Publication:
Adsorptive Capture of CO2 by Amine-Impregnated Activated Carbon, Pumice, and Zeolite 4A

dc.authorscopusid7006498426
dc.authorscopusid57842203400
dc.authorscopusid56126974600
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Bahtiyar
dc.contributor.authorDemiral, Seyda
dc.contributor.authorÖzen, Hülya Aykaç
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-11T00:29:49Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Ozturk, Bahtiyar; Demiral, Seyda; Ozen, Hulya Aykac] Ondokuz Mayis Univ, Engn Fac, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractThis study provides comparative information about CO2 capture of raw and amine-impregnated micro-, meso-, and macroporous support materials. Zeolite 4A (4A), activated carbon (AC), and pumice (P) were used as micro-, meso-, and macroporous support materials, respectively, and monoethanolamine (MEA) and diethanolamine (DEA) were used as the immobilized liquid. Adsorption of CO2 from CO2-N-2 mixtures (3-28%, v/v) was performed in a constant volume-variable pressure cell at 293 +/- 2 K, and desorption of saturated sorbents was carried out at 373 +/- 2 K. The textural properties of the porous supports have been seen to play an important role in amine loading into the pores and the mass transport of CO2 into/from the amine-loaded pores. Among the porous supports, despite its lower surface area, pumice with a macroporous backbone helped immobilization of a large amount of amine and facilitated the CO2 sorption and desorption. Amine loading increased the CO2 capture efficiencies of activated carbon, pumice, and zeolite 4A as 13.4, 19.1, and 5.4 times for MEA and 6.2, 8.8, and 4.1 times for DEA, respectively. It was found that the CO2 release rates from MEA- and DEA-impregnated 4A, AC, and P were 0.215, 0.475, and 0.556 mg CO2 center dot g sorbent(-1)center dot min(-1) and 0.242, 0.580, and 0.670 mg CO2 center dot g sorbent(-1)center dot min(-1), respectively, at 373 +/- 2 K and 1 kPa. The CO2 sorption capacities of the MEA-impregnated support materials from the cyclic operation were affected negatively more than the DEA-impregnated ones and this effect increased from the microporous support material to the macroporous. (c) 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.description.woscitationindexScience Citation Index Expanded
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ghg.2172
dc.identifier.endpage615en_US
dc.identifier.issn2152-3878
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85135789259
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage602en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2172
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/36803
dc.identifier.volume12en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000840119900001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofGreenhouse Gases-Science and Technologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectCO2 Adsorptionen_US
dc.subjectAmine Impregnationen_US
dc.subjectActivated Carbonen_US
dc.subjectPumiceen_US
dc.subjectZeolite 4Aen_US
dc.titleAdsorptive Capture of CO2 by Amine-Impregnated Activated Carbon, Pumice, and Zeolite 4Aen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files