Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Steam-assisted temperature swing adsorption for carbon capture

integrated with heat pump
W. Liu a, b, Y. Huang a, b, X.J. Zhang a, b, M.X. Fang c, X. Liu d, T. Wang a, b, L. Jiang a, b, *
a
Key Laboratory of Clean Energy and Carbon Neutrality of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China
b
Jiaxing Research Institute, Zhejiang University, 1300 Dongshengxilu Road, Jiaxing, 314031, China
c
Qingshanhu Energy Research Center, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310017, China
d
Institute for Development of Energy for African Sustainability, University of South Africa, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Huihe Qiu Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) is considered as a promising technology to
Keywords:
effectively mitigate CO2 emissions. Currently process design on CCUS is mainly focused on
Carbon capture temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process and steam purge technology has the advantages of
Heat pump direct heat exchange and reduced carbon dioxide concentration in regeneration step. The paper
Steam generation initially proposes a steam-assisted temperature swing adsorption (S-TSA) process for carbon
Orthogonal design capture, in which heat pump plays a role to provide the driving force of desorption. The per­
formance of the integrated system is evaluated in terms of feed, purge and cooling gas flowrates
and evaporation and flash temperature. Results show that when the feed gas flowrates increase
from 44 NL⋅min− 1 to 56 NL⋅min− 1, CO2 purity increases from 90.24% to 90.89% and recovery
rate decreases from 95.88% to 85.72%. Heat and power consumption of the integrated system
increase significantly with the rise of purge flowrates. If the waste heat inside the carbon capture
system is utilized, the heat consumption can be reduced by a maximum of 14.91% at flash
temperature of 75 ◦ C. The significance of each flowrate and temperature to simulation results is
analyzed through the orthogonal design and multivariate analysis of variance. It shows that
performance of the integrated system is significantly influenced by feed flowrate and flash tem­
perature, and cooling flowrate has the minimal impact. It demonstrates that the feed flowrate and
desorption temperature should be given priority when choosing appropriate operating conditions
for a real carbon capture system.

Nomenclature

ANOVA Analysis of variance

aT Parameter related bT and the saturation capacity, mol⋅kg− 1⋅Pa− 1

aT,0 Isotherm constant of aT, mol⋅kg− 1⋅Pa− 1

bT Isotherm constant, Pa− 1
bT,0 Isotherm constant of bT, Pa− 1
c Constant parameter of t
CCUS Carbon capture, utilization and storage

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory of Clean Energy and Carbon Neutrality of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103233
Received 17 May 2023; Received in revised form 20 June 2023; Accepted 27 June 2023
Available online 29 June 2023
2214-157X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

CFPP Coal-fired power plant

Ci Gas concentration of ith component, mol⋅m− 3
Cp,g Constant-pressure specific heat of gas mixture, J⋅mol− 1⋅K− 1
Cp,w Wall specific heat, J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1
Cp,s Adsorbent specific heat, J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1
d Bed diameter, m
DAC Direct air capture
D Axial dispersion coefficient, m2⋅s− 1
DOF Degrees of freedom
dp Particle diameter, m
ESA Electric swing adsorption
h Enthalpy of each line, J⋅kg− 1
hf Gas-solid film heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1
hw Gas-wall heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1
ki Overall mass transfer coefficient, s− 1
MCO2 Molar mass of CO2, kg⋅mol− 1
mf Mass flowrate of steam into carbon capture system, kg⋅s− 1
min Mass flowrate of water into the flash tank, kg⋅s− 1
mR Mass flowrate of refrigerant, kg⋅s− 1
MS Mean squares
MSA Moisture swing adsorption
nF,CO2 Amount of CO2 in feed gas, mol
nP,CO2 Amount of CO2 in product gas, mol
nP,N2 Amount of N2 in product gas, mol
pi Partial pressure, Pa
p Total pressure, Pa
pHSA pH swing adsorption
PI Performance indicator
PSA Pressure swing adsorption
Q Adsorption heat for modelling, J⋅mol− 1
QE Heat demand in evaporator, W
qi Average loading of ith component on adsorbent, mol⋅kg− 1
q i* Equilibrium loading of ith component, mol⋅kg− 1
R Universal gas constant, J⋅mol− 1⋅K− 1
SS Sum of squares
S-TSA Steam assisted temperature swing adsorption
S-TVSA Steam assisted temperature vacuum swing adsorption
t Heterogeneity of the adsorbent
tcycle Duration of a working cycle, s
t0 Constant parameter of t
Tg Gas temperature, K
Ts Solid temperature, K
TSA Temperature swing adsorption
TVSA Temperature swing adsorption
Tw Wall temperature, K
u Superficial velocity, m⋅s− 1
UHX Heat-exchanger heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1
VSA Vacuum swing adsorption
WC Power consumption by refrigerant compressor, W
WWC Power consumption by water vapor compressor, W

Greek letters
αHX Specific heat exchange area per unit bed volume, m− 1
αw Specific heat exchange area per unit wall volume, m− 1
λL Effective axial thermal conductivity, W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1
ρg Gas density, kg⋅m− 3
ρp Density of adsorbent particle, kg⋅m− 3
ρw Wall density, kg⋅m− 3
μg Gas viscosity, Pa⋅s− 1
εb Void fraction of adsoprtion bed
ΔH Adsorption heat at zero coverage, J⋅mol− 1

