressure
steam that can still be used as a working fluid to drive
the turbine, resulting in a significant reduction of the
energy penalty to regenerate the rich-CO2 solution.
However, Alie proposed that a suitable and realistic
www.future-science.com 273
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem
extracting location should be in the crossover pipe
between the IP and LP ports (Figure 21) [9] . Extracting
the steam from LP port would be inaccessible since
the port is located on the underside of the turbine [9] .
Even though, currently, there is a physical limitation
in extracting the steam from LP port, the authors
realize that there are two possibilities to extract the
steam from the LP turbine as illustrated in Figure 22 :
ƒƒ A new design of low pressure steam turbine, which
offers an accessible steam extraction location;
ƒƒ A split of the low pressure steam turbine into more
than one, such that the steam can be extracted from
LP/LP port.
The first option requires a turbine manufacturer to
redesign the LP turbine casing and space of turbine
blades to allow an insert pipe for steam extraction. In
the case that the first option is not feasible, instead
of extracting superheated steam from the crossover
pipe in between the IP and LP ports, the splitting of
one LP turbine into two turbines and extracting the
superheated steam from the crossover pipe between
the two LP ports would be practical.
In addition to the location of the steam extraction,
the quality and quantity of the steam from the turbine
are important parameters one should be aware of. The
precautions include:
ƒƒ The extracted steam temperature from the turbine
should not be above the temperature that can cause
CO2 absorbent to undergo thermal degradation
and/or corrosion [9,49] . If the temperature is over the
limit, an extra unit such as de-superheater unit must
be integrated before the reboiler [10,50] ;
ƒƒ Extracting possibly the lowest quality steam is advan-
tageous, since high quality steam offers higher power
generation [9,16] ;
ƒƒ The steam flow rate supplied to the reboiler must
be sufficient to regenerate CO2 absorbent and to
reach the percentage of CO2 capture performance
design.
Future perspective
It is essential to have a comprehensive knowledge of
how to design, model and simulate the post combus-
tion CO2 capture system based on regenerable amines.
Unless the equipment and process are systematically
designed, the heat consumption as well as the CAPEX
and OPEX for the CO2 capture plant will be very
high. There are many companies and organizations
274 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
that focus only on modifying the process and tech-
niques used in gas purification processes to fit the
CO2 capture process. Examples are split flow, com-
bined concurrent-counter current and intercooler con-
figurations [21,51] . The development of compression
ratio to reduce multiple stages of CO2 compressors
and utilizing heat from the compression for amine
regeneration has been proposed. Advanced design of
packed column for the absorber and regenerator to
enhance gas–liquid contacting time and mass transfer
coefficient is also competitively developed. In addi-
tion to these issues, improvements in CO2 capture
efficiency and amine-regeneration efficiency, as well
as the developments of effective inhibitors to reduce
solvent degradation, corrosion and foaming should be
pursued in order to actualize the CO2 capture process
using absorbents.
Commercial process simulators as well as in-
house softwares are continuously being developed by
embedding the improvements in certain aspects of
the process techno­logies and providing a user-friendly
interface. The technology would then support any
user who may not have the background on the CO2
capture system design. This would increase risk,
uncertainty and unreliability when such designs are
implemented. As such, it is important that all simu-
lations must be capable of representing and validat-
ing any operating condition and equipment dimen-
sions before users scale up the process to integrate
into fossil fuel-fired power plants. Some simulation
software companies have not programmed their soft-
ware based on theoretical designs and existing pilot
plant data, making such software unreliable. For
instance, the programmer may put incorrect thermo­
dynamics calculation algorithm in the software, or
obsolete thermodynamics databases. These can lead
to poor engineering design integrity. Therefore, any
engineering consulting company must have specialists
in this particular field. Therefore, more pilot plants
duplicating up-scale system would be built within this
decade. Collaborations to share the pilot-plant data
would be seen soon. The integration of regenerable
solvent based CO2 capture system into existing or new
fossil fuel-fired power plants will possibly occur in
this decade, but it would be only for partial capture
defined as the capture of CO2 from less than 100%
of the total flue gas stream from the power plant. A
full integration would be implemented when regula-
tory policy is in place and will be enforced, and the
government confirms that it will compensate power
producers for the cost of capturing CO2 . Full integra-
tion will also be helped by the development of cost-
effective, process-efficient, environmentally safe and
operation-reliable CO2 capture technologies.
future science group
 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

