Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T21:53:10.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2026

Jia Yen Lai
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology – Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
Slyvester Yew Wang Chai
Affiliation:
Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
Daniel Nyuin Alfred Damu
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology – Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
Alvin Guo Jian Lee
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology – Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
Lock Hei Ngu*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology – Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
*
Corresponding author: Lock Hei Ngu; Email: lngu@swinburne.edu.my
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One effective strategy for enhancing post-combustion CO2 capture technology is the hybridisation of various capture approaches, which aim to improve separation efficiency, capacity and overall performance compared to standalone methods. While five hybrid CO2 capture processes have been proposed – absorption-based, adsorption-based, membrane-based, cryogenic-based and hybrid chemical looping – this review focuses specifically on the absorption–adsorption hybrid processes. In this system, ionic liquids and other liquid absorbents are impregnated into porous solids such as MCM-41 or activated carbon, or conversely, solid adsorbents are dispersed in liquid absorbents, creating hybrid materials that combine chemical absorption with physical adsorption. This work examines the characteristics of these composites, their CO2 capture performance and the associated advantages in terms of adsorption capacity and recyclability. The challenges of material stability, mass transfer limitations and process complexity are analysed to outline future directions for advancing absorption–adsorption hybrids toward engineering development and industrial application.

Information

Type
Review
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. Schematic diagram of the wet impregnation process for producing amine-impregnated mesoporous silica. Reproduced from brgfx (2024).Figure 1. long description.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the anhydrous grafting of amine species onto the silica surface through a condensation reaction with hydroxyl groups on the silica support. (R group = triamine chains). Reproduced from Chen et al. (2017).Figure 2. long description.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Schematic diagram illustrating the one-pot synthesis of amine-modified silica composite. Reproduced from Xie et al. (2010) and Hubbe et al. (2015) [From “Green modification of surface characteristics of cellulosic materials at the molecular or nano scale: A review,” by M A Hubbe, O J Rojas and L A Lucia, 2015, BioResources, 10(3), p. 6095-6206 (10.15376/biores.10.3.Hubbe). Copyright 2015 by the Author(s).].Figure 3. long description.

Figure 3

Table 1. Comparative analysis of CO2 capture performance in hybrid absorption–adsorption systems using amine-impregnated, amine-grafted and amine-modified silicaTable 1. long description.

Figure 4

Table 2. Comparison of absorption performance of amine-functionalised absorbent materials under varying temperature and pressure conditionsTable 2. long description.

Figure 5

Table 3. Comparison of amine-functionalised silica composite as a CO2 absorbent-adsorbent versus a traditional single absorbentTable 3. long description.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of preparation of carbon-based nanoparticles/liquid amine nanofluid. Reproduced from Zunita et al. (2018) and brgfx (2024). From “Graphene Oxide-Inorganic Composite Membrane: A Review,” by M Zunita, I G B N Makertiharta, R Irawanti, N Prasetya, I G Wenten, 2018, IOP Conference Series : Materials Science & Engineering, 395, p. 1-14 (10.1088/1757-899X/395/1/012005). Copyright 2018 by the Author(s). This work is licensed under CC BY 3.0.Figure 4. long description.

Figure 7

Table 4. Comparative analysis of CO2 capture performance in hybrid absorption–adsorption systems using carbon nanotube (CNT) nanoparticles/liquid amine nano-fluid and GO nanoparticles/liquid amine nano-fluidTable 4. long description.

Figure 8

Table 5. Comparison of carbon-based nanoparticles/liquid amine nano-fluids as a CO2 absorbent–adsorbent versus single traditional absorbentTable 5. long description.

Figure 9

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of functionalising ionic liquids (ILs) onto porous adsorbents, such as MCM-41 or activated carbon. Reproduced from Fellinger (2017). From “Sol–gel carbons from ionothermal syntheses,” by T-P Fellinger, 2017, BioResources, 81(1), p. 52–58 (10.1007/s10971-016-4115-z). Copyright 2017 by the Author(s).Figure 5. long description.