2
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

1. Introduction
The increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have caused global warming impacts and other secondary effects owing to human
activities. The global CO2 emissions accounts for almost 67% of GHG and has come up to 33.1 Gt in 2018 [1]. At present, coal-fired
power plant (CFPP) is responsible for 30% of global CO2 emissions [2]. This has caused a significant increase of atmospheric CO2
concentration [3]. To reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, there are currently three main approaches [4]: (1) improving
process efficiency to reduce emissions at the source; (2) using low-carbon and zero-carbon energy sources as alternatives, such as wind
energy or solar energy; (3) carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) [5]. However, fossil fuel still plays an important role in
worldwide power plant [6], and CCUS technology can be applied to existing CFPP and is helpful for power generation capacity with
low carbon emissions [1,7,8]. In addition, CCUS is potentially the only economical and scalable approach for decarbonization in
industries with high carbon emissions during production, such as steel, glass, cement, chemical manufacture and etc.
The researches on CCUS technologies are mainly focused on post-combustion carbon capture (PCC), which is suitable for retro­
fitting in existing power plants [9–11]. Currently, solvent-based absorption PCC is the most mature method in large-scale commercial
application [12,13]. However, its major challenges such as large capital cost, high energy equipment, corrosive and degradable sol­
vent, contributes to a significant drop in power-plant efficiency and increase in capture cost [14]. Thus, solid sorbents are developed
for its less environmental and health impact, high adsorption capacity, low capital investment and mild operation conditions [15,16].
Adsorption PCC technology is generally classified as pressure/vacuum swing adsorption (PSA/VSA), temperature swing adsorption
(TSA) based on the mechanism of adsorbent regeneration process [17,18]. Novel swing adsorption methods such as electric swing
adsorption (ESA) [19,20], moisture swing adsorption (MSA) [21,22] and pH swing adsorption (pHSA) [23] has been explored to meet
various applications for different scenarios. The combined temperature and vacuum swing adsorption (TVSA) highlights the excellent
purity, productivity and less energy consumption of solid adsorbents [24,25]. Generally, heatless cycles (PSA/VSA) are much shorter
than TSA due to the poor heat transfer between heat exchanger and adsorbent [26], and indirect heating is the most frequent applied
method for adsorbent regeneration [27]. An internal heat exchanger is effective on lab-scale experiment when the radial heat
penetration is not a limit factor, and the structure of the heat exchanger should be embedded inside the bed when heat transfer is
limited [26]. Chen et al. [28] presented a 5-step TVSA experimental setup and a dynamic simulation system using spiral tube internal
heat exchanger. Results showed that a recovery rate of 95% and a purity of 85% could be achieved using TVSA system at vacuum
pressure lower than 6 kPa and desorption temperature over 70 ◦ C. Wu et al. [29] investigated a double-column TSA prototype with
finned tube inside adsorption bed. The energy performance was significantly improved after an additional heat recovery process was
introduced, and the heat consumption decreased from 4.91 MJ kg− 1 to 4.71 MJ kg− 1. Chen and Wang et al. [30] demonstrated a novel
adsorption unit using multi-columns-in-column heat exchanger for PCC from a 4000 MW ultra-supercritical CFPP. Adsorbents were
packed in multiple thin tubes bundled in the unit; baffles in the shell side were placed perpendicular to the tube bundle to improve heat
transfer efficiency. Experimental results showed that a CO2 product purity of 93.5% and a recovery of 84.3% were achieved on 4-bed
column adsorption units.
Steam purge is another approach used for CO2 desorption in PCC and direct air capture (DAC) [31–33]. The injected water vapor
promotes the desorption process at lower CO2 partial pressure, and be easily separated from product gas through condensation. And
the heating process can be very fast due to the high latent and sensible heat of water and the direct contact between water vapor and
adsorbent. Dutcher et al. [34] presented a steam-assisted VSA (S-VSA) cycle for flue gas capture using carbon filter. Lab-scale ex­
periments and demonstration in two coal-fired power plants indicated that the S-VSA assisted desorption process could produce CO2
product gas with nearly 98% purity and 98% recovery. Zhu et al. [31] designed a 3-step steam-assisted temperature vacuum swing
adsorption (S-TVSA) process for DAC. The optimal case was operated at desorption temperature of 90 ◦ C and vacuum pressure of 0.3
bar, and achieved an energy consumption of 0.295 MJ mol− 1. For steam-assisted processes, thermal energy driving steam generation is
one of the main energy input. Ye et al. [35] presented a study of high-temperature steam generation system based on an adsorption
heat pump, and conducted cyclic experiments. The results showed that temperature of generated steam could be increased to over
200 ◦ C with heat and mass recovery. Yan et al. [36] proposed an air-source heat pump boiler to generate high-temperature steam using
thermal energy extracted from air. Technical and economic analysis showed a significant application advantages over other boilers
[36,37]. Bless et al. [38] investigated different methods of producing saturated steam of 3 bar (133 ◦ C) by vapor compression, gas
heating, direct electrical heating, use of waste heat, heat pump and their composite types. It was demonstrated that the combination of
heat pump with waste heat recovery, low-pressure water evaporation system with water injection and subsequent vapor compression
for cooling was proven to be the best combination for steam generation. If renewable energy [39,40] or waste heat [41–43] is provided,
the potential of CCUS in decarbonization can be further improved.
To our best knowledge, the regeneration of conventional adsorption carbon capture process is mainly driven by indirect heating
using circulating medium, steam purge is a way that is rarely reported; steam generation based on heat pump are not considered for its
potential application in CCUS; the selection principle of the operating conditions for a carbon capture system is not clearly described.
To full the research gap, a novel system which includes carbon capture system and heat pump steam generation system is proposed to
explore the feasibility of steam regeneration method. The working steps of steam-assisted temperature swing adsorption (S-TSA) are
detailly described. Series of mathematical model of the carbon capture and steam generation system are then established. Several
performance indicators i.e. CO2 purity, recovery rate, work consumption and heat consumption are presented. Different operating
conditions, including flowrates and temperatures are also regarded for the comparison. In order to find the desirable working

3
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

conditions of S-TSA, an orthogonal test of five factors and three levels is designed. It could provide a promising idea for practical
operation of carbon capture system. The novelties of this work are highlighted as follows: (1) steam generation system based on heat
pump is presented to provide high temperature steam for regeneration of adsorbents. An efficient S-TSA system is thus proposed. The
general concept is shown in Fig. 1; (2) waste heat at different temperature levels is provided to heat pump steam generation system, in
which heat and water are recovered from product and waste gas through heat exchangers; (3) performance of the integrated system is
evaluated, and the key factor that influences performance of carbon capture system is investigated by the orthogonal design. The
principle of choosing operating conditions is then presented.
The structure of this work is arranged as follows: Working processes of carbon capture system with steam generation system are
described in Section 2. Modelling of the integrated system are established in Section 3 with performance evaluation. Performance of
the integrated system under different operating conditions, and results of the orthogonal test are analyzed in Section 4. Conclusions
and the future perspectives are summarized in Section 5.

2. System description
The steam-assisted carbon capture system is consisted of two sub-systems shown in Fig. 2: carbon capture system and steam
generation system based on heat pump. A three bed S-TSA system is considered for carbon capture system. Different from S-TVSA cycle
reported in Ref. [31] applied for DAC, S-TSA configuration simplifies the evacuation and pressurization step. When introducing steam
into adsorption bed, partial pressure of CO2 will decrease, which acts as the role of vacuum step. The details of each step of S-TSA cycle
is described as follows:
Adsorption (AD): Flue gas is first pretreated and CO2 in feed gas is selectively adsorbed by adsorbent, and waste gas is discharged
from adsorption bed into the atmosphere. Adsorption heat released in this step is taken by an internal heat exchanger to maintain a
stable adsorption environment. The internal heat exchanger is used only in adsorption step to avoid its effect on purge and cooling step.
Steam purge (SP): The superheated steam flows through adsorption bed, and temperature of adsorbent increases. This results in
CO2 desorption in this step due to temperature swing. The heat carried by steam is transferred to adsorption bed and adsorbent, thus
several water will condense on the surface of adsorbent. It is assumed that the condensate is taken out by gas mixture due to a high gas
velocity. Then, gas mixture of CO2, N2 and steam is then condensed to separate water from product gas to increase CO2 purity. And the
heat released in the condensation separation process can be utilized to preheat the supplied water as shown in Fig. 2(b). The
condensate can be recovered in the condenser to reduce amount of supplied water and heat loss.
Cooling (C): After the complete regeneration of adsorbent, a cooling step is then conducted by introducing air or N2 into the bed.
The sensible heat is taken out, and temperature inside the bed gradually decreases. Partial pressure of water vapor is decreased and
water is desorbed from the adsorbent. Water and residual CO2 will be removed by purge air or N2. Once the temperature at the outlet of
adsorption bed reduces to initial adsorption temperature, a new adsorption cycle would start.
Four-bed configuration and sequence arrangement are designed to ensure a continuous feed and product. The working sequence of
carbon capture system is shown in Table 1. The operating time of each step is selected as 50 min when considering the flowrates.
The heat pump steam generation system can extract the low-grade waste heat from industries to generate high-temperature steam
for the desorption of carbon capture system. It mainly includes a heat pump, water compressor, water pump and flash tank as the key
component. For the heat pump, it absorbs waste heat in the evaporator. The temperature and pressure of refrigerant are raised by the
compressor, and water in the condenser is heated to a high temperature. Then the saturated hot water enters to the flash tank, and
steam is generated due to a relatively lower temperature and pressure in the flash tank. Subsequently, the steam is compressed by a
water vapor compressor, superheated steam with required desorption temperature and pressure is generated and fed to the carbon
capture system. The steam is directly contacted with adsorbent in adsorption bed, which improves heat transfer efficiency of the
system.