Acknowledgements Germany), Lemaire E, Alix P (IFP, France), Tobiesen FA,

We would like to acknowledge the research supports given to to ITC
over the past many years by the followings organizations: Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC),
Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Saskatchewan Ministry
of Energy & Resources, Western Economic Diversification, EnCana
Energy Inc., E.ON Energy, Stantec, Saudi Aramco, Doosan Heavy
Industries, HTC Purenergy Inc. Saskatchewan Power Corporation,
StatOil Hydro (Norway), SaskFerco Inc., Sulzer Chemtech
(Switzerland), Fluor Corporation (USA), the Canada Centre for
Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), Alberta Energy
Research Institute (AERI) and Research Institute of Innovative and
Technology for the Earth (RITE).
We would also like to acknowledge the assistants from Luo X,
Svendsen HF (NTNU, Norway), Notz R (University of Stuttgart,
Germany), Hoch S, Hasse H (University of Kaiserslautern,
Juliussen O (SINTEF, Norway), Köpcke M (Vattenfall, Sweden),
Hopman J (TNO, The Netherlands) and CAPRICE consortium
members for the pilot plant data, Hendrick C (BR&E, Texas, USA)
for ProMax technical support and Saiwan C (Chulalongkorn
University, Thailand) for pre-reviewing this article.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement
with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or finan-
cial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the
manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria,
stock ownership or options, expert t­estimony, grants or patents
received or pending, or royalties.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of
this manuscript.

Executive summary
ƒƒ Of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, CO2 capture-based regenerable solvent is the most mature and promising technology. In
addition, post-combustion CO2 capture based on regenerable solvent is best suited to capture CO2 at a low partial pressure of approximately
4–15% by volume of CO2. Consequently, the technology can be integrated into pulverized coal-fired, natural gas-fired and oil-fired power plants.
ƒƒ It is clear that regenerating CO2-rich amines to CO2-lean amines consumes significant heat. This can be reduced considerably by proper process
configuration optimization.
ƒƒ There are many constraints on the modeling and simulation strategy to designing a CO2 capture plant. These include the difficulty to solve
numerical modeling equations, establishing mechanisms of chemical reactions, the reliability of properties (e.g., thermodynamic, chemical
and physical) of the system components, amongst other things. These limitations make it necessary to further validate innovative process
configurations that are only confirmed by simulation using commercial simulators. Several commercial and non-commercial programs are
available to model the post-combustion capture of CO2. This includes EBSILON®, GateCycle®, GT Pro®, PROATES®, Steam Pro® (for power plant
simulation), Aspen Plus®, Aspen HYSYS®, CHEMASIM®, ProMax®, ProTreat® (for CO2 capture simulation) and GT Pro/Master®, IECM®, Steam Pro/
Master®, and ThermoFlex® (for process integration).
ƒƒ In the design of the absorber, the empirical design method is not applicable when a system has chemical reaction, while the theoretical
design method requires a number of involved parameters to calculate the absorber height. The laboratory method is based on a small-scale
experimental setup, such as stirred cell and string-of-sphere column, whereas the pilot plant technique method is based on equivalent
geometry to a full-scale CO2 absorber but a smaller dimensions. The disadvantage of the laboratory method, therefore, is that it does not
represent a full-scale CO2 absorber.
ƒƒ Process validation using existing CO2 capture pilot plants is necessary to obtain process integrity and confidence for up-scaling the CO2 capture
process. ProMax as one of the process simulators is able to validate the experimental data obtaining from:
- the International Test Centre of CO2 Capture (ITC) pilot plant;
- the Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant;
- the ITT Stuttgart pilot plant;
- the SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.
ƒƒ Upon the integration of the CO2 capture plant with a fossil fuel-fired electric power plant, it is clear that there are two points for steam extraction
from a series of the steam turbines: crossover pipe between intermediate pressure (IP) turbine and low pressure (LP) turbine port and the
LP port.
ƒƒ It is shown that extracting the steam from LP port would be inaccessible. Hence, there are two possible options to extract the steam from the LP
turbine: a new design of LP turbine and an LP/LP port by splitting of LP turbine into more than one.