Figure 10

Table 6. Comparative analysis of CO2 capture performance in hybrid absorption–adsorption systems using IL-functionalised adsorbent compositesTable 6. long description.

Figure 11

Table 7. Comparison of IL-functionalised adsorbent composites as a CO2 absorbent-adsorbent versus single traditional adsorbentTable 7. long description.

Figure 12

Table 8. Mapping of mechanistic study to characterisation techniques and the insights they provideTable 8. long description.

Figure 13

Table 9. Strategic roadmap: Priority testing metrics, reporting standards and targets for practical post-combustion deploymentTable 9. long description.

Supplementary material: File

Lai et al. supplementary material

Lai et al. supplementary material
Download Lai et al. supplementary material(File)
File 292.1 KB

Author comment: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

n/a

Comments

This review centres on the ‘absorption-adsorption hybrid CO₂ capture process’, systematically summarising research advances in enhancing carbon capture performance through the synergistic introduction of solid adsorbents and liquid absorbents. The topic aligns with current practical demands for carbon reduction and carbon capture technology development, holding significant importance for improving carbon capture efficiency. The authors have compiled a substantial body of literature, providing comparative summaries of material types, adsorption/absorption capacities, energy consumption, and costs, demonstrating considerable effort. However, the analysis throughout leans towards descriptive and affirmative tones, lacking in-depth, critical discussion of potential issues within hybrid systems, their applicable boundaries, and discrepancies between different research findings. Overall, the article possesses the potential to become a valuable review, but requires substantial revision before publication can be considered.

1. The introduction categorizes several fixed-bed amine-functionalized adsorbent systems (e.g. Fujiki et al., Breault et al.) as absorption-adsorption hybrid systems. These systems do not involve liquid-phase absorption unit operations, but rather chemisorption and desorption occurring entirely within the solid adsorbent. These examples should be classified as adsorption processes using chemically active adsorbents, rather than true absorption-adsorption hybrid processes.

2. Section 2.2 “Carbon-based nanoparticles/liquid amine nanofluids,” proposes four mechanisms, but lacks concrete data to support these mechanisms, including the phenomena and verification methods used to confirm these mechanisms, the dominant mechanism in the presence of multiple mechanisms, and the applicability of each mechanism. A complete chain of evidence is needed to prove these mechanisms.

3. Section 2.3 “Ionic liquid (IL)-functionalized adsorbent composites,” uses various examples but lacks design criteria for material selection. For instance, mass transfer rate limits absorption rate, thermodynamic properties determine regeneration costs, and material stability determines adsorbent cycle life. It is recommended to combine specific data with design criteria.

4. The description of simulation and in-situ characterization in section 3, “Future insights and limitations", is too broad. It could be more specific, focusing on a particular characterization to obtain results on functional groups/reaction sites, which would help in understanding the CO2 capture process; whether the material structure changes during capture; and whether the reaction is reversible, etc. Different characterizations address different, more specific mechanistic questions.

5. The conclusion should ideally point out the development direction of the three types

of the hybrid systems mentioned above, which type is most likely to achieve engineering development, and how to verify it, based on factors such as the current level of technological development, cost, and operational risks.

Review: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This manuscript reviews hybrid absorption–adsorption CO2 capture, focusing on three classes of “hybrid absorbent–adsorbent” materials: amine–silica composites, carbon nanoparticle/amine nanofluids, and ionic liquid (IL)–functionalized adsorbent composites. The topic is timely, and the manuscript compiles a substantial body of reported performance data. I recommend its acceptance following addressing the review comments.

1. The Abstract presents “hybrid processes” broadly (five categories), whereas the main text predominantly discusses hybrid materials (e.g., liquid absorbents impregnated on porous solids, or solids dispersed in liquids) rather than providing a process-relevant discussion. This mismatch in scope and framing should be resolved.

