Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193

GHGT-11

Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Indoor Air Using a Cross-

Flow Rotating Packed Bed
Chia-Chang Lin *, Han-Tsung Lin
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Abstract

This investigation elucidated the performance of the cross-flow rotating packed bed (RPB) in
removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from indoor air by chemical absorption. MEA, NaOH, K2CO3 aqueous
solutions were used as the model absorbents. The results of this investigation demonstrated that the
removal efficiency of CO2 increased with rotational speed and liquid flow rate, but decreased with gas
flow rate. Furthermore, the removal efficiency of CO2 could be enhanced when H2O2 with an appropriate
concentration was added to the K2CO3 aqueous solution. The removal efficiency of CO2 was found with
the order: 1.0 mol/L MEA = 1.0 mol/L NaOH > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.20 mol/L H2O2 > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.1
mol/L H2O2> 5 wt% K2CO3/0.05 mol/L H2O2 > 5wt% K2CO3.

2013 The
© 2013 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier Ltd.
Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and/or
Selection and/orpeer-review
peer-reviewunder responsibility
under of GHGT
responsibility of GHGT

Keywords: rotating packed bed; cross flow; absorption; mass transfer; carbon dioxide

1. Introduction

Ramshaw and Mallinson [1] invented the rotating packed bed (RPB) for intensifying the mass
transfer between gas and liquid in distillation and absorption process. In the RPB, a high centrifugal force
is induced by rotating doughnut-shaped packings for providing an intense contact between gas and liquid.
This novel technology is referred to as "Higee" (an acronym for high gravity). Under RPB operation, thin
liquid films and/or tiny liquid droplets generated by a rigorous centrifugal acceleration can exhibit higher
mass transfer between gas and liquid. Moreover, the RPB can be operated at higher gas and/or liquid flow
rates because of the reduced tendency of flooding in comparison with the conventional packed bed.
Accordingly, the mass transfer between gas and liquid can frequently be enhanced by a factor of 10~100

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-3-2118800#5760; fax: +886-3-2118800#5702.

E-mail address: higee@mail.cgu.edu.tw.

1876-6102 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of GHGT
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2013.05.216
1188 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193

and the dramatic reduction in the size of the equipment can be achieved, thereby reducing the capital and
operating costs [2]. The original RPB is operated at the mode of gas-liquid countercurrent-flow. The
countercurrent-flow RPB has been proved to enhance mass transfer between gas and liquid in diverse
processes such as distillation [3], absorption [4], stripping [5], reactive precipitation [6], and ozone
oxidation [7].
Lin et al. [4] employed a countercurrent-flow RPB for removing CO2 from a gas stream containing
1~10 % CO2 by chemical absorption with various absorbents, which were NaOH, monoethanolamine
(MEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), and a mixture of MEA and AMP. Their experimental
results suggested that the countercurrent-flow RPB performed better than the conventional packed bed in
terms of the removal efficiency of CO2. Tan and Chen [8] proposed more results concerning a
countercurrent-flow RPB for removing CO2 by chemical absorption with different absorbents, which
were piperazine (PZ) and its mixtures with MEA, AMP, and methlydiethanolamine (MDEA). Recently,
Cheng and Tan [9] utilized a countercurrent-flow RPB for reducing CO2 concentration to 20 ppm in the
air, as required by a zinc/air battery, by chemical absorption with PZ and its mixtures with 2-(2-
aminoethylamino) ethanol (AEEA) and MEA. Jassim et al. [10] calculated the height transfer unit (HTU)
of a countercurrent-flow RPB in removing CO2 from a gas stream containing 3.5~4.5 vol% CO2 by
chemical absorption with MEA. The obtained HTU was 14~27 cm, which was much lower than that in
the conventional packed bed, implying that the countercurrent-flow RPB considerably reduced the
equipment volume.
To remove CO2 from a gas stream containing CO2 at a huge flow rate, Lin and Chen [11] first
adopted a cross-flow RPB for removing CO2 by chemical absorption with NaOH and found that a cross-
flow RPB had a great potential in removing CO2 from the exhaust gases. Additionally, Lin and Chen [12]
investigated the mass transfer efficiency of a cross-flow RPB for removing CO2 from a gas stream
containing 1 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with NaOH. They proposed that the mass transfer
efficiency of a cross-flow RPB was comparable to that of a countercurrent-flow RPB. Moreover, Lin et al.
[13] examined the mass transfer efficiency of a cross-flow RPB for removing CO2 from a gas stream
containing 10 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with NaOH. Their experimental results confirmed that
the mass transfer efficiency of a cross-flow RPB was higher than that of a countercurrent-flow RPB.
Furthermore, Lin et al. [14] proposed a formulation of the alkanolamine solutions to remove CO2 from a
gas stream containing 10 vol% CO2 in a cross-flow RPB. They concluded that alkanolamines having high
reaction rates with CO2 were suggested to be used. According to these results, a cross-flow RPB could be
an excellent alternative with high mass transfer efficiency to handle a gas stream containing huge flow
rate and high CO2 concentration. However, there are no existing literatures until now to examine how
CO2 is captured from indoor air using a cross-flow RPB. In this investigation, CO2 in indoor air was
removed by MEA, NaOH, K2CO3 using a cross-flow RPB with the effects of rotational speed, gas flow
rate, and liquid flow rate.

