Next Article in Journal
Essential Oils as Nature’s Dual Powerhouses for Agroindustry and Medicine: Volatile Composition and Bioactivities—Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Cytotoxic
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis on the Main Components of Selenium-Enriched Premna microphylla Leaves and Processed Tofu
 
 
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 6
10.3390/separations12060144
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 and Absorption Techniques for the Separation of Gaseous C2–C5 Olefins

by
Fengxiang Guo
1,
Chao Sun
2,*,
Mo Xian
2 and
Huibin Zou
1,2,*
1
College of Chemical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266042, China
2
CAS Key Laboratory of Biobased Materials, Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266101, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Separations 2025, 12(6), 144; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12060144
Submission received: 11 April 2025 / Revised: 24 May 2025 / Accepted: 28 May 2025 / Published: 1 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Separation Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Volatile C2–C5 olefins are important bulk chemicals in the polymer industry. Traditionally, C2–C5 olefins are produced from cracked petroleum resources using an energy-consuming and hazardous distillation method. Currently, volatile olefins can be produced from renewable biomass. To obtain polymer-grade volatile olefins from diversified resources, more sustainable and feasible separation techniques need to be developed. This review focuses on two updated separation techniques for C2–C5 olefins: (a) adsorption separation, which separates olefins through porous affinity, the pi complexation effect, and size-exclusion and gate-opening sieving, and (b) liquid absorption separation, which utilizes either organic solvents or ionic liquids for olefin separation. In this review, different separation techniques are compared in terms of their mechanisms and operation conditions in the separation of different types of C2–C5 olefins from variable resources, such as cracked ethylene/propylene/butylene/isoprene and bio-isoprene.

1. Introduction

Short-chain olefins (ethylene, propylene, butylene, butadiene, and isoprene) are imported bulk chemicals with massive production and consumption volumes in global chemical markets, and they are highly dependent on crude oil and natural gas resources [1]. Ethylene is the main monomer for plastic and textile polymers [2], and its global production has reached 140 million tons per year [3], mainly from the cracking of hydrocarbon feedstock or ethane transformation [4]. Propylene is the second largest olefin in the chemical market [5], with its global propylene production is estimated to reach 135 million tons per year by 2025 [6]. Similar to ethylene, propylene is mainly manufactured from the cracking of fossil feedstocks [7]. Generally, ethylene and propylene are separated from paraffin through cryogenic distillation at a high pressure and low temperature. Cryogenic distillation requires the use of large compressors and heat exchangers, which are expensive to build and operate while only being beneficial for producing olefins of high purity [8]. The energy consumed to separate olefins from paraffin (both ethylene and propylene) accounts for more than USD 5 billion per year [9]. Butadiene and isoprene are bulk C4 and C5 olefins, especially used for synthetic rubbers and other polymers [10,11]. As major by-products of naphtha cracking in the ethylene and propylene production process, the global markets for 1,3-butadiene and isoprene are both around 10–15 million tons per year [12,13]. Traditional separation methods such as extractive distillation are often energy-intensive, environmentally unfriendly, and costly [14]. Therefore, it has become imperative to look for simpler, cheaper, less energy-demanding, and highly efficient alternatives to carry out these separations.
Due to the dependence on fossil resources, the production costs of olefins are affected by the volatility of energy and crude oil prices. The exhaustion of petroleum resources will inevitably become a bottleneck in the future production of bulk olefins. In recent years, bio-based olefins have been developed from renewable biological feedstocks. Since the clarification of the natural α-ketoglutarate-dependent (KGA) pathway for ethylene biosynthesis [15], various engineered strains have been developed for bio-ethylene production from renewable feedstocks, such as engineered Escherichia coli [16,17,18], Saccharomyces cerevisiae [19], Pseudomonas putidis [20], Trichoderma viridis [21], and Trichoderma richsoni [22]. The biosynthesis of 1,3-butadiene from glucose has also been achieved by engineered E. coli through artificial metabolic pathways [23,24]. Bio-isoprene can also be produced by engineered E. coli from glucose through the mevalonate (MVA) or methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathways [25,26,27].
For the production of C2–C5 olefins using either traditional cracking processes or bioprocesses, the corresponding separation technologies need to be considered, as the operation conditions are highly variable between chemo- and bioprocesses. Due to the low boiling point of C2–C5 olefins, most final olefin products present a gaseous form under cracking and fermentation conditions [28]. Thus, feasible collection and separation techniques are important in the whole production process of C2–C5 olefins. The known separation techniques for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) include adsorption, membrane separation, absorption, and condensation (Table 1) [29,30,31,32,33]. However, no separation technique can be broadly applied in all cases. For example, distillation and absorption techniques are often used in the industrial separation of C2–C5 olefins [34]. However, it is difficult to collect volatile bio-olefins using the absorption technique under fermentation conditions due to their low concentration and high moisture; thus, this technique may be more suitable for C2–C5 bio-olefins.
Due to the scarcity of information on separation techniques for volatile C2–C5 olefins, especially for bio-olefins produced from the fermentation process, this review summarizes the recent progress of adsorption and absorption techniques, which can be applied to collect volatile C2–C5 olefins from fossil and biological resources. This review also examines the advantages and disadvantages, influencing factors, practical applications, and prospects of these techniques in the separation of C2–C5 olefins in a broad range of production processes.

2. Adsorption Techniques for Volatile Olefins

The advantages of adsorption, a mature technique, are that it consumes less energy and can be broadly applied to separate volumes of low-concentration volatile chemicals, including volatile olefins [45]. However, the adsorption technique requires a large equipment space. Furthermore, it cannot be used to separate volatile chemicals under high-temperature and high-humidity conditions [46], as the adsorption between volatile olefins and adsorbents is a reversible physical process [47].
Adsorption separations consist of three key mechanisms (Figure 1) [48]: (Figure 1A) pore kinetic separations, (Figure 1B) affinity-based separation (π-complexation), and (Figure 1C) pore size and shape-based separations. Within the three basic adsorption separation techniques, multiple separation mechanisms are sometimes used to achieve certain specific separations goals.
The adsorption efficiency and capacity of adsorbents toward volatile olefins are largely affected by the material properties of the adsorbent and the adsorption conditions. The specific surface area, pore structure, and surface polarity of adsorbents affect their performance in the adsorption of volatile olefins. Considering the low boiling points of volatile olefins, adsorbents with large specific surface areas are preferred, which can improve the adsorption capacity for volatile chemicals [49]. The pore size distribution of porous adsorbents is another important property that can affect olefin adsorption performance [50]. The ratio of micropores, mesopores, and macropores in the adsorbent need to be optimized for the efficient adsorption of volatile olefins [51]. Due to the nonpolar property of volatile olefins, the surface hydrophobicity of the adsorbent can affect its adsorption toward volatile olefins [52]. Adsorbents with nitrogen functional groups have higher hydrophobicity and thus should be considered for the efficient adsorption of nonpolar olefins.
Temperature and humidity also strongly affect the adsorption efficiency of volatile olefins. It has been found that higher temperatures will limit the adsorption of low-boiling-point VOCs [53]. However, lower temperatures affect the kinetic properties of VOCs and prevent their diffusion into micropores. Thus, the operation temperature should be optimized on a case-by-case basis to achieve the best adsorption rate and capacity for volatile olefins and other VOCs [54]. The adsorption of volatile olefins will be competitively interrupted by higher humidity, especially for bio-olefins produced by fermentation methods. During the fermentation process, the exhaust gases usually contain high levels of water vapor [55], which can compete with olefins for adsorption, thus severely weakening the adsorption performance [56,57]. For example, the adsorption capacity of activated carbon for VOCs decreases drastically with an increase in water vapor, even by 50%, especially when the relative humidity (RH) exceeds 60% [58]. To reduce the side effects of humidity, the oxygen functional groups of adsorbents are reduced through the use of heat treatment [59], oxidation treatment [60], alkali treatment [61], and hydrophobic coatings [62].

