Next Article in Journal
Miscibility of Phosphatidylcholines in Bilayers: Effect of Acyl Chain Unsaturation
Previous Article in Journal
Current Methods for Identifying Plasma Membrane Proteins as Cancer Biomarkers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Membranes
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/membranes13040410
membranes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Carbon Dioxide Selective Membranes from Low Carbon Emission Sources: A Comparative Study

by
Amit S. Nilkar
1,2,
Christopher J. Orme
1,
John R. Klaehn
1,
Haiyan Zhao
2 and
Birendra Adhikari
1,*
1
Chemical Separations Group, Material Separation and Analysis Department, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID 83415, USA
2
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, The University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Membranes 2023, 13(4), 410; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13040410
Submission received: 8 March 2023 / Revised: 31 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 5 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Membrane Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Carbon capture has been an important topic of the twenty-first century because of the elevating carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere is above 420 parts per million (ppm) as of 2022, 70 ppm higher than 50 years ago. Carbon capture research and development has mostly been centered around higher concentration flue gas streams. For example, flue gas streams from steel and cement industries have been largely ignored due to lower associated CO2 concentrations and higher capture and processing costs. Capture technologies such as solvent-based, adsorption-based, cryogenic distillation, and pressure-swing adsorption are under research, but many suffer from higher costs and life cycle impacts. Membrane-based capture processes are considered cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives. Over the past three decades, our research group at Idaho National Laboratory has led the development of several polyphosphazene polymer chemistries and has demonstrated their selectivity for CO2 over nitrogen (N2). Poly[bis((2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy)phosphazene] (MEEP) has shown the highest selectivity. A comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to determine the life cycle feasibility of the MEEP polymer material compared to other CO2-selective membranes and separation processes. The MEEP-based membrane processes emit at least 42% less equivalent CO2 than Pebax-based membrane processes. Similarly, MEEP-based membrane processes produce 34–72% less CO2 than conventional separation processes. In all studied categories, MEEP-based membranes report lower emissions than Pebax-based membranes and conventional separation processes.

1. Introduction

Climate change has been identified as the most serious environmental threat to human life in the twenty-first century [1]. Climate change is so severe that many big cities developed along the coastline can potentially be underwater in the near future. The risks of flooding have increased simultaneously with the occurrence of historical droughts [2]. Mountains are seeing less snow and an increased frequency of avalanches [3]. Snowcaps are melting in polar regions at an unprecedented rate, threatening marine ecosystems [4].
Among the many causes of global warming, the unprecedentedly high carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the atmosphere is considered the most important cause [5,6]. The level of CO2 has increased by 70 parts per million (ppm) in the air during the last 50 years and by more than 50% since the pre-industrial era [7]. This increase in atmospheric CO2 matches CO2 emissions, which have gone up by more than 90% since 1970 [8]. Far more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than what is consumed by photosynthesis or other storage processes [9]. The formation of natural oil and gas takes millions of years but will be consumed in a hundred years at the current pace. The burning of natural gas and oil produces CO2 that goes directly into the atmosphere. Devices associated with daily life also contain embedded CO2 emissions [10]. Indirect emissions of CO2 are measured by the manufacturing, transportation, and use of those items throughout their lifetime.
Human daily activities can not be paused. Energy sources such as electricity, heat, and gasoline drive our daily activities. Energy is needed for transportation, household life, and many other activities. Every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electrical energy use, every gallon of gasoline burnt, or every therm of heat generated has an equivalent associated CO2 emission [11,12]. This means that CO2 will be emitted continuously as long as energy is consumed. While pausing energy consumption is not an option, capturing emitted CO2 can achieve a carbon-based sustainable circular economy. The captured CO2 can be either reclaimed to make more energy by converting it to fuels and chemicals [5,13,14], used as a medium to do other activities such as enhanced oil recovery, or stored in a stable form, as done in mineralization [15,16,17,18].
Potential methods for capturing CO2 have been identified; however, it has yet to be widely adopted and commercialized [19]. Chemical absorption into liquid solvents from gas streams, at present, is the most widely accepted form of capturing CO2 [20]. However, the cost, reusability, and life cycle impacts of solvent-based processes make them unattractive [21]. In addition, solvent-based processes often require significant processing equipment, where the cost and life cycle impacts of the capital equipment alone are very high [22]. This has prompted researchers to lean towards more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable carbon capture alternatives. Technologies such as pressure swing adsorption [23] and cryogenic distillations [24] are also considered alternatives to solvent-based capture but have high capital and energy cost, thus making them environmentally unsustainable [25,26]. Membranes are usually more environmentally friendly than other technologies [27,28,29,30,31]. Membranes are known to have lower environmental footprints, and since no solvents are being used in most membrane technologies, their operating cost is lower [32]. However, the capital cost is usually higher for membrane processes [33]. In comparison to other processes, product purity of membrane processes is often lower, thus needing further processing [34]. Membranes have been considered for carbon capture and utilization recently due to their advantages over other systems due to lower carbon footprint, process simplicity, low production cost, ease of operation, compactness, and scale-up feasibility [35]. Membranes with high CO2 permeance and CO2/N2 selectivity possess great potential to capture CO2 from any feed gas, including air; however, most membrane technologies still need to be thoroughly investigated for this application [36].
Direct air capture (DAC) has been increasingly become a focus of research in recent years as a means of capturing CO2 from the air. State-of-art DAC processes operate by sucking in air through large fans, which is treated with a solid or liquid sorbent and then heated to extract CO2 [37]. However, the concentration of CO2 is very small (approximately 420 ppm) compared to flue gases from industrial carbon sources, making the processing volume unsustainably high [38,39].
Low-concentration carbon capture, such as exhaust gases from industries such as cement and steel [40], has been ignored because of the high cost of capture and high environmental footprints [41]. Membranes give the best and most cost-effective separation options [42,43,44,45,46]. Our research group has developed membranes that can enrich CO2 concentration from low carbon emitting sources using the concept of low-concentration CO2 enrichment [47]. Over the course of last three decades, several unique polyphosphazenes have been developed for a variety of applications [43,44,45,46,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Among these polyphosphazenes, poly[bis((2-methoxyethoxy)ethoxy) phosphazene (MEEP, Figure 1) is a specialty polymer that can fabricate thin, self-healing CO2/N2 selective membranes [59]. These polymers tend to have flexible chains that permit fast gas transport and gas solubility difference for CO2 and N2, and because of this special trait, have shown excellent CO2/N2 selectivity and CO2 permeability. Furthermore, these polymers can be made extremely thin so that the cost of production can be minimized. In addition, this polymer material is durable and can be blended with other materials, such as C18 functionalized nanodiamonds, to enhance mechanical properties [28,60].
For CO2/N2 separation, Pebax elastomers from Arkema are used to develop state-of-art membranes with high CO2/N2 selectivity and CO2 permeability. Emerging CO2 selective membranes are always compared against pristine Pebax or Pebax derivatives. To quantify the environmental advantages of these membranes over other membrane and separation technologies, a detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) is necessary. A detailed life cycle assessment is performed and reported in this manuscript using the United States Department of Energy (US DOE) developed Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy in Transportation model and database, commonly known as GREET. Techno-economic analysis (TEA) results are reported separately (see Supplementary). The basis of CO2 separation is 1% CO2 in nitrogen for MEEP membranes, while the basis of separation parameters for other membranes is reported in the literature and illustrated in Table 1. Most membranes have used pure gas measurements and some have used 50/50 CO2/N2 mix.

