Next Article in Journal
The Influence Mechanism of Mn(II) on the Transformation of Ce-Adsorbed Hexagonal Birnessite
Previous Article in Journal
Fast Analytical Separation of Selected Agricultural Pesticides Using Supercritical Fluid Chromatography
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Separations
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/separations12120334
separations-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:
Review

Adsorption Materials for Carbon Capture: Research Advancements and Prospects

by
Ya Wang
*,
Xiaolong Tang
and
Honghong Yi
*
School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Separations 2025, 12(12), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12120334
Submission received: 17 October 2025 / Revised: 28 November 2025 / Accepted: 2 December 2025 / Published: 4 December 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Carbon capture plays a crucial role in mitigating carbon emissions, which is essential for curbing global warming. Owing to its benefits, such as the absence of secondary pollution, operational simplicity, and low energy consumption, adsorption has been widely used in carbon capture. Accordingly, the design of high-efficiency adsorption materials is critical to achieving superior carbon capture performance. In this review, we systemically outline the adsorption mechanisms, influencing factors, and various adsorption materials, including porous carbon-based material, zeolites, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), solid amines, and emerging adsorbents (porous liquids and supported ionic liquid phase), along with their recent research progress in carbon capture. Furthermore, we point out the design strategies for enhancing CO2 capture performance and potential research directions in the future.

1. Introduction

Global warming poses a severe threat to ecosystems and directly endangers human health, which can be ascribed to the greenhouse gases released by human activities [1,2]. Among these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) is particularly prominent and accounts for approximately 80% [3]. Furthermore, previous reports have indicated a significant linear relationship between the increase in global temperature and cumulative CO2 emissions [4]. Therefore, it is an essential measure to reduce CO2 emissions for mitigating global warming.
Due to its high technical feasibility and significant emission reduction potential, carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology [5,6,7,8] has emerged as a critical technological pathway for reducing CO2 emissions so as to curb global warming. As the first step in the CCUS process, carbon capture determines the overall effectiveness of the entire system. Therefore, it is of great significance for developing highly efficient and low-energy carbon capture technologies. Carbon capture technologies can be classified into three primary categories [9,10,11]: (1) post-combustion carbon capture, (2) pre-combustion carbon capture, and (3) oxy-combustion carbon capture. These three carbon capture technologies have distinct characteristics. Post-combustion carbon capture can separate CO2 from the mixtures after the fuel is fully combusted [12]. Pre-combustion carbon capture focuses on removing CO2 from the combustion, in which the fuel can be converted into syngas via partial oxidation in the presence of steam. Afterwards, the syngas will be subjected to a water-gas shift reaction, where CO is converted into CO2, while simultaneously producing more H2 [13]. Oxy-combustion carbon capture utilizes highly pure oxygen (≥95%) instead of air for combustion, thereby producing high-concentration CO2, which can greatly simplify subsequent separation. Meanwhile, the high oxygen concentration in oxy-combustion can alter the ash chemistry, giving rise to some issues, including fouling and corrosion, etc. [14]. It should be noted that, due to its good compatibility with existing infrastructure, post-combustion carbon capture presents the most highly viable pathway with greater potential for widespread application than the other two carbon capture technologies [15].
According to the separation principles, post-combustion carbon capture technologies are generally categorized into absorption [16,17], membrane separation [18,19,20], cryogenic distillation [21], and adsorption [22,23,24,25,26,27]. The technology absorption [28] utilizes liquid solvents to absorb and dissolve CO2, thereby removing it from gas streams. Unlike absorption, based on the differences in the permeation rates of gas molecules through a membrane, membrane separation technology [29] can achieve the separation of CO2 by tailoring the pore size and affinity of this membrane. In addition, according to the vaporization and liquefaction characteristics of different gas components, cryogenic distillation [30] can separate CO2 by cooling the gas mixture to cryogenic temperatures. Note that the adsorption can be further divided into physisorption and chemisorption [31]. The physisorption is driven primarily by van der Waals interactions, whereas chemisorption involves the formation of chemical bonds between CO2 molecules and the solid adsorbent surface. Owing to its operational simplicity, low energy consumption, and absence of equipment corrosion, adsorption attracted widespread attention as a highly promising technology for carbon capture in recent years.
As for the CO2 adsorption technologies, the adsorbent material plays a pivotal role. To date, some materials have been utilized as CO2 adsorbents, e.g., porous carbon-based material [32], zeolites [33], metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) [34,35], solid amines [36], porous liquids [37], among others. Different adsorbent materials possess distinct structures, thereby showing varied performance characteristics. Currently, the development of new adsorbent materials that combine high adsorption capacity, excellent selectivity, and strong stability while also being suitable for large-scale commercial applications remains a challenge. Therefore, in this review, we systematically summarize recent research progress in carbon capture adsorbent materials from the following three main aspects: (1) adsorption mechanisms and influencing factors (e.g., material pore structure, surface chemistry, temperature, and pressure); (2) types of adsorbent materials and their research advances; and (3) optimization strategies for adsorbent design. Furthermore, the future development trends in this field are also outlined. Notably, this review places a stronger emphasis on recent progress in adsorption materials, including emerging adsorbents such as porous liquids and supported ionic liquid phase (SILP), compared to existing reviews. In addition, computational simulation methods for elucidating adsorption mechanisms have also been introduced in more detail through some examples. Moreover, we also highlight the prospective roles of computational methods and machine learning in the future design of adsorbents.

2. Adsorption Mechanisms and Influencing Factors of Carbon Capture

In general, the adsorption of CO2 onto various adsorbent materials is governed by distinct mechanisms, which consequently lead to differing adsorption performances. These adsorbent materials also show different adsorption capabilities. Some adsorption metrics [38], e.g., adsorption capacity, adsorption kinetics, selectivity, stability, and regeneration ability, can be used for evaluating the adsorption capability. In addition, the adsorption process is affected by multiple factors, including structural properties of the adsorbent materials (e.g., specific surface area, pore size distribution, and functional groups), and external conditions (e.g., temperature, pressure, and water vapor) can also influence the adsorption.

2.1. Adsorption Mechanisms

During the CO2 adsorption onto adsorbent materials with various structures, there exist different adsorption mechanisms [39,40], e.g., van der Waals interactions, electrostatic interactions, and chemical bonding. The adsorption processes can therefore be classified into physisorption and chemisorption according to the different adsorption mechanisms.
Physisorption is defined as the adsorption process driven by van der Waals forces between CO2 and the adsorbent. This process is highly reversible, facilitating low-energy regeneration and causing minimal equipment corrosion. Some common physisorption materials include porous carbon materials [32], zeolites [33], and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) [34], etc. Their adsorption performance primarily depends on their specific surface areas and pore volumes.
In terms of chemisorption, the chemical bonds will be formed between CO2 and the adsorbent materials. Although the chemisorption is highly selective, the regeneration of the adsorbent material requires high energy. Many adsorbents have been designed for capturing CO2 through chemisorption, such as amine-functionalized adsorbents [36]. As for the amine-functionalized adsorbents, in the absence of water, CO2 can react with primary or secondary amines to form carbamates or carbamic acids [41], whereas the reaction will lead to the formation of bicarbonates under aqueous conditions [42].
To date, various experimental and computational methods can be utilized for investigating the adsorption mechanisms. In terms of the experimental methods, e.g., the measurement of adsorption isotherms and infrared spectroscopy can provide complementary evidence for understanding adsorption mechanisms. For example, Mason et al. [43] examined the carbon dioxide capture by using Zn4O(BTB)2 (BTB3− = 1,3,5-benzenetribenzoate; MOF-177) and Mg2(dobdc) (dobdc4− = 1,4-dioxido-2,5-benzenedicarboxylate; Mg-MOF-74, CPO-27-Mg). The results showed that MOF-177 exhibited a low and constant isosteric heat of CO2 adsorption (14 kJ/mol), as fitted by the single-site Langmuir model, which indicated that the adsorption on MOF-177 was governed by weak interactions and the MOF structures lacked strong binding sites. Stevens et al. [44] investigated the adsorption of CO2 on five zeolite materials by using in situ Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Compared to the materials pretreated at 120 °C, those pretreated at 350 °C exhibited more accessible surface adsorption sites. In addition to a higher amount of physisorbed CO2, the formation of bidentate carbonate species, as well as the bridged bidentate carbonate species, was also observed. As for the computational methods, density functional theory (DFT) and Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations can also be applied for revealing the adsorption mechanisms at the molecular level. Mino et al. [45] probed the carbon capture and the related reactions on the TiO2 surfaces by combining DFT and FTIR methods. A distinct contrast in CO2 adsorption behavior was observed between the (101) and (001) surfaces. The (101) surface stabilizes CO2 mainly in a linear geometry, whereas the (001) surface acts as an active site for generating a variety of surface carbonates. Gordijo et al. [46] carried out DFT and GCMC computations to reveal the adsorption mechanisms for CO2 and CO on ZnO surfaces. For CO2, the adsorption is accompanied by a minor bending of the O-C-O bond angle. Conversely, CO adsorption involves the interactions between the carbon atom and Zn or O atoms of the ZnO.