3. Methodology
3.1. Carbon capture system
Simulation of carbon capture system is based on a one-dimensional dynamic fixed-bed model. Several assumptions are described as

Fig. 1. Concept of steam purge assisted adsorption carbon capture.

4
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the integrated system composed of carbon capture system and steam generation system, (a) without heat/mass recovery and (b) with
heat/mass recovery.

Table 1
Cycle working sequence of carbon capture system.

Time/min 50 50 50

Bed 1 AD SP C
Bed 2 C AD SP
Bed 3 SP C AD

follows.
(1) The ideal gas law and ideal gas mixture are assumed for gas phase;
(2) Temperature, pressure and concentration variations are neglected in the radial direction in the bulk adsorbent and bed wall;
(3) An axially dispersed plug flow model is adopted for the flow pattern;
(4) During the steam purge step, it is assumed that the condensed water does not penetrate inside adsorbent pores due to high
flowrate of desorbed CO2, and carried out from adsorption bed by the excessive steam, CO2 and N2;
(5) Influence of adsorbed and condensed water on CO2 and N2 adsorption can be ignored which is inferred from Ref. [44];
(6) Heat loss from the adsorption bed to the environment is negligible during all steps of the cycle.
Mass balance inside the adsorption bed for each component is given by equation (1). Linear driven force (LDF) with lumped mass
transfer coefficient is applied to calculate the transient CO2 adsorption capacity shown in equation (2). Pressure inside the adsorption

5
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

bed is shown in equation (3), and the relation between gas velocity and pressure is calculated by Ergun model as described in equation
(4).

∂Ci ∂2 Ci ∂(uCi ) ∂q
εb = εb D 2 − − (1 − εb )ρp i (1)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂t

∂qi ( )
= ki q∗i − qi (2)
∂t

pi = Ci RT (3)

2
∂p μg (1 − ε) (1 − ε) 2
− = 150 u + 1.75 3 ρu (4)
∂z ε3 dp2 ε dp g

where εb is void fraction of adsorption bed; Ci is gas concentration of ith component, mol⋅m− 3; D is the axial dispersion coefficient,
m2⋅s− 1; u is the superficial velocity, m⋅s− 1; ρp is density of adsorbent particle, kg⋅m− 3; qi is the average loading of ith component on
adsorbent, mol⋅kg− 1; ki is the overall mass transfer coefficient, s− 1; qi* is equilibrium loading of ith component, mol⋅kg− 1; pi is partial
pressure, Pa; R is the universal gas constant, J⋅mol− 1⋅K− 1; μg is gas viscosity, Pa⋅s− 1; dp is diameter of adsorbent particle, m; ρg is gas
density, kg⋅m− 3.
Zeolite 13X is chosen as the adsorbent, and the equilibrium adsorption capacity of CO2, N2 and water has been reported in Refs. [45,
46]. The isotherm is described by Toth model with three temperature-dependent parameters and is the form of equation (5).
a T pi
q∗i = [ ]1t (5)
1 + (bT pi )t

where bT is an equilibrium constant, Pa− 1; aT is a parameter related bT and the saturation capacity, mol⋅kg− 1⋅Pa− 1; t is the hetero­
geneity of the adsorbent. The temperature dependent equations of the parameters are calculated by equations (6)–(8). Parameter bT
has the general form of adsorption affinity, aT has a familiar form, and t gives in terms of the reciprocal temperature.
( )
− ΔH
bT = bT,0 exp (6)
RT
( )
− ΔH
aT = aT,0 exp (7)
RT

c
t = t0 + (8)
T

where bT,0 is isotherm constant of bT, Pa− 1; aT,0 is isotherm constant of aT, mol⋅kg− 1⋅Pa− 1; t0 and c is the constant parameter of t; ΔH is
adsorption heat at zero coverage, J⋅mol− 1.
The heat balance inside adsorption bed is described by gas-solid, solid and wall phase energy balance. The transient forms are given
by equations (9)–(11) respectively:
( )
∂T ∂2 T ∂ uTg
εb Cp,g CT g = εb λL 2g − Cp,g CT
∂t ∂z ∂z
∂Ts ∑ ∂q (9)
− (1 − εb )ρp Cs + (1 − εb ) ρp (− ΔHi ) i
∂t ∂t
4hw ( ) ( )
− Tg − Tw − UHX αHX Tg − Tm
D

∂Ts 6hf ( ) ∑ ∂q
ρp C s = Tg − Ts + ρp (− ΔHi ) i (10)
∂t dp ∂t

∂Tw ( )
ρw Cp,w = hw αw Tg − Tw (11)
∂t

where Tg, Ts and Tw are gas, solid and wall temperature respectively, K; Cp,g is constant-pressure specific heat capacity of gas mixture,
J⋅mol− 1⋅K− 1; λL is the effective axial thermal conductivity, W⋅m− 1⋅K− 1; hw is gas-wall heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1; hf is gas-
solid film heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1; d is bed diameter, m; UHX is heat-exchanger heat transfer coefficient, W⋅m− 2⋅K− 1; αHX
and αw is the specific heat exchange area per unit bed volume and wall volume, m− 1; Cp,s is specific heat capacity of adsorbent particle,
J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1; ρw is wall density, kg⋅m− 3; Cp,w is wall specific heat, J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1. Mass transfer parameters is estimated by correlations
reported in Refs. [47,48]. Physical properties of adsorbent and adsorption bed are shown in Table 2 and the isotherm parameters of
Toth model are provided in Table 3.

6
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

3.2. Heat pump steam generation system

A steady-state model of heat pump steam generation system is developed for the simulation. The comprehensive model includes a
heat pump model, a flash tank model and a water vapor compressor model. Several assumptions are conducted to simplify the
simulation as follows.
(1) The system works at steady state. The temperature, pressure, flowrate and other parameters remain unchanged;
(2) The working fluid is saturated leaving condenser (line 2)and evaporator (line 4), and water is saturated leaving flash tank(line 6
and line 8);
(3) The pressure through the pipes and system components and the mass transfer resistance are neglected;
(4) The heat loss from the system to the environment is neglected.

