Table 7.

Comparison of biomass precursors activated through physical or chemical process and other carbonaceous-based adsorbents for carbon dioxide capture

Samples	Activation method	Operational condition		CO2 capacity (mmol/g)	Selectivity	Potential application	References
		Temperature (◦C)	Pressure (bar)
Rice husk ash	Chemical	50	1	2.95	–	–	Hemalatha et al. (2012)
Date seed	Chemical	20	1	1.79	–	–	Ogungbenro et al. (2020)
Sunflower seed shell	Chemical	25	1	4.55	CO2/N2: 6.69	Post-combustion	Deng et al. (2015)
Beer waste	Physical	0	1	2.6	CO2/N2: 13	Post-combustion	Hao et al. (2013)
Oil tea shell	Chemical	0	1	6.15	CO2/CH4: 2.37	Biogas upgrading	Zhang et al. (2018)
Lignin waste	Chemical	0	1	7.4	–	–	Sangchoom and Mokaya (2015)
Peanut shell	Chemical	0	1	7.45	CO2/N2: 8.28	Post-combustion	Li et al. (2015a)
Rambutan peel	Physical	30	1	1.70	CO2/N2: 30 & CO2/CH4: 37.5	Post-combustion & biogas upgrading	Zubbri et al. (2020)
Peanut shell	Chemical	0	1	4.0	CO2/N2: 6.45	Post-combustion	Deng et al. (2015)
Coffee ground	Physical/chemical	0	1	4.9	–	–	Plaza et al. (2012)
Olive stone	Physical	0	0.95	4.65	CO2/N2: 6.74	Post-combustion	González et al. (2013)
Olive and cherry stone	Physical	25	3	2.53	CO2/CH4: 3.73	Biogas upgrading	Álvarez-Gutiérrez et al. (2014)
Poplar anthers	Chemical	25	1	4.15	CO2/N2: 10.38	Post-combustion	Song et al. (2014)
Horse manure	Physical	0	1	3.8	CO2/N2: 7.6	Post-combustion	Hao et al. (2013)
Algae	Chemical	25	1	4.5	CO2/N2: 9	Post-combustion	Sevilla et al. (2012)
Coconut shell	Physical	30	1	2.45	CO2/N2: 6.13	Post-combustion	Wawrzyńczak et al. (2019)
Palm kernel	Physical	30	4	7.32	–	–	Nasri et al. (2014)
Tobacco wastes	Chemical	25	1	2.6	CO2/N2: 10.4	Post-combustion	Sha et al. (2015)
Agaricus	Chemical	0	1	5.5	CO2/N2: 27.3	Post-combustion	Wang et al. (2012)
Rice husk ash	Physical	75	1	3.93	–	–	Zeng and Bai (2014)
Beech wood	Physical	23	1	2.54	–	–	Gebald et al. (2014)
Municipal solid waste	Chemical/physical	40	2.5	2.6	–	–	Karimi et al. (2020b)
Sawdust, cellulose, and starch	Chemical	25	1	4.8	CO2/N2: 5.4	Post-combustion	Sevilla and Fuertes (2011)
Commercial activated carbon	Chemical	30	1	2.2	CO2/N2: 11	Post-combustion	Chen et al. (2021)
Commercial activated carbon	Physical	25	1	1.88	–	–	Rashidi and Yusup (2021)
Molecular sieve	Physical	30	0.4	0.9	–	–	al Mesfer et al. (2020)
Molecular sieve	–	0	1	4.92	CO2/N2: 11	Post-combustion	Yang et al. (2020)

CO₂, carbon dioxide; N₂, nitrogen; and CH₄, methane