2. Methods

2.1. Goal and Scope

LCA is a recent methodical approach gaining popularity over the last three decades. It is a methodology used to analyze a product’s environmental impact at every stage of its “life”, from start to finish, often referred to as “cradle to grave” [62]. LCA calculates environmental releases corresponding to a product, starting with the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, transport, and the use and disposal of the product. LCA is a valuable and powerful tool in determining the effects caused by a product and the production process of that product and whether it does more harm to the environment than good. Our analysis assumes that the energy extracted and produced is in the United States. The functional unit of our study is 1 kg of CO2 produced in CO2 enrichment; CO2 is the final product. The database was obtained from GREET, a fuel-cycle model that Argonne National Laboratory of US DOE developed. The model calculates fuel cycle emissions of six pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, and three greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide [63]. The model is also used to calculate the effects of different energy sources, emissions of different transportation technologies, and the different assumptions used to reach their respective conclusions. The values were directly extracted from the GREET database and displayed on an Excel spreadsheet, which was used for the subsequent life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA). From the LCIA, the total impact of the system was calculated based on four impact categories. The impact categories that were used in this study are: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), respiratory effects (RE), and fossil fuel depletion (FFDP). GWP refers to potential of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions into the air by gases such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Each has its potency for CO2. For example, methane has been determined to be 25 times more potent than CO2 for its effect on climate change [64]. This impact category is measured in kg of CO2 equivalent per functional unit. RE is a measure of the amount of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns or less in width emitted from the process that can cause respiratory problems. It is measured in kg of PM 2.5 equivalent per functional unit. AP is an evaluation of the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions caused from the process. It is measured in kg of SO2 equivalent per functional unit. FFDP is an indicator of the amount of fossil fuel the process consumes. It is measured in megajoules (MJ) per functional unit. These were the impact categories that could be determined from the data obtained from GREET. Associated results and sensitivity analysis are completed to understand the overall life cycle aspects of the membrane processes [65].
For a process to be sustainable, it has to be economically and environmentally sustainable [66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. Comparative LCA is performed for different electricity mixes, including the current US Mix, capital equipment and membrane materials involved in producing the enriched gas products [73,74]. Our study focuses on the comparison of the life cycle emission of two different INL gas separation membrane processes: (i) MEEP-only membrane (MEEP membrane) and (ii) MEEP with C18 functionalized nanodiamonds (MEEP/CND membrane), respectively, and several Pebax-derived membranes including pristine Pebax membranes (Pebax lower end (Pebax LE) membrane and Pebax higher end (Pebax HE)), and nanofillers filled membranes, such as Pebax ZIF-8. Membrane processes with one stage (single-staged), two stages (double-staged), and three stages (triple-staged) processes have been considered and analyzed.

2.2. Processes Studied

In this study, membranes are evaluated using several known LCA categories. Our study covers the LCA of a set of 15 commercial membranes in three different-staged scenarios along with two INL membranes. It compares the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental feasibility categories using the GREET model and database. The basis of CO2 separation is 1% CO2 in nitrogen (1%) while the basis of separation parameters obtained for other membranes is as reported in the literature and illustrated in Table 1. Most membranes have used pure gas measurements and some have used 50/50 CO2/N2 mix.