Figures are listed overleaf.

future science group www.future-science.com 275

 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

Appendix: Figures

Monoethanolamine/water
Condenser
Treated gas make up

CO2 product
Cooler
Reflex drum

Absorber
Pump
Lean-rich
heat exchanger Regenerator
Blower
Steam
Cooler Reboiler

Rich amine pump Lean amine pump

Figure 1. Typical absorption-based CO2 capture unit.

Define proves conditions

• Flow rates of gas and liquid
• Flue gas compositions
• Inlet and outlet conditions

Obtain physical information Specify gas–liquid

• Densities and viscosities contacting system
• Gas–liquid equilibrium data • Type and details of packings

Determine superficial velocities

• Liquid and gas sides

Obtain physical gas

Obtain additional information
absorption parameters
• Diffusivities
• Mass transfer coefficient
• Solubilities
• Interfacial area
A • Reaction kinetics D
• Liquid hold-up

Determine enhancement factor

C
Determine (KGav)ave Determine absorption rate
B

Determine column height

Figure 2. Design procedure of CO2 absorber. (A) Emphirical design method, (B) Theoretical design method,
(C) Laboratory method and (D) Pilot plant technique method.
Modified with permission from [20].

276 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

G
Bottom
Y1
L
Gas mole fraction

Operating lines

A Stirred cell
e
rv
B m
cu
riu Pack column N
lib
Eq
ui G
Top
Y2 CB
pA

L
X2 X1 X1*
Liquid mole fraction
G
Figure 3. Solubility plot and operating line.

Figure 4. Small cell used for laboratory method.

CB: Concentration; G: Gas; L: Liquid; PA: Partial pressure.
Modified with permission from [20].

L G G

Sphere
column CB, in PA, out
L

KL, KG, avZ, av

Model column
γ γ
of both columns are the same. The
inlet and outlet concentrations can
be simulated in the sphere column.
Zm
CB
Packed pA Pack column
column
CB, out PA, in

L G
G
Figure 5. String-of-sphere column [45]. LG
g: Unit volume of liquid; av: Interfacial area;
CB: Concentration; G: Gas; KG; Overall gas mass transfer L
coeffiecient; KL; Overall liquid mass transfer coeffiecient;
L: Liquid; PA: Partial pressure; Z: Height. Figure 6. Pilot plant technique.
Modified from with permission from [20].
CB: Concentration; G: Gas; L: Liquid; PA: Partial pressure; Zm: Height.

future science group www.future-science.com 277

 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

A Cleaned gas to atmosphere

CO2 to pipeline
Absorber V3 V4
HEX3

L8 Water L9

L11
L10
Stripper
L7
Monoethanol-
V2 P4 L6
amine/water P3
L1 L2
L5 HEX1

HEX2 Makeup
P2
Exhaust
gas Reboiler

V1
Steam
L4 L3
Rich solution Lean solution

B
Fan P1
V2
Condenser
HEX3

Absorber L1 Particle filter Stripper

L10 (option)
Pre-heater
C-filter HEX4
Cooler
VE3

L5 HEX1
L11
HEX2

Reboiler

Exhaust gas
Storage/mixing
V1 tank

L3
Lean solution

Figure 7. Pilot plant schematic process flow diagram for (A) ITC, Esbjerg CASTOR and ITT
(B) SINTEF/NTNU.
HEX: Heat exchanger; L: Liquid; P: Pump; V: Vapour.
Reproduced with permission from [15].