2.2. Parameters for Assessing Adsorption

In order to design and select the optimal adsorbent material, the performance of an adsorbent material is typically evaluated based on its adsorption capacity, adsorption/desorption kinetics, selectivity, stability, and regenerability.
Adsorption capacity represents the maximum amount of CO2 adsorbed per unit mass (or volume) of an adsorbent at a specified temperature and pressure. It can be determined through the volumetric/gravimetric methods and thermogravimetric analysis. Adsorption kinetics denotes the rate of reaching the adsorption equilibrium, while desorption kinetics is the rate of CO2 release and adsorbent regeneration. Adsorption/desorption kinetics can be measured by using the gravimetric/volumetric method [47], the breakthrough curve method [48], among others. Selectivity of an adsorbent refers to its priority in adsorbing CO2, which can be determined by adsorption isotherm experiments. Cyclic stability of an adsorbent characterizes its ability to retain its original adsorption capacity through multiple adsorption–desorption cycles. It is crucial for evaluating the service life and economic viability. The regenerability refers to the energy and conditions needed for desorbing the CO2 captured by the adsorbent materials and restoring the adsorbent to its initial state. The energy consumption for regeneration determines the operating cost. In addition, the poisoning resistance of an adsorbent is also important, which represents its ability to retain its adsorption capability in real flue gas containing impurities, e.g., H2O, SOx, and NOx.
Note that computational simulations can also provide a viable alternative to traditional experimental methods for acquiring critical adsorption data, including adsorption energy, capacity, isotherms, etc. These results can be used to assess the properties of adsorbent materials. Furthermore, the simulation results can yield insights into the molecular-level mechanisms governing the adsorption process. Li et al. [49] investigated the CO2 capture by using C3N pores with GCMC and DFT simulations. The C3N pores showed outstanding adsorption capacity, gas selectivity, and water stability. Notably, it can achieve CO2 uptakes of 3.99 mmol/g (300 K) and 2.07 mmol/g (350 K) at a low pressure of 0.15 bar. Even in the presence of water, it can also retain high capacities of 3.80 and 5.91 mmol/g at 0.15 and 1 bar, respectively. DFT calculations provided the mechanistic basis for this performance, identifying strong binding interactions between the C3N pores and CO2 molecules as the origin of the high uptake and selectivity.

2.3. Influencing Factors

The capture of CO2 by adsorbents can be affected by many factors, which can be classified into the intrinsic structure of the adsorbent and external environmental conditions.

2.3.1. Intrinsic Structure of the Adsorbent

Generally, an adsorbent material with a larger specific surface area has more adsorption sites, thereby resulting in a higher adsorption capacity. In addition, the pore distribution, functional groups, and heteroatomic doping are critical factors in determining the adsorption capability of the adsorbent material (Figure 1). Micropores (<2 nm) are the primary adsorption sites, contributing dominantly to the adsorption capacity, while the macropores (>50 nm), reducing diffusion resistance, contribute minimally to the adsorption capacity. In terms of the functional groups, if we introduce the amine groups [50] into the adsorbent materials, we enable a shift from physisorption to chemisorption, thereby promoting the capture of CO2. In addition, heteroatom doping [51] can also influence the performance of CO2 capture.

2.3.2. External Environmental Conditions

As for the physisorption, lowering the temperature is beneficial for CO2 capture, and an increase in the partial pressure of CO2 can also promote CO2 adsorption onto the adsorbent materials. For chemisorption, there exists an optimal adsorption temperature, and it may achieve a high adsorption capacity at low-pressure conditions. Impurities in the flue gas can significantly adversely affect the CO2 capture. For example, H2O may compete with CO2 for the adsorption sites on the materials [56]; SOx and NOx can react with the amines on the adsorbents, leading to the deactivation of the adsorbent materials [57].

3. Adsorbents and Their Research Progress for Carbon Capture

There are different adsorbent materials (Table 1) that can be utilized for capturing CO2. Based on their structures, these adsorbent materials can be divided into porous carbon-based materials, zeolites, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), solid amines, porous liquids, etc.

3.1. Porous Carbon-Based Material

Porous carbon-based material [75] (Figure 2) refers to carbon materials possessing a porous structure, which includes activated carbon [23,32], carbon molecular sieve [76], carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [77], and graphene [78], etc. These porous carbon-based adsorbents are characterized by high chemical stability, large specific surface area, low production costs, as well as low energy consumption for regeneration [79]. It should be noted that these porous carbon-based adsorbents, which can be produced by different methods, have different pore structures and specific surface areas [75], thereby exhibiting distinct CO2 capture capabilities.
The activated carbon can be synthesized by carbonizing carbon-rich precursors under an inert atmosphere (300–600 °C), followed by activation at high temperatures [81,82]. If they are prepared from different precursors, these activated carbons will have different specific surface areas, resulting in variations in their CO2 capture performance. For example, the specific surface area for activated carbon prepared from olive stones by physical activation can reach 697 m2/g, while that for the activated carbon produced from almond shells was 557 m2/g; the CO2 adsorption capacities were 2.00 and 2.10 mmol/g at 25 °C and 101 kPa, respectively [83]. In addition, the specific surface areas can also be significantly influenced by the activation method. Xu et al. [84] synthesized the activated carbon with cellulose through physical activation, possessing the specific surface area of up to 500 m2/g and the CO2 adsorption capacity of 2.64 mmol/g at 0 °C and 101 kPa; Sevilla et al. [85] prepared activated carbon from cellulose by chemical activation, with a high specific surface area of 2370 m2/g and the CO2 adsorption capacity of 5.80 mmol/g at 0 °C and 101 kPa. Under high pressure, activated carbon shows strong CO2 capture capacity. For instance, Jalilov et al. [86] found that the adsorption capacity for CO2 can be up to 35 mmol/g at 54 bar. Note that the CO2 adsorption capacity and selectivity of activated carbon remain to be further improved under atmospheric or low-pressure conditions.
In comparison with activated carbon, carbon molecular sieve (CMS) performs better in the selectivity. Carbon molecular sieve can be produced through high-temperature pyrolysis of polymeric precursors under an inert atmosphere. During this synthesis process, the polymeric precursors will undergo cleavage and decomposition into carbon molecular chains, which subsequently stack to form carbon sheets [87,88]. The interstices between these carbon chains give rise to ultramicropores, while the micropores result from the pore channels between the carbon sheets, along with those pores generated from the pyrolysis of functional groups [88,89,90]. These micropores facilitate the transport of gases, whereas the ultramicropores serve as molecular sieves for gas separation. Similarly to activated carbon, carbon molecular sieves synthesized from different precursors possess varying CO2 capture capabilities. For example, the carbon molecular sieve membranes fabricated based on cellulose hollow fiber exhibited a high CO2/CH4 selectivity of 917 [91], while the CMS membranes synthesized from a porous hydrogen-bonded organic framework membrane show a CO2/CH4 selectivity of 128 [92]. In most cases, enlarging the pore size of CMS can boost the permeability while decreasing selectivity. Therefore, the regulation of the pore size distribution in CMS is particularly critical for achieving high CO2 capture efficiency.
Among these porous carbon-based adsorbent materials, carbon nanotubes and graphene also perform excellently in capturing CO2. Carbon nanotubes are one-dimensional tubular nanomaterials composed of rolled single- or multi-layer graphene sheets, whereas graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a two-dimensional hexagonal honeycomb lattice structure via sp2 hybridization. The theoretical specific surface areas for carbon nanotubes and graphene can be up to 50~1315 m2/g [93] and 2630 m2/g [94], respectively. These high specific surface areas endow them with large adsorption capacities for CO2. In addition, the diameter of the carbon nanotubes can also affect their CO2 capture capabilities, while the chirality has slight effects. For example, Liu et al. [95] found that carbon nanotube (15, 15) showed a larger CO2 adsorption capacity than carbon nanotube with the chiral indices (10, 10), which is primarily attributed to the larger diameter of the carbon nanotube with the chiral indices (15, 15) compared to the (10, 10) one. In comparison with other porous carbon-based adsorbent materials, carbon nanotubes and graphene offer superior structural uniformity and enable higher CO2 diffusion rates; however, their widespread applications are hindered by the high synthesis cost for high purity and uniform structure.