2. The manuscript highlights a CO2 uptake of 110.64 mmol g-1 for NH4OH-modified SBA-15 at 200 bar. The authors use this value to rank amine-grafted materials and support “improvement” narratives. This uptake is exceptionally high for an adsorbent, and the 200-bar condition is far outside the relevance window for post-combustion capture. The authors should verify whether this value reflects a unit/normalization issue or a misinterpretation of the original source and, if valid, clearly treat it as a high-pressure special case rather than mixing it with post-combustion comparisons.

3. Throughout the tables and narrative, capacities are compared across widely varying temperatures, pressures, and feed compositions (e.g., dilute CO2 vs near-pure CO2, including a datapoint at 200 bar). The authors should introduce a standardized reporting framework to report CO2 partial pressure, humidity, and temperature for each datapoint; clearly distinguish equilibrium uptake, working capacity, and dynamic (breakthrough) capacity; and, where normalization is not feasible, stratify results into pressure bins (e.g., 0.05–0.15 bar; 0.15–1 bar; >1 bar).

4. The manuscript reports large “improvements” and wide regeneration-cost ranges, and indicates that costs are calculated using maximum capacities as benchmarks. This approach risks being misleading, because regeneration cost depends strongly on process design, energy source, efficiency, cycling strategy, and working capacity, rather than maximum equilibrium uptake alone. The authors should provide the explicit calculation equations, energy-price assumptions, and system boundaries (e.g., inclusion/exclusion of steam/electricity, compression, solvent makeup, and capital costs) in the Methods or an Appendix. If these estimates cannot be supported rigorously, it would be preferable to remove “$ per ton CO2” from comparative tables and limit the discussion to qualitative trends.

5. Although the Introduction mentions hybrid operating modes (solid suspended in liquid; solvent impregnated on a solid), later sections would benefit from a clearer process engineering perspective, including key contactor configurations (packed beds, slurry bubble columns, structured packings), how hybridization affects mass transfer, pressure drop, and heat management, and how regeneration is practically implemented (e.g., TSA/TVSA, steam stripping, solvent washing). This would better justify the manuscript’s emphasis on “processes and future directions.”

6. Section 2.2 discusses CNT/GO additives in amine solvents and lists proposed mechanisms (e.g., grazing, hydrodynamic effects, coalescence inhibition, Brownian motion), but parts of the narrative conflate gas–liquid mass-transfer/kinetic enhancement with genuine increases in equilibrium loading. The authors should explicitly separate (a) improved mass transfer/absorption kinetics from (b) increased equilibrium CO2 loading and clarify which quantity each cited study actually measured.

7. The Conclusions and “future insights” are directionally appropriate but remain overly general. Given that the manuscript already notes limitations such as amine leaching/degradation and the need for improved stability, and acknowledges that techno-economic evaluations remain insufficient, the authors could convert these points into a concise roadmap. For example, specify priority measurements (e.g., cyclic working capacity under humid flue gas, oxidative stability, realistic regeneration conditions), minimum reporting standards, and performance targets most relevant to post-combustion deployment.

8. For key tables, the authors should add a column for CO2 partial pressure and/or feed composition, and clearly distinguish “not applicable” from “not reported.” Table footnotes should explicitly define how each metric was obtained or derived and indicate any assumptions used.

9. The manuscript contains grammar and phrasing issues (e.g., article usage, hyphenation, pluralization, and inconsistent terminology). A careful professional copyedit would substantially improve readability and perceived rigor.

Recommendation: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests.

Comments

The authors addressed the reviewer’s comments. The manuscript has now met the publication standard. I am happy to accept it in current version.

Review: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

my questions and comments have been fully addressed. I recommend accepting it.

Recommendation: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Advancing CO2 capture: A review of hybrid absorption–adsorption processes and future directions — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.