278 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 A Top of absorber B Top of absorber A B
Experiment Top of absorber Top of absorber Experiment
0 0 0 0
Simulation Simulation
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3

future science group

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)
7 7 7 7
8 8
8 8
9 9
9 9 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C)
CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C)

Figure 8. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration and Figure 9. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration and
(B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 8% CO2 content and 90% CO2 (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 8% CO2 content and 80% CO2
capture performance from ITC pilot plant. capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

A Top of absorber B Top of absorber
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Experiment A Top of absorber B Top of absorber Experiment
0 0
Simulation Simulation
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6

Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)
Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)

7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C) CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C)
Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

www.future-science.com
Figure 10. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration Figure 11. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration
and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 4% CO2 content and 90% and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 4% CO2 content and 80%
CO2 capture performance from ITC pilot plant. CO2 capture performance from ITC pilot plant.

279
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

A 8.0 B 70
R² = 0.892 R² = 0.813
65

Temperature profile
CO2concentration
6.0

experiment (°C)
experiment (%)
60
4.0
55
2.0
50

0.0 45
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 45 50 55 60 65 70
CO2 concentration (%) Temperature profile
simulation (°C)
D
C
40 R² = 0.995
20.0
R2 = 0.981

Reboiler heat duty

30
experiment (kmol/h)

experiment (kW)
CO2 mass balance

10.0 20

10

0.0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0 10 20 30 40
CO2 mass balance Reboiler heat duty
simulation (kmol/h) simulation (kw)

Figure 12. Parity plots of (A) CO2 concentration (B) temperature profile (C) CO2 mass balance
and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITC pilot plant.

A Top of absorber B Top of absorber Experiment

0 0 Simulation
2 2
Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)

4 4

6 6

8 8

10 10

12 12

14 14
16 16

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C)

Figure 13. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration

and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 11.8% CO2 content and
90% CO2 capture performance from Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant.

280 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

A 15.0 B 80
R2 = 0.942 R2 = 0.807
13.0 75
CO2 experiment (%)

Temperature profile
11.0 70

experiment (°C)
Concentration

9.0 65
7.0 60
5.0 55
3.0 50
1.0 45
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
CO2 concentration Temperature profile
simulation (%) simulation (°C)
C 60.0 D 1,500
R2 = 0.921
experiment (kmol/h)

50.0
CO2 mass balance

Reboiler heat duty

experiement (kW)

40.0 1,000
30.0

20.0 500
10.0

0.0 0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 0 500 1,000 1,500
CO2 mass balance Reboiler heat duty
simulation (kmol/h) simulation (kW)

Figure 14. Parity plots of (A) CO2 concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO2 mass balance
and (D) reboiler heat duty from Esbjerg CASTOR pilot plant.

A Top of absorber B Top of absorber Experiment

0.0 0 Simulation

0.6 0.6
Absorber height (m)

Absorber height (m)

1.2 1.2

1.8 1.8

2.4 2.4

3.0 3.0

3.6 3.6

4.2 4.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
CO2 concentration (%) Temeprature (°C)

Figure 15. Experiment and simulation results for (A) CO2 concentration

and (B) temperature profiles in the absorber at 13.2% CO2 content and
44% CO2 capture performance from ITT Stuttgart pilot plant.

future science group www.future-science.com 281

 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

A B
80
0.20 R2 = 0.669
R2 = 0.99 75

experiment (% liquid)

Temperature profile
CO2 concentration

experiment (°C)
0.15 70
65
0.10
60
55
0.05
50
0.00 45
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
CO2 concentration Temperature profile
C simulation (% liquid) D simulation (°C)

0.5 10
R2 = 0.606
experiment (kmol/h)

0.4 8

Reboiler heat duty

CO2 mass balance

experiment (kW)
0.3 6

0.2 4

0.1 2

0.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10

CO2 mass balance Reboiler heat duty (kW)

simulation (kmol/h) simulation (kW)

Figure 16. Parity plots of (A) CO2 concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO2 mass
balance and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITT Stuttgart pilot plant.