2.1. Major Adsorbent Material for Volatile Olefins

Ideal olefin adsorbents typically have the following properties: a large specific surface area, high porosity, a reasonable pore size distribution, high hydrophobicity to reduce the competitive adsorption of water vapor, and resistance to high temperatures and hydrothermal heat to ensure the regeneration of the adsorbent [46]. Common olefin adsorbents include activated carbon (AC), activated carbon fiber (ACF) [30], zeolites [63], metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) [64], and other porous materials.

2.1.1. Carbon Material

Carbon materials have the advantages of a large specific surface area, high porosity, high mechanical strength, and stable structure and properties [65]. Activated carbon (AC) has a strong potential for the adsorption of VOCs due to its low cost and high adsorption capacity [66]. Currently, the main bottleneck to the use of activated carbon material is the strong competitive adsorption of water vapor, which significantly reduces its adsorption capacity for VOCs [67]. Modulating the surface hydrophobicity of carbon material normally improves its adsorption capacity for VOCs under high-humidity conditions [68,69].
Activated carbon fiber (ACF) has short and straight pores, which contribute to a higher rate of transport and adsorption [70]; thus, it is widely used for the adsorption of VOCs [71]. In addition, ACF has a low content of oxygen functional groups on its surface, and its higher hydrophobicity can contribute to the adsorption of nonpolar VOCs, such as olefins [72]. The disadvantage of ACF is that it has a higher cost than AC [73].

2.1.2. Zeolites

Compared with carbon material, zeolite material contains uniform pores, which can provide more effective sites for the adsorption of desired VOCs [74]. For example, the MCM-41S zeolite [75] has a high surface area and large pore volume, and it has the potential to adsorb volatile olefins and other low-boiling-point VOCs [76]. During the preparation process of zeolites for specific purposes, the ratio of Al and Si can be adjusted to control the pore structure and hydrophobicity [77]. For example, MFI zeolites have been designed and made with higher Si/Al ratios to achieve a high adsorption capacity and selectivity toward methylene chloride under high-humidity conditions [78]. However, the preparation of tentative zeolite is costly and involves a complex process, which hinders its broader application in adsorption.

2.1.3. MOF Materials

MOF materials have the advantages of a tunable porosity, a multifunctional surface structure, and thermal stability [79]. The adsorption active sites of MOFs are mainly provided by exposed metal sites, which can interact with the pi electrons in volatile olefins and other VOCs [80]. For example, various MOFs can effectively adsorb toluene (98 to 224 mg/g) through ion–pi interactions [81]. Similar to zeolite material, MOFs can be further designed to adsorb objective VOCs through the rational selection of specific metal ions and organic linkers [82]. However, the adsorption capacity of MOFs can be severely affected by humidity [83], and they cannot be applied under high-humidity conditions.

2.2. Adsorption Separation of Representative Olefins

2.2.1. Adsorption Separation of Volatile Ethylene and Propylene

Cracking methods are used in the industrial production of ethylene and propylene, and trace amounts of cracked H2, alkanes, alkynes, benzene, toluene, and xylene components need to be removed during the separation process [84]. In addition to the traditional distillation techniques used in the separation of cracking ethylene and propylene, adsorption techniques using porous adsorbents have been recently developed to reduce energy consumption and co-distilled impurities [85].
Cationic zeolites have been used to adsorb volatile ethylene and propylene with an excellent adsorption capacity [86]. For example, a seven-step pressure–vacuum swing adsorption (PVSA) process (using 4A zeolite) has been developed to separate high-purity (>99%) propylene from cracking products; the separation cost can reach USD 20.66 per ton of propylene [87], which is competitive with the distillation process.
MOF-based adsorbents have also been developed for olefin absorption. To target the unsaturated bonds in olefins for specific affinity, unsaturated metal sites (UMSs) are designed in the MOF structure. BTC-based MOFs (containing UMSs) are well known for olefin absorption [88]. For example, a BTC-based MOF, Cu3(BTC)2, has been developed for the separation of ethylene from C2H4/C2H6 gas mixtures [89]. MIL-100(Fe) is another BTC-based MOF [90], and it eliminates the anionic ligands (F− and OH−) and improves the Fe (III) and Fe (II) sites in the UMSs [91]. MIL-100(Fe) presents a strong affinity toward propylene at lower pressures (<0.25 kPa); it has been applied in the separation of propylene from C3H6/C3H8 gas mixtures, where the separation coefficients can reach 28 [91].
In addition to traditional zeolite material, novel molecular sieve materials have also been developed to adsorb specific olefins. By controlling the sieve size and geometry, these materials can achieve higher specificity [92], and they can be used to separate high-purity olefins [93]. For example, due to the minor size difference between propylene and propane (<0.4 Å), it is difficult to achieve the selective sieving of propylene from propane [94]; however, one molecular sieve, ZU-609 [95], sets up a screening gate and corresponding diffusion channel to precisely absorb propane from propylene. The separated propylene has high purity (99.9%), and the yield can reach 32.2 L propylene per kg of ZU-609.

2.2.2. Adsorption of C4 Olefins

C4 olefins obtained from the distillation process are separated through adsorptive separation, which is a simulated moving-bed process. The sulfur content in C4 olefins is first removed through the desulfurizing process before entering the adsorptive separation column, as the sulfuric compound can cause corrosion inside the adsorptive separation tower [96]. Compared with C2 and C3 olefins, C4 olefins have more isomer members (1-butene, 2-butene, butadiene, cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene, and isobutene), with diversified molecular structures and properties [97]. The adsorption separation of C4 olefin isomers is challenging [98]. Similar to C2 olefin adsorption materials, zeolites and MOFs are also utilized in the adsorption separation of C4 olefins [99].
The adsorptive separation of C4 olefins using microporous materials was comprehensively investigated by Gehre et al. [99], who compared the performance of zeolites and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) as adsorbents. However, the flexibility of the MOF structure could prevent their industrial use. Zeolites offer more advantages in C4 olefin separation than MOFs. Hence, several researchers have considered the use of zeolites for C4 olefin separation. For example, the type 13X zeolite can effectively separate C4 olefin from C4 paraffin by forming a pi complex with olefin [97], and the adsorption method can be operated under broader conditions (1 to 10 atm and 20 to 150 °C). Tijsebaert et al. [100] studied all-silica RUB 41 zeolite as a catalyst for the liquid-phase separation of C4 olefins, where the separation of 1-butene from 2-butene was carried out at 20 °C with different pressures for 24 h. As a result, they obtained concentrated butene isomers such as 6.6 M of trans-2-butene, 5M of cis-2-butene, 3M of 1-butene, and 0.4M of isobutene. The adsorptive separation of butadiene and 2-butene isomers using DD3R zeolite (DDR framework) treated using KOH and KF was carried out by Gucuyener et al. [101] at 30–100 °C for 0.05–0.4 h. The ratios of trans-2-butene/1-butene, trans-2-butene/1-butene, and butadiene/1-butene were 3.5, 3.7, and 7 at 30 °C and 1.2 atm for 0.4 h.
The π complexation method is often utilized in the separation of C4 hydrocarbons. C4 olefins such as 1-butene, 2-butene, isobutene, and butadiene can be further separated using adsorptive separation via the π complexation method. For example [102], olefin purification for C4 hydrocarbon has been carried out using the monolayer AgNO3/SiO2 adsorbents [103]. Butadiene/1-butene separations have been carried out using both Ag–Y and AgNa–Y zeolites [104] and Cu(I)–Y and Cu–Y zeolites [102].