For each part in steam generation system, the energy balance model and power consumption are described as follows:
Condenser:
mR (h1 − h2 ) = min (h5 − h8 ) (12)
Evaporator:
QE = mR (h4 − h3 ) (13)
Compressor:
WC = mR (h1 − h4 ) (14)
Flash tank:
( )
min h5 = mf h8 + min − mf h6 (15)

Water vapor compressor:

WWC = mf (h9 − h8 ) (16)

where mR is mass flowrate of refrigerant, kg⋅s− 1; min is mass flowrate of water into the flash tank, kg⋅s− 1; mf is mass flowrate of steam
into carbon capture system, kg⋅s− 1; h is enthalpy of each line, J⋅kg− 1; QE is heat demand in evaporator, W; WC and WWC are power
consumption by refrigerant compressor and water vapor compressor, W. The power consumption of water pump is neglected when
compared with WC and WWC.
The refrigerant is chosen as R245fa for its high critical temperature. The isentropic efficiency of pump, compressor and water vapor
compressor are selected as 80%. Temperature difference of all heat exchangers is set as 5 ◦ C, and temperature difference between flash
temperature and condensation temperature is also selected as 5 ◦ C. The mathematic models are established for each system parts and
solved by the commercial software gPROMS (Process System Enterprise Limited, UK). Orthogonal collocation on finite element
method with 50 finite elements are applied to solve variables.

3.3. Performance evaluation

In order to evaluate the performance of steam assisted carbon capture system, several performance indicators including CO2 purity,
CO2 recovery rate, productivity, heat consumption and electricity consumption are proposed and calculated by using equations (17)–
(21). Heat consumption of the system mainly comes from heat supplied to evaporator in the steam generation system, and electricity
consumption is consisted of work of refrigerant compressor and water vapor compressor.
nP,CO2
Purity = (17)
nP,CO2 + nP,N2

Table 2
Properties of adsorption bed and adsorbent of carbon capture system.

Item Value

Bed length, L (m) 1.2

Bed diameter, d (m) 0.1
Bed void, εb (− ) 0.38
Wall thickness, Wt (m) 0.005
Particle density, ρp (kg⋅m− 3) 1227
Particle diameter, dp (m) 0.0038
Adsorbent heat capacity, Cp,s (J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1) 504
Wall density, ρw (kg⋅m− 3) 7800
Wall heat capacity, Cp,w (J⋅kg− 1⋅K− 1) 520
Mass transfer coefficient for CO2, kCO2, (s− 1) 0.061
Mass transfer coefficient for N2, kN2, (s− 1) 0.8
Mass transfer coefficient for H2O, kH2O, (s− 1) 0.0000581

7
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Table 3
Isotherm parameters of CO2, N2 and water adsorption on zeolite 13X.
1
Species aT,0 (mol kg− Pa− 1) bT,0 (Pa− 1) ΔH (J⋅mol− 1) t0 (− ) c (− ) Q (J⋅mol− 1)

CO2 2.194e-8 4.310e-5 − 29380 0.4290 0 37200

N2 2.714e-9 8.810e-10 − 17190 0.8690 0 19000
H2O 3.634e-9 2.408e-10 − 56968 0.3974 − 4.199 53300

nP,CO2
Recovery = (18)
nF,CO2

MCO2 nP,CO2
Productivity = (19)
tcycle

QE
Heat consumption = (20)
MCO2 nP,CO2

WC + WWC
Electricity consumption = (21)
MCO2 nP,CO2

where nP,CO2 and nP,N2 is amount of CO2 and N2 in product gas, mol; nF,CO2 is amount of CO2 in feed gas, mol; MCO2 is molar mass of
CO2, kg⋅mol− 1; tcycle is duration of a working cycle, s. The operating time of the system is assumed to be 16 h per day.

3.4. Model validation

Model validation of the mathematical models for carbon capture system is validated using breakthrough curve reported by Dantas
et al. [49]. Dry CO2/N2 (10%:90%) was fed into pretreated adsorption column, and the concentration at the outlet of the column was
detected by gas analyzer. The experimental breakthrough curve is shown in Fig. 3, and there is a good agreement between reported
data and present simulation result.

4. Results and discussion

It is apparent that the operating conditions such as temperature, gas velocity and etc. have impacts on the adsorption and
desorption process inside adsorption bed. They will subsequently influence the energy consumed and the amount of CO2 captured.
Therefore, it is meaningful to compare the performance of steam assisted carbon capture system in terms of various operating con­
ditions, i.e., flowrates and temperatures. Moreover, the significance of each parameter to simulation results is analyzed through the
orthogonal design and multivariate analysis of variance.

4.1. Influence of flowrate

The flowrates of each step have the significant influence on the performance of steam assisted carbon capture system reflected by
the difference of working capacity. The operating conditions are selected as follows: adsorption and cooling temperature of 25 ◦ C,
desorption temperature of 140 ◦ C, flash temperature of 85 ◦ C, feed CO2 concentration of 15% with 85% N2, and flowrates are shown in
Table 4. The selection principle of operation conditions is based on the apparent difference between performance indicators. As shown
in Fig. 4(a), when feed gas flowrate increases from 44 NL⋅min− 1 to 56 NL⋅min− 1, the CO2 recovery rate decreases from 95.88% to

Fig. 3. Model validation of carbon capture system using experimental data from Dantas et al. [49].

8
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Table 4
Performance comparison of S-TSA process under different feed, purge and cooling flowrates.

Case Feed flowrate (NL⋅min− 1) Purge flowrate (NL⋅min− 1) Cooling flowrate (NL⋅min− 1)

1 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56 60 30

2 50 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66 30
3 50 60 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36

85.72% and CO2 purity increases slightly from 90.24% to 90.89%. The reason is that, at low feed flowrate, the outlet part of adsorption
bed still has ability to adsorb CO2, the amount of CO2 desorbed is determined by feed flowrate; but at high feed flowrate, the adsorption
bed reaches almost saturated state, and less CO2 is adsorbed, thus CO2 amount in the product gas is restricted by the size of adsorption
bed. Thus, the increasing trend of productivity shown in Fig. 4(b) is accordingly weaken. Heat consumption decreases from 7.70 GJ t− 1
to 6.77 GJ t− 1 with the rise of feed flowrate, and work consumption has a similar trend with heat consumption. The sensible heat of
adsorption bed and adsorbent are related to temperature difference, not the amount of CO2 desorbed. Therefore, the specific heat
consumption decreases with the increase of feed flowrate according to equation (20).
The temperature distribution inside the adsorption bed is strongly related with purge flowrate, which further affects the desorption
process of CO2. Thus, the performance of the integrated system is compared under different purge flowrates. It is displayed in Fig. 5(a)
that CO2 purity and recovery rate all rises with the increase of purge flowrate, and the upward trend is accordingly slowing down.
Moreover, the increase of recovery rate of 10.43% is larger than that of purity which is only 0.93%. When purge flowrate increases, the
front of high temperature steam gradually proceeds to the end of adsorption bed, and more CO2 will be desorbed to product gas due to
the rise of temperature. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that when purge flowrate increases from 54 NL⋅min− 1 to 66 NL⋅min− 1, gas tem­
perature at outlet of adsorption bed goes up from 32.1 ◦ C to 112.5 ◦ C, and CO2 loading decreases from 1.81 mol kg− 1 to 0.12 mol kg− 1.
The result indicates the desorption process is enhanced when purge flowrate rises. The productivity of CO2 in Fig. 5(b) increases almost
linearly at low purge flowrate, then has a sluggish growth at high flowrate, and achieves the maximum of 13.82 kg d− 1 at 66 NL⋅min− 1
of purge flowrate. Although the amount of CO2 desorbed increases, total energy consumption is mainly dominated by flowrate of steam
from heat pump steam generation system. Thus, heat consumption increases from 6.75 GJ t− 1 to 7.37 GJ t− 1 as flowrates rises, and the
upward trend are getting rapidly because of the limited amount of CO2 under a certain feed flowrate. The work consumption has a
similar situation when purge flowrates increases.
It is acknowledged that adsorption bed should be cooled to adsorption temperature to ensure a steady condition at the next
adsorption cycle. Therefore, the cooling flowrate is also considered in parameter analysis. As shown in Fig. 7(a), with the increase of
cooling flowrate, CO2 purity and recovery rate decreases by 0.06% and 0.46% respectively, which is contrary to expectation. The
reason is that more residual CO2 inside adsorption bed will be carried out to waste gas by cooling N2 when cooling flowrates increases
under a constant feed flowrate. The sensible heat that has not been removed will be taken away by feed gas, and have little influence on
CO2 adsorption. The productivity decreases slightly from 13.37 to 13.31 kg d− 1 as displayed in Fig. 7(b). Heat and work consumption
keep rising and achieves the maximum of 6.95 GJ t− 1 and 2.36 GJ t− 1 at a cooling flowrate of 36 NL⋅min− 1.