3.2. Zeolites

Zeolites (Figure 3) are defined as microporous aluminosilicates based on a framework of TO4 tetrahedra (T = Si or Al) [12,96]. According to the ratio of Si/Al, zeolites can be categorized into three types: low-silica (<2), medium-silica (2~5), and high-silica (>5) zeolites. The presence of aluminum atoms introduces a negative charge on the framework, necessitating positive charge compensation by cations. As for the zeolites without aluminum atoms, there are no extra-framework cations [12]. Generally, zeolites can be synthesized through methods such as hydrothermal and solvothermal synthesis. The CO2 capture capability for zeolites is primarily governed by the electric field strength generated by extra-framework cations as well as their basicity. Zeolites with high electropositivity and strong alkalinity exhibit superior CO2 capture performance. Therefore, increasing the number of aluminum atoms or introducing the cations with low electronegativity will enhance the CO2 capture capacity of the zeolites. Although the zeolites show high CO2 capture capability, their selectivity still needs to be improved [97].

3.3. Metal–Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) (Figure 4) are a class of porous crystalline materials that consist of metal ions or clusters connected to organic ligands via coordination bonds, forming an extended periodic structure. It should be noted that there are three scientists, i.e., Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson, and Omar M. Yaghi, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of MOFs in 2025. Typically, the pore channels and structure for zeolites can be flexibly tuned by varying the metal ions/clusters or organic ligands, thereby achieving different CO2 adsorption capabilities. MOFs are rich in micropores and have large specific surface areas ranging from 1000 to 10,000 m2/g. The specific surface areas of activated carbons (500–2500 m2/g) and zeolites (300–800 m2/g) are generally lower than those of MOFs [106]. In addition, MOFs also have a higher CO2 adsorption capacity (5.5~8.0 mmol/g) than activated carbons (3.3~5.0 mmol/g) and zeolites (3.5~5.0 mmol/g) [106]. Note that many MOFs have open metal sites, which can also serve as CO2 adsorption sites, e.g., the open Cu2+ sites with high charge density in Cu-BTC exhibit strong interactions with CO2, and play important roles in capturing CO2 [107]. These excellent properties enable MOFs to show great potential in adsorption applications. Nevertheless, some issues remain to be addressed in their practical applications [108,109]: (1) The crystal structures of MOFs are vulnerable to collapse and even break down under humid conditions; the presence of water vapor in flue gas will also adversely affect the CO2 capture performance of zeolites, promoting the conversion of CO2 into carbonate [110]; while for the activated carbons, they exhibit good water resistance [106]; (2) The CO2 adsorption selectivity of MOFs needs to be further improved for their practical application; (3) Some polar gas molecules, e.g., H2O, NOx and SOx, are prone to compete with CO2 for adsorption sites, thereby reducing the CO2 capture efficiency; (4) The high cost for producing structurally homogeneous MOFs also hinders their large-scale production and commercial application, whereas the costs for producing the activated carbon and zeolites are lower than that for MOFs [106].

3.4. Solid Amines

Solid amines are a class of adsorbents in which amine molecules are grafted onto a porous support. They can be synthesized by different methods, including physical impregnation, covalent grafting, and in situ polymerization [112,113,114]. The physical impregnation method [112] refers to a process where organic amines are deposited onto porous support materials via a liquid-phase technique; the covalent grafting method [113] is designed to attach organic amine molecules to specific sites on the support surface or within its pores via covalent bonds; the in situ polymerization method [114] can be used to synthesize hyperbranched solid amine adsorbents by polycondensing organic amines with the support material or its precursors directly. The solid amines prepared by different synthesis methods possess distinct characteristics. As for the solid amines synthesized from the physical impregnation method, although they have a high loading of organic amines being attached to the support by intermolecular interactions, these organic amines can easily detach during the recycling of solid amines, resulting in inferior long-term stability. Covalent grafting offers an approach to enhance the stability of organic amine molecules [113]. Since the covalent grafting method attaches amine groups to the specific sites on the support, the organic amine loading is directly dependent on the density of these sites. Different from physical impregnation and covalent grafting methods, the in situ polymerization method not only can achieve a high amine loading capacity of organic amines but also can reduce the loss of organic amine molecules during regeneration. However, the in situ polymerization reaction is complex and only suitable for the organic amines having high molecular weight and a high propensity for polymerization.

3.5. Porous Liquids

Porous liquids are a new class of materials combining the fluidity of liquids with the permanent porosity of solid materials [115]. They contain both intermolecular pores and intramolecular pores (or cavities), which remain stable during molecular motion and are not filled by other liquid components. Based on the pore structure and synthesis methods of porous liquids, they can be classified into three types [115]: (1) Type I porous liquids are defined as liquid materials that contain permanent, intrinsic cavities; (2) Type II porous liquids are formulated by dissolving porous guest species into a sterically hindered solvent; and (3) Type III porous liquids are synthesized by dispersing porous guest materials into a sterically hindered solvent through a series of modifications, resulting in a homogeneous and stable suspension. Type III porous liquids are analogous to Type II porous liquids: the sterically hindered solvent imparts fluidity, while the porous material provides the permanent pores. It should be noted that there is an emerging porous liquid (Type IV) defined as molten salts with intrinsic porosity. To date, the research on porous liquids is still in its early stages, and considerable efforts are required to bridge the gap between laboratory research and practical industrial use.

3.6. Supported Ionic Liquid Phase (SILP)

A supported ionic liquid phase (SILP) [116] is a composite material that can be obtained by highly dispersing and immobilizing an ionic liquid onto a solid support with high specific surface areas (e.g., silica and zeolites) through physical or chemical methodologies [117]. In the SILP material, the ionic liquid forms a thin film on the internal surface of the solid support, providing a large gas–liquid contact area that enables a high adsorption rate for CO2 [118]. Moreover, SILP materials perform well in selectivity, which can be modulated by employing different functionalized ionic liquids [119]. In addition, the minimal usage of ionic liquid during the production processes of SILP can reduce the costs, facilitating the large-scale production. However, the potential leaching of the ionic liquid during long-term operation will reduce the adsorption performance of the SILP material. Additionally, the complex preparation process of SILPs poses challenges to the reproducibility of their adsorption properties.
In summary, different adsorbent materials possess distinct characteristics and also have diverse limitations. For example, the CO2 adsorption capacity and selectivity of activated carbon under atmospheric or low-pressure conditions remain a significant challenge [86]; the scalable production of carbon nanomaterials remains challenging due to the costly processes needed to ensure high purity and structural homogeneity [93,94]; for the practical implementation of zeolites and MOFs, their CO2 selectivity needs to be further improved [106]; and a significant challenge for porous liquids and SILP materials lies in translating early-stage laboratory research into viable industrial processes [119]. In addition, under high CO2 concentrations, these CO2 capture materials also face several challenges [53,120,121,122,123]. The adsorption capacity and selectivity of many adsorbents will suffer from a decrease under high CO2 concentrations. Although a high intrinsic capacity is beneficial for capture efficiency, the associated heat of adsorption released during the process may intensify considerably with increasing gas concentration. This intense exothermic effect will result in a rapid temperature rise within the adsorption bed, which not only can adversely impact the adsorption capacity of the adsorbent material but also can lead to thermal degradation of its structure.