2.2.3. Adsorption of Isoprene

Activated carbon has a high adsorption capacity [105], and it is widely used as a porous adsorption material to separate ethylene, propylene [106], and isoprene [107] under dry conditions. Furthermore, adsorption is the most widely employed method, in conjunction with condensation [108], for recovering olefins. In this integrated approach, low-temperature olefins processed by a condensing unit are subsequently directed into an adsorption system. For instance, gaseous bio-isoprene from fermentation devices contains a large amount of water vapor, and the adsorption capacity of activated carbon is greatly reduced under high-humidity conditions. Thus, a dehumidification device is required when activated carbon is used to separate bio-isoprene [109]. Pioneering studies have shown that activated carbon can adsorb bio-isoprene from fermentation off-gases, and the total recovery yield can reach 80% [110].

3. Liquid Absorption Techniques for Volatile Olefins

Liquid absorption is considered a promising separation method for gaseous olefins [44,111]. Currently, the industrial separation of olefins is achieved using organic solvent extractive distillation with energy-intensive and environmentally unfriendly processes [112]. Moreover, liquid absorption can be employed for the recovery of fermented olefins. The simple operation process and low maintenance costs make it a feasible separation method for industrial application. However, due to the limitations of feasible solvents for low-boiling-point VOCs, liquid absorption techniques can only be applied to separate a limited number of VOCs [113].
In the liquid absorption of volatile chemicals, the absorption conditions can affect the separation efficiency of targeted volatile olefins [114]. The operation temperature and pressure must be determined in experimental tests or computational simulations before practical application [113]. No single solvent can be widely used for all olefins; different olefins require different solvents for absorption (Figure 2).

3.1. Absorbents for Volatile Olefins

3.1.1. Organic Liquids

A variety of organic solvents have been used for olefin separation, including low-boiling-point nonpolar hydrocarbons [34], myristate [115], isoparaffins [116], high-boiling-point polar solvents such as dimethylformamide (DMF) [117], and N-methy-l-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) [118]. Organic solvent absorbents have the advantage of a high absorption capacity for olefins, but most of them are volatile and have solvent loss issues during the operation process.

3.1.2. Ionic Liquids

Compared with organic solvents, ionic liquids (ILs) have received widespread attention as promising extraction solvents [119] due to their high selectivity and low vapor pressure [120]. A broad range of ILs have been developed to extract gaseous olefins and other VOCs [121]. Silver-containing ILs, such as [Ag] [Tf2N] IL [122] and ketone-AgNO3 IL [123], are popular for use in olefin extraction. The silver ion extraction system can enhance the extraction efficiency of ILs to olefins. However, ionic liquids also have the disadvantage of a high cost, preventing their wide application in industry [124].

3.2. Liquid Absorption of Representative Olefins

3.2.1. Ethylene Absorption

Petro-ethylene is traditionally produced by demethanization systems, and low-temperature fractionation has been used for ethylene separation [125]. The advanced low-capital ethylene technology (ALCET) process was developed to apply solvent absorption in the system in order to decrease energy costs [126]. With n-butane or n-butylene solvent, an in silico simulation and experimental study found that the optimum operating parameters were as follows: a 3.5 solvent/gas mass ratio, a 2100 kPa operating pressure, a −10 °C gas inlet temperature, and a −40 °C solvent inlet temperature [34]. Additionally, a 90% recovery yield could be achieved for cracked ethylene. Liquid absorption is considered the most promising method for C2H4/C2H6 separation. Wu et al. [127] designed and synthesized a series of novel silver-containing protic imidazolium ionic liquids (SPILs) with high chemical activity for efficient C2H4 absorption. In [Bim]1.5 [Ag (NTf2)2.5], an unprecedentedly high selectivity (41.2) and high solubility (1.86 mol C2H4/mol Ag+) were achieved at 303 K and 2.0 bar, which are the highest values of ionic liquid (IL) absorption reported to date. In addition, some imidazolium-based ionic liquids with cyano groups containing Cu+ organic solvents (CuAlCl4) can also be used to selectively absorb ethane and ethylene [128].

3.2.2. C4 Olefin Absorption

In general, C4 olefins consist of 1-butene, 2-butene, butadiene, cis-2-butene, trans-2-butene, and isobutene. The production of C4 olefins has increased annually. For instance, in the USA, the C4 olefin production in 2007 was 20 thousand barrels per year (TBY), and it increased up to 21 TBY in 2009 and 23 TBY in 2010 [96]. Extractive distillation plays a vital role in C4 fraction separation [129].
To separate C4 olefins, acetonitrile (AN), dimethylformamide (DMF), and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) are the three most selective polar extragents used in the industry [130]. A simulation of the NMP extractive distillation process to separate 1,3-butadiene from the C4 hydrocarbon mixtures was performed using Aspen Plus by Kim et al. [131]. With the optimized operating conditions, 1,3-butadiene was obtained with a purity of 99.7 wt.% and a recovery of 99.75%. Cao et al. [132]. propose an innovative separation method using complex extractive distillation by adding cuprous chloride ethanolamine (C2H7NO−CuCl) into the conventional extractant as a complexing agent. The results showed that the solvent-to-feed ratio of complex extractive distillation was only 70% of ordinary extractive distillation, and the reflux ratio was only 60% of ordinary extractive distillation.
Recently, ILs, as efficient extractants, have been extensively investigated due to their unique properties such as negligible vapor pressure, high thermal stability, tunable structures, and excellent molecular recognition ability [133]. Scovazzo et al. [134] showed that 1,3-butadiene always has a larger solubility than 1-butene in imidazolium-, ammonium-, and phosphonium-based ILs.

3.2.3. Isoprene Absorption

Both petro-isoprene and bio-isoprene can achieve solvent absorption, but they require different extraction solvents. Petrochemical feed streams have high concentrations of isoprene (10–20%), and polar solvents such as acetonitrile, N-methyl pyrrolidone, and dimethylformamide are generally used as absorbents [109]. Bio-isoprene presents a low concentration (less than 2%) and a high humidity, and feasible solvents include myristate [115] and isoparaffins [116]. Mixtures of cyclohexane and methanol can also be used to selectively extract isoprene from isoprene vapors, but their practical application in bio-isoprene extraction has not been investigated [135].
The use of conventional organic solvents for the recovery of isoprene has the risk of solvent evaporation. Ionic liquid (IL) solvents have been developed in recent years for isoprene extraction [136]. A pioneering study [137] screened 6 candidate ILs out of 248742 ILs using computer-aided IL design (CAILD) and found that all 6 ionic liquids had better extraction performance than isopropyl myristate solvent. Additionally, [N1,1,3,0] [DMP] solvent was identified as the best solvent for achieving the highest isoprene recovery yield [137].