2. Experimental

Fig. 1 presents the experimental setup for absorbing CO2. The CO2 concentration in the inlet indoor
air was 300~350 ppmv. During normal operation, the indoor air traveled axially from the bottom of the
packing owing to the pressure drop. At the same time, the prepared absorbent was introduced from the
tank into the inner edge of the packing through a liquid distributor. The absorbent moved radially in the
packing due to the centrifugal force and, then, exited the packing from the outer edge. Both indoor air and
the absorbent were in contact with the cross-flow mode within the RPB, in which CO2 in the indoor air
reacted with the absorbent in the liquid stream. The exiting indoor air, containing very low CO2
 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193 1189

concentration, finally left the top of the packing, and, then, was discharged from the top of the RPB, while
the CO2-rich absorbent was expelled from the bottom of the RPB.
drain

CO2 analyzer
packing
sealing
CO2 analyzer
flowmeter

pump
flowmeter

sampler sealing
absorbent

Air in

effluent tank rotor shaft

Fig. 1. Experimental setup of a cross-flow RPB for removing CO2 from indoor air.

The cross-flow RPB had an inner radius of 2.4 cm, an outer radius of 4.4 cm, and an axial length of
12 cm. Stainless wire mesh was used as packings having a configuration of interconnected filaments with
a mean diameter of 0.22 mm and an average mesh diameter of 3 mm and arranged within the cross-flow
RPB where gas and liquid were contacted with the cross-flow mode. Packings had a specific surface area
of 677 m2/m3 and a voidage of 0.95. In general, the cross-flow RPB could be operated at the rotational
speed of 600~1800 rpm, which provides 14~123 times gravitational force based on the arithmetic mean
radius. During operation, the gas flow rate (axial direction) was varied at the range of 10~70 L/min and
the liquid flow rate (radial direction) was varied at the range of 0.2~0.5 L/min. To present gas from
bypassing the packing and keep the cross-flow operating mode, both sealings were adopted as shown in
Fig. 1.
For most runs, a steady state was achieved within 10~15 min. The CO2 concentrations in the inlet
and outlet indoor air were measured by an infrared (IR) CO2 analyzer (Ploytron, Draeger Ltd). The
reproducibility tests under almost all of the operating conditions were carried out in this study. The CO2
concentration in outlet indoor air was observed to be reproduced with a deviation of less than 5%.
Material balance on the inlet and outlet of both the gas and liquid streams presented that the errors were
within 10%. All experiments were conducted at an average temperature of 25 qC with atmospheric
pressure.

3. Result and Discussion

The removal efficiency of CO2 in a cross-flow RPB is defined as follows.

C i C o (1)
E u 100
Ci
1190 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193

where E is the removal efficiency of CO2 (%), Ci is the concentration of CO2 in inlet indoor air (vol%),
and Co is the concentration of CO2 in outlet indoor air (vol%). The removal efficiency of CO2 was
examined with the effects of rotational speed (Z), gas flow rate (QG), and liquid flow rate (QL).
Table 1 displays the E values for three absorbents (MEA, NaOH, K2CO3) at various rotational
speed, gas and liquid flow rates. According to Table 1, it can be seen that the MEA aqueous solutions
exhibited the better removal efficiency of CO2 over the K2CO3 aqueous solutions. Additionally, the E
values for the NaOH aqueous solution was the same as those for the MEA aqueous solution. For example,
absorbing CO2 with the MEA aqueous solution gave the E values varying from 90.9 to 53.1 as the gas
flow rare was increased from 10 to 70 L/min at the rotational speed of 600 rpm and the liquid flow rate of
0.2 L/min. However, at the same operating condition, the E values for the NaOH aqueous solution varied
from 91.4 to 54.3 and the E values for the AMP aqueous solution varied from 25.0 to 5.6.