A Top of absorber B Top of absorber C Top of absorber D Top of absorber

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Absorber height (m)

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Experiment Temeprature (°C) Temeprature (°C) Temeprature (°C) Temeprature (°C)

Simulation

Figure 17. Experiment and simulation results for temperature profile in the absorber at (A) 2.5% CO2 content and 78.5% CO2
capture performance, (B) 2.6% CO2 content and 58.3% CO2 capture performance, (C) 5.3% CO2 content and 58.1% CO2 capture
performance and (D) 9.48% CO2 content and 49.1% CO2 capture performance from SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.

282 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

A B C
80 0.5 20
R = 0.898
2
R = 0.998
2 R2 = 0.999
75

experiement (kmol/h)
16

Reboiler heat duty

Temperature profile

experiement (kW)
0.4

CO2 mass balance

experiment (°C)

70
0.3 12
65
60 0.2 8
55
0.1 4
50
45 0.0 0
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 4 8 12 16
Temperature profile CO2 mass balance Reboiler heat duty
simulation (°C) simulation (kmol/h) simulation (kW)

Figure 18. Parity plots of (A) tempearature profile (B) CO2 mass balance and (C) reboiler heat duty from SINTEF/NTNU pilot plant.

A B
15.0 80.0
R2 = 0.945 R2 = 0.844
70.0
Temperture profile
CO2 concentration

experiment (°C)
experiment (%)

10.0
60.0

50.0
5.0
40.0
%AAD = 27.92% %AAD = 5.04%
0.0 30.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
CO2 concentration Temperature profile
simulation (%) simulation (°C)
C D
60.0 1,200
R2 = 0.969 R2 = 0.99
Reboiler heat duty

50.0 1,000
experiment (kW)
experiment (kmol/h)
CO2 mass balance

40.0 800

30.0 600

20.0 400

10.0 200
%AAD = 15.03% %AAD = 4.35%
0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,0001,200
CO2 mass balance Reboiler heat duty
simulation (kmol/h) simulation (kW)

Figure 19. Parity plots of (A) CO2 concentration (B) tempearature profile (C) CO2 mass balance
and (D) reboiler heat duty from ITC, Esbjerg CASTOR, ITT and SINTEF/NTNU pilot plants.

future science group www.future-science.com 283

 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

A Reflux
condenser
Treated flue gases
Reflux drum

Wash water pum p

Monoethanolamine/
Reflux pum p
water makeup
Absorber Regenerator

Flue gas after PM, NOx Lean am ine

and SOx removals cooler

Booster Lean am ine

Pre-cooler pump Reboiler
Pre-scrubber
Lean/rich HX
Rich am ine
pum p

Low pressure Generator

G
High pressure Interm ediate pressure

Evaporator SH2 RH2 SH1

Condenser
RH1

Economizer

Preheated air Upper feed water train Deaerator Lower feed water train
Coal

Air preheater Boiler feed pum p

Pum p
Flue gas to PMNOx,
SOx and CO/removals

Figure 20. (A) An integration of CO2 capture into pulverized coal-fired power plant.
G: Generator; HX: Heat exchanger; PM: Particulate matter; RH: Reheater; SH: Superheater.
Modified with permission from [16].