4. Conclusions

This work provides a comprehensive overview of volatile C2–C5 olefin separation methods, focusing on their advantages, limitations, influencing factors, practical applications, and prospects. Table 2 summarizes the major separation technologies used for C2–C5 olefins to facilitate a straightforward comparison of olefin separation processes and their effectiveness.
For moderate flow rates and low-concentration volatile chemicals, including volatile olefins, adsorption is the dominant technique due to its clear advantages. As a mature technology, adsorption is energy-efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly, making it the preferred choice for olefin separation. Several adsorbents, such as zeolite molecular sieves and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), have demonstrated remarkable performance in alkane/olefin separation. Adsorption has emerged as a highly promising method for recovering short-chain olefins, including ethylene, propylene, C4 olefins, and isoprene. However, this technique requires large equipment and is unsuitable for high-temperature and high-humidity conditions. Liquid absorption is another feasible separation method for industrial applications, owing to its simple operation, low maintenance costs, and ability to absorb high concentrations of olefins at room temperature. Absorbent liquids are broadly classified into organic liquids and ionic liquids (ILs). Petrochemical feed streams, which typically have high olefin concentrations, often utilize polar solvents as absorbents. Specific ionic liquids are particularly effective for absorbing bio-olefin exhaust gases with complex compositions and low olefin concentrations. However, this method has limitations, including stringent solvent requirements, high solvent costs, and the need for different solvents to absorb varying types of olefins, which can complicate its implementation.
Further work in olefin separation technologies remains essential to enhance their efficiency and applicability. For adsorption technologies, developing novel materials with a high selectivity and working capacity is critical. These materials should be designed to optimize performance under varying operational conditions. For absorption technologies, the focus should be on reducing the cost of solvents while maintaining or enhancing their absorption capacity. Additionally, researchers are encouraged to conduct comprehensive analyses and comparisons of the economic viability of different separation technologies. Such studies should aim to optimize the separation and recovery processes for C2–C5 olefins, ensuring that the chosen methods are both cost-effective and efficient.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.G., H.Z. and C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.G.; writing—review and editing, H.Z.; supervision, H.Z., M.X. and C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2104700), the Taishan Scholars Program (tsqn202312271), the Key R&D Program of Shandong Province (2023JMRH0201), and the Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation (ZR2022MB014).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Amghizar, I.; Vandewalle, L.A.; Van Geem, K.M.; Marin, G.B. New trends in olefin production. Engineering 2017, 3, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kusmiyati; Amin, N.A.S. Production of gasoline range hydrocarbons from catalytic reaction of methane in the presence of ethylene over W/HZSM-5. Catal. Today 2005, 106, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hulea, V. Toward platform chemicals from bio-based ethylene: Heterogeneous catalysts and processes. ACS Catal. 2018, 8, 3263–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zacharopoulou, V.; Lemonidou, A.A. Olefins from biomass intermediates: A review. Catalysts 2017, 8, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Phung, T.K.; Pham, T.L.M.; Vu, K.B.; Busca, G. (Bio) Propylene production processes: A critical review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akah, A.; Al-Ghrami, M. Maximizing propylene production via FCC technology. Appl. Petrochem. Res. 2015, 5, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jasper, S.; El-Halwagi, M.M. A techno-economic comparison between two methanol-to-propylene processes. Processes 2015, 3, 684–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, S.J.; Kwon, Y.S.; Kim, D.H.; Park, H.; Park, Y.I. A Review on Polymer Precursors of Carbon Molecular Sieve Membranes for Olefin/Paraffin Separation. Membranes 2021, 11, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, X.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, X.; Xiao, J.; Li, Z. Novel C-PDA adsorbents with high uptake and preferential adsorption of ethane over ethylene. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 155, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Janke, C.; Gaida, S.; Jennewein, S. The production of isoprene from cellulose using recombinant Clostridium cellulolyticum strains expressing isoprene synthase. Microbiologyopen 2020, 9, e1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qi, Y.; Liu, Z.; Liu, S.; Cui, L.; Dai, Q.; He, J.; Dong, W.; Bai, C. Synthesis of 1, 3-butadiene and its 2-substituted monomers for synthetic rubbers. Catalysts 2019, 9, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Makshina, E.V.; Dusselier, M.; Janssens, W.; Degreve, J.; Jacobs, P.A.; Sels, B.F. Review of old chemistry and new catalytic advances in the on-purpose synthesis of butadiene. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 7917–7953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Heracleous, E.; Pachatouridou, E.; Louie, L.; Dugar, D.; Lappas, A.A. Efficient route for the production of isoprene via decarboxylation of bioderived mevalonolactone. ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 9649–9661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhilyaeva, N.; Lytkina, A.; Mironova, E.Y.; Ermilova, M.; Orekhova, N.; Shevlyakova, N.; Tverskoy, V.; Yaroslavtsev, A. Polyethylene with radiation-grafted sulfonated polystyrene membranes for butane and butenes separation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2020, 161, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Völksch, B.; Weingart, H. Comparison of ethylene-producing Pseudomonas syringae strains isolated from kudzu (Pueraria lobata) with Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola and Pseudomonas syringae pv. glycinea. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 1997, 103, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lynch, S.; Eckert, C.; Yu, J.; Gill, R.; Maness, P.-C. Overcoming substrate limitations for improved production of ethylene in E. coli. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2016, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fukuda, H.; Ogawa, T.; Ishihara, K.; Fujii, T.; Nagahama, K.; Omata, T.; Inoue, Y.; Tanase, S.; Morino, Y. Molecular cloning in Escherichia coli, expression, and nucleotide sequence of the gene for the ethylene-forming enzyme of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola PK2. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1992, 188, 826–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ishihara, K.; Matsuoka, M.; Inoue, Y.; Tanase, S.; Ogawa, T.; Fukuda, H. Overexpression and in vitro reconstitution of the ethylene-forming enzyme from Pseudomonas syringae. J. Ferment. Bioeng. 1995, 79, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pirkov, I.; Albers, E.; Norbeck, J.; Larsson, C. Ethylene production by metabolic engineering of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab. Eng. 2008, 10, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ishihara, K.; Matsuoka, M.; Ogawa, T.; Fukuda, H. Ethylene production using a broad-host-range plasmid in Pseudomonas syringae and Pseudomonas putida. J. Ferment. Bioeng. 1996, 82, 509–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tao, L.; Dong, H.J.; Chen, X.; Chen, S.F.; Wang, T.-H. Expression of ethylene-forming enzyme (EFE) of Pseudomonas syringae pv. glycinea in Trichoderma viride. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 80, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Chen, X.; Liang, Y.; Hua, J.; Tao, L.; Qin, W.; Chen, S. Overexpression of bacterial ethylene-forming enzyme gene in Trichoderma reesei enhanced the production of ethylene. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 6, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, J.; Zhang, C.T.; Yuan, X.J.; Zhang, M.; Mo, X.H.; Tan, L.L.; Zhu, L.P.; Chen, W.J.; Yao, M.D.; Hu, B. Metabolic engineering of Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 for the production of butadiene precursor. Microb. Cell Factories 2018, 17, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mori, Y.; Noda, S.; Shirai, T.; Kondo, A. Direct 1, 3-butadiene biosynthesis in Escherichia coli via a tailored ferulic acid decarboxylase mutant. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Goldstein, J.L.; Brown, M.S. Regulation of the mevalonate pathway. Nature 1990, 343, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rohmer, M. The discovery of a mevalonate-independent pathway for isoprenoid biosynthesis in bacteria, algae and higher plants. Nat. Prod. Rep. 1999, 16, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhao, Y.; Yang, J.; Qin, B.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y.; Su, S.; Xian, M. Biosynthesis of isoprene in Escherichia coli via methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 90, 1915–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zou, S.; Di, Z.; Li, H.; Liu, Y.; Ji, Z.; Li, H.; Chen, C.; Wu, M.; Hong, M. Stable fluorinated hybrid microporous material for the efficient separation of C2–C3 alkyne/alkene mixtures. Inorg. Chem. 2022, 61, 7530–7536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, X.; Wang, J.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, T.; Xu, W. Adsorption and desorption characteristics of hydrophobic hierarchical zeolites for the removal of volatile organic compounds. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 411, 128558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, X.; Gao, B.; Creamer, A.E.; Cao, C.; Li, Y. Adsorption of VOCs onto engineered carbon materials: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 338, 102–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kujawska, A.; Kujawski, J.K.; Bryjak, M.; Cichosz, M.; Kujawski, W. Removal of volatile organic compounds from aqueous solutions applying thermally driven membrane processes. 2. Air gap membrane distillation. J. Membr. Sci. 2016, 499, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mansour, E.; Curling, S.; Stéphan, A.; Ormondroyd, G. Absorption of volatile organic compounds by different wool types. Green Mater. 2016, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hao, X.; Xiafan, X.; Liubiao, C.; Jia, G.; Junjie, W. A novel cryogenic condensation system based on heat-driven refrigerator without power input for volatile organic compounds recovery. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 238, 114157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, L.; Yan, J.; Jiang, B.; Xiao, H. Experimental study on ethylene recovery using the solvent absorption method. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, 1353–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Luengas, A.; Barona, A.; Hort, C.; Gallastegui, G.; Platel, V.; Elias, A. A review of indoor air treatment technologies. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol 2015, 14, 499–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Z.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; Yang, H.; Song, Q. Characteristics and mechanism of low-temperature NO adsorption by activated carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 495, 153639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mozhiarasi, V.; Natarajan, T.S. Bael fruit shell–derived activated carbon adsorbent: Effect of surface charge of activated carbon and type of pollutants for improved adsorption capacity. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 8761–8774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhen, H.; Jang, S.M.; Teo, W.; Li, K. Modified silicone–PVDF composite hollow-fiber membrane preparation and its application in VOC separation. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 99, 2497–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Faiz, R.; Li, K. Olefin/paraffin separation using membrane based facilitated transport/chemical absorption techniques. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 73, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rungta, M.; Zhang, C.; Koros, W.J.; Xu, L. Membrane-based ethylene/ethane separation: The upper bound and beyond. AIChE J. 2013, 59, 3475–3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ohlrogge, K.; Brockmöller, J.; Wind, J.; Behling, R. Engineering aspects of the plant design to separate volatile hydrocarbons by vapor permeation. Sep. Sci. Technol. 1993, 28, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heymes, F.; Manno-Demoustier, P.; Charbit, F.; Fanlo, J.L.; Moulin, P. A new efficient absorption liquid to treat exhaust air loaded with toluene. Chem. Eng. J. 2006, 115, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Biard, P.F.; Coudon, A.; Couvert, A.; Giraudet, S. A simple and timesaving method for the mass-transfer assessment of solvents used in physical absorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 290, 302–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, X.; Daniels, R.; Baker, R. Recovery of VOCs from high-volume, low-VOC-concentration air streams. AIChE J. 2001, 47, 1094–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Le Minh, N.; Sivret, E.C.; Shammay, A.; Stuetz, R.M. Factors affecting the adsorption of gaseous environmental odors by activated carbon: A critical review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. 2018, 48, 341–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gan, G.; Fan, S.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z.; Hao, Z. Adsorption and membrane separation for removal and recovery of volatile organic compounds. J. Environ. Sci. 2023, 123, 96–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, S.; Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Shang, J.-X.; Yu, R.; Shui, J. Non-classical hydrogen storage mechanisms other than chemisorption and physisorption. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2022, 9, 021315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Saha, D.; Kim, M.-B.; Robinson, A.J.; Babarao, R.; Thallapally, P.K. Elucidating the mechanisms of Paraffin-Olefin separations using nanoporous adsorbents: An overview. iScience 2021, 24, 103042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, W.; Cheng, H.; Niu, Q.; Fu, M.; Huang, H.; Ye, D. Microbial targeted degradation pretreatment: A novel approach to preparation of activated carbon with specific hierarchical porous structures, high surface areas, and satisfactory toluene adsorption performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 7632–7640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chiang, H.L.; Chiang, P.; Huang, C. Ozonation of activated carbon and its effects on the adsorption of VOCs exemplified by methylethylketone and benzene. Chemosphere 2002, 47, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kim, K.J.; Kang, C.S.; You, Y.J.; Chung, M.C.; Woo, M.W.; Jeong, W.J.; Park, N.C.; Ahn, H.G. Adsorption–desorption characteristics of VOCs over impregnated activated carbons. Catal. Today 2006, 111, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Villacañas, F.; Pereira, M.F.R.; Órfão, J.J.; Figueiredo, J.L. Adsorption of simple aromatic compounds on activated carbons. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2006, 293, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Qian, Q.; Gong, C.; Zhang, Z.; Yuan, G. Removal of VOCs by activated carbon microspheres derived from polymer: A comparative study. Adsorption 2015, 21, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fletcher, A.J.; Yüzak, Y.; Thomas, K.M. Adsorption and desorption kinetics for hydrophilic and hydrophobic vapors on activated carbon. Carbon 2006, 44, 989–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, H.B.; Yang, B.; Xue, N.D. Enhanced adsorption of benzene vapor on granular activated carbon under humid conditions due to shifts in hydrophobicity and total micropore volume. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 318, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jia, L.; Shi, J.; Long, C.; Lian, F.; Xing, B. VOCs adsorption on activated carbon with initial water vapor contents: Adsorption mechanism and modified characteristic curves. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 139184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lv, Y.; Sun, J.; Yu, G.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.; Zhao, X.; Mao, Y. Hydrophobic design of adsorbent for VOC removal in humid environment and quick regeneration by microwave. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2020, 294, 109869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hunter-Sellars, E.; Tee, J.; Parkin, I.P.; Williams, D.R. Adsorption of volatile organic compounds by industrial porous materials: Impact of relative humidity. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2020, 298, 110090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ge, X.; Wu, Z.; Wu, Z.; Yan, Y.; Cravotto, G.; Ye, B.C. Microwave-assisted modification of activated carbon with ammonia for efficient pyrene adsorption. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2016, 39, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martínez, F.; Pariente, I.; Brebou, C.; Molina, R.; Melero, J.A.; Bremner, D.; Mantzavinos, D. Chemical surface modified-activated carbon cloth for catalytic wet peroxide oxidation of phenol. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 89, 1182–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Carvajal-Bernal, A.M.; Gómez-Granados, F.; Giraldo, L.; Moreno-Piraján, J.C.; Balsamo, M.; Erto, A. Kinetic and thermodynamic study of n-pentane adsorption on activated carbons modified by either carbonization or impregnation with ammonium hydroxide. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2020, 302, 110196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hao, P.; Shi, Y.; Li, S.; Cai, N. Hydrophobic activated carbon for elevated-temperature pressure swing adsorption. Adsorption 2020, 26, 1093–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gabrienko, A.A.; Kvasova, E.S.; Kolokolov, D.I.; Gorbunov, D.E.; Nizovtsev, A.S.; Lashchinskaya, Z.N.; Stepanov, A.G. Understanding Alkene Interaction with Metal-Modified Zeolites: Thermodynamics and Mechanism of Bonding in the π-Complex. Inorg. Chem. 2024, 63, 5083–5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Assen, A.H.; Virdis, T.; De Moor, W.; Moussa, A.; Eddaoudi, M.; Baron, G.; Denayer, J.F.; Belmabkhout, Y. Kinetic separation of C4 olefins using Y-fum-fcu-MOF with ultra-fine-tuned aperture size. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 413, 127388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fu, L.; Zuo, J.; Liao, K.; Shao, M.; Si, W.; Zhang, H.; Gu, F.; Huang, W.; Li, B.; Shao, Y. Preparation of adsorption resin and itas application in VOCs adsorption. J. Polym. Res. 2023, 30, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, S.; Huang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Lu, X. A mini-review on the modeling of volatile organic compound adsorption in activated carbons: Equilibrium, dynamics, and heat effects. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 31, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alcañiz-Monge, J.; Linares-Solano, A.; Rand, B. Water adsorption on activated carbons: Study of water adsorption in micro-and mesopores. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 7998–8006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Laskar, I.I.; Hashisho, Z.; Phillips, J.H.; Anderson, J.E.; Nichols, M. Modeling the effect of relative humidity on adsorption dynamics of volatile organic compound onto activated carbon. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 2647–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, W.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, J.; Cui, Y. Fabrication of hydrophobic regenerated activated carbon with high specific surface area. J. Mater. Sci. 2021, 56, 19969–19982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Z.; He, Z.; Wang, P.; Yan, Y.; Ran, J. Hydrophobic modified activated carbon using PDMS for the adsorption of VOCs in humid condition. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 239, 116517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hassan, M.F.; Sabri, M.A.; Fazal, H.; Hafeez, A.; Shezad, N.; Hussain, M. Recent trends in activated carbon fibers production from various precursors and applications—A comparative review. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2020, 145, 104715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lillo-Ródenas, M.; Cazorla-Amorós, D.; Linares-Solano, A. Benzene and toluene adsorption at low concentration on activated carbon fibres. Adsorption 2011, 17, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, Y.; Mallouk, K.; Emamipour, H.; Rood, M.J.; Liu, X.; Yan, Z. Isobutane adsorption with carrier gas recirculation at different relative humidities using activated carbon fiber cloth and electrothermal regeneration. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 360, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mekki, A.; Boukoussa, B. Structural, textural and toluene adsorption properties of microporous–mesoporous zeolite omega synthesized by different methods. J. Mater. Sci. 2019, 54, 8096–8107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wu, Y.H.; Ma, Y.L.; Sun, Y.G.; Ji, W.X.; Lin, F.; Yang, Y.P.; Ma, L.J.; Zhu, C.H.; Xu, Y.J.; Miao, Q. Effects of acid ionization on the formation mechanism of bimodal mesoporous Al-MCM-41s from coal gasification fine residue and evaluation of adsorption capabilities. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. El Haskouri, J.; Cabrera, S.; Caldés, M.; Alamo, J.; Beltrán-Porter, A.; Marcos, M.; Amorós, P.; Beltrán-Porter, D. Ordered mesoporous materials: Composition and topology control through chemistry. Int. J. Inorg. Mater. 2001, 3, 1157–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Valdés, H.; Riquelme, A.L.; Solar, V.A.; Azzolina-Jury, F.; Thibault-Starzyk, F. Removal of chlorinated volatile organic compounds onto natural and Cu-modified zeolite: The role of chemical surface characteristics in the adsorption mechanism. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 258, 118080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kang, S.; Ma, J.; Wu, Q.; Deng, H. Adsorptive removal of dichloromethane vapor on FAU and MFI zeolites: Si/Al ratio effect and mechanism. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2018, 63, 2211–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pi, Y.; Li, X.; Xia, Q.; Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Xiao, J.; Li, Z. Adsorptive and photocatalytic removal of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in water by metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lopez, Y.C.; Viltres, H.; Gupta, N.K.; Acevedo-Pena, P.; Leyva, C.; Ghaffari, Y.; Gupta, A.; Kim, S.; Bae, J.; Kim, K.S. Transition metal-based metal–organic frameworks for environmental applications: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 1295–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vellingiri, K.; Kumar, P.; Deep, A.; Kim, K.-H. Metal-organic frameworks for the adsorption of gaseous toluene under ambient temperature and pressure. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 307, 1116–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kumar, P.; Kim, K.H.; Kwon, E.E.; Szulejko, J.E. Metal–organic frameworks for the control and management of air quality: Advances and future direction. J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 345–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhu, M.; Hu, P.; Tong, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, Z. Enhanced hydrophobic MIL (Cr) metal-organic framework with high capacity and selectivity for benzene VOCs capture from high humid air. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 313, 1122–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chauvel, A.; Lefebvre, G. Petrochemical Processes; Editions OPHRYS: Paris, France, 2001; Volume 80. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jayaraman, A.; Yang, R.T.; Munson, C.L.; Chinn, D. Deactivation of π-complexation adsorbents by hydrogen and rejuvenation by oxidation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 4370–4376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yang, R.T. Adsorbents: Fundamentals and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kuah, W.C.; Effendy, S.; Farooq, S. Industrial scale propylene/propane separation using pressure vacuum swing adsorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2018, 57, 6451–6463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chui, S.S.-Y.; Lo, S.M.-F.; Charmant, J.P.; Orpen, A.G.; Williams, I.D. A chemically functionalizable nanoporous material [Cu3 (TMA)2 (H2O)3]n. Science 1999, 283, 1148–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, Q.M.; Shen, D.; Bülow, M.; Lau, M.L.; Deng, S.; Fitch, F.R.; Lemcoff, N.O.; Semanscin, J. Metallo-organic molecular sieve for gas separation and purification. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 2002, 55, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Horcajada, P.; Surblé, S.; Serre, C.; Hong, D.-Y.; Seo, Y.-K.; Chang, J.-S.; Grenèche, J.-M.; Margiolaki, I.; Férey, G. Synthesis and catalytic properties of MIL-100 (Fe), an iron (III) carboxylate with large pores. Chem. Commun. 2007, 27, 2820–2822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yoon, J.W.; Seo, Y.K.; Hwang, Y.K.; Chang, J.S.; Leclerc, H.; Wuttke, S.; Bazin, P.; Vimont, A.; Daturi, M.; Bloch, E. Controlled reducibility of a metal–organic framework with coordinatively unsaturated sites for preferential gas sorption. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 5949–5952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Liu, Z.; Qiu, W.; Quan, W.; Koros, W.J. Advanced carbon molecular sieve membranes derived from molecularly engineered cross-linkable copolyimide for gas separations. Nat. Mater. 2023, 22, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wang, L.; Xue, W.; Zhu, H.; Guo, X.; Huang, H.; Zhong, C. Stepwise engineering the pore aperture of a cage-like MOF for the efficient separation of isomeric C4 paraffins under humid conditions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2023, 135, e202218596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Xiao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W.; Yang, H.; Hong, A.N.; Bu, X.; Feng, P. Simultaneous control of flexibility and rigidity in pore-space-partitioned metal–organic frameworks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145, 10980–10986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cui, J.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, L.; Hu, J.; Jin, A.; Yang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Meng, B.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, J. A molecular sieve with ultrafast adsorption kinetics for propylene separation. Science 2024, 383, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mahdi, H.I.; Muraza, O. An exciting opportunity for zeolite adsorbent design in separation of C4 olefins through adsorptive separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 221, 126–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kim, J.N.; Park, J.H.; Lee, S.J.; Ko, M.S.; Beum, H.T.; Park, J.; Ko, C.H.; Han, S.S.; Cho, S.-H. Separation of Olefins from OLEFINS/Paraffins Mixed Gas. U.S. Patent 8,436,223, 7 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kim, H.; Jung, Y. Can Metal–Organic Framework Separate 1-Butene from Butene Isomers? J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gehre, M.; Guo, Z.; Rothenberg, G.; Tanase, S. Sustainable Separations of C4-Hydrocarbons by Using Microporous Materials. ChemSusChem 2017, 10, 3947–3963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Tijsebaert, B.; Varszegi, C.; Gies, H.; Xiao, F.S.; Bao, X.; Tatsumi, T.; Müller, U.; Vos, D.D. Liquid phase separation of 1-butene from 2-butenes on all-silica zeolite RUB-41. Chem. Commun. 2008, 21, 2480–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gücüyener, C.; Johan, V.D.B.; Joaristi, A.M.; Magusin, P.C.M.M.; Hensen, E.J.M.; Gascon, J.; Kapteijn, F. Facile synthesis of the DD3R zeolite: Performance in the adsorptive separation of buta-1,3-diene and but-2-ene isomers. J. Mater. Chem. 2011, 45, 18386–18397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Takahashi, A.; Yang, R.T.; Munson, C.L.; Chinn, D. Cu(I)−Y-Zeolite as a Superior Adsorbent for Diene/Olefin Separation. Langmuir 2001, 17, 8405–8413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yang, R.T.; Kikkinides, E.S. New sorbents for olefin/paraffin separations by adsorption via π -complexation. AIChE J. 1995, 41, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Takahashi, A.; Yang, R.T.; Munson, C.L.; Chinn, D. Influence of Ag content and H2S exposure on 1,3-butadiene/1-butene adsorption by Ag ion-exchanged Y-zeolites (Ag-Y). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 3979–3988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bagreev, A.; Menendez, J.A.; Dukhno, I.; Tarasenko, Y.; Bandosz, T.J. Bituminous coal-based activated carbons modified with nitrogen as adsorbents of hydrogen sulfide. Carbon 2004, 42, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ye, P.; Fang, Z.; Su, B.; Xing, H.; Yang, Y.; Su, Y.; Ren, Q. Adsorption of propylene and ethylene on 15 activated carbons. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2010, 55, 5669–5672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ruhl, M.J. Recover VOCs via adsorption on activated carbon. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1993, 89, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  108. Gupta, V.K.; Verma, N. Removal of volatile organic compounds by cryogenic condensation followed by adsorption. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 57, 2679–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Huibin, Z.; Liu, H.; Aboulnaga, E.; Liu, H.; Cheng, T.; Xian, M. Microbial production of isoprene: Opportunities and challenges. Industrial Biotechnology: Products and Processes; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mcauliffe, J.C.; Paramonov, S.E.; Sanford, K.J. Fuel Compositions Comprising Isoprene Derivatives. U.S. Patent No. 8,450,549, 28 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  111. Pierucci, S.; Del Rosso, R.; Bombardi, D.; Concu, A.; Lugli, G. An innovative sustainable process for VOCs recovery from spray paint booths. Energy 2005, 30, 1377–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Luna-Triguero, A.; Vicent-Luna, J.M.; Poursaeidesfahani, A.; Vlugt, T.J.H.; Sánchez-de-Armas, R.; Gómez-álvarez, P.; Calero, S. Improving olefin purification using metal organic frameworks with open metal sites. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 16911–16917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sui, H.; Zhang, T.; Cui, J.; Li, X.; Crittenden, J.; Li, X.; He, L. Novel off-gas treatment technology to remove volatile organic compounds with high concentration. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 2594–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Adhi, T.P.; Situmorang, Y.A.; Winoto, H.P.; Ariono, D.; Septiana, D.; Imanuela, P.; Indarto, A. H2S–CO2 gas separation with ionic liquids on low ratio of H2S/CO2. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. McPhee, D. Microbial Derived Isoprene and Methods for Making the Same. U.S. Patent No. 8,492,605, 23 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
  116. Feher, F.J.; Kan, J.K.; McAuliffe, J.C.; McCall, T.F.; Pickert, L.J.; Ploetz, C.D.; Rodewald, S.; Sabo, T.A.; Wong, T.H. Purification of Isoprene from Renewable Resources. U.S. Patent No. 8,569,562, 29 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
  117. Lei, Y.; Guo, Z.; Du, L.; Meng, X.; Liu, X.; Wu, X.; Chen, Y. Replacing DMF with ionic liquid in isoprene/n-pentane separation in C5 plants: Solvent design, process optimization, and industrial-scale assessment. Fuel 2024, 357, 130006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Yousefi, M.; Azizi, S.; Peyghambarzadeh, S.; Azizi, Z. Intensification of ethylene and ethane absorption in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) by adding silver nanoparticles. Chem. Eng. Process. 2020, 158, 108184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hariz, R.; del Rio Sanz, J.; Mercier, C.; Valentin, R.; Dietrich, N.; Mouloungui, Z.; Hébrard, G. Absorption of toluene by vegetable oil–water emulsion in scrubbing tower: Experiments and modeling. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2017, 157, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zhao, H.; Xia, S.; Ma, P. Use of ionic liquids as ‘green’solvents for extractions. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2005, 80, 1089–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Maton, C.; De Vos, N.; Stevens, C.V. Ionic liquid thermal stabilities: Decomposition mechanisms and analysis tools. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42, 5963–5977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Huang, J.-F.; Luo, H.; Liang, C.; Jiang, D.-e.; Dai, S. Advanced liquid membranes based on novel ionic liquids for selective separation of olefin/paraffin via olefin-facilitated transport. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Choi, H.W.; Kim, D.B.; Choi, D.K.; Ahn, B.S.; gon Kim, H.