4. Optimal Design of Adsorbents and Prospects for Carbon Capture

4.1. Design Strategies for Improving CO2 Capture Performance

Different adsorbents exhibit distinct CO2 capture capabilities. Their performance can be enhanced through various strategies such as modulating pore structures, modifying functional groups, and incorporating elemental doping. However, these improvements often lead to an increased heat of adsorption, complicating the desorption process and elevating regeneration costs. Therefore, to strike a balance between adsorption and desorption, the heat of adsorption for the adsorbent should ideally be controlled in the range of 35~50 kJ/mol [124].
Modulating pore structures can significantly improve the CO2 capture capabilities. For example, Sevilla et al. [85] used KOH as an activating agent for synthesizing porous carbon, which possessed a large specific surface area (2500~3000 m2/g) and a well-developed microporous structure, exhibiting a CO2 adsorption capacity of 4.8 mmol/g at 25 °C; Xin et al. [125] effectively preserved the adsorption sites of UiO-66-NH2 by employing a novel “pore-carrier transfer” strategy, where MXene was incorporated to block the diffusion of the sterically hindered solvent [Hmim]Br into the inter pores of UiO-66-NH2. The porous liquids synthesized through this strategy thus show great CO2 adsorption capacity.
In addition, surface functional modification, e.g., modifying the adsorbents with functional groups or doping heteroatoms, can also affect their adsorption performance. Wang et al. [126] modified UiO-66-OH MOFs with organosilanes and oligomers, transforming them into porous liquids, which enhanced the fluidity of UiO-66-OH MOFs and consequently improved CO2 capture capability and selectivity. Zheng et al. [127] decorated an rht-type MOF with acylamide groups, which enhanced CO2 capture by this adsorbent material. Sevilla et al. [128] prepared N-doped porous carbons by utilizing polypyrrole as a carbon precursor and KOH as an activating agent, for which they had a high CO2 capture capacity of 6.20 mmol/g and demonstrated excellent selectivity for CO2/N2 separation. Feng et al. [54] synthesized N- and S-co-doped ultramicroporous carbon materials for CO2 adsorption, achieving an adsorption capacity of 3.58 mmol/g under ambient conditions (25 °C, 1 bar).

4.2. Future Perspectives in Adsorbent Design

Although extensive studies have been conducted on adsorbent materials for carbon capture, numerous challenges still remain in the practical implementation of high-performance adsorbents. Future studies should focus on the following aspects:
(1)
In real flue gas environments, water vapor can cause the structural collapse of some MOFs, while SOx/NOx can react with amine functional groups, resulting in the adsorbent material poisoning. Hydrophobic and SOx/NOx-resistant CO2 capture adsorbents should be developed in the future.
(2)
The mass production and application of high-performance CO2 adsorbents, e.g., carbon nanomaterials-based adsorbents and MOFs, remain limited by some factors, including complex organic ligands, energy-intensive synthesis (high temperature/pressure), etc. Exploring cheap materials or industrial by-products as ligands and developing green, low-energy methods like room-temperature synthesis, optimizing production processes are key strategies for synthesizing novel high-performance adsorbents. It should be noted that the advancement of various computational methods and artificial intelligence (AI) will enable the high-throughput virtual screening of adsorbent materials. Concurrently, these simulation methods and AI prediction can guide the optimization of reaction conditions toward identifying optimal and energy-efficient synthesis routes, which significantly accelerates the rational design of novel adsorbents.
(3)
As the theoretical foundation for rationally designing adsorbents, the structural evolution and adsorption mechanisms of adsorbents under operating conditions need to be further investigated. The integration of advanced experimental methods (e.g., in situ/operando X-ray diffraction, infrared spectroscopy, and solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance) and molecular-level theoretical simulations (e.g., density functional theory and molecular dynamics) is crucial for unraveling the CO2 adsorption mechanism. Theoretical computational methods can provide valuable insights into electronic structures, energies, adsorption configurations, and reaction pathways, all of which are particularly vital for elucidating the adsorption mechanisms.
(4)
Given that the structure–property relationship in materials is complex, the conventional trial-and-error method for developing novel CO2 capture material is time-consuming and high-cost. Therefore, there is an urgent need to build high-quality databases and establish machine learning models that can predict adsorption capability from adsorbent structures. Moreover, multi-dimensional models integrating reaction conditions with material structural features represent a key future direction. These theoretical prediction results can guide experimental synthesis, thereby accelerating the development of new CO2 capture materials.