2.3. System Boundary

The CO2 enrichment system consists of three membrane systems in series, as shown in Figure 2. A vacuum pump is installed on the permeate side of the membrane to facilitate mass transport, a common technique in industrial-scale processes. The pump size, the first gas separation unit, and the vacuum component are all dependent upon the amount of feed gas that is being supplied, the selectivity of CO2 and N2, and the CO2 permeability of the membrane. Following the first system, the membrane systems, including the compressor and vacuum components, are optional and chosen according to the process design. A second gas separation system follows the first unit in sequence, where the permeate of the first system becomes the feed to the second. A third unit is also considered and operated similarly in the proposed model. Figure 2a depicts the process flow diagram of triple staged membrane system:

2.4. Life Cycle Inventory

Table 2 summarizes the material and energy inputs to the membrane system. The life cycle inventory (LCI) includes the activities to produce 1 kg of CO2 for each kg of CO2 the system avoids. The inputs are the same, irrespective of how many membranes are used in the system. The unit processes for different input materials used in excel to analyze the environmental impacts are summarized in Table 2.
The membrane system and modules are made from stainless steel material, and membrane materials are assumed to be equivalent to polypropylene material.

2.5. Impact Assessment

This study uses GREET-defined impact categories: global warming potential, acidification potential, respiratory effects, and fossil fuel depletion potential.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Life Cycle Assessment: Single-Stage Process

A single-stage membrane process is considered to enrich 1% CO2 in N2 to 28% CO2 in N2. This purity is achieved by recovering 90% of CO2 present in the feed gas in the permeate. The membrane area and number of membrane modules needed for the process were calculated based on CO2/N2 selectivity, CO2 permeability, membrane thickness and operating parameters such as compressor pressure and vacuum pressure. The mass allocation method was used to evaluate the environmental impacts of producing 1 kg of CO2 per kg of CO2 avoided by the membrane. For a better understanding, Figure 3 shows the contribution of each component to the total environmental impact of a single-stage membrane process with MEEP, MEEP/CN, Pebax LE, Pebax HE and Pebax ZIF-8 membranes. The percentage contribution of each input is compared using a 100% stacked column bar chart. It is clear from the chart that capital equipment, membrane material, and energy used in the membrane processes are significant in each process studied. While comparing two MEEP-based INL membranes against three Pebax-based membranes in four major environmental impact categories, it is found that for MEEP-based INL membranes, electricity has the highest impact in all the categories studied. Membrane materials have the highest impact on Pebax-based membranes in GWP, AP, and FFDP categories, while capital equipment has the highest impact in the RE category. This indicates that MEEP-based INL membranes use less membrane material and capital equipment, making electricity the highest contributor. Pebax-based membranes use a high amount of capital equipment and membrane material, and as a result, electricity becomes a lesser contributor. Pebax ZIF-8 membrane material has the highest membrane material contribution.

3.2. Life Cycle Assessment: Two-Stage Process

Figure 4a,e show the percentage contribution of each of the five membranes in a two-stage process using a 100% stacked column bar chart. In this scenario, CO2 is enriched from 1% in N2 to 94% CO2 in N2 in two stages. Each stage has a 90% recovery of CO2. Other parameters are the same as in the single-stage system.
Membrane material and capital equipment contribute the most significant environmental impact for three Pebax-based membranes, but electricity still contributes the most environmental impact for MEEP-based INL membranes. This trend is similar to that seen in the single-stage process, indicating that MEEP-based membrane processes use far less membrane materials and capital equipment than the Pebax-based membrane processes.

3.3. Life Cycle Assessment: Three-Stage Process

Figure 5a,e show the percentage contribution of each of the five membranes in a three-stage process using a 100% stacked column bar chart. CO2 is enriched from 1% CO2 in N2 to >99% CO2 in N2 using three stages and 90% CO2 is recovered in each stage. All other parameters are kept constant as in single-stage and two-stage membrane processes.
Figure 5c–e indicate that membrane material and capital equipment contribute the highest impact amongst the three Pebax-based membranes, compared to the two MEEP-based INL membranes (Figure 5a,b), where electricity contributes the highest environmental impacts. This trend is like those in the single- and two-stage membrane processes. This suggests that MEEP-based INL membranes perform relatively consistently at varied purity levels. Capital equipment requirements drive membrane-based carbon capture processes, while MEEP-based capture processes are driven by electricity consumption from the standpoint of life cycle impact.

3.4. Comparison to Other Membrane Processes

MEEP-based INL membranes were compared against each Pebax-based membrane, as illustrated in Table 3. These results represent a single-stage separation system with CO2 enriched from 1% CO2 in N2 to 28% CO2 in N2 in one stage. The separation properties of these membranes are given in Table 1. Four impact categories are computed for each membrane and compared against one another. Among all the analyzed membranes, MEEP and MEEP/CN membranes have the lowest impacts in all categories. Alone, the MEEP membrane has GWP emissions of 4.40 × 10−2 kg CO2 eq/kg CO2 avoided, and the MEEP/CN membrane has GWP emissions of 4.42 × 10−2 kg CO2 eq/kg CO2 avoided. State-of-the-art membranes Pebax LE and Pebax HE membranes have GWP emissions of 0.163 kg CO2 eq/kg CO2 avoided and 7.53 × 10−2 kg CO2 eq/kg CO2 avoided, respectively. This suggests that from GWP standpoint, MEEP membranes show a 73% performance improvement over the Pebax LE membrane and a 42% performance improvement over the Pebax HE membrane. In all other categories, MEEP and MEEP/CN membranes perform 50% better than Pebax LE and Pebax HE membranes and outperform all other membranes.