Table 1. E values for MEA, NaOH, and K2CO3

E (%)
Z (rpm) QG (L/min) QL (L/min)
1.0 mol/L MEA 1.0 mol/L NaOH 5 wt% K2CO3
600 10 0.2 90.9 91.4 25.0
600 30 0.2 78.1 70.6 21.6
600 50 0.2 67.7 64.7 13.5
600 70 0.2 53.1 54.3 5.6
600 10 0.5 100.0 97.1 59.5
600 30 0.5 87.5 79.4 32.4
600 50 0.5 71.0 71.4 22.2
600 70 0.5 65.6 65.7 16.7
1800 10 0.2 94.1 97.1 51.4
1800 30 0.2 84.9 82.4 21.6
1800 50 0.2 72.7 70.6 18.9
1800 70 0.2 62.5 57.1 13.9
1800 10 0.5 100.0 100.0 66.7
1800 30 0.5 90.9 88.2 43.2
1800 50 0.5 78.8 79.4 35.1
1800 70 0.5 72.7 69.7 22.2

The difference between the E values for the NaOH aqueous solution and for the K2CO3 aqueous
solution was primarily affected by the reaction rate in the absorbent. The greater the reaction rate, the
higher the E values would be expected. However, the same E values for the MEA aqueous solution and
for the NaOH aqueous solution were not affected by the reaction rate in the absorbent. As proposed by
Aroonwilas et al. [15], the reaction rate in the NaOH aqueous solution is higher than that in the MEA
 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193 1191

aqueous solution. Thus, the same E values were believed to be attributed to a higher gas-liquid interfacial
area exited in the cross-flow RPB. The MEA aqueous solution has a lower surface tension in comparison
with the NaOH aqueous solution [15]. This would result in a higher gas-liquid interfacial area for the
MEA aqueous solution, thus leading to the same E values.
As expected, increasing the rotational speed enhanced the E values for all absorbents. This result
could be explained by the fact that the centrifugal acceleration could provide thinner liquid films and/or
tiny droplets; a thinner boundary layer for mass transfer would be induced, thus leading to a higher gas-
liquid mass transfer according to penetration theory. Similar trends were also found in the CO2 removal
from a gas stream containing 1~10 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with the NaOH, MEA, and
MEA/AMP aqueous solutions in the countercurrent-flow RPB [4] and the CO2 removal from a gas stream
containing 1 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with the NaOH aqueous solution in the cross-flow RPB
[11].

Table 2. Effect of addition of H2O2 on E values.

E (%)
Z QG QL
5 wt% K2CO3 5 wt% K2CO3 5 wt% K2CO3
(rpm) (L/min) (L/min) 5 wt% K2CO3
0.05 mol/L H2O2 0.10 mol/L H2O2 0.20 mol/L H2O2
600 10 0.2 25.0 65.7 75.8 79.4
600 30 0.2 21.6 45.7 54.6 65.6
600 50 0.2 13.5 34.3 42.4 45.2
600 70 0.2 5.6 22.9 34.4 35.5
600 10 0.5 59.5 88.6 97.0 96.9
600 30 0.5 32.4 71.4 78.8 83.9
600 50 0.5 22.2 62.9 65.6 71.0
600 70 0.5 16.7 50.0 56.3 58.1
1800 10 0.2 51.4 79.4 81.8 83.9
1800 30 0.2 21.6 47.1 53.1 54.8
1800 50 0.2 18.9 35.3 40.6 41.9
1800 70 0.2 13.9 25.7 37.5 40.6
1800 10 0.5 66.7 91.2 96.9 96.8
1800 30 0.5 43.2 76.5 78.1 80.7
1800 50 0.5 35.1 60.0 62.5 65.6
1800 70 0.5 22.2 51.4 51.5 53.1

For three absorbents, the gas flow rate influenced the E values; that is, the E values decreased with
the gas flow rate for a given rotational speed and liquid flow rate. Owing to that an increasing gas flow
rate provided a larger amount of CO2 in the gas stream and a reduction in the contact time, the CO2
1192 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193