4.2. Effect of temperature

The performance of heat pump steam generation system is determined by temperature levels of cold and heat sources. Waste heat
supplies the low-temperature heat to the evaporator, and the high-temperature heat is generated and transferred to water for steam
generation. Thus, evaporation temperature and flash temperature are two key parameters on the working performance of the inte­
grated system. Feed, purge and cooling flowrates of carbon capture system in this analysis are selected as 50, 60 and 30 NL⋅min− 1,
respectively, and flash temperature is set as 85 ◦ C. Fig. 8 displays the effect of evaporation temperature on heat and work consumption
of the system. With the increase of evaporation temperature, work consumption decreases from 2.91 GJ t− 1 to 1.80 GJ t− 1 and heat

Fig. 4. Comparison of (a) CO2 purity and recovery, (b) productivity and energy consumption of the integrated system under different feed flowrates.

9
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Fig. 5. Comparison of (a) CO2 purity and recovery, (b) productivity and energy consumption of the integrated system under different purge flowrates.

Fig. 6. Gas temperature and CO2 loading distribution along the adsorption bed.

Fig. 7. Comparison of (a) CO2 purity and recovery, (b) productivity and energy consumption of the integrated system under different cooling flowrates.

consumption increases from 6.39 GJ t− 1 to 7.50 GJ t− 1. When evaporation temperature changes, the flash temperature and heat
demand of carbon capture system and the amount of CO2 desorbed remain unchanged. Thus, the flowrate and temperature of the
superheated steam supplied are constant accordingly, and the total work consumption of water vapor compressor is unaltered as
shown in Fig. 8. In addition, the total work consumption of refrigerant compressor occupies a larger proportion than that of water

10
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Fig. 8. Effect of evaporation temperature on heat and work consumption of integrated system.

vapor compressor.
The effect of temperature inside flash tank, i.e., flash temperature is shown in Fig. 9. As flash temperature increases, CO2 purity and
recovery rate decreases from 91.19% to 89.63% and from 96.83% to 81.87%, respectively. The value of recovery and productivity at
flash temperature of 75 ◦ C and 80 ◦ C are close, which indicates an almost complete desorption process at two working temperatures.
The temperature of the superheated steam will decrease with the rise of flash temperature when the isentropic efficiency of water
vapor compressor and steam pressure is constant according R245fa p-h diagram. Thus, the upper limit of CO2 productivity at a certain
feed flowrate of 50 NL⋅min− 1 is around 13.80 kg d− 1. It can be observed from Fig. 9(b) that the specific work consumption rises with
the increase of flash temperature, and the trend is getting more rapid. When the flash temperature increases, the condensation
temperature accordingly increases, which reduce efficiency of heat pump system and heat demand of evaporator. In addition, the
amount of CO2 desorbed decreases as steam temperature drops. Therefore, heat consumption first decreases and then increases, and
achieves the minimum of 6.94 GJ t− 1 at flash temperature of 85 ◦ C. As shown in Fig. 10, when the flash temperature increases, the total
work consumption of refrigerant compressor and water vapor compressor exhibits a quite different trend from situations when
evaporation temperature increases. Total work consumption of compressor increases larger than that of water vapor compressor. The
rapid trend of specific work consumption is attributed to the increasing total work consumption and decreasing amount of CO2.

4.3. Mass and heat recovery

The desorption process of carbon capture system is driven by the high temperature steam supplied from heat pump. Water should
be supplied into heat pump steam generation system to maintain its continuous operation. The water and heat wasted in product and
waste gas can be recovered for a higher thermal efficiency.
Mass recovery: The excess steam is condensed and the obtained water with high temperature is then mixed with supplied water
shown in Fig. 2.
Heat recovery: The heat recovered from product gas and waste gas is replenished into heat pump system through condenser and
evaporator. The sensible heat of superheated steam, latent heat of steam and sensible heat of CO2/N2 mixture is supplied to condenser
for their high temperature level, and the remaining sensible heat with low temperature is recovered in evaporator. The temperature

Fig. 9. Comparison of (a) purity and recovery, (b) productivity and energy consumption of the integrated system under different flash temperature.

11
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Fig. 10. Total work consumption of refrigerant compressor and water vapor compressor.

difference of heat exchanger is set as 5 ◦ C.

To evaluate the amount of heat recovered and its effect on performance of carbon capture system, the percentage decrease of heat
consumption and work consumption is calculated as equation (22):
( a)
Percentage decrease = 1 − × 100% (22)
b

where a is heat consumption and work consumption with mass and heat recovery, GJ⋅t− 1; b is heat consumption and work consumption
without mass and heat recovery, GJ⋅t− 1.
Fig. 11 shows the results of percentage decrease under four operating conditions, which include feed flowrate, purge flowrate,
evaporation temperature and flash temperature. The heat consumption and work consumption decrease with the increase of feed
flowrate, and the maximum is 2.83% and 1.90%, respectively. At a high feed flowrate, more heat will be utilized in the desorption
process of adsorbent in form of adsorption heat. The percentage decrease of heat consumption increases from 1.00% to 5.24% when
purge flowrate rises from 54 NL⋅min− 1 to 66 NL⋅min− 1 due to the excess superheated steam. There is a similar increasing trend of
percentage decrease of work consumption to that of heat consumption. When the evaporation temperature increases, the decrease
trend is not significant as situations that flowrate changes. The temperature, flowrate and component of product gas remain un­
changed, thus heat and mass recovered will decrease because of the reduced temperature difference. With the increase of flash
temperature, the percentage decrease of heat consumption and work consumption decreases from 14.91% to 0.04% and 8.92%–
0.03%, respectively. The temperature of supplied steam increases as flash temperature decreases, and more unused heat is carried out
by product gas. It also can be seen from Figs. 9 and 11(d) that lower flash temperature is preferred at a constant isentropic efficiency of
pumps.