3.5. Comparison to Other Separation Processes

In this section, other major technologies are compared against MEEP and MEEP/CN membrane processes. Given the complexity of each process, GWP and AP for energy use for each separation process were compared. It is important to understand that most of the separation processes are dominated by capital equipment costs while MEEP and MEEP/CN processes are driven by electrical energy demands. Khoo et. al. compared chemical absorption, generic membrane separation, cryogenic distillation, and pressure swing adsorption in terms of equivalent CO2 emission per 950 kg of CO2 captured with varying efficiencies [75]. Those results were compared with the MEEP-based membrane process by converting units to kg CO2 emitted per kg of CO2 avoided. Regarding GWP, chemical absorption, cryogenic distillation, and pressure swing adsorption processes emit 0.087, 0.209 and 0.213 kg CO2 per kg of CO2 avoided, respectively. This suggests that the MEEP-based membrane process emits 34%, 72%, and 72% less CO2 than chemical absorption, cryogenic distillation, and pressure swing adsorption processes, respectively. For AP, cryogenic distillation, chemical absorption, and pressure swing adsorption emit 7.26 × 10−4, 3.79 × 10−4 and 2.06 × 10−4 kg SO2 per kg of CO2 emitted, respectively. This implies that the MEEP-based separation process emits 95%, 91%, and 83% less SO2 than cryogenic distillation, chemical absorption, and pressure swing adsorption separation processes, respectively. The following Figure 6 summarizes carbon capture and utilization (CCU) comparisons.

3.6. Sensitivity Analysis ᷇

A sensitivity analysis was conducted and tornado charts were plotted based on a 10% change in the inputs to the system in terms of GWP [65]. This analysis helps to identify the most sensitive input for a specific impact category. The five membranes considered for the staging evaluations were again considered for sensitivity analysis. A single-stage membrane process is the basis of sensitivity analysis.
For the MEEP membrane process, a 10% increase in electricity and membrane material demands resulted in an 8.42% and 1.47% increase in GWP, respectively. However, a 10% increase in capital equipment requirements resulted in an increase of 0.1% in GWP. For the MEEP/CN membrane single-stage process, a 10% increase in electricity demand resulted in a 9.14% increase in GWP. Similarly, a 10% increase in membrane material and capital equipment requirements resulted in only 0.81% and 0.05% increases in GWP, respectively. This indicates that the electricity required to drive the process is the most significant factor affecting the MEEP-based membrane process.
For the Pebax LE membrane process, a 10% increase in membrane material requirements resulted in a 7.22% increase in GWP, while a 10% increase in electricity consumption resulted in a 2.27% increase in GWP. A 10% increase in capital equipment requirements resulted in an increase in GWP of 0.51%. For the Pebax HE membrane process, a 10% increase in electricity and membrane material demands resulted in a 3.61% and 5.98% increase in GWP, respectively. However, a 10% increase in capital equipment requirements resulted in only a 0.42% increase in GWP. Similarly, for the Pebax ZIF-8 single stage process, a 10% increase in membrane material requirements resulted in a 9.30% increase; a 10% increase in capital equipment and electricity requirements resulted in only a 0.65% and 0.05% increase in GWP, respectively. This once again indicates that for MEEP-based membrane processes, electricity is the most dominant factor. In contrast, for Pebax-based membrane processes, the membrane material is the most dominant factor from the standpoint of GWP emissions. Figure 7 summarizes these results.

