Advanced Two-Stage Nanocomposite Membrane System for Methane and Carbon Dioxide Separation from Atmospheric Air

Shad Abdelmoumen SERROUNE; Nano GEIOS; KAIGEN; Dr. Ir. Khasani S.T.; Hicham SERROUNE; Hyungson LEE; Ryan Lee SANGHO; Lee Dong KYU; Lee Young SOO

doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v12i10.ec05

Abstract

This paper presents an advanced two-stage nanocomposite membrane system designed to efficiently separate and capture methane (CH₄) and carbon dioxide (CO₂) from atmospheric air and water sources. The membrane system comprises a CO₂-selective primary membrane and a CH₄-selective secondary membrane, utilizing a hierarchical nanomaterials and polymers structure. The proposed system demonstrates unprecedented versatility, operating effectively across an extensive range of gas concentrations (>20% to <0.02%) and reducing CH₄ levels from 100-500 ppm to 5-10 ppm in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

Performance metrics specify CO₂ permeances of 200-2000 GPU and CO₂/N₂ selectivities of 30-500 at 57 °C and 1 atm feed pressure, surpassing the Robeson upper bound for traditional polymer membranes. The CH₄-selective membrane achieves 500-2000 GPU permeances with CH₄/CO₂ selectivities >50. Furthermore, experimental validation over 1000 hours of continuous operation demonstrated 92% methane capture efficiency under challenging conditions (55 tons/hour methane content at 30 °C). The system's energy consumption of 0.3 kWh/kg of CH₄ captured underscores its efficiency compared to traditional methods. This innovative membrane technology offers a promising solution for addressing critical ecological and industrial challenges associated with greenhouse gas emissions in the 21^st century.

Keywords

gas separationnanocomposite membranemethane capturemolecular sievingsterically hindered aminesatmospheric methane removalnanopore technologycarbon dioxide captureatmospheric air. 1. Introduction