284 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review

B
Reflex CO2 product
Treated gas drum

Lean amine

Monoethanolamine/water
Pump
Make-up tank

Regenerator
Cooler

Absorber
Lean amine Reboiler
Pre-scrubber pump
Rich amine 4
Rich amine pump Lean–rich HX 2
Condensate water
1 to the de-aerator

Natural gas
NH3
2 Steam
Combustor To the reboiler in
Comp 3 CO2
GT G capture process
Recycle gas
G 1
H RS
3 Exhaust gas
Air Waste heat To the absorber in CO2
steam capture process
Reheat
steam

HP IP LP G

Figure 20. (B) An integration of CO2 capture into combined cycle gas turbine power plant.
Comp: Compressor; G: Generator; GT: Gar turbine; HP: High-pressure turbine; HX: Heat exchanger; IP: Intermediate-
pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.
Numbers 1–4 in bold indicate a connection of each stream line.
Modified with permission from [50].

future science group www.future-science.com 285

 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem

IP/LP Crossover pipe Steam extraction to the reboiler

IP LP G

Figure 21. Intermediate pressure/low pressure crossover pipe.

G: Generator; IP: Intermediate-pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.

IP/LP Crossover pipe

Reboiler

IP
LP G

Option 1: Steam extraction from a

Crossover pipe
crossover pipe of IP and LP port
LP1/LP2

Reboiler

LP G

LP1 LP2 G
Reboiler
LP port
Option 2: Steam extraction Option 3: Steam extraction from a
from LP port crossover pipe LP1 and LP2 port

Figure 22. Steam extraction from low pressure turbine.

G: Generator; IP: Intermediate-pressure turbine; LP: Low-pressure turbine.

