Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T12:12:42.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2026

Siyuan Chen
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester , UK
Chengxu Zhu
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester , UK
Yuxuan Wu
Affiliation:
University of Oxford , UK
Xinyu Liu
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge , UK
Mark Bissett
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester , UK
Zhen Xu*
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester , UK
*
Corresponding author: Zhen Xu; Email: zhen.xu@manchester.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Direct air capture removes CO2 directly from ambient air, where the concentration is ca. 400 ppm (ca. 0.04 vol%) and gas-phase mass transfer is intrinsically challenging. By contrast, seawater typically contains ca. 2.3 mmol L−1 dissolved inorganic carbon, providing a substantially higher aqueous carbon concentration and motivating direct ocean capture (DOC) as a complementary carbon dioxide removal route. This Perspective argues that electrochemical DOC cannot be assessed from cell-level performance alone. Three representative architectures, namely (1) bipolar-membrane electrodialysis, (2) membrane-less chloride-mediated cycling, and (3) electrochemically induced mineralisation, are used as case studies to examine how reported performance translates into system-level operation. Particular emphasis is placed on consistent energy and material boundaries, seawater throughput, durability, balance-of-plant requirements, and air-sea re-equilibration.

Information

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. DOC deployment domains. Conceptual illustration of (i) onshore DOC integrated with coastal infrastructure (e.g., desalination plants and power stations), (ii) offshore DOC co-located with offshore platforms and subseafloor storage options, and (iii) mobile DOC installed on seagoing vessels for in-transit DIC removal and delivery at destination ports. Reproduced with permission (Aleta et al., 2023). Copyright 2023, The Royal Society of Chemistry.Figure 1. long description.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematics of three electrochemical ocean CO2 removal pathways. (a) BPMED: multi-cell configuration showing acid/base seawater channels and ion-transport pathways across CEM = cation exchange membrane, AEM = anion exchange membrane and BPM = bipolar membrane. Reproduced with permission (Eisaman et al., 2012). Copyright 2012, The Royal Society of Chemistry. (b,c) Membrane-less chloride-mediated pH cycling: (b) schematic of the chloride-mediated electrochemical pH swings system for CO2 removal from seawater; (c) Corresponding electrode reactions (Bi/BiOCl and Ag/AgCl) during acidification/regeneration and the associated CO2 release from the acidified seawater. Reproduced with permission (CC BY-NC 3.0) (Kim et al., 2023). Copyright 2023, The Royal Society of Chemistry. (d,e) Electrochemically induced mineralisation: (d) concept of water mineralisation in an electrolytic flow reactor, illustrating the Single-Step Carbon Sequestration and Storage (sCS2) process. Reproduced with permission (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) (La Plante et al., 2021). Copyright 2021 American Chemical Society. (e) CO2 mineralisation via the alkalinization route. Reproduced from (Sharifian et al., 2022) Chemical Engineering Journal, under the CC BY 4.0 license.Figure 2. long description.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Simulated BPMED performance and CO2 bubble effects. (a) Coulombic efficiency and (b) energy intensity of BPMED as a function of current density for electrochemically mediated carbon capture (EMCC) using 1.0 M and 0.5 M KHCO3, and for DOC in simulated seawater. (c) Simulated bubble coverage versus membrane potential for 1.0 M and 0.5 M KHCO3. (d) Simulated energy intensity versus current density with bubble loss (solid) and without bubble loss (dashed). Reproduced with permission (Bui et al., 2023). Copyright 2023, The Royal Society of Chemistry.Figure 3. long description.

Author comment: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R0/PR1

Comments

Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies Editorial Office

Cambridge University Press & Assessment, UK

Re: Invitation to Submit to the Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies

Dear Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies Editorial Office,

Please find enclosed our manuscript entitled “Opportunities and Challenges in Direct Ocean Capture of Carbon Dioxide”, which, following your invitation, we submit for consideration as part of the open themed collection on Innovations in Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Direct ocean capture (DOC) is emerging as a promising and complementary pathway to conventional direct air capture (DAC), leveraging the ocean’s substantially larger carbon reservoir and favourable dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) concentrations. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and critical assessment of DOC technologies, focusing on their underlying mechanisms, device architectures, and system-level challenges.

Specifically, we compare three representative approaches: (1) bipolar membrane electrodialysis; (2) membrane-less chloride-mediated cycling; and (3) electrochemically induced mineralisation. Importantly, we move beyond proof-of-concept discussions by highlighting key scale-up constraints, including balance-of-plant (BoP) penalties, mass transport limitations, and environmental compatibility. We further outline clear research priorities to enable DOC to evolve toward verifiable, continuous, and climate-relevant deployment.

We believe that this work will be of interest to Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies readers, particularly scientists and engineers working in electrochemical CO2 capture and direct ocean capture technologies. This manuscript is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another journal.

We would be grateful for your consideration of this manuscript for publication in Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies.