References

Robeson, L.M. (2008). The upper bound revisited. Journal of Membrane Science, 320(1-2), 390-400.Google Scholar ↗
Koros, W.J., & Zhang, C. (2017). Materials for next-generation molecularly selective synthetic membranes. Nature Materials, 16(3), 289-297.Google Scholar ↗
Galizia, M., Chi, W.S., Smith, Z.P., Merkel, T.C., Baker, R.W., & Freeman, B.D. (2017). 50th Anniversary Perspective: Polymers and Mixed Matrix Membranes for Gas and Vapor Separation: A Review and Prospective Opportunities. Macromolecules, 50(20), 7809-7843.Google Scholar ↗
Rezakazemi, M., Ebadi Amooghin, A., Montazer-Rahmati, M.M., Ismail, A.F., & Matsuura, T. (2014). State-of-the-art membrane-based CO2 separation using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): An overview on current status and future directions. Progress in Polymer Science, 39(5), 817-861.Google Scholar ↗
Li, X., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Gascon, J., Li, J., & Van der Bruggen, B. (2021). Metal-organic framework-based membranes for liquid separation. Chemical Society Reviews, 50(18), 10229-10312.Google Scholar ↗
Werber, J. R., Osuji, C. O., & Elimelech, M. (2022). Materials for next-generation desalination and water purification membranes. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(1), 55-68.Google Scholar ↗
Goh, P. S., & Ismail, A. F. (2021). Advances in electrospun nanofibers for water treatment: A comprehensive review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 408, 127496.Google Scholar ↗
Yin, J., & Deng, B. (2021). Polymer-matrix nanocomposite membranes for water treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 619, 118505.Google Scholar ↗
Xu, Z., Liao, J., Tang, H., & Li, N. (2021). Antifouling thin film composite forward osmosis membranes by magnetic nanoparticles-assisted interfacial polymerization. Journal of Membrane Science, 620, 118851.Google Scholar ↗
Kang, G. D., & Cao, Y. M. (2022). Development of antifouling reverse osmosis membranes for water treatment: A review. Water Research, 200, 117243.Google Scholar ↗
Shen, Y., et al. (2019). Adv. Funct. Mater., 29(33), 1900417.Google Scholar ↗
Sutrisna, P.D., et al. (2017). J. Membr. Sci., 524, 266-279.Google Scholar ↗
Sabetghadam, A., et al. (2016). ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 8(40), 26827-26836.Google Scholar ↗
Deng, L., et al. (2009). J. Membr. Sci., 330(1-2), 55-64.Google Scholar ↗
Kim, H.W., et al. (2013). Science, 342(6154), 91-95.Google Scholar ↗
Xiao, G., Lin, Y., Lin, H., Dai, M., Chen, L., Jiang, X., ... & Zhang, W. (2022). Bioinspired self-assembled Fe/Cu-phenolic building blocks of hierarchical porous biomass-derived carbon aerogels for enhanced electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 648, 128932.Google Scholar ↗
Xiao, G., Lin, H., Lin, Y., Chen, L., Jiang, X., Cao, X., ... & Zhang, W. (2022). Self-assembled hierarchical metal–polyphenol-coordinated hybrid 2D Co–C TA@ gC 3 N 4 heterostructured nanosheets for efficient electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. Catalysis Science & Technology, 12(14), 4653-4661.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-1] Robeson, L.M. (2008). The upper bound revisited. Journal of Membrane Science, 320(1-2), 390-400.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-2] Koros, W.J., & Zhang, C. (2017). Materials for next-generation molecularly selective synthetic membranes. Nature Materials, 16(3), 289-297.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-3] Galizia, M., Chi, W.S., Smith, Z.P., Merkel, T.C., Baker, R.W., & Freeman, B.D. (2017). 50th Anniversary Perspective: Polymers and Mixed Matrix Membranes for Gas and Vapor Separation: A Review and Prospective Opportunities. Macromolecules, 50(20), 7809-7843.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-4] Rezakazemi, M., Ebadi Amooghin, A., Montazer-Rahmati, M.M., Ismail, A.F., & Matsuura, T. (2014). State-of-the-art membrane-based CO2 separation using mixed matrix membranes (MMMs): An overview on current status and future directions. Progress in Polymer Science, 39(5), 817-861.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-5] Li, X., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Gascon, J., Li, J., & Van der Bruggen, B. (2021). Metal-organic framework-based membranes for liquid separation. Chemical Society Reviews, 50(18), 10229-10312.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-6] Werber, J. R., Osuji, C. O., & Elimelech, M. (2022). Materials for next-generation desalination and water purification membranes. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(1), 55-68.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-7] Goh, P. S., & Ismail, A. F. (2021). Advances in electrospun nanofibers for water treatment: A comprehensive review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 408, 127496.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-8] Yin, J., & Deng, B. (2021). Polymer-matrix nanocomposite membranes for water treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 619, 118505.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-9] Xu, Z., Liao, J., Tang, H., & Li, N. (2021). Antifouling thin film composite forward osmosis membranes by magnetic nanoparticles-assisted interfacial polymerization. Journal of Membrane Science, 620, 118851.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-10] Kang, G. D., & Cao, Y. M. (2022). Development of antifouling reverse osmosis membranes for water treatment: A review. Water Research, 200, 117243.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-11] Shen, Y., et al. (2019). Adv. Funct. Mater., 29(33), 1900417.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-12] Sutrisna, P.D., et al. (2017). J. Membr. Sci., 524, 266-279.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-13] Sabetghadam, A., et al. (2016). ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 8(40), 26827-26836.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-14] Deng, L., et al. (2009). J. Membr. Sci., 330(1-2), 55-64.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-15] Kim, H.W., et al. (2013). Science, 342(6154), 91-95.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-16] Xiao, G., Lin, Y., Lin, H., Dai, M., Chen, L., Jiang, X., ... & Zhang, W. (2022). Bioinspired self-assembled Fe/Cu-phenolic building blocks of hierarchical porous biomass-derived carbon aerogels for enhanced electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 648, 128932.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-17] Xiao, G., Lin, H., Lin, Y., Chen, L., Jiang, X., Cao, X., ... & Zhang, W. (2022). Self-assembled hierarchical metal–polyphenol-coordinated hybrid 2D Co–C TA@ gC 3 N 4 heterostructured nanosheets for efficient electrocatalytic oxygen reduction. Catalysis Science & Technology, 12(14), 4653-4661.Google Scholar ↗