5. Conclusions

The large-scale emission of CO2 poses a severe threat to the global environment. Therefore, it is extremely urgent to control and reduce the emission of CO2. CO2 capture is a critical step in emission reduction, in which adsorption technology plays an important role. The development of efficient and low-energy CO2 adsorbents is particularly crucial for CO2 capture. Herein, this review has systematically examined the recent advances in adsorbent materials for CO2 capture, including adsorption mechanisms and influencing factors of carbon capture, different adsorbents, strategies for designing new adsorbents, and the prospects for carbon capture.
It is shown that physisorption and chemisorption have distinct adsorption mechanisms, which can be influenced by specific surface area, porous structures, surface functional groups, and heteroatom doping. Moreover, the CO2 adsorption can also be affected by the external environmental conditions, e.g., temperature, partial pressure of CO2, and impurities.
In addition, the commonly utilized CO2 capture materials are introduced on the basis of their various structures. Beyond detailing their architectures, we have also summarized their current limitations (Table 1). For instance, activated carbon exhibits limited CO2 adsorption capacity and selectivity under atmospheric or low-pressure conditions; the existence of water vapor in flue gas will inhibit CO2 capture by zeolites; the framework structures of many MOFs are prone to collapse in humid environments; and H2O, NOx, and SOx are prone to compete with CO2 for adsorption sites, among others. Among these different adsorbent materials, activated carbon exhibits favorable scalability and potential for mass production. However, the wastewater and exhaust gases generated during its production process require proper treatment to mitigate their environmental impacts. Although many zeolites also demonstrate relatively good scalability, they are comparatively sensitive to humidity, which results in high energy consumption for regeneration. Although MOFs possess significant potential for scalability, they still face challenges such as insufficient hydrothermal stability. Some solid amines exhibit high scalability; nonetheless, their energy consumption for regeneration is relatively high. In addition, porous liquids and supported ionic liquid phases still face challenges for scale-up and their associated unknown environmental impacts.
Subsequently, we have introduced several design strategies, including pore structure modulation, functional group modification, and elemental doping, for improving CO2 capture performance. Furthermore, the potential future research directions have been proposed in light of the current research challenges, including designing hydrophobic and SOx/NOx-resistant CO2 adsorbents, reducing the costs of material synthesis and scale-up production, integrating advanced experimental methods and theoretical simulations, and applying machine learning for the design of CO2 capture materials. In summary, the future development of CO2 capture materials will involve a balanced optimization of high performance, stability, cost-effectiveness, and low energy consumption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.T. and H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.W., X.T. and H.Y.; visualization, X.T.; supervision, H.Y.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 22206095; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant number FRF-TP-22-087A1; and the National Key R&D Program of China, grant number 2023YFB3810800.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lashof, D.A.; Ahuja, D.R. Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. Nature 1990, 344, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Filonchyk, M.; Peterson, M.P.; Zhang, L.F.; Hurynovich, V.; He, Y. Greenhouse gases emissions and global climate change: Examining the influence of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 935, 173359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. WMO. Greenhouse Gas Bulletin; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change; Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Davarpanah, A. Comparative evaluation of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies using multi-criteria decision-making approaches. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 9498–9510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. El-Kady, A.H.; Amin, M.T.; Khan, F.; El-Halwagi, M.M. Analysis of CO2 pipeline regulations from a safety perspective for offshore carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 439, 140734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ding, H.B.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, Y.Y.; Wen, C.; Yang, Y. High-pressure supersonic carbon dioxide (CO2) separation benefiting carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technology. Appl. Energy 2023, 339, 120975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liang, B.; Chen, C.; Jia, C.S.; Wang, C.H.; Wang, X.Z.; Zha, Y.Q.; Wang, R.; Meng, Z.; Wang, H. Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in oil and gas reservoirs in China: Status, opportunities and challenges. Fuel 2024, 375, 132353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herzog, H.; Meldon, J.; Hatton, A. Advanced Post-Combustion CO2 Capture; Clean Air Task Force: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chao, C.; Deng, Y.; Dewil, R.; Baeyens, J.; Fan, X. Post-combustion carbon capture. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rubin, E.S.; Chen, C.; Rao, A.B. Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Pol. 2007, 35, 4444–4454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Samanta, A.; Zhao, A.; Shimizu, G.K.H.; Sarkar, P.; Gupta, R. Post-combustion CO2 capture using solid sorbents: A review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 1438–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, J.; Baeyens, J.; Deng, Y.; Tan, T.; Zhang, H. The chemical CO2 capture by carbonation-decarbonation cycles. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Toftegaard, M.B.; Brix, J.; Jensen, P.A.; Glarborg, P.; Jensen, A.D. Oxy-fuel combustion of solid fuels. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 581–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nouri, E.; Raouf, F.; Alyani, S.J.; Kardan, A.; Moghaddam, A.M. Carbon dioxide capture and utilization in post-combustion: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2025, 32, 14351–14382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Z.; Wang, T.; Blunt, M.J.; Anthony, E.J.; Park, A.-H.A.; Hughes, R.W.; Webley, P.A.; Yan, J. Advances in carbon capture, utilization and storage. Appl. Energy 2020, 278, 115627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hanson, E.; Nwakile, C.; Hammed, V.O. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies: Evaluating the effectiveness of advanced CCUS solutions for reducing CO2 emissions. Surf. Interf. 2025, 18, 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pfister, M.; Belaissaoui, B.; Favre, E. Membrane gas separation processes from wet postcombustion flue gases for carbon capture and use: A critical reassessment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, L.; Riensche, E.; Blum, L.; Stolten, D. Multi-stage gas separation membrane processes used in post-combustion capture: Energetic and economic analyses. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 359, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. He, X.; Fu, C.; Hägg, M.-B. Membrane system design and process feasibility analysis for CO2 capture from flue gas with a fixed-site-carrier membrane. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 268, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shen, M.; Tong, L.; Yin, S.; Liu, C.; Wang, L.; Feng, W.; Ding, Y. Cryogenic technology progress for CO2 capture under carbon neutrality goals: A review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 299, 121734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.-Y.; Park, S.-J. A review on solid adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Glenna, D.M.; Jana, A.; Xu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Meng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Neupane, M.; Wang, L.; Zhao, H.; Qian, J.; et al. Carbon capture: Theoretical guidelines for activated carbon-based CO2 adsorption material evaluation. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2023, 14, 10693–10699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abd, A.A.; Othman, M.R.; Kim, J. A review on application of activated carbons for carbon dioxide capture: Present performance, preparation, and surface modification for further improvement. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 43329–43364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cao, L.; Zhang, X.; Xu, Y.; Xiang, W.; Wang, R.; Ding, F.; Hong, P.; Gao, B. Straw and wood based biochar for CO2 capture: Adsorption performance and governing mechanisms. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 287, 120592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, Z.; Deng, S.; Wei, H.; Wang, B.; Huang, J.; Yu, G. Activated carbons and amine-modified materials for carbon dioxide capture—A review. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2013, 7, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramar, V.; Balraj, A. Critical review on carbon-based nanomaterial for carbon capture: Technical challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Energy Fuel 2022, 36, 13479–13505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Soo, X.Y.D.; Lee, J.J.C.; Wu, W.Y.; Tao, L.; Wang, C.; Zhu, Q.; Bu, J. Advancements in CO2 capture by absorption and adsorption: A comprehensive review. J. CO2 Util. 2024, 81, 102727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hou, R.; Fong, C.; Freeman, B.D.; Hill, M.R.; Xie, Z. Current status and advances in membrane technology for carbon capture. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 300, 121863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qiao, S.; Xu, M.; Lv, X.; Zhao, H. Analysis and optimization of cryogenic distillation systems: For reducing distillation energy consumption. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2025, 48, e202400296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hasan, H.F.; Al-Sudani, F.T.; Albayati, T.M.; Salih, I.K.; Hharah, H.N.; Majdi, H.S.; Saady, N.M.C.; Zendehboudi, S.; Amari, A.; Gheni, S.A. Solid adsorbent material: A review on trends of post-combustion CO2 capture. Process Saf. Environ. 