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, C.H.; Sung, J.Y. Highly selective facilitated transport membranes for isoprene/n-pentane separation. J. Membr. sci. 2006, 279, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Salar-García, M.; Ortiz-Martínez, V.; Hernández-Fernández, F.; de Los Ríos, A.; Quesada-Medina, J. Ionic liquid technology to recover volatile organic compounds (VOCs). J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 321, 484–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Geng, H.; Zhao, H.; Huang, J.; Gan, L.; Li, D. Effect of highly active oxygen on methane catalytic removal at low temperatures using a core–shell structural catalyst. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 469, 143913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Comyns, A.E. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Named Processes in Chemical Technology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  127. Wu, Q.R.; Li, G.L.; Cheng, Y.Y.; Fan, B.Y.; Bai, Y.E.; Zhang, N.; Wang, Z.Z.; Zhang, X.P.; Zhang, S.J. Efficient separation of ethylene/ethane by incorporation of silver salts into protic imidazole ionic liquids. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 461, 141942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Moura, L.; Darwich, W.; Santini, C.C.; Gomes, M.F.C. Imidazolium-based ionic liquids with cyano groups for the selective absorption of ethane and ethylene. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 280, 755–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Immisch, O. Extractive distillation: Recent advances in operation strategies. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2015, 31, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pavlov, O.S.; Karsakov, S.A.; Pavlov, S.Y. Development of processes for C4 hydrocarbons separation and 1,3-butadiene purification. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 2011, 45, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kim, Y.H.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, B. Simulation of 1,3-butadiene extractive distillation process using N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solvent. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 29, 1493–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cao, M.; Luan, C.; Yu, P.; Du, Y.; Xu, W.; Tian, H. Data Determination and Process of Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium of Butane-Butene System by Complex Extractive Distillation Using Salt. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022, 61, 14132–14139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Xing, H.B.; Zhao, X.; Yang, Q.W.; Su, B.G.; Bao, Z.B.; Yang, Y.W.; Ren, Q.L. Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study on the Absorption of Ethylene and Acetylene in Ionic Liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 9308–9316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kilaru, P.K.; Scovazzo, P. Correlations of low-pressure carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon solubilities in imidazolium, phosphonium-, and ammonium-based room-temperatuire ionic liquids. Part 2. using activation energy of viscosity. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 910–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Shaul, D.D. Solvent Extraction of Isoprene. U.S. Patent No. 3,607,967, 21 September 1971. [Google Scholar]
  136. Gomes, J.M.; Silva, S.S.; Reis, R.L. Biocompatible ionic liquids: Fundamental behaviours and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2019, 48, 4317–4335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Kontogeorgis, G.M.; Woodley, J.M. Ionic-liquid-based bioisoprene recovery process design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2020, 59, 7355–7366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, Y.; Peh, S.B.; Zhao, D. Alternatives to cryogenic distillation: Advanced porous materials in adsorptive light olefin/paraffin separations. Small 2019, 15, e1900058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Anson, A.; Lin, C.; Kuznicki, T.; Kuznicki, S. Separation of ethylene/ethane mixtures by adsorption on small-pored titanosilicate molecular sieves. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 807–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Xiao, F.S. Decorated zeolites for chemoselective alkyne/olefin separations. Sci. China. Chem. 2020, 63, 1177–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Separations 12 00144 g001
Figure 1. Three mechanisms for olefin adsorption: (A) pore kinetic separations, which can trap specific olefins; (B) affinity-based separation (π-complexation), which can improve the adsorption ability by ion–pi interaction; and (C) separation through the sieving gate effect, which is based on geometrical specificity towards targeting olefins.
Figure 1. Three mechanisms for olefin adsorption: (A) pore kinetic separations, which can trap specific olefins; (B) affinity-based separation (π-complexation), which can improve the adsorption ability by ion–pi interaction; and (C) separation through the sieving gate effect, which is based on geometrical specificity towards targeting olefins.
Separations 12 00144 g001
Separations 12 00144 g002
Figure 2. Representative organic solvents for olefin absorption. Solvents are highly diversified, consideration of the molecular weights and sources of the objective olefins.
Figure 2. Representative organic solvents for olefin absorption. Solvents are highly diversified, consideration of the molecular weights and sources of the objective olefins.
Separations 12 00144 g002
Table 1. Comparison of major separation techniques for volatile organic compounds.
Table 1. Comparison of major separation techniques for volatile organic compounds.
MethodTemperature (°C)Concentration
(ppm)		EfficiencyCostReference
Adsorption−20–4050–5000highlow[35,36,37]
Membrane0–502000–50,000highhigh[38,39,40]
Condensation<−30>10,000mediumhigh[41]
Absorption20–40500–5000highlow[42,43,44]
Table 2. Comparison of major separation technologies for C2–C5 olefins.
Table 2. Comparison of major separation technologies for C2–C5 olefins.
OlefinSourceSeparation TechnologiesRecovery Yield (%)Purity (%)Temperature
(°C)		Energy
Consumption		DescriptionReference
Ethylene (C2)Petroleum crackingCryogenic distillation9599.9−100Separation process consumes 0.3% of total energy High-purity product, mature technology, high energy cost, run at low temperature and high pressure[138]
Liquid absorption9099.9−40Saving 10% energy consumption compared to cryogenic distillationn-butylene as solvent, low energy consumption but high solvent consumption[34]
Adsorption90–9599.9Room temperatureLowUsing molecular sieves, low energy consumption, higher adsorbent cost [139,140]
Propylene (C3)Petroleum crackingCryogenic distillation9599.9−100USD 20 per ton of propyleneCapital- and energy-intensive process, mature process[87]
Adsorption>9999.5Room temperatureUSD 41 per ton of propylene4A zeolite as adsorbent, low separation cost, higher adsorbent cost[87]
Butene (C4)Petroleum crackingCryogenic distillation---HighHard-to-separate C4 isomers[99]
Adsorption93.599.9Room temperatureLowZeolites and MOFs as adsorbents, low separation cost, higher adsorbent cost[97,99]
Liquid absorption99.799.7Room temperatureHighHigh separation efficiencies, high energy consumption[132]
Isoprene (C5)Petroleum crackingCryogenic distillation---HighHard-to-separate C5 isomers[137]
Liquid absorption9599.5Room temperatureHighConventional solvents demand higher concentrations of isoprene[109]
Biological processAdsorption8099.940LowActivated carbon as adsorbent, high adsorption capacity, water vapor inhibits isoprene adsorption[110]
Liquid absorption8599.9Room temperatureLowILs as absorbing solvents, high recovery rate, and high stability, but high solvent costs[137]
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

Guo, F.; Sun, C.; Xian, M.; Zou, H. Adsorption and Absorption Techniques for the Separation of Gaseous C2–C5 Olefins. Separations 2025, 12, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12060144

AMA Style

Guo F, Sun C, Xian M, Zou H. Adsorption and Absorption Techniques for the Separation of Gaseous C2–C5 Olefins. Separations. 2025; 12(6):144. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12060144

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Fengxiang, Chao Sun, Mo Xian, and Huibin Zou. 2025. "Adsorption and Absorption Techniques for the Separation of Gaseous C2–C5 Olefins" Separations 12, no. 6: 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12060144

APA Style

Guo, F., Sun, C., Xian, M., & Zou, H. (2025). Adsorption and Absorption Techniques for the Separation of Gaseous C2–C5 Olefins. Separations, 12(6), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations12060144

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