Yours sincerely,

Zhen Xu

Dame Kathleen Ollerenshaw Fellow

Assistant Professor in Materials Sci. & Eng.

Department of Materials

The University of Manchester, UK

Review: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

General Comments

This manuscript reviews electrochemical DOC, organized around three representative architectures: BPMED, chloride-mediated pH cycling using Bi/Ag electrodes, and electrochemically induced mineralization. The authors summarize the mechanism of each, compile performance figures from the primary literature, and argue that balance-of-plant terms determine net removal and should be treated as core design constraints rather than add-ons.

The closing argument is correct and is the manuscript’s real contribution. The three-level framing (process chemistry, device, system) is also a reasonable way to organize the field. However, I recommend resubmission as a perspective (not a review). The manuscript does not have the depth expected of a review paper, and it does not offer anything to the field beyond what is already available in the review papers. Four primary papers and one modeling study make up the entire technical content, each summarized in the order the authors encountered it and largely following the framing of the original source. There is no comparison across the three systems, no reassessment of any reported number, and no new synthesis. The argument the authors are actually making, that balance-of-plant and net-removal accounting have been under-treated in DOC, would sit naturally as a perspective at this length.

The manuscript also states that energy metrics from BPMED exclude pumping and gas-liquid contacting, then places those numbers next to figures from other systems whose boundaries are never stated, then concludes that balance-of-plant “can determine net removal.” The paper therefore argues against the validity of its own comparison without noticing.

Major Comments

• The authors copy performance numbers from their sources without checking whether those numbers are supported by the other data reported alongside them. Energy intensity, cell voltage, and charge per mole of CO2 are tied together by stoichiometry, so if two are known the third can be calculated. The reported 122 kJ/molCO2 for the chloride-mediated system sets an upper limit on cell voltage once a proton-to-CO2 ratio is assumed, and the seawater bufer pushes that ratio above one. Neither the cell voltage nor the proton requirement is given, so there is no way to tell whether the energy number agrees with the rest of the data. This kind of check is the main thing a review of this field should provde and it is missing throughout.

• The three energy figures are presented as comparable and are not. The BPMED value is stack-only by the authors' own admission, the 122 kJ/mol figure has no stated boundary, and mineralization is given no energy figure at all. Numbers on three different system boundaries cannot be set side by side.

• DAC energy is reported in GJ per ton and DOC energy in kJ/mol, and the authors never convert one to the other. This matters because the conversion determines whether DOC actually holds the energy advantage the paper’s framing implies.

• There is no thermodynamic floor anywhere in the manuscript. Without a minimum work of separation for CO2 from seawater at ambient DIC, the reported energy intensities cannot be judged as good or bad, and the central energy argument has no reference point.

• Ag dissolution at 0.255 mg/L is quoted and then listd among generic durability concerns. Normalized to CO2 captured, this figure may be the binding constraint on the architecture rather than a secondary issue. The basis of the measurement is also not stated, so the reader cannot do the normalization themselves.

• Section 3.2 presents simulation results as if they were measured. Figure 5 is entirely computed output, yet the text states that efficiency “drops sharply,” that bubble coverage shows “a rapid increase,” and that electrolyte dependence “indicates” specific loss mechanisms. The authors also do not say whether bubble coverage on a bipolar membrane has ever been measured in seawater at these current densities. Four consecutive sentences in this section carry the same single citation.

• Durability is named as a challenge repeatedly and quantified nowhere. The longest continuous run achieved by any of the cited systems is not reported, in hours or in cycles. For a review whose central claim concerns scale-up viability, this omission is difficult to justify.

• Air-sea re-equilibration is named in the impact statement as a key constraint and then never discussed in the body. The efficiency of DOC as atmospheric removal depends on how long DIC-depleted water takes to re-equilibrate with air. This is the largest uncertainty in DOC net-removal accounting, and it is also the reason the monitoring and verification problem raised in the conclusions is difficult, though the authors never explain what that problem actually involves.

Minor Comments

• “92% relative faradaic efficiency” is quoted without defining what it is relative to. The qualifier carries substantial weight. Similarly, whether the 87% DIC removal is per pass or cumulative across cycles is not stated, nor is the flow rate.

• Chloride oxidation is mentioned once, for mineralization anodes only. It is a primary concern for every seawater electrochemical system discussed here, including the chloride-mediated route where Cl- is the woking ion. The pH at which decarbonized water is returned to the ocean is also not stated.

• The DAC comparison in Section 2 is one-sided. DAC penalties are enumerated at length while the seawater throughput required per ton of CO2 is never stated, which is the corresponding penalty for DOC.

• Section 3.1 opens with a heading immediately followed by a figure with no introductory text.