2024, 182, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Creamer, A.E.; Gao, B. Carbon-based adsorbents for postcombustion CO2 capture: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 7276–7289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hasan, M.M.F.; First, E.L.; Floudas, C.A. Cost-effective CO2 capture based on in silico screening of zeolites and process optimization. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2013, 15, 17601–17618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xiang, S.; He, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, H.; Zhou, W.; Krishna, R.; Chen, B. Microporous metal-organic framework with potential for carbon dioxide capture at ambient conditions. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lin, J.-B.; Nguyen, T.T.T.; Vaidhyanathan, R.; Burner, J.; Taylor, J.M.; Durekova, H.; Akhtar, F.; Mah, R.K.; Ghaffari-Nik, O.; Marx, S.; et al. A scalable metal-organic framework as a durable physisorbent for carbon dioxide capture. Science 2021, 374, 1464–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ünveren, E.E.; Monkul, B.Ö.; Sarıoğlan, Ş.; Karademir, N.; Alper, E. Solid amine sorbents for CO2 capture by chemical adsorption: A review. Petroleum 2017, 3, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xin, Y.; Wang, D.; Yao, D.; Ning, H.; Li, X.; Ju, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, Y. Post-synthetic modification of UiO-66-OH toward porous liquids for CO2 capture. New J. Chem. 2022, 46, 2189–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Aslam, Z.; Anait, U.; Abbas, A.; Ihsanullah, I.; Irshad, U.; Mahmood, N. Adsorption of carbon dioxide onto activated carbon prepared from lawn grass. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2022, 12, 3121–3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Poloni, R.; Smit, B.; Neaton, J.B. CO2 capture by metal–organic frameworks with van der Waals density functionals. J. Phys. Chem. A 2012, 116, 4957–4964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wang, Y.; Qu, L.; Ding, H.; Webley, P.; Li, G.K. Distributed direct air capture of carbon dioxide by synergistic water harvesting. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 9745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zhao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Feng, J.; Qiu, W.; Ning, Y.; Huang, Z.; Lin, H. Degradation of amine-functionalized adsorbents in carbon capture and direct air capture applications: Mechanism and solutions. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2025, 354, 129586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hack, J.; Maeda, N.; Meier, D.M. Review on CO2 Capture using amine-functionalized materials. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 39520–39530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mason, J.; Sumida, K.; Herm, Z.R.; Krishna, R.; Long, J.R. Evaluating metal–organic frameworks for post-combustion carbon dioxide capture via temperature swing adsorption. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stevens, R.W., Jr.; Siriwardane, R.V.; Logan, J. In situ Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) investigation of CO2 adsorption onto zeolite materials. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 3070–3079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mino, L.; Spoto, G.; Ferrari, A.M. CO2 capture by TiO2 anatase surfaces: A combined DFT and FTIR study. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 25016–25026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gordijo, J.S.; Rodrigues, N.M.; Martins, J.B.L. CO2 and CO capture on the ZnO surface: A GCMC and electronic structure study. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 46830–46840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, J.Y.; Mangano, E.; Brandani, S.; Ruthven, D.M. A review of common practices in gravimetric and volumetric adsorption kinetic experiments. Adsorption 2021, 27, 295–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, Q.; Wang, D.; Pang, S.; Xu, L. Prediction of breakthrough curves for multicomponent adsorption in a fixed-bed column using logistic and Gompertz functions. Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15, 104034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, X.; Zhu, L.; Xue, Q.; Chang, X.; Ling, C.; Xing, W. Superior selective CO2 adsorption of C3N pores: GCMC and DFT simulations. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 31161–31169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xie, F.; Wang, N.; Chen, H.; Li, M.; Li, Y.; Leng, L.; Qu, W.; Yang, J.; Yang, Z.; Li, H. Advances in amine-functionalized metal organic frameworks for carbon capture. J. Mater. Chem. A 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abdelmoaty, Y.H.; Tessema, T.-D.; Norouzi, N.; El-Kadri, O.M.; Turner, J.B.M.; El-Kaderi, H.M. Effective approach for increasing the heteroatom doping levels of porous carbons for superior CO2 capture and separation performance. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 35802–35810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ayeleru, O.O.; Modekwe, H.U.; Onisuru, O.R.; Ohoro, C.R.; Akinnawo, C.A.; Olubambi, P.A. Adsorbent technologies and applications for carbon capture, and direct air capture in environmental perspective and sustainable climate action. Sustain. Chem. Clim. Action 2023, 3, 100029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ben-Mansour, R.; Habib, M.A.; Bamidele, O.E.; Basha, M.; Qasem, N.A.A.; Peedikakkal, A.; Laoui, T.; Ali, M. Carbon capture by physical adsorption: Materials, experimental investigations and numerical modeling and simulations—A review. Appl. Energy 2016, 161, 225–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Feng, C.; Jian, W.; Chen, J.; Bao, A. Preparation of N and S codoped ultramicroporous carbon materials with a high CO2 adsorption capacity. Langmuir 2025, 41, 12792–12801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hu, K.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Song, Z.; Thaika, M.A.; Li, R.; Kuru, E.; Shi, J.; Liu, H. From micropores to macropores: Investigating pore characteristics of Longmaxi shale in the Sichuan Basin. Energy Fuels 2024, 38, 3961–3981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Veldhuizen, H.; Butt, S.A.; van Leuken, A.; van der Linden, B.; Rook, W.; van der Zwaag, S.; van der Veen, M.A. Competitive and cooperative CO2–H2O adsorption through humidity control in a polyimide covalent organic framework. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 29186–29194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Rezaei, F.; Jones, C.W. Stability of supported amine adsorbents to SO2 and NOx in postcombustion CO2 capture. 2. multicomponent adsorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 12103–12110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Qin, F.; Guo, Z.; Wang, J.; Qu, S.; Zuo, P.; Shen, W. Nitrogen-doped asphaltene-based porous carbon nanosheet for carbon dioxide capture. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 491, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ren, X.; Li, H.; Chen, J.; Wei, L.; Modak, A.; Yang, H.; Yang, Q. N-doped porous carbons with exceptionally high CO2 selectivity for CO2 capture. Carbon 2017, 114, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, Y.; Wei, Z.; Liu, X.; Liu, F.; Yan, Z.; Zhou, S.; Wang, J.; Deng, S. Synthesis of palm sheath derived-porous carbon for selective CO2 adsorption. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 8592–8599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wahby, A.; Ramos-Fernández, J.M.; Martínez-Escandell, M.; Sepúlveda-Escribano, A.; Silvestre-Albero, J.; Rodriguez-Reinoso, F. High-surface-area carbon molecular sieves for selective CO2 adsorption. ChemSusChem 2010, 3, 974–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rahimalimamaghani, A.; Godini, H.R.; Mboussi, M.; Tanaka, A.P.; Tanco, M.L.; Gallucci, F. Carbon molecular sieve membranes for selective CO2 separation at elevated temperatures and pressures. J. CO2 Util. 2023, 68, 102378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Iqbal, N.; Wang, X.; Yu, J.; Ding, B. Robust and flexible carbon nanofibers doped with amine functionalized carbon nanotubes for efficient CO2 capture. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 2017, 1, 1600028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rahimi, K.; Riahi, S.; Abbasi, M.; Fakhroueian, Z. Modification of multi-walled carbon nanotubes by 1,3-diaminopropane to increase CO2 adsorption capacity. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mendes, P.A.P.; Ribeiro, A.M.; Gleichmann, K.; Ferreira, A.F.P.; Rodrigues, A.E. Separation of CO2/N2 on binderless 5A zeolite. J. CO2 Util. 2017, 20, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cheung, O.; Bacsik, Z.; Fil, N.; Krokidas, P.; Wardecki, D.; Hedin, N. Selective adsorption of CO2 on zeolites NaK-ZK-4 with Si/Al of 1.8–2.8. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 25371–25380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pirzadeh, K.; Esfandiari, K.; Ghoreyshi, A.A.; Rahimnejad, M. CO2 and N2 adsorption and separation using aminated UiO-66 and Cu3(BTC)2: A comparative study. Korea J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 37, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Salehi, S.; Anbia, M. High CO2 adsorption capacity and CO2/CH4 selectivity by nanocomposites of MOF-199. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 5376–5384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, P.; Guo, Y.; Zhao, C.; Yan, J.; Lu, P. Biomass derived wood ash with amine modification for post-combustion CO2 capture. Appl. Energy 2017, 201, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Panda, D.; Kumar, E.A.; Singh, S.K. Amine modification of binder-containing zeolite 4A bodies for post-combustion CO2 capture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 5301–5313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, J.; Yang, Z.; Xie, J.; Zhu, P.; Wei, J.; Jin, R.; Yang, H. Porous polymer supported amino functionalized ionic liquid for effective CO2 capture. Langmuir 2023, 39, 2729–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yin, Z.; Chen, H.; Yang, L.; Peng, C.; Qin, Y.; Wang, T.; Sun, W.; Wang, C. Investigations of CO2 capture from gas mixtures using porous liquids. Langmuir 2021, 37, 1255–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Pohako-Esko, K.; Bahlmann, M.; Schulz, P.S.; Wasserscheid, P. Chitosan containing supported ionic liquid phase materials for CO2 absorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 7052–7059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ismail, S.; Shamsabadi, A.A.; Harris, J.; Adams, T.; Gulec, S.; Brousseau, J.