4. Conclusions

A comprehensive LCA of gas separation processes was performed using the GREET database by developing a Microsoft Excel-based model. Multiple scenarios of the CO2/N2 separation using Pebax-based membranes were compared with MEEP-based INL membranes in single-stage, two-stage, and three-stage processes. The results obtained in this study suggest that the MEEP-based INL membranes outperform Pebax-based membranes in all studied categories. The most significant contributor to GWP and all other LCA metrics for the Pebax-based membrane processes is the membrane material utilized. For the MEEP-based INL membrane processes, electrical energy consumption is the most significant contributor to GWP. The MEEP-based membrane processes emit at least 42% less equivalent CO2 than the best-performing Pebax-based membrane process. Similarly, MEEP-based membrane processes produce 34–72% less CO2 than conventional state-of-the-art separation processes such as cryogenic distillation, pressure swing adsorption, and chemical absorption. The two MEEP-based membranes emit lower emissions in all major categories studied than all Pebax-based membranes and other state-of-the-art conventional CO2 separation processes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/membranes13040410/s1, Table S1: Scenario inputs for the analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.A.; methodology, B.A., A.S.N.; software, A.S.N.; validation, B.A., A.S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A., A.S.N.; writing—review and editing, B.A., A.S.N., J.R.K., C.J.O., H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This manuscript has been authored by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (Idaho National Laboratory) under Contract No. DE-AC07-05ID14517 through the Department of Energy via Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. The authors would like to thank Caleb C. Stetson for technical edits of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hereher, M.E. Climate Change during the Third Millennium—The Gulf Cooperation Council Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Monforte, I.; Evangelista, G.; Claps, P. Flooding Risk from Global Warming in Alpine Basins: An Estimate along a Stream Network. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2022, 21, 22. [Google Scholar]
  3. Fazzini, M.; Cordeschi, M.; Carabella, C.; Paglia, G.; Esposito, G.; Miccadei, E. Snow Avalanche Assessment in Mass Movement-Prone Areas: Results from Climate Extremization in Relationship with Environmental Risk Reduction in the Prati di Tivo Area (Gran Sasso Massif, Central Italy). Land 2021, 10, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Editorial Board. News. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 156, 111308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Diaz, L.A.; Gao, N.; Adhikari, B.; Lister, T.E.; Dufek, E.J.; Wilson, A.D. Electrochemical production of syngas from CO2 captured in switchable polarity solvents. Green Chem. 2018, 20, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Florides, G.A.; Christodoulides, P. Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Carbon Dioxide Now More than 50% Higher than Pre-Industrial Levels. Available online: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels (accessed on 16 January 2023).
  8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data (accessed on 16 January 2023).
  9. Althor, G.; Watson, J.E.M.; Fuller, R.A. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 20281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adhikari, B.; Chowdhury, N.A.; Diaz, L.A.; Jin, H.; Saha, A.K.; Shi, M.; Klaehn, J.R.; Lister, T.E. Electrochemical leaching of critical materials from lithium-ion batteries: A comparative life cycle assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 193, 106973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Hua, H.; Lund, P.D.; Wang, J. Exergo-environmental cost optimization of a solar-based cooling and heating system considering equivalent emissions of life-cycle chain. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 258, 115534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marocco, P.; Gandiglio, M.; Audisio, D.; Santarelli, M. Assessment of the role of hydrogen to produce high-temperature heat in the steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 388, 135969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, X.; Zhang, G.; Song, C.; Guo, X. Catalytic Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol: Current Status and Future Perspective. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 8, 621119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dowson, G.R.M.; Styring, P. Demonstration of CO2 Conversion to Synthetic Transport Fuel at Flue Gas Concentrations. Front. Energy Res. 2017, 5, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zevenhoven, R.; Fagerlund, J. 16—Mineralisation of carbon dioxide (CO2). In Developments and Innovation in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Capture and Storage Technology; Maroto-Valer, M.M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 433–462. [Google Scholar]
  16. Naraharisetti, P.K.; Yeo, T.Y.; Bu, J. New classification of CO2 mineralization processes and economic evaluation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 99, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Núñez-López, V.; Moskal, E. Potential of CO2-EOR for Near-Term Decarbonization. Front. Clim. 2019, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Perera, M.S.A.; Gamage, R.P.; Rathnaweera, T.D.; Ranathunga, A.S.; Koay, A.; Choi, X. A Review of CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery with a Simulated Sensitivity Analysis. Energies 2016, 9, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Folger, P.F. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States; Congressional Research Service 2017. In Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States; Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cui, Z.; deMontigny, D. Part 7: A review of CO2capture using hollow fiber membrane contactors. Carbon Manag. 2014, 4, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oko, E.; Wang, M.; Joel, A.S. Current status and future development of solvent-based carbon capture. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Heldebrant, D.J.; Kothandaraman, J.; Mac Dowell, N.; Brickett, L. Next steps for solvent-based CO2 capture; integration of capture, conversion, and mineralisation. Chem. Sci. 2022, 13, 6445–6456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Siqueira, R.M.; Freitas, G.R.; Peixoto, H.R.; Nascimento, J.F.d.; Musse, A.P.S.; Torres, A.E.B.; Azevedo, D.C.S.; Bastos-Neto, M. Carbon Dioxide Capture by Pressure Swing Adsorption. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 2182–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Font-Palma, C.; Cann, D.; Udemu, C. Review of Cryogenic Carbon Capture Innovations and Their Potential Applications. C 2021, 7, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Song, C.; Liu, Q.; Deng, S.; Li, H.; Kitamura, Y. Cryogenic-based CO2 capture technologies: State-of-the-art developments and current challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Machida, H.; Hashiride, R.; Niinomi, R.; Yanase, K.; Hirayama, M.; Umeda, Y.; Norinaga, K. An Alternative CO2 Capture with a Pressure Swing Amine Process Driven by Cryogenic Pumping with the Unused Cold Energy of Liquefied Natural Gas. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 15908–15914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giordano, L.; Roizard, D.; Favre, E. Life cycle assessment of post-combustion CO2 capture: A comparison between membrane separation and chemical absorption processes. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2018, 68, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stewart, F.F.; Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R.; Adhikari, B.; Shenderova, O.A.; Nunn, N.A.; Torelli, M.D.; McGuire, G.E.; Lee, T.H.; Balachandran, U. Mixed Matrix Membranes, and related gas separation membrane apparatuses, gaseous fluid treatment Systems, and Methods. U.S. Patent Application 17/174,796, 12 August 2021. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pellegrino, J.J.; Nassimbene, R.; Noble, R.D. Facilitated transport of CO2 through highly swollen ion-exchange membranes: The effect of hot glycerine pretreatment. Gas Sep. Purif. 1988, 2, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khalilpour, R.; Mumford, K.; Zhai, H.; Abbas, A.; Stevens, G.; Rubin, E.S. Membrane-based carbon capture from flue gas: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adhikari, B.; Orme, C.J.; Jones, M.G.; Wendt, D.S.; Mines, G.L.; Wilson, A.D. Diffusion membrane generation of 1-cyclohexylpiperidinium bicarbonate. J. Membr. Sci. 2019, 583, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pellegrino, J.J.; Giarratano, P. Ion-exchange membranes for bulk separation of H2S and CO2. In Proceedings of the US Department of Energy Contractors Review Meeting on Fuel Cells, Morgantown, WV, USA, 14–15 July 1992. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mores, P.L.; Arias, A.M.; Scenna, N.J.; Mussati, M.C.; Mussati, S.F. Cost-based comparison of multi-stage membrane configurations for carbon capture from flue gas of power plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2019, 86, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhao, L.; Menzer, R.; Riensche, E.; Blum, L.; Stolten, D. Concepts and investment cost analyses of multi-stage membrane systems used in post-combustion processes. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yeo, Z.Y.; Chew, T.L.; Zhu, P.W.; Mohamed, A.R.; Chai, S.-P. Conventional processes and membrane technology for carbon dioxide removal from natural gas: A review. J. Nat. Gas Chem. 2012, 21, 282–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tong, Z.; Ho, W.S.W. Facilitated transport membranes for CO2 separation and capture. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 156–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ozkan, M.; Nayak, S.P.; Ruiz, A.D.; Jiang, W. Current status and pillars of direct air capture technologies. iScience 2022, 25, 103990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sabatino, F.; Grimm, A.; Gallucci, F.; van Sint Annaland, M.; Kramer, G.J.; Gazzani, M. A comparative energy and costs assessment and optimization for direct air capture technologies. Joule 2021, 5, 2047–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fujikawa, S.; Selyanchyn, R.; Kunitake, T. A new strategy for membrane-based direct air capture. Polym. J. 2021, 53, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fennell, P.; Driver, J.; Bataille, C.; Davis, S. Cement and steel—nine steps to net zero. Nature 2022, 603, 574–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, J.W.; Ahn, H.; Kim, S.; Kang, Y.T. Low-concentration CO2 capture system with liquid-like adsorbent based on monoethanolamine for low energy consumption. J. Clean Prod. 2023, 390, 136141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Adhikari, B.; Jones, M.G.; Orme, C.J.; Wendt, D.S.; Wilson, A.D. Compatibility study of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes with 1-cyclohexylpiperidenium bicarbonate solutions. J. Membr. Sci. 2017, 527, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wilson, A.D.; Wendt, D.S.; Orme, C.J.; Adhikari, B.; Ginosar, D.M. Methods and Systems for Treating an Aqueous Solution. U.S. Patent 11,261,111, 1 March 2022. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stewart, F.F.; Harrup, M.K.; Orme, C.J.; Luther, T.A. Phosphazene membranes for gas separations. U.S. Patent 7,074,256 B2, 11 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilson, A.D.; Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R.; Adhikari, B.; Stewart, F.F.; Snyder, S.W. Methods, Systems, and Apparatuses for Treating Fluids Using Thermal Gradient Osmosis. U.S. Patent Application 17/009,360, 4 March 2021. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilson, A.D.; Wendt, D.S.; Orme, C.J.; Mines, G.L.; Jones, M.G.; Adhikari, B. Methods and Systems for Treating a Switchable Polarity Material, and Related Methods of Liquid Treatment. U.S. Patent 10,195,543, 5 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ghasemzadeh, K.; Tilebon, S.M.S.; Basile, A. Chapter 5—Membrane technologies for exhaust gas cleaning and carbon capture and sequestration. In Current Trends and Future Developments on (Bio-) Membranes; Basile, A., Spazzafumo, G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 97–123. [Google Scholar]