Review: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear Editorial Office,

Thank you reaching out for reviewing the manuscript titled: “Opportunities and Challenges in Direct Ocean Capture of Carbon Dioxide”. The manuscript evaluates three main technologies for DOC, namely bipolar-membrane electrodialysis, membrane-less chloride-mediated cycling and electrochemically induced mineralization. Overall, the authors have done commendable work that merits publication pending some minor changes as per the following:

1. Abstract:

a. The phrase “and mass transfer is inherently dilute” does not read well. The last word should be changed to “problematic/hard or something similar”.

b. Adding a numeric value (even if as a theoretical maximum) to the DIC would enhance the comparison with 400 ppm already written there for DAC.

2. Figure 2a – Add some methodology for this. What key words were used for search or in general, what was included/excluded and how.

3. “DOC shifts the bottleneck from gas-solid separation to controlling carbonate speciation and integrating the process in seawater” I am not sure that shifting the bottleneck is the correct phrasing. Considering there still may be a need for further separation/purification of CO2 (from water vapour and/or ambient air). For sure, it facilitates enhanced separation even in gas phase, but “shifting the bottleneck” sounds off.

a. Not necessarily what the authors want to say but maybe something along the lines of “refocuses the key technological question/obstacle”?

4. Size of Figure 4 should be increased to take-up the whole page. It’s hard to read without zooming in, hence, impossible if printed.

5. Please, expand on the operating principles of the BPMED & Membrane-less DIC (e.g. the pHs of streams, etc.).

a. Also, please, expand on the operating principles of the flow-through electrolytic reactor (even if in a sentence or two).

i. The acronym of “sCS²” needs to be introduced prior to first usage in the manuscript.

1. Same as all other acronyms in the manuscript, so, please, double-check.

General comment:

• I am surprised that the SeaCURE project has been left out of this review, especially considering the wording of the impact statement. Being a) recent, b) from the UK (DESNZ-funded) & c) real-world pilot-scale project, it seems as a significant advance of DOC in general fully aligned with the manuscript.

Recommendation: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this manuscript on electrochemical direct ocean capture. The reviewers recognize the value of the manuscript’s framing and, in particular, its emphasis on balance-of-plant requirements and net-removal accounting as critical considerations for DOC deployment. However, the manuscript in its current form does not yet provide the breadth, depth, and critical synthesis expected of a Review article. I encourage you to carefully revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ detailed recommendations and consider one of two pathways for resubmission:

1) Reframe and resubmit the manuscript as a Perspective, focusing more directly on its strongest contribution: the argument that DOC technologies must be evaluated at the system level, including balance-of-plant requirements, consistent energy and system boundaries, durability, air-sea re-equilibration, and net CO₂ removal.

2) If you wish to retain the manuscript as a Review, it will require substantial expansion in both depth and scope. This should include a broader literature base, rigorous cross-technology comparisons using consistent system boundaries and units, verification or reassessment of reported performance metrics, consideration of thermodynamic limits, greater treatment of durability and MRV, and inclusion of relevant recent pilot-scale developments.

Please provide a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been incorporated into the revised manuscript. We would welcome a revised submission for further consideration.

Sincerely,

Handling Editor

Decision: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R1/PR6

Comments

Dear Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies Editorial Office,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Opportunities and Challenges in Direct Ocean Capture of Carbon Dioxide”, submitted as part of the themed collection on Innovations in Carbon Dioxide Removal. We are grateful to the Handling Editor and both reviewers for their constructive comments.

Following their recommendations, we have revised the manuscript and reframed it from a Review into a focused Perspective. The revised manuscript centres on the system-level translation of electrochemical direct ocean capture (DOC), using three representative architectures as case studies to examine how cell-level performance relates to practical scalability and net CO2 removal.

Major revisions include reassessment of reported energy metrics and system boundaries, quantification of seawater throughput and durability, addition of a thermodynamic reference point, expanded discussion of balance-of-plant requirements and SeaCURE, and a new discussion of air-sea re-equilibration and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV). We have also distinguished experimental measurements from model predictions and literature or pilot-scale benchmarks. These changes are detailed in the accompanying point-by-point Response to Reviewers’ Comments.

We thank the Editor and reviewers again for their valuable feedback and would be grateful for your consideration of the revised manuscript for publication in Cambridge Prisms: Carbon Technologies.

Yours sincerely,

Zhen Xu

Review: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Accepting the revised manuscript, but requesting a minor revision for consistency of units & comparison: In Abstract, please, provide a % value for seawater CO2 concentration, similar to the 0.04 vol% for DAC.

Review: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

NA

Comments

all comments addressed

Recommendation: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R1/PR9

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough revision of the manuscript to reframe it as a Perspective. The authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewers’ comments, including strengthening the technical discussion, clarifying the scope and central argument, and improving the overall presentation.

I am pleased to recommend the revised manuscript for acceptance, pending the minor revision suggested by the reviewer.

Thank you and congratulations on the manuscript.

Decision: Opportunities and challenges in direct ocean capture of carbon dioxide — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.