-L.; Nejati, S.; Bavarian, M. Polymer molecular weight as a tuning parameter for enhancing CO2 separation performance in supported ionic liquid membranes. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2025, 7, 12441–12449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kim, C.; Talapaneni, S.N.; Dai, L. Porous carbon materials for CO2 capture, storage and electrochemical conversion. Mater. Rep. Energy 2023, 3, 100199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rahimalimamaghani, A.; Ramezani, R.; Tanaka, D.A.P.; Gallucci, F. Carbon molecular sieve membranes for selective CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation: Experimental study, optimal process design, and economic analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 19116–19132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Derevschikov, V.S.; Kuznetsov, V.L.; Veselovskaya, J.V.; Moseenkov, S.I.; Yatsenko, D.A.; Suknev, A.P.; Leonova, A.A.; Makolkin, N.V.; Ruvinskiy, P.S. Composite sorbents based on carbon nanotubes and K2CO3 for CO2 capture from ambient air. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 20340–20351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Emadinezhad, L.; Bakhtiari, R.; Bakhtiari, B.; Golzary, A. Graphene-based CO2 capture technologies: Environmental assessment and future prospects. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sam, D.K.; Li, H.; Xu, Y.T.; Cao, Y. Advances in porous carbon materials for a sustainable future: A review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024, 333, 103279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ding, Y.; Qi, J.; Hou, R.; Liu, B.; Yao, S.; Lang, J.; Chen, J.; Yang, B. Preparation of high-performance hierarchical porous activated carbon via a multistep physical activation method for supercapacitors. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 5456–5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, S.; Lee, Y.-R.; Won, Y.; Kim, H.; Jeong, S.-E.; Hwang, B.W.; Cho, A.R.; Kim, J.-Y.; Park, Y.C.; Nam, H.; et al. Development of high-performance adsorbent using KOH-impregnated rice husk-based activated carbon for indoor CO2 adsorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 437, 135378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Aghel, B.; Behaein, S.; Alobiad, F. CO2 capture from biogas by biomass-based adsorbents: A review. Fuel 2022, 328, 125276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Plaza, M.G.; González, A.S.; Pis, J.J.; Rubiera, F.; Pevida, C. Production of microporous biochars by single–step oxidation: Effect of activation conditions on CO2 capture. Appl. Energy 2014, 114, 551–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Xu, C.; Ruan, C.-Q.; Li, Y.; Lindh, J.; Strømme, M. High–performance activated carbons synthesized from nanocellulose for CO2 capture and extremely selective removal of volatile organic compounds. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 2018, 2, 1700147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sevilla, M.; Fuertes, A. Sustainable porous carbons with a superior performance for CO2 capture. Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 1765–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jalilov, A.S.; Li, Y.; Tian, J.; Tour, J.M. Ultra-high surface area activated porous asphalt for CO2 capture through competitive adsorption at high pressures. Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1600693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Richter, H.; Voss, H.; Kaltenborn, N.; Kämnitz, S.; Wollbrink, A.; Feldhoff, A.; Caro, J.; Roitsch, S.; Voigt, I. High-flux carbon molecular sieve membranes for gas separation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 7760–7763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ma, Y.; Jue, M.L.; Zhang, F.; Mathias, R.; Jang, H.Y.; Lively, R.P. Creation of well-defined “mid-sized” micropores in carbon molecular sieve membranes. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 13259–13265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lei, L.; Pan, F.; Lindbråthen, A.; Zhang, X.; Hillestad, M.; Nie, Y.; Bai, L.; He, X.; Guiver, M.D. Carbon hollow fiber membranes for a molecular sieve with precise-cutoff ultramicropores for superior hydrogen separation. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Hu, L.; Bui, V.T.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Fan, S.; Guo, W.; Pal, S.; Chen, X.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Singh, R.P.; et al. Tailoring sub-3.3 Å ultramicropores in advanced carbon molecular sieve membranes for blue hydrogen production. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabl8160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Lei, L.; Lindbråthen, A.; Zhang, X.; Favvas, E.P.; Sandru, M.; Hillestad, M.; He, X. Preparation of carbon molecular sieve membranes with remarkable CO2/CH4 selectivity for high-pressure natural gas sweetening. J. Membr. Sci. 2020, 614, 118529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, S.; Kang, Z.; Fan, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, B.; Feng, Y.; Liu, H.; Fan, W.; Wang, R.; Sun, D. Carbon molecular sieve membranes derived from hydrogen-bonded organic frameworks for CO2/CH4 separation. J. Membr. Sci. 2023, 678, 121674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Peigney, A.; Laurent, C.; Flahaut, E.; Bacsa, R.R.; Rousset, A. Specific surface area of carbon nanotubes and bundles of carbon nanotubes. Carbon 2001, 39, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhu, Y.; Murali, S.; Cai, W.; Li, X.; Suk, J.W.; Potts, J.R.; Ruoff, R.S. Graphene and graphene oxide: Synthesis, properties, and applications. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 3906–3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liu, L.; Bhatia, S.K. Molecular simulation of CO2 adsorption in the presence of water in single-walled carbon nanotubes. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117, 13479–13491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kumar, S.; Srivastava, R.; Koh, J. Utilization of zeolites as CO2 capturing agents: Advances and future perspectives. J. CO2 Util. 2020, 41, 101251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. McEwen, J.; Hayman, J.D.; Yazaydin, A.O. A comparative study of CO2, CH4 and N2 adsorption in ZIF-8, Zeolite-13X and BPL activated carbon. Chem. Phys. 2013, 412, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Joshi, N.; Sivachandiran, L. CO2 adsorption and storage over FAU-zeolites for environmental remediation: Understanding the role of oxygen vacancy and promotor loading. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 112828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Q.; Chen, H.; He, F.; Liu, Q.; Xu, N.; Fan, L.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, R. High-performance FAU zeolite membranes derived from nano-seeds for gas separation. Membranes 2023, 13, 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Liu, M.; Ge, Y.; Du, J.; Song, Z.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, X. Hierarchical MFI zeolite membranes for superior xylene separation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024, 34, 2400772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Boer, D.G.; van de Bovenkamp, H.H.; Langerak, J.; Bakker, B.; Pescarmona, P.P. Evaluation of binderless LTA and SAPO-34 beads as CO2 adsorbents for biogas upgrading in a vacuum pressure swing adsorption setup. Energy Adv. 2024, 3, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Elsayed, M.A.; Zhou, S.; Zhao, X.; Manggada, G.W.; Chen, Z.; Wang, F.; Tang, Z. Insights into the adsorption of carbon dioxide in zeolites ITQ-29 and 5A based on kinetic measurements and molecular simulations. Nanomaterials 2025, 15, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. de Reviere, A.; Gunst, D.; Sabbe, M.K.; Reyniers, M.-F.; Verberckmoes, A. Dehydration of butanol towards butenes over MFI, FAU and MOR: Influence of zeolite topology. Catal. Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Chu, W.; Zhao, D.; Chen, F.; Zhu, X.; Li, X.; Liu, S.; Xie, S.; Xu, L. Synthesis and catalytic application of FER zeolites with controllable size. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 7573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Momma, K.; Izumi, F. VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 2011, 44, 1272–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mouctar, M.H.; Hassan, M.G.; Binbo, N.; Abbas, S.Z.; Shigidi, I. Comparative assessment and deployment of zeolites, MOFs, and activated carbons for CO2 capture and geological sequestration applications. Inventions 2025, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Gong, Q.; Li, Z.; Li, J. MOFs for CO2 capture and separation from flue gas mixtures: The effect of multifunctional sites on their adsorption capacity and selectivity. Chem. Comm. 2013, 49, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Boyd, P.G.; Chidambaram, A.; García-Díez, E.; Ireland, C.P.; Daff, T.D.; Bounds, R.; Gładysiak, A.; Schouwink, P.; Moosavi, S.M.; Maroto-Valer, M.M.; et al. Data-driven design of metal-organic frameworks for wet flue gas CO2 capture. Nature 2019, 576, 253–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Czaja, A.U.; Trukhan, N.; Muller, U. Industrial applications of metal-organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2009, 38, 1284–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Pal, T.K.; De, D.; Bharadwaj, P.K. Metal-organic frameworks for the chemical fixation of CO2 into cyclic carbonates. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2020, 408, 213173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, X.; Lin, R.-B.; Wang, J.; Wang, B.; Liang, B.; Yildirim, T.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, W.; Chen, B. Optimization of the pore structures of MOFs for record high hydrogen volumetric working capacity. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1907995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Nguyen, T.S.; Dogan, N.A.; Lim, H.; Yavuz, C. Amine chemistry of porous CO2 adsorbents. Acc. Chem. Res. 2023, 56, 2642–2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Justin, A.; Espín, J.; Pougin, M.J.; Stoian, D.; Schertenleib, T.; Mensi, M.; Kochetygov, I.; Ortega-Guerrero, A.; Queen, W.L. Post-synthetic covalent grafting of amines to NH2-MOF for post-combustion carbon capture. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2024, 34, 2307430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Okada, C.; Hou, Z.; Imoto, H.; Naka, K.; Kikutani, T.; Takasaki, M. In situ polymerization electrospinning of amine–epoxy/poly(vinyl alcohol) nanofiber webs for direct CO2 capture from the air. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 50466–50475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fulvio, P.F.; Dai, S. Porous liquids: The next frontier. Chem 2020, 6, 3263–3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kolding, H.; Fehrmann, R.; Riisager, A. CO2 capture technologies: Current status and new directions using supported ionic liquid phase (SILP) absorbers. Sci. China Chem. 2012, 55, 1648–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Santiago, R.; Lemus, J.; Hospital-Benito, D.; Moya, C.; Bedia, J.; Alonso-Morales, N.; Rodriguez, J.J.; Palomar, J. CO2 capture by supported ionic liquid phase: Highlighting the role of the particle size. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 13089–13097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Romanos, G.E.; Schulz, P.S.; Bahlmann, M.; Wasserscheid, P.; Sapalidis, A.; Katsaros, F.K.; Athanasekou, C.P.; Beltsios, K.; Kanellopoulos, N.K. CO2 capture by novel supported ionic liquid phase systems consisting of silica nanoparticles encapsulating amine-functionalized ionic liquids. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 24437–24451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Balsamo, M.; Erto, A.; Lancia, A.; Totarella, G.; Montagnaro, F.; Turco, R. Post-combustion CO2 capture: On the potentiality of amino acid ionic liquid as modifying agent of mesoporous solids. Fuel 2018, 218, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ma, H.; Fu, H.; Tong, Y.; Umar, A.; Hung, Y.M.; Wang, X. Advances in CO2 capture and separation materials: Emerging trends, challenges, and prospects for sustainable applications. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2025, 15, 100441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. House, K.Z.; Harvey, C.F.; Aziz, M.J.; Schrag, D.P. The energy penalty of post-combustion CO2 capture & storage and its implications for retrofitting the US installed base. J. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009, 2, 193–205. [Google Scholar]
  122. Rezaei, F.; Grahn, M. Thermal management of structured adsorbents in CO2 capture processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2012, 51, 4025–4034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Plaza, M.G.; Pevida, C.; Arias, B.; Fermoso, J.; Arenillas, A.; Rubiera, F.; Pis, J. Application of thermogravimetric analysis to the evaluation of aminated solid sorbents for CO2 capture. Therm. Anal. Calorimeters 2008, 92, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Britt, D.; Furukawa, H.; Wang, B.; Yaghi, O.M. Highly efficient separation of carbon dioxide by a metal-organicframework replete with open metal sites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20637–20640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Xin, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhang, W.; Su, F.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Fan, W.; Li, X.; Qian, L.; Yao, D.; et al. A novel “pore-carrier transfer” strategy for preparation of porous liquids toward efficient CO2 capture. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 497, 154765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wang, D.; Xin, Y.; Li, X.; Ning, H.; Wang, Y.; Yao, D.; Zheng, Y.; Meng, Z.; Yang, Z.; Pan, Y.; et al. Transforming metal–organic frameworks into porous liquids via a covalent linkage strategy for CO2 capture. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 2600–2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zheng, B.; Bai, J.; Duan, J.; Wojtas, L.; Zaworotko, M.J. Enhanced CO2 binding affinity of a high-uptake rht-type metal−organic framework decorated with acylamide groups. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 748–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Sevilla, M.; Valle-Vigón, P.; Fuertes, A.B. N-doped polypyrrole-based porous carbons for CO2 capture. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2011, 21, 2781–2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Separations 12 00334 g001
Figure 1. Intrinsic structure of the adsorbent influencing the adsorption [31,41,52,53,54,55].
Figure 1. Intrinsic structure of the adsorbent influencing the adsorption [31,41,52,53,54,55].
Separations 12 00334 g001
Separations 12 00334 g002
Figure 2. Representative structural schematics of porous carbon-based materials: (a) activated carbon, reprinted with permission from Ref. [80]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. (b) carbon molecular sieve, (c) carbon nanotube, and (d) graphene.
Figure 2. Representative structural schematics of porous carbon-based materials: (a) activated carbon, reprinted with permission from Ref. [80]. Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. (b) carbon molecular sieve, (c) carbon nanotube, and (d) graphene.
Separations 12 00334 g002
Separations 12 00334 g003
Figure 3. Some representative zeolites and their pore sizes: (a) Faujasite-type (FAU) zeolite, (b) Zeolite Socony Mobil-five (MFI), (c) Linde Type A (LTA) zeolite, (d) Mordenite (MOR) zeolite, and (e) Ferrierite (FER) zeolite [98,99,100,101,102,103,104]. The structures of zeolites were drawn by VESTA (Ver. 3.90.5a) [105].
Figure 3. Some representative zeolites and their pore sizes: (a) Faujasite-type (FAU) zeolite, (b) Zeolite Socony Mobil-five (MFI), (c) Linde Type A (LTA) zeolite, (d) Mordenite (MOR) zeolite, and (e) Ferrierite (FER) zeolite [98,99,100,101,102,103,104]. The structures of zeolites were drawn by VESTA (Ver. 3.90.5a) [105].
Separations 12 00334 g003
Separations 12 00334 g004
Figure 4. Representative channels or cages in the MOFs. (a) NU-125, (b) HKUST-1, (c) UiO-68-Ant, (d) NU-1000, (e) Cu-MOF-74, (f) Zn2(bdc)2(dabco)2. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [111]. Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons. All rights reserved. (NU: Northwestern University; HKUST: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; UiO: University of Oslo).
Figure 4. Representative channels or cages in the MOFs. (a) NU-125, (b) HKUST-1, (c) UiO-68-Ant, (d) NU-1000, (e) Cu-MOF-74, (f) Zn2(bdc)2(dabco)2. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [111]. Copyright 2020, John Wiley and Sons. All rights reserved. (NU: Northwestern University; HKUST: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; UiO: University of Oslo).
Separations 12 00334 g004
Table 1. Comparisons between different CO2 adsorbents.
Table 1. Comparisons between different CO2 adsorbents.
ReferencesAdsorbentAdsorption CapacitySelectivityAdsorption MechanismsAdvantagesLimitations
[58]Porous carbon nanosheet4.3 mmol/g (298.15 K, 1 bar), 6.3 mmol/g (273.15 K, 1 bar)15.3 (CO2/N2, 273.15 K, 1 bar), 7.3 (CO2/CH4, 273.15 K, 1 bar)van der Waals forcesHydrophobic, low cost, easy regenerationLow selectivity, limited adsorption capacity
[59]Porous carbon1.42 mmol/g (308 K, 1 bar)63 (CO2/N2, 308 K, 1 bar)
[60]Porous carbon3.48 mmol/g (298 K, 1 bar),
5.28 mmol/g (273 K, 1 bar)		32.7 (CO2/N2, 298 K, 1 bar), 7.1 (CO2/CH4, 298 K, 1 bar)
[61]Carbon molecular sieve380 mg/g (273 K, 1 bar)-van der Waals forcesHydrophobic, high selectivityA trade-off between permeability and selectivity
[62]Carbon molecular sieve-33~97 (CO2/N2, 473 K, 20 bar)
[63]Carbon nanofibers doped with amine-functionalized carbon nanotubes (CNTs)6.3 mmol/g (298 K, 1 bar)78 (CO2/N2, 298 K, 1 bar)van der Waals forces, chemical bondingHigh adsorption capacityHigh cost
[64]Multi-walled carbon nanotubes92.71 mg/g (303 K, 17.3 bar)-van der Waals forces
[65]5A zeolite5.2 mmol/g (308 K, 4 bar)-van der Waals forces; electrostatic interactionsHigh selectivity, high adsorption capacitySensitive to water
[61]13X zeolite230 mg/g (273 K, 1 bar)-
[61]5A zeolite180 mg/g (273 K, 1 bar)-
[66]NaK-ZK-4 zeolite-1190 (CO2/N2, 273 K, 1.01 bar)
[67]NH2-UiO-663.32 mmol/g (298.15 K, 1 bar)120 (CO2/N2, 298.15 K, 1 bar)van der Waals forces; electrostatic interactionsHigh adsorption capacitySensitive to water and polar gases
[67]NH2-Cu3(BTC)23.86 mmol/g (298.15 K, 1 bar)53 (CO2/N2, 298.15 K, 1 bar)
[68]CNT@MOF-199/30PZ-ca. 17 (CO2/CH4, 298 K, 1 bar)
[69]Wood ashes modified with tetraethylenepentamine2.02 mmol/g (378.15 K, 1 bar)-Chemical bondingHigh selectivity, high adsorption capacityHigh regeneration energy
[70]iso-butylamine-modified binder-containing zeolite 4A bodies (IBA-Z4A)1.34 mmol/g (298.15 K, 0.15 bar),335 (CO2/N2, 298.15 K, 1 bar)van der Waals forces; chemical bonding
[71]Porous polymer-supported amino-functionalized ionic liquid1.29 mmol/g (313.15 K, 1 bar)-van der Waals forcesPotentially low energy consumptionComplex synthesis
[72]Porous liquids-4.0 (CO2/N2, 298.15 K, 20 bar)
[73]Inverse supported ionic liquid phase0.065~0.823 mmol/g (313.15 K, 1 bar)-van der Waals forces; chemical bondingHigh selectivity, high adsorption capacityComplex synthesis
[74]Supported ionic liquid membranes3.15 ± 0.30 mol/kg (283.15 K, 13.79 bar)16 (CO2/N2, 297.15 K, 1 bar)
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

Wang, Y.; Tang, X.; Yi, H. Adsorption Materials for Carbon Capture: Research Advancements and Prospects. Separations 2025, 12, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12120334

AMA Style

Wang Y, Tang X, Yi H. Adsorption Materials for Carbon Capture: Research Advancements and Prospects. Separations. 2025; 12(12):334. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12120334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Ya, Xiaolong Tang, and Honghong Yi. 2025. "Adsorption Materials for Carbon Capture: Research Advancements and Prospects" Separations 12, no. 12: 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12120334

APA Style

Wang, Y., Tang, X., & Yi, H. (2025). Adsorption Materials for Carbon Capture: Research Advancements and Prospects. Separations, 12(12), 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12120334

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