4.4. The orthogonal design and analysis of variance

The orthogonal design is a mathematical method for planning multi-factor tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical
analysis technique to determine the significance of factors [50]. From the previous analysis, the total variance comes from different
operating conditions and variance of error, and is shown in equation (23) [51].
SSTotal = SSFeed + SSPurge + SSCooling + SSEvaporation + SSFlash + SSError (23)

where SS is the sum of squares, and can be calculated by equation (24). It is the sum of squares of the performance indicators (PI) at
different levels. The variance of error is the sum of squares at the same levels as equation (25) [51].
∑
3
SSA = (PI A=level i − PI)2 (24)
i=1

∑
3
SSError = (PIA=level i − PI A=level i )2 (25)
i=1

Degrees of freedom (DOF) should also be considered to eliminate the influence of number of samples on the calculated results. Thus,
mean squares (MS) are introduced and defined as equation (26). The MS can be used to obtain F value of Fisher test shown in equation
(28). It can be then used with DOF of factor and error to derive p-value from reference table as shown in equation (28) [51]. The
significance of a factor can be determined by p-value, and if p-value of a factor is less than 0.05, the factor is generally regarded

12
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

Fig. 11. Percentage decrease in energy consumption of situations with mass and heat recovery to situations without mass and heat recovery, (a) feed flowrate, (b)
purge flowrate, (c) evaporation temperature, (d) flash temperature.

significant.
SS
MS = (26)
DOF

MS
F= (27)
MSerror

p = f (F, DOF, DOFerror ) (28)

Five factors including feed flowrate, purge flowrate, cooling flowrate, evaporation temperature and flash temperature are

Table 5
The orthogonal table with five factors and three levels for parameter analysis.

No. Feed flowrate (NL⋅min− 1) Purge flowrate (NL⋅min− 1) Cooling flowrate (NL⋅min− 1) Evaporation temperature (◦ C) Flash temperature (◦ C)

1 44 54 24 50 75
2 44 54 30 60 95
3 44 60 24 70 95
4 44 60 36 50 85
5 44 66 30 70 85
6 44 66 36 60 75
7 50 54 24 70 85
8 50 54 36 50 95
9 50 60 30 60 85
10 50 60 36 70 75
11 50 66 24 60 95
12 50 66 30 50 75
13 56 54 30 70 75
14 56 54 36 60 85
15 56 60 24 60 75
16 56 60 30 50 95
17 56 66 24 50 85
18 56 66 36 70 95

13
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

considered in the orthogonal design, and 18 simulations are performed accordingly as shown in Table 5. The parameter analysis is
based on SPSSAU online platform [52]. Table 6 shows the ANOVA results of five factors on performance indicators of the integrated
system, and several conclusions are described as follows.
(1) Feed flowrate and flash temperature have significant effect on performance of the integrated system, because the p-values of the
two factors are all less than 0.05 for five performance indicators. It can be derived from the above research that feed flowrate
mainly influences the adsorption process and amount of CO2 adsorbed, and flash temperature has an impact on desorption
temperature, which directly determine amount of CO2 desorbed.
(2) Cooling flowrate has little effect in all situations, and the reason is that adsorption step can also play a role in cooling of
adsorption bed. Purge flowrate has significant influence on purity, recovery and productivity of the integrated system. And
evaporation temperature dominants the operation of heat pump steam generation system, but has no effect on carbon capture
system. Thus, it only effects the heat and work consumption, and has little effect on purity, recovery and productivity.
(3) When choosing operation conditions for a certain adsorption carbon capture system, feed flowrate and desorption temperature
should be considered first. In addition, purge flowrate is an important factor if the purity, recovery and productivity are the
required targets. For example, if the recovery rate of a carbon capture system needs to be above 90%, feed flowrate, purge
flowrate and desorption temperature should be designed reasonably.

5. Conclusion
A novel system of carbon capture system and steam generation system based on heat pump is proposed in this work, and a steam
assisted temperature swing adsorption (S-TSA) process is then investigated as a case study. The performance of the integrated system is
evaluated in terms of feed, purge and cooling flowrate, evaporation and flash temperature. Heat and mass recovery are applied, and the
significance of key factors is analyzed by using the orthogonal design. The main conclusion is illustrated as follows:
(1) The effect of flowrates on performance of the integrated system is evaluated. When feed flowrate increases, purity and pro­
ductivity increases, recovery and heat and work consumption decreases. The reason is that increasing feed flowrate will lead to
the rise of amount of CO2 adsorbed, but more CO2 will be wasted at high feed flowrate. When purge flowrate increases, purity,
recovery, productivity, heat and work consumption all rises. The productivity increases almost linearly at low purge flowrate,
then has a sluggish growth at high flowrate, and achieves the maximum of 13.82 kg d− 1 at 66 NL⋅min− 1. The result of cooling
flowrate is contrary to the expectation, and all performance indicators decrease with the increase of cooling flowrate. As cooling
flowrate rises, more residual CO2 inside adsorption bed will be carried out to waste gas.
(2) Evaporation temperature and flash temperature of heat pump steam generation system is analyzed. With the increases of
evaporation temperature, heat consumption increases and work consumption decreases. Purity, recovery and productivity all
decrease and work consumption increase with the rise of flash temperature. Heat consumption first decreases and then in­
creases, and achieves the minimum of 6.94 GJ t− 1 at flash temperature of 85 ◦ C.

Table 6
ANOVA results of five factors on performance indicators of the integrated system.

Feed flowrate Purge flowrate Cooling flowrate Evaporation temperature Flash temperature
(NL⋅min− 1) (NL⋅min− 1) (NL⋅min− 1) (◦ C) (◦ C)

Purity
DOF 2 2 2 2 2
F 7.501 8.255 0.384 0.372 29.430
p 0.018 < 0.05 0.014 < 0.05 0.695 0.702 0.000 < 0.05
Significance Y Y N N Y
Recovery
DOF 2 2 2 2 2
F 10.374 9.438 0.186 0.371 31.371
p 0.008 < 0.05 0.010 < 0.05 0.834 0.703 0.000 < 0.05
Significance Y Y N N Y
Productivity
DOF 2 2 2 2 2
F 26.871 10.948 0.527 0.418 38.542
p 0.001 < 0.05 0.007 < 0.05 0.612 0.674 0.000 < 0.05
Significance Y Y N N Y
Heat
DOF 2 2 2 2 2
F 69.946 1.967 1.605 125.859 119.590
p 0.000 < 0.05 0.210 0.267 0.000 < 0.05 0.000 < 0.05
Significance Y N N Y Y
Work
DOF 2 2 2 2 2
F 10.012 0.289 0.591 178.055 240.413
p 0.009 < 0.05 0.757 0.579 0.000 < 0.05 0.000 < 0.05
Significance Y N N Y Y