286 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3) future science group

 Design, modeling & simulation of post-combustion CO2 capture systems Series Review
Bibliography
Papers of special note have been highlighted as:
n
of interest
nn
of considerable interest
1 International Energy Agency (IEA). World
Energy Outlook. (2002).
n
Other technologies used for CO2 capture
besides amine-based CO2 capture process.
2 Gray ML, Soong Y, Champagne KJ et al.
Improved immobilized carbon dioxide capture
sorbents. Fuel Process. Technol. 86 (14–15),
1449–1455 (2005).
3 Yang WC, Ciferno J. Assessment of
carbozyme enzyme-based membrane
technology for CO2 capture from flue gas.
DOE/NETL 401/072606 (2006).
4 Anderson JL, Dixon JK, Maginn EJ,
Brennecke JF. Measurement of SO2 solubility
in ionic liquids. J. Phys. Chem. B. 110,
15059–15062 (2006).
n n
Comprehensive overview of CO2
capture technologies.
5 Metz B, Davidson O, deConinck H, Loos M,
Meyer L. IPCC special report on carbon
dioxide capture and storage.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, UK (2005).
6 Dooley JJ, Davidson CL, Dahowski RT. An
assessment of the commercial availability of
carbon dioxide capture and storage
technologies as of June 2009. Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, US DOE.
(2009).
7 Figueroa JD, Fout T, Plasynski S,
McIlvried H, Srivastava RD. Advances in CO2
capture technology – the U.S. department of
energy’s carbon sequestration program. Int.
J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 2(1), 9–20 (2008).
Useful review paper of the environmental
n n
impact of CO2 capture based on amines.
8 Thitakamol B, Veawab A, Aroonwilas A.
Environmental impacts of absorption-based
CO2 capture unit for post-combustion
treatment of flue gas from coal-fired power
plant. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 1(3),
318–342 (2007).
n
Useful process integration of coal-fired
power plant and CO2 capture.
9 Alie CF. CO2 Capture with MEA: integrating
the absorption process and steam cycle of an
existing coal-fired power plant. MSc thesis.
University of Waterloo, Canada (2004).
10 Fisher KS, Beitler C, Rueter C, Searcy K,
Rochelle G, Jassim M. Integrating MEA
regeneration with CO2 compression and
peaking to reduce CO2 capture costs. US
DOE. (2005).
future science group
11 Rao AB, Rubin ES. Identifying cost-effective
CO2 control levels for amine-based CO2
capture systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45,
2421–2429 (2006).
12 Abu-Zahra MRM, Schneiders LHJ,
Niederer JPM, Feron PHM, Versteeg GF.
CO2 capture from power plants. Part I. A
parametric study of the technical
performance based on monoethanolamine.
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 1, 37–46
(2007).
13 Romeo LM, Bolea I, Escosa JM. Integration
of power plant and amine scrubbing to
reduce CO2 capture costs. Appl. Therm. Eng.
28(8–9), 1039–1046 (2008).
14 Adams RG, Alin J, Biede O et al. CAPRICE
project – engineering study on the
integration of post combustion capture
technology into the power plant gas path and
heat cycle. Energy Procedia. 1(1), 3801–3808
(2009).
n
Useful process simulation of four existing
pilot plants.
15 Luo X, Knudsen JN, deMontigny D et al.
Comparison and validation of simulation
codes against sixteen sets of data from four
different pilot plants. Energy Procedia. 1(1),
1249–1256 (2009).
n
Useful process integration of coal-fired
power plant and CO2 capture.
16 Sanpasertparnich T, Idem R, Bolea I,
deMontigny D, Tontiwachwuthikul T.
Integration of post-combustion capture and
storage into a pulverized coal-fired power
plant. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control. 4(3),
499–510 (2010).
17 Pfaff I, Oexmann J, Kather A. Optimised
integration of post-combustion CO2 capture
process in greenfield power plants. Energy
35(10), 4030–4041 (2010).
n n
Fundamental knowledge of CO2
capture processes.
18 Tontiwachwuthikul P, Meisen A,
Lim CJ. Methodologies for designing packed
acid gas absorbers with chemical reaction: a
review. Int. Conf. on Adv. Sci. & Technol.
Exch. Bangkok, Thailand (1994).
19 Tontiwachwuthikul P, Meisen A,
Lim CJ. Novel pilot plant technique for
sizing gas absorbers with chemical reactions.
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 67, 602–607 (1989).
20 Tontiwachwuthikul P. New pilot plant
technique for sizing gas absorbers with
chemical reactions. PhD. Thesis. University
of British Columbia, Canada (1991).
21 Kohl A, Nielsen R. Gas Purification (5th
Edition), Gulf Publishing, Texas, UK (1997).
22 Weiland RH. Physical properties of MEA,
DEA, MDEA and MDEA-based blends
loaded with CO2. GPA Research Report No.
152. (1996).
23 Weiland RH, Dingman JC, Cronin DB,
Browning GJ. Density and viscosity of some
partially carbonated aqueous alkanolamine
solutions and their blends. J. Chem. Eng. Data.
43(3), 378 (1998).
n
Useful manual of process simulators.
24 ProMax 2.0. ProMax® Level I & II. Bryan
Research & Engineering, Inc. (2008).
25 Aspen Plus. EAP101 Aspen Plus®: Process
Modeling. (2009).
Conceptual designs of chemical processes.