removal was limited at a high gas flow rate with a given concentration of the absorbent. Similar trends
were also found in the CO2 removal from a gas stream containing 1~10 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption
with the NaOH, MEA, and MEA/AMP aqueous solutions in the countercurrent-flow RPB [4] and the CO2
removal from a gas stream containing 1 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with the NaOH aqueous
solution in the cross-flow RPB [11].
For three absorbents, the liquid flow rate had an influence on the E values; that is, an increase in the
liquid flow rate yielded an increase in the E values for a given rotational speed and gas flow rate. This
behavior was attributed to the fact that more absorbents used to absorb CO2 at a high liquid flow rate were
favorable to the CO2 removal at a given concentration of the absorbent. Similar trends were also found in
the CO2 removal from a gas stream containing 1~10 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with the NaOH,
MEA, and MEA/AMP aqueous solutions in the countercurrent-flow RPB [4] and the CO2 removal from a
gas stream containing 1 vol% CO2 by chemical absorption with the NaOH aqueous solution in the cross-
flow RPB [11].
To increase the E values with the K2CO3 aqueous solutions, the addition of H2O2 was considered.
As listed in Table 2, the E values increased with the concentration of H2O2 at all operating conditions.
This result was caused by the fact that the addition of H2O2 into the K2CO3 aqueous solutions enhanced
the generation of OH-, thus leading to a higher E value. According to the obtained results, the removal
efficiency of CO2 was found with the order: 1.0 mol/L MEA = 1.0 mol/L NaOH > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.20
mol/L H2O2 > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.1 mol/L H2O2> 5 wt% K2CO3/0.05 mol/L H2O2 > 5wt% K2CO3.

4. Result and Discussion

The performance of the cross-flow RPB in removing CO2 from indoor air by chemical absorption
was estimated with MEA, NaOH, and K2CO3 aqueous solutions. The experimental results demonstrated
that the removal efficiency of CO2 increased with rotational speed and liquid flow rate, but decreased
with gas flow rate. Additionally, the removal efficiency of CO2 increased when H2O2 was added to the
K2CO3 aqueous solution. The removal efficiency of CO2 was found with the order: 1.0 mol/L MEA = 1.0
mol/L NaOH > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.20 mol/L H2O2 > 5 wt% K2CO3/0.1 mol/L H2O2> 5 wt% K2CO3/0.05
mol/L H2O2 > 5wt% K2CO3.

References

[1] Ramshaw, C., Mallinson, R.H. 1981, U.S. Patent 4,283,255.

[2] Ramshaw, C. Higee distillation - an example of process intensification. Chem Engr 1983;389:13-14.
[3] Lin, C.C., Ho, T.J., Liu, W.T. Distillation in a rotating packed bed. J Chem Eng Jpn 2002;35:1298-
1304.
[4] Lin, C.C., Liu, W.T., Tan, C.S. Removal of carbon dioxide by absorption in a rotating packed bed. Ind
Eng Chem Res 2003;42:2381-2386.
[5] Liu, H.S., Lin, C.C., Wu, S.C., Hsu, H.W. Characteristics of a rotating packed bed. Ind Eng Chem Res
1996;35:3590-3596.
[6] Chen, J.F., Wang, Y.H., Guo, F., Wang, X.M., Zheng, C. Synthesis of nanoparticles with novel
technology: high-gravity reactive precipitation. Ind Eng Chem Res 200;39:948-954.
[7] Lin, C.C., Liu, W.T. Ozone oxidation in a rotating packed bed. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2003;78:138-141.
[8] Tan, C.S., Chen, J.E. Absorption of carbon dioxide with piperazine and its mixtures in a rotating
packed bed. Sep Purif Technol 2006;49:174-180.
 Chia-Chang Lin and Han-Tsung Lin / Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 1187 – 1193 1193

[9] Cheng, H.H., Tan, C.S. Reduction of CO2 concentration in a zinc/air battery by absorption in a
rotating packed bed. J Power Sources 2006;162:1431-1436.
[10] Jassim, M.S., Rochelle, G., Eimer, D., Ramshaw, C. Carbon dioxide absorption and desorption in
aqueous monoethanolamine solutions in a rotating packed bed. Ind Eng Chem Res 2007;46:2823-
2833.
[11] Lin, C.C., Chen, B.C. Carbon dioxide absorption into NaOH solution in a cross-flow rotating packed
bed. J Ind Eng Chem 2007;13:1083-1090.
[12] Lin, C.C., Chen, B.C. Characteristics of cross-flow rotating packed beds. J Ind Eng Chem
2008;14:322-327.
[13] Lin, C.C., Chen, B.C., Chen, Y.S. Hsu, S.K. Feasibility of a cross-flow rotating packed bed in
removing carbon dioxide from gaseous streams. Sep Purif Technol 2008;62:507-512.
[14] Lin, C.C., Lin, Y.H., Tan, C.S. Evaluation of alkanolamine solutions for carbon dioxide removal in
cross-flow rotating packed beds. J Hazard Mater 2010;175:344-351.
[15] Aroonwilas, A., Veawab A., Tontiwachwuthikul P. Behavior of the mass-transfer coefficient of
structured packing in CO2 absorbers with chemical reactions. Ind Eng Chem Res 1999;38:2044-2050.