14
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

(3) Mass and heat recovery are applied for higher thermal efficiency, and three flowrates and two temperatures are considered. The
percentage decrease of heat consumption and work consumption are less than 6.0% in most cases, and the maximum are
14.91% and 8.92% at flash temperature of 75 ◦ C. The reason is that flash temperature can directly influence the temperature of
the superheated steam with a constant isentropic efficiency of water vapor compressor, and more heat can be recovered at high
steam temperature.
(4) An orthogonal design is performed to determine the significance of five factors that influence performance of the system, and 18
simulations are carried out. Results show that feed flowrate and flash temperature have significant effect, and cooling flowrate
has little effect in all situations. Purge flowrate has significant influence on purity, recovery and productivity, while evaporation
temperature only effects the heat and work consumption. When choosing operation conditions for a certain adsorption carbon
capture system, feed flowrate and desorption temperature should be considered first.
CCS has been pivotal to mitigate carbon emission and achieve carbon peak and carbon neutrality, and its large-scale application
still faces plenty of challenges. Adsorption and absorption carbon capture system can be integrated with various types of heat pump e.
g. absorption, vapor compression, multi-stage, hybrid, etc. for efficient capture. The research enriches the concept of heat pump
assisted carbon capture, and provides a new method for regeneration of adsorbent. Our future researches will bring some more insights
on this technology in terms of technical, economic and environmental trade off.

Author statement
Conceptualization: L. Jiang, W. Liu; Data curation: W. Liu; Formal analysis: W. Liu, L. Jiang, Y. Huang; Funding acquisition: L.
Jiang, X.J. Zhang, T. Wang, M.X. Fang; Investigation: W. Liu, L. Jiang, Y. Huang; Methodology: W. Liu, L. Jiang; Project administration:
L. Jiang, X.J. Zhang; Supervision: L. Jiang, X.J. Zhang; Roles/Writing-original draft: W. Liu, L. Jiang; Writing-review & editing: W. Liu,
L. Jiang, Y. Huang.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2022YFB4101700), ‘New low-
energy CO2 capture materials and mechanisms’, South Africa National Research Foundation (No. 137947), and the Basic Research
Funds for the Central Government ‘Innovative Team of Zhejiang University’ under contract number (2-2050205-22-68).

References
[1] Q.Y. Lin, X. Zhang, T. Wang, C.H. Zheng, X. Gao, Technical perspective of carbon capture, utilization, and storage, Engineering 14 (2022) 27–32.
[2] IEA, Energy and CO2 Status Report, 2018.
[3] L. Jiang, W. Liu, R.Q. Wang, A. Gonzalez-Diaz, M.F. Rojas-Michaga, S. Michailos, et al., Sorption direct air capture with CO2 utilization, Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 95 (2023), 101069.
[4] A.G. Olabi, T. Wilberforce, K. Elsaid, E.T. Sayed, H.M. Maghrabie, M.A. Abdelkareem, Large scale application of carbon capture to process industries - a review,
J. Clean. Prod. 362 (2022).
[5] L. Jiang, A. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. Ling-Chin, A. Malik, A.P. Roskilly, A.J. Smallbone, PEF plastic synthesized from industrial carbon dioxide and biowaste, Nat.
Sustain. 3 (2020) 761–767.
[6] S. Yadav, S.S. Mondal, A review on the progress and prospects of oxy-fuel carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, Fuel 308 (2022).
[7] M. Bui, C.S. Adjiman, A. Bardow, E.J. Anthony, A. Boston, S. Brown, et al., Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward, Energy Environ. Sci. 11 (2018)
1062–1176.
[8] K. Jiang, P. Ashworth, The Development of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Research in China: A Bibliometric Perspective, vol. 138, Renewable
& Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021.
[9] S.Y. Chen, J.F. Liu, Q. Zhang, F. Teng, B.C. McLellan, A Critical Review on Deployment Planning and Risk Analysis of Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage
(CCUS) toward Carbon Neutrality, vol. 167, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2022.
[10] O. Akeeb, L. Wang, W.G. Xie, R. Davis, M. Alkasrawi, S. Toan, Post-combustion CO2 capture via a variety of temperature ranges and material adsorption process:
a review, J. Environ. Manag. 313 (2022).
[11] A. Lawal, M. Wang, P. Stephenson, G. Koumpouras, H. Yeung, Dynamic modelling and analysis of post-combustion CO2 chemical absorption process for coal-
fired power plants, Fuel 89 (2010) 2791–2801.
[12] A.G. Olabi, K. Obaideen, K. Elsaid, T. Wilberforce, E.T. Sayed, H.M. Maghrabie, et al., Assessment of the pre-combustion carbon capture contribution into
sustainable development goals SDGs using novel indicators, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 153 (2022).
[13] T.E. Akinola, P.L.B. Prado, M.H. Wang, Experimental studies, molecular simulation and process modelling \simulation of adsorption-based post-combustion
carbon capture for power plants: a state-of-the-art review, Appl. Energy 317 (2022).
[14] C. Chao, Y. Deng, R. Dewil, J. Baeyens, X. Fan, Post-combustion carbon capture, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138 (2021), 110490.
[15] T. Wilberforce, A.G. Olabi, E.T. Sayed, K. Elsaid, M.A. Abdelkareem, Progress in Carbon Capture Technologies, Science of the Total Environment, 2021, p. 761.
[16] L. Jiang, R.Q. Wang, A. Gonzalez-Diaz, A. Smallbone, R.O. Lamidi, A.P. Roskilly, Comparative analysis on temperature swing adsorption cycle for carbon
capture by using internal heat/mass recovery, Appl. Therm. Eng. 169 (2020).
[17] T. Wilberforce, A. Baroutaji, B. Soudan, A.H. Al-Alami, A.G. Olabi, Outlook of carbon capture technology and challenges, Sci. Total Environ. 657 (2019) 56–72.