n
26 Kister HZ. Distillation Design. McGraw-Hill.
NY, USA (1992).
27 Perry RH, Green D. Perry’s chemical
engineers’ handbook. (6th Edition). Mcgraw-
Hill. NY, USA (1984).
28 Billet R. Packed Towers in Processing and
Environmental Technology. VCH. NY, USA
(1995).
29 Astarita G. Mass transfer with chemical
reaction. Elsevier Publishing. NY, USA
(1967).
n
Useful research works on experiment and
modeling of CO2 capture.
30 Danckwerts PV. Gas Liquid Reactions.
McGraw Hill. NY, USA (1970).
31 Joshi SV, Astarita G, Savage DW. Prediction
of pilot plant performance for a chemical
absorption process. Chem. Eng. Symp. Series.
77(202), 63–77 (1981).
32 Treybal RE. Adiabatic gas absorption and
stripping in packed towers. Ind. Eng. Chem.
61, 36–41 (1969).
33 Pandya JD. Adiabatic gas absorption and
stripping with chemical reaction in packed
towers. Chem. Eng. Commun. 19, 343–361
(1983).
34 Kelly RM, Rousseau RW, Ferrell JK. Design
of packed, adiabatic absorbers: physical
absorption of acid gases in methanol. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 23, 102–109
(1984).
35 Raal JD, Khurana MK. Gas absorption with
large heat effects in packed columns.
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 51, 162–167 (1973).
36 Barth D, Tondre C, Delpuech JJ. Kinetics and
mechanisms of the reactions of CO2 with
alkanolamines: a discussion concerning the
cases of MDEA and DEA. Chem. Eng. Sci. 39,
1753–1760 (1984).
37 Austgen DM, Rochelle GT, Peng X,
Chan CC. Model of vapor-liquid equilibria
www.future-science.com 287
 Series Review  Liang, Sanpasertparnich, Tontiwachwuthiku, Gelowitz & Idem
for aqueous acid gas alkanolamine systems
using the electrolyte – NRTL equation. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 28, 1060–73 (1989).
38 Morsi BI, Charpentier JC. Solubilities and
diffusivities of gases in liquids. ASI Series. 72
(1981).
39 Rase HF. Chemical Reactor Design for Process
Plants: Volume 1 – Principles and Techniques.
John Wiley & Sons, NY, USA (1977).
40 Astarita G, Savage DW, Bisio A. Gas Treating
with Chemical Solvents. John Wiley & Sons.
NY, USA (1983).
41 DeCoursey WJ, Thring RW. Effects of
unequal diffusivities on enhancement factors
for reversible and irreversible reaction. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 44(8), 1715–1721 (1989).
42 Winkelman JGM, Brodsky SJ,
Beenackers AACM. Effects of unequal
diffusivities on enhancement factors for
reversible reaction: numerical solutions and
comparison with DeCoursey’s method. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 47(2), 485–489 (1992).
43 DeCoursey WJ. Enhancement factors for gas
absorption with reversible reaction. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 37(10), 1483–1489 (1982).
44 Danckwerts PV, Alper E. Design of gas
absorbers: part III laboratory point model of a
packed column absorber. Trans. Instn. Chem.
Engrs. 53, 34–40 (1975).
45 Alper E, Danckwerts PV. Laboratory
scale-model of a complete column absorber.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 31(7), 599–608 (1976).
288 Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
46 Laurent A, Charpentier JC. The string of
spheres column with pools: a new
experimental laboratory apparatus to
simulate the process of gas–liquid absorption
with chemical reaction in an industrial
packed column. Proc. Conf. Appl. Chem. Unit
Oper. Processes (3rd edition) 419–429 (1977).
47 Danckwerts PV, Gillham AJ. Design of gas
absorbers: part I methods for predicting rates
of absorption. Trans. Instn. Chem. Eng. 44,
42–54 (1966).
n
Conceptual process integration
and corrosion.
48 Sanpasertparnich T, Idem R,
Tontiwachwuthikul T. CO2 absorption in an
absorber column with a series of intercooler
circuits. Proceedings of: The 10th
International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, 19–23 September 2010.
49 Veawab A. Corrosion in CO2 capture unit for
coal-fired power plant flue gas. Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies: Proceeding of: The
6th International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies, 1–4 October 2002.
50 Sanpasertparnich T. Monte Carlo simulation
of pulverized coal-fired power plants:
efficiency improvement and CO2 capture
options. MSc thesis. University of Regina,
Canada (2007).
51 Liang Z. Optimization of post-combustion
amine-based carbon dioxide capture process
to minimize heat requirements for solvent
regeneration. PhD thesis. University of
Regina, Canada (2010).
ƒƒ Websites
101 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.
Capturing CO2
www.ieaghg.org/docs/general_publications/
cocapture.pdf
102 NETL. Carbon dioxide capture from existing
coal-fired power plants. DOE/NETL-
401/110907
www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/
CO2%20Retrofit%20From%20Existing%20
Plants%20Revised%20November%202007.
pdf
103 ITC. International Test Centre for
CO2 Capture
www.co2-research.ca
104 CAPRICE. International Cooperation and
Exchange CO2 Capture Using Amine
Processes.(2009)
www.caprice-project.eu
future science group