  48. Orme, C.J.; McNally, J.S.; Klaehn, J.R.; Stewart, F.F. Mixed substituent ether-containing polyphosphazene/poly(bis-phenoxyphosphazene) blends as membranes for CO2 separation from N-2. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2021, 138, 50207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kusuma, V.A.; McNally, J.S.; Baker, J.S.; Tong, Z.; Zhu, L.X.; Orme, C.J.; Stewart, F.F.; Hopkinson, D.P. Cross-Linked Polyphosphazene Blends as Robust CO2 Separation Membranes. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 30787–30795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R.; Harrup, M.K.; Luther, T.A.; Peterson, E.S.; Stewart, F.F. Gas permeability in rubbery polyphosphazene membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 280, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Orme, C.J.; Stewart, F.F. Mixed gas hydrogen sulfide permeability and separation using supported polyphosphazene membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 253, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luther, T.A.; Stewart, F.F.; Budzien, J.L.; LaViolette, R.A.; Bauer, W.F.; Harrup, M.K.; Allen, C.W.; Elayan, A. On the mechanism of ion transport through polyphosphazene solid polymer electrolytes: NMR, IR, and Raman spectroscopic studies and computational analysis of N-15-labeled polyphosphazenes. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 3168–3176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Orme, C.J.; Harrup, M.K.; McCoy, J.D.; Weinkauf, D.H.; Stewart, F.F. Pervaporation of water-dye, alcohol-dye, and water-alcohol mixtures using a polyphosphazene membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2002, 197, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stewart, F.F.; Orme, C.J.; Harrup, M.K.; Lash, R.P.; Weinkauf, D.H.; McCoy, J.D. Membrane separations using functionalized polyphosphazene materials. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. S 2001, 222, U393. [Google Scholar]
  55. Orme, C.J.; Harrup, M.K.; Luther, T.A.; Lash, R.P.; Houston, K.S.; Weinkauf, D.H.; Stewart, F.F. Characterization of gas transport in selected rubbery amorphous polyphosphazene membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 186, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lister, T.E.; Dufek, E.J.; Wilson, A.D.; Aldana, L.A.D.; Adhikari, B.; Gao, N. Methods and Systems for the Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Using Switchable Polarity Materials. U.S. Patent 10,975,477, 13 April 2021. [Google Scholar]
  57. Klaehn, J.R.; Orme, C.J.; Wilson, A.D.; Adhikari, B.; Stewart, F.F.; Snyder, S.W. Thermally Reflective Membrane Apparatuses, and Related Fluid Treatment Systems and Methods. U.S. Patent Application 17/009,421, 4 March 2021. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wendt, L.M.; Wahlen, B.D.; Adhikari, B. Methods of Producing Succinic Acid from a Biomass. U.S. Patent Application 17/652,835, 1 September 2022. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sekizkardes, A.K.; Budhathoki, S.; Zhu, L.; Kusuma, V.; Tong, Z.; McNally, J.S.; Steckel, J.A.; Yi, S.; Hopkinson, D. Molecular design and fabrication of PIM-1/polyphosphazene blend membranes with high performance for CO2/N2 separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2021, 640, 119764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ge, Z.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y. Free Energy Calculation of Nanodiamond-Membrane Association—The Effect of Shape and Surface Functionalization. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 2751–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adhikari, B.; Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R. Techno-economic analysis of carbon dioxide enrichment from low carbon sources using membranes. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 36, 35. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ayres, R.U. Life cycle analysis: A critique. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1995, 14, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, M.Q. GREET 1.0—Transportation Fuel Cycles Model: Methodology and Use; Argonne National Lab.(ANL): Argonne, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sutar, D.D.; Jadhav, S.V. Life cycle assessment of methanol production by natural gas route. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 57, 1559–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall, T.; Frischknecht, R.; Hunkeler, D.; Norris, G.; Rydberg, T.; Schmidt, W.P.; Suh, S.; Weidema, B.P.; Pennington, D.W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 701–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adhikari, B.; Lister, T.E.; Reddy, R.G. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of aluminum electrorefining from mixed scraps using ionic liquid. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 33, 932–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Neupane, G.; Adhikari, B.; Wiggins, A. Assessment of Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Produced Geothermal Power in Imperial County, California. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 7 February 2022–9 February 2022; p. Medium: ED. [Google Scholar]
  68. Adhikari, B.; Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R.; Stewart, F.F. Technoeconomic analysis of oxygen-nitrogen separation for oxygen enrichment using membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 268, 118703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wendt, D.; Adhikari, B.; Orme, C.; Wilson, A. Produced water treatment using the switchable polarity solvent forward osmosis (SPS FO) desalination process: Preliminary engineering design basis. In Proceedings of the Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting, Sacramento, CA, USA, 23–26 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  70. Adhikari, B.; Pellegrino, J. Life-cycle assessment of five microalgae-to-biofuels processes of varying complexity. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 043136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Adhikari, B.; Pellegrino, J. Separation Challenges and Optimizations of Sustainable Algal and Lignocellulose Based Biofuels; University of Colorado Boulder: Boulder, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  72. Amer, L.; Adhikari, B.; Pellegrino, J. Technoeconomic analysis of five microalgae-to-biofuels processes of varying complexity. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 9350–9359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Diaz, L.A.; Strauss, M.L.; Adhikari, B.; Klaehn, J.R.; McNally, J.S.; Lister, T.E. Electrochemical-assisted leaching of active materials from lithium ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Diaz, L.A.; Strauss, M.L.; Adhikari, B.; Klaehn, J.R.; McNally, J.S.; Lister, T.E. Electrochemical-assisted leaching of active materials from lithium ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 175, 105857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Khoo, H.H.; Tan, R.B.H. Life Cycle Investigation of CO2 Recovery and Sequestration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4016–4024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Membranes 13 00410 g001