15
W. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103233

[18] W. Liu, Y.C. Lin, L. Jiang, Y. Ji, J.Y. Yong, X.J. Zhang, Thermodynamic exploration of two-stage vacuum-pressure swing adsorption for carbon dioxide capture,
Energy 241 (2022).
[19] M. Gholami, B. Verougstraete, R. Vanoudenhoven, G.V. Baron, T. Van Assche, J.F.M. Denayer, Induction heating as an alternative electrified heating method for
carbon capture process, Chem. Eng. J. 431 (2022).
[20] C.A. Grande, R.P.P.L. Ribeiro, A.E. Rodrigues, CO2 capture from NGCC power stations using electric swing adsorption (ESA), Energy Fuel. 23 (2009)
2797–2803.
[21] T. Wang, K.S. Lackner, A. Wright, Moisture swing sorbent for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 6670–6675.
[22] T. Wang, K.S. Lackner, A.B. Wright, Moisture-swing sorption for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air: a thermodynamic analysis, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
15 (2013) 504–514.
[23] A.R. Cuesta, C.S. Song, pH swing adsorption process for ambient carbon dioxide capture using activated carbon black adsorbents and immobilized carbonic
anhydrase biocatalysts, Appl. Energy 280 (2020).
[24] N. Jiang, Y.H. Shen, B. Liu, D.H. Zhang, Z.L. Tang, G.B. Li, et al., CO2 capture from dry flue gas by means of VPSA, TSA and TVSA, J. CO2 Util. 35 (2020)
153–168.
[25] M.G. Plaza, S. Garcia, F. Rubiera, J.J. Pis, C. Pevida, Post-combustion CO2 capture with a commercial activated carbon: comparison of different regeneration
strategies, Chem. Eng. J. 163 (2010) 41–47.
[26] M. Gholami, T.R.O. Van Assche, J.F.M. Denayer, Temperature vacuum swing, a combined adsorption cycle for carbon capture, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 39
(2023).
[27] F. Raganati, F. Miccio, P. Ammendola, Adsorption of carbon dioxide for post-combustion capture: a review, Energy Fuel. 35 (2021) 12845–12868.
[28] B. Chen, S. Deng, L. Zhao, S.J. Li, K.L. Wu, L.J. Chen, et al., Performance analysis of solar-assisted CO2 adsorption capture system based on dynamic simulation,
Sol. Energy 209 (2020) 628–645.
[29] K. Wu, S. Deng, S. Li, R. Zhao, X. Yuan, L. Zhao, Preliminary experimental study on the performance of CO2 capture prototype based on temperature swing
adsorption (TSA), Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2 (2022), 100035.
[30] X. Chen, J. Wang, T.S. Ren, Z. Li, T. Du, X.M. Lu, et al., Novel exchanger type vacuum temperature swing adsorption for post-combustion CO2 capture: process
design and plant demonstration, Sep. Purif. Technol. (2023) 308.
[31] X.C. Zhu, T.S. Ge, F. Yang, R.Z. Wang, Design of steam-assisted temperature vacuum-swing adsorption processes for efficient CO2 capture from ambient air,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 137 (2021).
[32] V. Stampi-Bombelli, M. van der Spek, M. Mazzotti, Analysis of direct capture of CO2 from ambient air via steam-assisted temperature-vacuum swing adsorption
(vol 26, pg 1183, 2020), Adsorption-J. Int. Adsorp. Soc. 28 (2022) 105.
[33] R.P. Wijesiri, G.P. Knowles, H. Yeasmin, A.F.A. Hoadley, A.L. Chaffee, Desorption process for capturing CO2 from air with supported amine sorbent, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 15606–15618.
[34] B. Dutcher, K. Krutkramelis, H. Adidharma, M. Radosz, Carbon filter process for flue-gas carbon capture on carbonaceous sorbents: field tests of steam-aided
vacuum swing adsorption, Energy Fuel. 26 (2012) 2539–2545.
[35] S. Ye, B. Xue, X.R. Meng, X.L. Wei, K. Nakaso, J. Fukai, Experimental Study of Heat and Mass Recovery on Steam Generation in an Adsorption Heat Pump with
Composite Zeolite-CaCl2, vol. 52, Sustainable Cities and Society, 2020.
[36] H.Z. Yan, B. Hu, R.Z. Wang, Air-source heat pump for distributed steam generation: a new and sustainable solution to replace coal-fired boilers in China, Adv.
Sustain. Syst. 4 (2020).
[37] H.Z. Yan, B. Hu, R.Z. Wang, Air-source Heat Pump Heating Based Water Vapor Compression for Localized Steam Sterilization Applications during the COVID-19
Pandemic, vol. 145, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2021.
[38] F. Schlosser, M. Jesper, J. Vogelsang, T.G. Walmsley, C. Arpagaus, J. Hesselbach, Large-scale heat pumps: applications, performance, economic feasibility and
industrial integration, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 133 (2020).
[39] K. Xiao, B.L. Yu, L. Cheng, F. Li, D.B. Fang, The effects of CCUS combined with renewable energy penetration under the carbon peak by an SD-CGE model:
evidence from China, Appl. Energy 321 (2022).
[40] M. Flores-Granobles, M. Saeys, Minimizing CO2 emissions with renewable energy: a comparative study of emerging technologies in the steel industry, Energy
Environ. Sci. 13 (2020) 1923–1932.
[41] Y. Wu, Y. Dai, W.Y. Xie, H.J. Chen, Y.Z. Zhu, System integration for combined heat and power (CHP) plants with post-combustion CO2 capture, Energy Convers.
Manag. 258 (2022).
[42] Y. Yang, W.Q. Xu, Y. Wang, J.R. Shen, Y.X. Wang, Z.B. Geng, et al., Progress of CCUS technology in the iron and steel industry and the suggestion of the
integrated application schemes for China, Chem. Eng. J. 450 (2022).
[43] Y. Li, N.N. Wang, H.J. Guan, Z.G. Jia, Y.L. Zhang, G.Q. Zhao, et al., Optimization Study of CO2 Capture Unit for Subcritical Coal-Fired Power Generation Unit
Based on Ebsilon and Aspen Plus, vol. 269, Energy Conversion and Management, 2022.
[44] K. Adil, P.M. Bhatt, Y. Belmabkhout, S.M.T. Abtab, H. Jiang, A.H. Assen, et al., Valuing metal-organic frameworks for postcombustion carbon capture: a
benchmark study for evaluating physical adsorbents, Adv. Mater. 29 (2017), 1702953.
[45] T.L.P. Dantas, F.M.T. Luna, I.J. Silva, A.E.B. Torres, D.C.S. de Azevedo, A.E. Rodrigues, et al., Carbon dioxide-nitrogen separation through pressure swing
adsorption, Chem. Eng. J. 172 (2011) 698–704.
[46] Y. Wang, M.D. Levan, Adsorption equilibrium of carbon dioxide and water vapor on zeolites 5A and 13X and silica gel: pure components, J. Chem. Eng. Data 54
(2009) 2839–2844.
[47] T.L.P. Dantas, F.M.T. Luna, I.J. Silva, D.C.S. de Azevedo, C.A. Grande, A.E. Rodrigues, et al., Carbon dioxide-nitrogen separation through adsorption on
activated carbon in a fixed bed, Chem. Eng. J. 169 (2011) 11–19.
[48] N.A.A. Qasem, R. Ben-Mansour, Adsorption breakthrough and cycling stability of carbon dioxide separation from CO2/N2/H2O mixture under ambient
conditions using 13X and Mg-MOF-74, Appl. Energy 230 (2018) 1093–1107.
[49] T.L.P. Dantas, F.M.T. Luna, I.J. Silva, A.E.B. Torres, D.C.S.D. Azevedo, A.E. Rodrigues, et al., Modeling of the fixed - bed adsorption of carbon dioxide and a
carbon dioxide - nitrogen mixture on zeolite 13X, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 28 (2011) 533–544.
[50] Y. Liu, R.J. Deng, M.F. Hao, H. Yan, W.M. Yang, Orthogonal design study on factors effecting on fibers diameter of melt electrospinning, Polym. Eng. Sci. 50
(2010) 2074–2078.
[51] L.S. Su, J.B. Zhang, C.J. Wang, Y.K. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Song, et al., Identifying main factors of capacity fading in lithium ion cells using orthogonal design of
experiments, Appl. Energy 163 (2016) 201–210.
[52] SPAASU, The SPAASU project, Retrived from, https://www.spaasu.com, 2019, 2019.

16