RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Addressing small-scale temperature swing adsorption challenges using intensified fluidised bed technology for carbon capture process development
Jamei, R., McDonough, J. R., Mobley, P. D., Tanthana, J., Gupta, V., & Zivkovic, V. (2024). Addressing small-scale temperature swing adsorption challenges using intensified fluidised bed technology for carbon capture process development. Chemical Engineering Journal, 498, Article 155568. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.155568
Polyethylenimine (PEI)-based adsorbents exhibit high CO2 capacities, making them potential candidates for mitigating unavoidable industrial CO2 emissions. However, desorption of CO2 from PEI, and from adsorbents in general, has received far less attention in the literature than adsorption. Whilst Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA) is simple to conceptualise, it is difficult to implement in small-scale experiments in practice. Here we study the desorption characteristics of a commercial branched PEI adsorbent in a small-scale swirling fluidised bed reactor (TORBED) to improve the small-scale heat transfer rates. Our experimental results show that higher desorption temperatures, higher gas flow rates, and higher CO2 concentrations during adsorption can improve the desorption efficiency (defined as the amount of CO2 removed as a fraction of the initial amount adsorbed). In terms of kinetics, we found that the fractional order kinetic model provided the best fit to the PEI adsorbent, implying that this adsorbent involves multiple simultaneous molecular interactions, physisorption processes, and chemisorption processes, that cannot be described by simpler pseudo 1st or 2nd order models. Desorption rates in the TORBED in this study were 1 order of magnitude faster than fluidised beds, and 2–3 orders of magnitude faster than packed beds.