Figure 1. Chemical structure of MEEP.
Figure 1. Chemical structure of MEEP.
Membranes 13 00410 g001
Membranes 13 00410 g002
Figure 2. (a) Process flow diagram (PFD) of CO2 enrichment system and (b) system boundary for the life cycle analysis.
Figure 2. (a) Process flow diagram (PFD) of CO2 enrichment system and (b) system boundary for the life cycle analysis.
Membranes 13 00410 g002
Membranes 13 00410 g003
Figure 3. Analysis of contributions of the single-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Figure 3. Analysis of contributions of the single-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Membranes 13 00410 g003
Membranes 13 00410 g004
Figure 4. Analysis of contributions of the two-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Figure 4. Analysis of contributions of the two-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Membranes 13 00410 g004
Membranes 13 00410 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of contributions of the three-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Figure 5. Analysis of contributions of the three-stage CO2 enrichment process with (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membranes.
Membranes 13 00410 g005
Membranes 13 00410 g006
Figure 6. (a) Comparison of GWP of CCUs. (b) Comparison of AP of CCUs.
Figure 6. (a) Comparison of GWP of CCUs. (b) Comparison of AP of CCUs.
Membranes 13 00410 g006
Membranes 13 00410 g007
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis of GWP by increasing and decreasing by 10% membrane material, capital equipment, and electricity requirements of (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membrane processes.
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis of GWP by increasing and decreasing by 10% membrane material, capital equipment, and electricity requirements of (a) MEEP, (b) MEEP/CN, (c) Pebax LE, (d) Pebax HE, and (e) Pebax ZIF-8 membrane processes.
Membranes 13 00410 g007
Table 1. Membranes studied in this manuscript [61].
Table 1. Membranes studied in this manuscript [61].
MembraneMembrane Thickness (µm)Feed Gas (CO2 vol%/N2 vol%)Separation Condition (Temperature °C/Pressure Bar)Permeability (Barrer)CO2/N2 Selectivity
Pebax LE1pure gas25/155.040.0
Pebax HE1pure gas25/1100.070.0
Pebax/ZIF-8105pure gas23/1105.034.8
Pebax/ZIF-8(90 nm)55pure gas25/1154.040.5
Pebax/ZIF-8–90(50)75pure gas35/--217.554.1
Pebax/NH2-ZIF-8-pure gas25/1163.862.0
Pebax/UiO-661850/5025/397.256.6
Pebax/NH2-MIL-5375pure gas35/10120.055.5
Pebax/MoS2 nanosheet28pure gas30/152.390.6
Pebax/NaY23pure gas30/282.835.0
Pebax/NOTT30038pure gas25/10395.261.2
Pebax/MCM-4188pure gas25/2122.553.0
Pebax/GO8320/8035/2105.041.2
Pebax/aminosilane-GO8320/8035/2166.345.2
Pebax/PEI-ZIF-8150/5025/113.049.0
MEEP 0.199/115/1100.040.0
MEEP/CND0.199/115/1100.035.0
Table 2. LCI data to produce 1 kWh of electricity using US Mix, capital equipment, and membrane material.
Table 2. LCI data to produce 1 kWh of electricity using US Mix, capital equipment, and membrane material.
Input ParametersCO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g)PM2.5 (mg)SO2 (g)Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ)
US Mix (electricity)0.3900.8540.00824.50.2475.46
Capital equipment0.7921.880.017563.10.99712
Membrane material1.5521.433.6120.822.173
Table 3. Comparison of environmental impacts for different membranes.
Table 3. Comparison of environmental impacts for different membranes.
Impact CategoryGlobal WarmingRespiratory EffectsAcidification PotentialFossil Fuel Depletion
Unitkg CO2 eq/kg CO2 avoidedkg PM2.5 eq/kg CO2 avoidedkg SO2 eq/kg CO2 avoidedMJ surplus/kg CO2 avoided
MEEP only4.40 × 10−25.22 × 10−65.70 × 10−50.566
MEEP/CN4.42 × 10−25.48 × 10−65.55 × 10−50.592
Pebax LE0.1631.15 × 10−52.69 × 10−41.35
Pebax HE7.53 × 10−26.10 × 10−61.19 × 10−40.698
Pebax/ZIF-88.424.18 × 10−41.5 × 10−255.3
Pebax/ZIF-8 (90 nm)2.491.35 × 10−44.42 × 10−41.66
Pebax/ZIF-9 90 (50)1.981.07 × 10−43.51 × 10−313.2
Pebax/NH2-ZIF-86.04 × 10−25.45 × 10−69.12 × 10−50.613
Pebax/UiO-661.045.77 × 10−51.85 × 10−37.1
Pebax/NH2-MIL-533.51.88 × 10−46.23 × 10−323.2
Pebax/MoS2 nanosheet2.261.21 × 10−44.01 × 10−315.0
Pebax/NaY2.161.17 × 10−43.83 × 10−314.5
Pebax/NOTT3000.5313.04 × 10−59.30 × 10−43.71
Pebax/MCM-414.142.21 × 10−47.37 × 10−337.5
Pebax/GO5.42.89 × 10−49.61 × 10−335.8
Pebax/aminosilane-GO3.211.72 × 10−45.71 × 10−321.4
Pebax/PEI-ZIF-80.4962.88 × 10−58.66 × 10−43.51
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nilkar, A.S.; Orme, C.J.; Klaehn, J.R.; Zhao, H.; Adhikari, B. Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Carbon Dioxide Selective Membranes from Low Carbon Emission Sources: A Comparative Study. Membranes 2023, 13, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13040410

AMA Style

Nilkar AS, Orme CJ, Klaehn JR, Zhao H, Adhikari B. Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Carbon Dioxide Selective Membranes from Low Carbon Emission Sources: A Comparative Study. Membranes. 2023; 13(4):410. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13040410

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nilkar, Amit S., Christopher J. Orme, John R. Klaehn, Haiyan Zhao, and Birendra Adhikari. 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Carbon Dioxide Selective Membranes from Low Carbon Emission Sources: A Comparative Study" Membranes 13, no. 4: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13040410

APA Style

Nilkar, A. S., Orme, C. J., Klaehn, J. R., Zhao, H., & Adhikari, B. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Carbon Dioxide Selective Membranes from Low Carbon Emission Sources: A Comparative Study. Membranes, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes13040410

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop