Recent developments in polysaccharide and lignin-based (nano)materials for CO₂ capture

Abstract

Global warming in 2023 shows no signs of slowing down. The situation alarms scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body responsible for regularly developing knowledge on climate change. Indeed, some impacts are already threatening the environment. Today, the average global temperature has increased by about 1 °C compared to the pre-industrial era (1850–1900). At the current rate, the increase in global average temperature will reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052. The greenhouse effect is unbalanced by human activities, in particular the use of fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), which lead to the release of greenhouse gases. CO₂ represents nearly 2/3 of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities and has the tendency to linger in the atmosphere for a long time. This is why the effect of other greenhouse gases is usually measured in CO₂ equivalent. Current CO₂ emissions will impact atmospheric concentrations and global temperatures for decades. To date, some solutions have been proposed to deal with this (energy transition, regulation of emissions, etc.). However, most of these solutions have not yet been sufficiently developed and/or do not offset the effects of ever-increasing industrialization on anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. As a result, carbon capture and sequestration processes appear to be attractive solutions. CO₂ capture can take place by absorption (chemical and/or physical) and/or adsorption (chemisorption and/or physisorption). Various compounds can act as sorbents, among which polysaccharides and lignin have special importance due to their many advantages, the most important of which are biodegradability, availability, relatively cheapness, environmental friendliness, etc. In this review, we report recent studies regarding polysaccharides and lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture. Such materials can be in different forms such as composites, aerogels, hydrogels, pellets, heteroatom-doped materials, membranes, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), porous carbons, etc. These materials are used for CO₂ capture through the adsorption or absorption processes.

---

Zahra Nezafat

Zahra Nezafat was born in Iran. She received her MSc in organic chemistry in 2021 from the University of Qom. She is currently pursuing her PhD in organic chemistry at the Iran University of Science and Technology under the supervision of Dr Shahrzad Javanshir and Dr Mahmoud Nasrollahzadeh. Her research interests are mainly focused on the design and the fabrication of biopolymer-based (nano)catalysts and green synthesis of metal nanoparticles applied for the synthesis of organic compounds as well as electrocatalytic applications.

Mahmoud Nasrollahzadeh

Mahmoud Nasrollahzadeh is an Associate Professor at the University of Qom, Iran, and the Director of the Nanobiotechnology Laboratory. Since July 2023, he has been working as a Guest Researcher at TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. His research program focuses on the application of biowaste and nature-inspired (nano)materials in catalysis, energy conversion, biomass conversion, and the development of novel functional materials; especially chitosan and lignin-based materials. He is the recipient of several research awards including the 2021 Abu Rayhan Prize given by the Iranian Academy of Sciences for the Top Young Chemist of Iran, and the 2020 Distinguished Researcher Award by the Iran Science Elites Federation. He has received research funding from different institutions and corporate entities.

Shahrzad Javanshir

Shahrzad Javanshir (born October 19, 1960) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Iran University of Science and Technology. She received his BS in Chemistry in 1983, and her Master's and M. Phil. in Organic Chemistry in 1984 and 1985, respectively, from Claude Bernard University Lyon I. She received her PhD from Alzahra University in 2007. She has authored over 100 published scientific articles. Her work is focused on synthesizing organic compounds, the development of new bio-based materials, and heterogeneous catalysts.

Talat Baran

Talat Baran received his doctoral degree from Aksaray University in 2015. He currently serves as an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Aksaray University. In his research, he focuses on the synthesis and characterization of various environmentally friendly materials, such as carbohydrate polymers, clay, zeolite, carbon-based materials, etc. He also works on the production of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles supported on these materials, which can function as homogeneous or heterogeneous catalysts. He examines the catalytic activities and reaction mechanisms of these catalysts in various applications, including the treatment of hazardous substances in water/wastewater, different organic transformations, hydrogen production, and microbial fuel cells. Currently, he has 118 publications in international ISI journals and 3 book chapters published by Elsevier. His work has received over 5100 citations, and his h-index is 48.

Yahao Dong

Yahao Dong received his Ph.D. from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in 2020. He is currently working at the School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Henan Normal University. His research interest is the synthesis of heterogeneous catalysts for organic reactions and CO2 conversion.

---

1. Introduction

Since the end of the industrial revolution (19^th century), global warming has been described as being mainly due to human activities leading to the continuous increase in the emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide.¹ This translates to a rise in temperatures, which impacts our ecosystem and jeopardizes the living conditions for future generations. In spite of recent awareness regarding global warming, it still remains a major current problem. With the increase in human population, the need for energy also increases. A large part of the world's energy still comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, which leads to the emission of greenhouse gases.^2–4 It is commonly accepted that global warming is closely linked to the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, mainly CO₂. Increasing the amount of CO₂ from 280 to 410 ppm increases the global temperature between 0.6 and 1 °C. There are several sources of CO₂ emission, both natural and human, the most important of which are represented in Fig. 1.^5–7

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of different sources and amounts of CO₂ emission.⁵

The increase in the CO₂ concentration in the world causes the irregularity of the weather and the rise of the average level of seas and oceans. These factors can endanger life under the seas and the survival of living organisms.^2,8 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that the concentrations of CO₂ in the world will reach 570 ppmv by 2100, which will lead to an increase of 1.9 °C in air temperature and a rise of 3.8 m in average sea and ocean levels.⁹ To reduce these environmental risks, researchers around the world are studying ways to reduce the amount of CO₂. To deal with global warming, in parallel with the efforts undertaken to develop renewable energies and reduce emissions, the capture of anthropogenic CO₂ appears to be an essential solution given the still predominant use of fossil fuels. To achieve this, many solutions are being studied, including the use of solid adsorbents.^10–16 There are several CO₂ capture processes (post-combustion capture, precombustion capture, or oxy-fuel combustion) the main ones being pre-combustion and post-combustion. Although post-combustion is the most restrictive solution in terms of separation due to the low concentration of CO₂, it nevertheless remains the most applicable from an industrial point of view since it does not require any modification of the equipment.¹⁷ There may be other methods, but they have limitations including expensiveness and excessive energy usage, long processing time, production of side products, etc.^18–23 There are some review papers pertaining to the removal of CO₂ using different methods.^24–30

CO₂ capture can take place by absorption (chemical and/or physical) and/or by adsorption (chemisorption and/or physisorption).^31–35 Promising materials for CO₂ capture include amines as well as porous materials such as MOFs,^36,37 metal oxides,³⁸ graphene,³⁹ zeolites,⁴⁰ synthetic and natural polymers, etc.^41–44 Among these, natural polymers or biopolymers are very efficient materials for CO₂ capture and polysaccharides have attracted much attention.^45–51

Polysaccharides and lignin are important and large groups of biopolymers with many properties such as biodegradability, environmental friendliness, accessibility, low price, etc.^52–56 In addition, polysaccharides and lignin have many useful functional groups such as hydroxyl, carboxyl, carbonyl, aldehyde, etc., making them very applicable.^57–61 Polysaccharides and lignin-based materials can be obtained in different forms for various purposes such as food-packaging, catalysis, environmental applications, etc.^62–68 The properties of polysaccharides and lignin make them very efficient for CO₂ capture. Cellulose, alginate, starch, gum, chitosan, and pectin are diverse kinds of polysaccharides, which can be applied for the capture of CO₂.^69–71 In addition, lignin-based materials can be used for CO₂ capture applications.^72–76 In fact, the mentioned polysaccharides and lignin have a special chemical structure, which enables them to be used in different forms such as aerogels, composites, N-doped materials, MOFs, membranes, hydrogels, etc. In addition, they can be functionalized with various materials.^77–86 These features make polysaccharides and lignin very suitable and effective options for CO₂ capture. In this review paper, we report recent studies using alginate, starch, cellulose, chitosan, gum, pectin, and lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture. These materials are in different forms such as composites, hydrogels, aerogels, pellets, MOFs, membranes, etc.

2. CO₂ capture processes

There are several CO₂ capture processes including oxy-combustion, pre-combustion, and post-combustion capture (Fig. 2a). In oxy-combustion process, the combustion is carried out with pure oxygen instead of air, resulting in the production of a CO₂/H₂O mixture. CO₂ is therefore easily captured since it is then sufficient to condense the water to recover CO₂. However, the most studied and main processes are pre-combustion and post-combustion. In the pre-combustion, adapted for example to power stations, the coal is first gasified, leading to a high-pressure gas (at a pressure and temperature of about 10 bar and close to 150 °C) composed of H₂ (55%), CO₂ (38%), N₂ (4%), CO (2%), and traces of other species. The hydrogen can then be used to obtain electricity. Afterward, the generated CO₂ is separated through chemical and physical absorption processes. The hydrogen-rich fuel can be applied in furnaces, gas turbines, and boilers.^13,87 In the post-combustion capture process, the CO₂ is captured after combustion in the exhaust gases. The concentration of CO₂ in these gases fluctuates between 10 and 30%. CO₂ post-combustion capture methods include absorption (amines, ethylene glycol, etc.), adsorption and membranes. Adsorption is a promising technique for CO₂ capture owing to its advantages such as simplicity of handling, absence of corrosion difficulties, reduced energy necessity, and cost-effectiveness.^9,88 Different adsorbents such as zeolites and carbon-based materials can be used for capturing CO₂.^89–91 In the absorption process, the capturing of CO₂ flue gas occurs by reaction with a chemical solvent, which is usually an amine-based solvent.⁹ The use of amine-based solvents has some disadvantages such as a low capacity for CO₂ capture, high energy price for the recycling of the absorbent owing to the presence of H₂O in the solution of amine, thermal degradation, and losses of amines by evaporation.⁹² Solid amine-based absorbents can be used to overcome the problem caused by soluble amines. The advantage of solid amine-based absorbents over soluble amines is lower energy consumption because the water evaporation step is eliminated. In addition, solid amine-based absorbents have high-capacity performance compared to soluble amines. Nevertheless, these solid sorbents have not been applied on an industrial scale since this knowledge is not yet fully developed.^12,93 Another post-combustion capturing technique is membrane separation. A membrane is defined as a permeable and selective barrier, active or passive, separating two media. Under the effect of a driving force, it allows the selective passage of certain compounds in a gaseous and/or liquid mixture. Membrane separation is the ability of materials to control the penetration of different species. One of the advantages of CO₂ membrane separation is its continuous mode of operation, unlike absorption and adsorption processes where, once the storage capacity has been reached, the solvent (or solid) must be regenerated. Owing to the exceptional structural properties of CO₂, it can reversibly react with Brønsted and Lewis bases such as KOH and amines, respectively.^94,95Fig. 2b shows the properties, opportunities, and challenges associated with these techniques.¹³

Fig. 2 Schematic representation of (a) CO₂ capture processes by post-, pre-, and oxy-combustion and (b) different properties of the two methods for CO₂ capture.¹³

3. Mechanism for CO₂ capture

The elimination of acid gases depends on their ability to react with alkanolamines. CO₂ reacts with alkanolamines as a Lewis acid at a finite rate, but with variable reaction mechanisms depending on the degree of substitution or steric hindrance of the amine nitrogen. Two main mechanisms have been proposed to explain the reaction between CO₂ with primary (R¹NH₂) and secondary (R¹R²NH) alkanolamines; namely, the zwitterion and the Crooks and Donnellan mechanisms.⁹⁶ In this mechanism, first, the amine reacts with CO₂ to form a zwitterion (eqn (1)) intermediate, which then reacts with the base (such as OH⁻, H₂O, or amine) to yield neutral carbamate (eqn (2)).^97–102

Unlike the zwitterion mechanism,¹⁰³ a one-step mechanism has been proposed for the reaction between CO₂ with primary or secondary amines simultaneously and the formation of carbamate in a one-step (eqn (3)). In such mechanism, monoethanolamine (MEA) does not function as a proton acceptor.¹⁰⁴

Carbamic acid is generated in the other mechanism. In this mechanism, in the first step, MEA reacts with CO₂ (eqn (4)). In the second step, the fabricated carbamic acid reacts with another MEA to form the carbamate (eqn (5)).¹⁰⁵

CO₂ + RNH₂ ⇌ RNH₂⁺COO⁻ (1)

RNH₂⁺COO⁻ + RNH₂ ⇌ RNHCOO⁻ + RNH₃⁺ (2)

CO₂ + RNH₂⋯B ⇌ RNHCOO⁻⋯BH⁺ (3)

CO₂ + RNH₂ ⇌ RNHCOOH (4)

RNCOOH + RNH₂ ⇌ RNHCOO⁻ + RNH₃⁺ (5)

Among these mechanisms, the zwitterion mechanism is more considered. In the meantime, it is moreover broadly applied to describe the reaction of CO₂ absorption into other solvents, including mixed amines and functionalized ionic liquids.^106–108 In a study, Jing and co-workers described the mechanism of CO₂ adsorption onto MEA.¹⁰⁹ In the first step, the reversible reaction occurs between CO₂ (at low loading) and MEA to form the carbamate. Following high CO₂ loading, HCO₃⁻/CO₃²⁻ is formed through the hydration of CO₂. In this step, the carbamate is hydrolyzed (Fig. 3a). In addition, the absorption of CO₂ can occur in diethanolamine (DEA) and triethanolamine (TEA). CO₂ absorption by DEA is similar to that by MEA. However, in the case of TEA, the mechanism is different.¹¹⁰ Tertiary amines do not have the necessary (N–H) bond to form the carbamate ion, and therefore do not react directly with CO₂. Thus, Donaldson and Nguyen proposed the mechanism presented in Fig. 3b in 1980, which describes the reaction of CO₂ with tertiary amines, followed by the hydrolysis of CO₂ to form bicarbonate.¹¹¹ In a study, Zheng and colleagues investigated the synthesis of SiO₂ nanoparticles (NPs) and organic hybrid materials (NOHMs).¹¹² For this purpose, they used SiO₂ NPs as core and 3-glycidoxypropyl trime thoxysilane (KH-560) (NOHM-C) or 3-(trihydroxysilyl)-1-propane sulfonic acid (SIT) (NOHM-I) as the corona. Additionally, they used polyetheramine M-1000 (M-1000) as the canopy. The NOHMs applied for CO₂ capture and the mechanism are displayed in Fig. 3c. There are three types of active sites for the CO₂ capture and storage. In the active site 1, secondary amine groups can react with CO₂. In the active site 2, there are other groups, which can react with CO₂via Lewis acid–base interactions. In addition, active site 3, which is a potential space between the long organic chains and facilitates the physical adsorption of CO₂, can be removed by applying vacuum.

Fig. 3 Schematic representation of the mechanism for CO₂ capture using (a) MEA,¹⁰⁹ (b) TEA¹¹¹ and (c) SiO₂ NPs functionalized amine.¹¹²

4. Current CO₂ capture polysaccharides and lignin-based materials

4.1. Polysaccharides-based materials for CO₂ capture

4.1.1. Alginate-based materials. Alginate (another name is alginic acid or align) is a polysaccharide of anionic nature present in the cell walls of brown algae. The two main functional groups are –COO⁻ and –OH. In the acid form, this polysaccharide can be found in different types of salts such as sodium and calcium Alginate. Other properties of alginate include linearity and solubility in water.^57,113–115 β-D-Mannuronic and α-L-guluronic acid are two units forming the structure of the alginate. The structure and functional groups of the alginate make this polysaccharide a suitable option for all kinds of applications including drug delivery, tissue engineering, food industry, catalysis, and environmental purposes.^116–120 Alginate has advantages such as biodegradability, environmental friendliness, non-toxicity, etc. However, it has disadvantages, including low chemical and thermal stability as well as low mechanical strength.^121,122 To overcome these disadvantages and increase its absorption properties, alginate can be modified by different methods and different structures such as composites, hydrogels, aerogels, etc.^{113,123–125} In this section, we review the CO₂ adsorption properties of the different structures of alginate-based materials.
4.1.1.1. Alginate-based composite materials. One of the most interesting materials for the removal of CO₂ is composites. Composites can be synthesized using different materials. For example, Rasoulzadeh and colleagues reported the synthesis of one composite by the functionalization of alginate with amine materials.¹²⁶ As mentioned earlier, alginate alone has low stability. Therefore, they used biosilica to enhance the thermal stability and mechanical strength of alginate. In addition, for enhancing the adsorption property, they used (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES) to prepare amine-functionalized bio silica/alginate (NH₂-SiO₂/ALG). The NH₂-SiO₂/ALG composite was applied for CO₂ capture in a fixed-bed reactor. They optimized different parameters such as moisture content (MC), gas flow rate (FR), and temperature. The results displayed that the removal efficiency (RE) of CO₂ was 93.08% at optimum conditions including 5%, 40 mL min⁻¹, and 40 °C for MC, FR, and temperature, respectively. In this example, the adsorption capacity and stability of alginate were increased by adding an amine-containing compound. Hosseini and co-workers investigated the preparation of calcined eggshell/sodium alginate (CES/SA) composite.¹²⁷ They synthesized a gel bead by modification of CES/SA with ammonia and applied it for CO₂ adsorption. In the experimental work, they optimized FR, the concentration of CO₂, temperature, and pressure. The highest CO₂ capture (0.2380 mmol g⁻¹) happened when the temperature, pressure, and concentration of CO₂ were 30 °C, 1 bar, and 45%, respectively. In fact, they synthesized eggshell materials using alginate for CO₂ capture for the first time.
4.1.1.2 Alginate-based nitrogen-doped materials. Today, nitrogen-doped materials are one of the most efficient materials for CO₂ adsorption. As a result, in a study in 2021, Huang et al. developed a technique for the preparation of N-doped hierarchically porous carbon spheres.¹²⁸ They synthesized the mentioned materials through co-pyrolyzation of poly(vinylidene chloride) and melamine in an alginate gel bead (Fig. 4a). In this structure, melamine played two roles including a template for the macropore structures and a nitrogen source. The prepared N-doped material was applied for CO₂ capture. The innovation of this work is the application of melamine to make gel beads, which also helps adsorb CO₂.

Fig. 4 Experimental procedure for (a) preparation of N-doped materials,¹²⁸ (b) N-doped-based alginate porous carbon¹²⁹ and (c) the preparation of the highly porous carbons.¹³⁰

The preparation of N-doped activated carbon (AC) using microalgae-sodium alginate (NaAlg) was performed by Liu and colleagues in 2018.¹²⁹ NaAlg has a high nitrogen content and can be applied as an efficient precursor. The N-doped materials showed a high activity for CO₂ adsorption owing to high N content and suitable pore size distributions. The adsorption capacity was 3.75 mmol g⁻¹ at the temperature and pressure of 25 °C and 1 bar, respectively. Fig. 4b shows the effect of composition in microalgae-NaAlg. As mentioned, one of the important features of this adsorbent is the large number of nitrogen groups and the proper size of the holes, which helps increase the adsorption of CO₂.

Cao and co-workers studied the preparation of N-doped carbon monolith (SA-xN-yP) using binary H₃PO₄–HNO₃ and Na-alginate (SA) as co-activating agents and carbon precursor, respectively (Fig. 4c).¹³⁰ The x and y in the sample name correspond to the volumes of HNO₃ and H₃PO₄, respectively. The prepared SA-2N-P sample had HSSA (1740 m² g⁻¹) and CO₂ adsorption (8.99 mmol g⁻¹) at 273 K. In addition, at 298 K, the amount of CO₂ adsorption was 4.57 mmol g⁻¹. These results indicated that the SA-2N-P sample had high adsorption capacity and selectivity for CO₂.

4.1.1.3 Alginate-based MOF materials. Today, one of the most promising porous materials is MOFs. These materials consist of hybrid materials from organic and inorganic compounds including organic linkers and metals. MOFs have some properties including high specific surface area (HSSA), ease of modification, and suitable pore sizes. Thus, they are widely used today for absorbing and removal of gases. Nevertheless, these compounds may be less effective for CO₂ adsorption because the organic rings in the structure of MOF may have a weak affinity with CO₂. Therefore, these compounds have been functionalized using nitrogen groups.^131–135 For example, in 2021, Xiao and co-workers investigated the synthesis of zirconium-based MOF beads for CO₂ capture applications.¹³⁶ For this purpose, they prepared Zr-based DUT-68 into alginate beads. Gas capture performance was then assessed through CO₂ and volatile iodine adsorption. They synthesized DUT-68 beads by cross-linked polymerization of Na-alginate using Ca²⁺ ions. The prepared composites had HSSA as well as high porosity. The DUT-68@Alginate bead (60% MOF) exhibited a 1.25 mmol g⁻¹ CO₂ adsorption capacity at 273 K. In this work, the alginate stability and the adsorption performance were enhanced. In the same year, Salehi and Hosseinifard reported the synthesis of MIL-101-derived nano porous carbon (MDC)/polysaccharides nanocomposite¹³⁷ using the impregnation of alginate, chitosan, and cellulose on the MDC. They used waste Cr for the synthesis of MIL-101. The prepared nanocomposite was applied for the uptake of CO₂ and CH₄. In another study, Mondino et al. successfully developed the preparation of MOF and alginate-based sphere, referred to as CPO-27-Ni/alginate spheres, through spray-granulation technique.¹³⁸ The CPO-27-Ni/alginate spheres were very suitable materials for the moving-bed temp-swing adsorption (MBTSA) process in the post-combustion capture of CO₂.
4.1.1.4 Miscellaneous alginate-based materials. Nanofiber (NF) is one of the types of nano materials, which have HSSA and are broadly applied for the removal of CO₂. NF materials can be synthesized through different methods, electrospinning being the most widely applied. Electrospun NFs are used for CO₂ adsorption owing to their properties including HSSA, high porosity, suitable pore size, excellent interconnectivity, and mechanical properties.¹³⁹ In 2022, Suratman and colleagues reported the synthesis of alginate NF using the incorporation of poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) in alginate (Alg/PVA NFs) by electrospinning method (Fig. 5a).¹⁴⁰ To improve the performance of the alginate NF, they used the impregnation of zeolite (Z) into the solution of polymer (Alg/PVA/Z NFs) (Fig. 5b). The CO₂ adsorption capacities of the prepared Alg/PVA NFs and Alg/PVA/Z NFs were 3.286 and 10.710 mmol g⁻¹, respectively. In this example, a combination of zeolite and alginate was used to synthesize a novel composition. In addition, in 2020, Koly and colleagues prepared another type of NF; named alginate/polyethylene oxide/Triton X-100 NFs (Alg/PEO/TX NFs) by electrospinning method.¹⁴¹ They evaluated the CO₂ capture capacity of the synthesized NFs. Their results displayed that the optimum adsorption capacity of 12.398 mmol g⁻¹ was achieved using FR and contact time of 10 mL min⁻¹ and 25 min, respectively. The electrospinning method is a novel technique for the preparation of adsorbents.

Fig. 5 Schematic representation of intermolecular interactions of (a) Alg/PVA NFs, (b) Alg/PVA/Z NFs¹⁴⁰ and (c) hydrogen bond between NaAlg and Na-tartrate.¹⁴⁹

One of the most efficient biocompounds for CO₂ capture is carbonic anhydrase. In fact, using carbonic anhydrase for CO₂ capture, the cost and size of the reactor were reduced. A specific form of carbonic anhydrase is the immobilization of it on the reactor, which maintains the suitability of separation and controls the process.^142–145 In 2016, Zhu et al. reported the decoration of carbonic anhydrase on the alginate and investigated its effect on the acceleration of CO₂ capture in post-combustion.¹⁴⁶ The immobilization of carbonic anhydrase on the alginate was carried out using glutaraldehyde cross-linking technique. The batch-scale results exhibited that CO₂ adsorption was improved by the addition of immobilized carbonic anhydrase. By immobilization of carbonic anhydrase on the alginate, the operational stability and porosity were increased.

Membranes provide an excellent potential for the capture of CO₂ owing to their advantages such as low cost, easy industrialization, small energy necessity, and eco-friendly nature.^147,148 In a study, Zhi and colleagues reported a membrane-based CO₂ separation procedure.¹⁴⁹ For this aim, they used NaAlg and Na-tartrate, which were connected through hydrogen bonds (Fig. 5c). The prepared membranes were applied for the separation of CO₂ and N₂. In this study, the presence of nitrogen-containing compounds may have increased the efficiency of the adsorbent.

4.1.1.5 Summary of this section. Alginate has low stability, which necessitates the preparation of alginate-based materials. Regarding the capture of CO₂ by alginate, relatively few studies have been carried out and most of them were based on N-doped materials. However, given the capability of alginate to form all kinds of gels; especially hydrogels, novel alginate-based hydrogels can be made for CO₂ absorption. Considering that the removal efficiency of composites is higher than that of other structures (93.08% in one case), novel structures can be prepared since alginate has hydroxyl and acid functional groups, which can form composites with various materials. In general, most materials and structures used with alginate for CO₂ capture are N-doped and MOF-based materials. In the case of N-doped materials, since there are no amine functional groups in the alginate, which is very important for CO₂ capture, these materials are very noteworthy. Furthermore, MOFs are good for CO₂ capture owing to their porous structure and the results indicate the considerable effect of the application of alginate on the enhancement of their structure and performance.

4.1.2. Starch-based materials. One of the most plentiful and low-cost polysaccharides is starch. Starch is fabricated from some plants for the storage of carbohydrates. The natural sources of starch include potato, cassava, rice, maize, wheat, etc. Two types of polysaccharides form the structure of starch including (1,6) α-D-glucan amylopectin and (1,4)-linked α-D-glucan amylose, which are linear and branched, respectively. Starch has different features such as biodegradability, accessibility, and low-price. In the structure of starch, there are many –OH functional groups, making it very useful. Therefore, starch can be applied as a support, stabilizer, template, etc. for different applications.^150–153 In this section, we report different studies regarding starch-based materials for CO₂ capture.
4.1.2.1 Starch-based nitrogen-doped materials. In 2022, Lin et al. reported the fabrication of a series of N-doped microporous carbon materials.¹⁵⁴ In this research, they used starch as a carbon source, melamine and formaldehyde (MF) as a polymer resin, and KOH as an activator (MF@Cs). The presence of MFs enhances the active site of carbon materials owing to their rich N and O groups. In addition, MFs form 3D networks. At the temperature and pressure of 273 K and 100 kPa, respectively, MF@Cs show great performance for CO₂ adsorption with the adsorption capacity of 6.54 mmol g⁻¹. Interestingly enough, they also used resin to make the adsorbent.

In 2021, Park and co-workers prepared two sequences of novel materials including corn starch-derived microporous carbons modified with/without thiourea (Fig. 6).¹⁵⁵ For this aim, they used different types of activation materials such as K₂CO₃, KOH, and K₂C₂O₄. The sample doped with thiourea was more porous than the undoped carbon sample. Thiourea-doped K₂C₂O₄ AC (STO) displayed well-defined micropores. The porous structure of STO considerably improved the performance of STO for CO₂ adsorption. The results displayed that the adsorption performance was 269.61 mg g⁻¹ at 0 °C and 1 bar. The innovation of this work was the effect of thiourea on the efficiency of the CO₂ adsorbent.

Fig. 6 Schematic representation of the preparation of the undoped/N,S co-doped with different activation salts of potassium starch-derived micro porous carbons and probable activation mechanism. Reproduced from ref. 155 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2021.

Isahak et al. reported the fabrication of an N-doped porous carbon hybrid from starch (SH800).¹⁵⁶ In this study, they investigated the CO₂ capture capacity of SH800. The results displayed that SH800 had an excellent CO₂ capture capacity of 29.8 wt% for biohydrogen gas adsorption.

4.1.2.2 Starch-based pellets materials. Preparation of sorbent pellets using Ca-based sorbents with a starch pore via the extrusion–spheronization method was performed by Han and colleagues.¹⁵⁷ For this aim, they used starch and cement as template and stabilizers, respectively. Their results exhibited that the optimum uptake of CO₂ was achieved using 10 and 20% of starch and cement, respectively. The 0.15 g g⁻¹ CO₂ capture was achieved after 20 cycles.

In 2021, the synthesis of monolithic porous nanostructures of CaO–MgO composites using a self-sustained combustion reaction of molded pellets was performed by Nethravathi and colleagues.¹⁵⁸ For this purpose, they used a mixture of starch, nitrate salts of calcium and magnesium, and urea. The starch was applied as a binder and template and urea was used as fuel. Porous monoliths had high CO₂ capture at 650 °C in a 20% CO₂ gas stream. However, the adsorption capacity of the CaO–MgO porous nanostructures was 67–51 mass% of the sorbent.

4.1.2.3 Other starch-based materials. Tan et al. reported the fabrication of AC from carbonized gelatin and starch biomass using the dry chemical activation approach.¹⁵⁹ The synthesized samples had gelatin (G) and starch (S), activated by KOH (K), G and S being mixed with different amounts (y) at 700 °C and were referred to as GSKy-700. The results displayed considerably excellent CO₂ adsorption (7.49 mmol g⁻¹ at 0 °C and 1 bar) by GSK1-700. In another study, Fuertes and Sevilla prepared porous carbons using the chemical activation of hydrothermally carbonized starch and cellulose as well as sawdust biomass.¹⁶⁰ The samples prepared were used as sorbents for the capture of CO₂. The samples produced under mild activation conditions (KOH/HC = 2) performed well, showing a high capacity for CO₂ uptake. In addition, the samples synthesized at 600 °C had a high capacity (4.8 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C and 1 atm) for storage of CO₂ at ambient temperature.
4.1.2.4 Summary of this section. Starch has been mainly used as a carbon source and in most cases, carbonized and used as a source of AC. Starch has been used as a template, but not widely used to make CO₂ capture materials. Thus, studies in this area are scarce and there is much to be done including starch-based, N-doped, and pellet materials. As a suggestion for future studies, starch can be used to fabricate composites using the combination of starch and MOF to increase the adsorption capacity of fabricated materials for CO₂ capture.

4.1.3 Gum-based materials. Gum is made up of many hydroxyl groups and is found in a variety of sources such as seeds, trees, and aquatic weeds. Gums are made from trees including Arabic, Kondabolu, karaya, tragacanth, Gum Ghatti, etc.⁵⁸ Gums are well-known natural polysaccharides made of sugar and are frequently utilized in the industry owing to their biocompatibility, odorlessness, non-toxicity, solubility in water, renewability, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility.^81,161 In this part, we review recent studies on gum-based materials for CO₂ capture application.
4.1.3.1 Gum-based pellet materials. In a study, Hussin and co-workers utilized to synthesize high-quality carbon pellets. AC was combined with organic binders such as tapioca starch (TS) and xanthan gum (XG) to produce pellets.¹⁶² Both kinds of carbon pellets (TS-AC and XG-AC) continued to yield a high carbon content after the addition of water and the binder. Given their many functional groups, a longer breakthrough time, and a higher CO₂ adsorption capacity compared with xanthan gum, carbon pellets made with tapioca starch performed better than those prepared using xanthan gum. In comparison to XG-AC pellets (16.86 mg g⁻¹), TS-AC carbon pellets had remarkably high breakthrough time and CO₂ adsorption capacity of 16.2 min and 21.84 mg g⁻¹, respectively, at 25 °C. The innovation of this work is that two types of biopolymers have been used for the synthesis of adsorbents.
4.1.3.2 Other gum-based materials. In another study, Tasmanian Blue Gum (TBG) tree bark was chosen by Prasankumar et al. as the starting material for producing activated porous carbon utilizing an easy KOH activation and carbonization procedure.¹⁶³ For CO₂ collection from concentrated sources and diluted 4% CO₂ simulated flue streams, AC-TBG was used. With a 1.6 mmol g⁻¹ working capacity at 40 °C and 4% of CO₂, AC-TBG demonstrated exceptional CO₂ absorption (4.5 mmol g⁻¹) at 0 °C and 1 bar for pure CO₂.
4.1.3.3 Summary of this section. There are very few examples of gums-based materials for CO₂ capture (only 2 studies are available). In these examples, gum has been used as a source for making AC. In general, the application of gums to make materials capable of capturing CO₂ is not very efficient. However, the structure of gum is similar to that of alginate such that it can easily form a gel and hence it can be very effective in making hydrogels. Thus, one of the issues, which should be addressed in the future is the preparation of hydrogels based on different types of suitable and effective gums for CO₂ capture. The structure of these hydrogels must be such that amine groups are located on the top so that they can have a high efficiency for CO₂ capture.

4.1.4 Pectin-based materials. Pectin is a complex polysaccharide made up of linear -(1,4) galacturonic acid residues connected throughout the chain by -(1−4) glycosidic links with hydroxyl and carboxyl groups.^164,165 Fruit peels and many plant cell walls contain pectin. Considering its capacity to form aqueous gels, it is employed as a stabilizer in the food industry. The biocompatibility, biodegradability, non-toxicity, hydrophilicity, and flexibility of pectin make it suitable for biomedical and cosmetic uses.¹⁶⁶
4.1.4.1 Pectin-based other materials. In 2022, to prepare micro–mesoporous carbon powders, which are both oxygen and nitrogen-loaded, Vafaeinia et al. used pectin and melamine as the corresponding organic precursors.¹⁶⁷ Given its unique micro–mesoporous structure and abundance of basic nitrogen-containing functionalities, at 273 K at 1 bar, the ideal porous carbon had CO₂ adsorption capacities of up to 3.1 mmol g⁻¹.

Jovellana and Pajarito demonstrated the viability of pectin as the foundation for amine functionalization by coating it on zeolites for CO₂ absorption.¹⁶⁸ Pectin has been successfully modified using NH₃ and triethylenetetramine (TETA) as alternative amine-functionalized coating agents and coated on substrates such as zeolites for CO₂ uptake. Adsorbents coated with NH₃ and TETA-modified pectins had adsorption capacities of 2.24 and 2.28 mmol g⁻¹ at 5% breakthrough, respectively. In this study, zeolite was used along with pectin for better efficiency. Moreover, in 2016, pectin was used as the primary starting material to synthesize nanoporous AC in a two-step method through hydrothermal carbonization of a pectin water dispersion at 230 °C, followed by chemical activation with KOH at 700 °C. At 1 atm and room temperature, this material had a considerable CO₂ capture capability of 13–7 mmol g⁻¹.¹⁶⁹

4.1.4.2 Summary of this section. In the field of CO₂ capture, pectin is often used as a functional biopolymer to make porous activated carbon. Nitrogen-enriched pectin, prepared by functionalization with various amine materials, exhibits high efficiency for CO₂ capture since the obtained porous sorbent is enriched in both oxygen and nitrogen.

4.1.5 Chitosan-based materials. The only naturally occurring polysaccharide with an amino group, chitosan (CS), is prepared by deacetylating chitin, which is found in abundance in nature. Over 10 billion tons of chitin are produced by biosynthesis each year, and after cellulose, it is the most frequently occurring biopolymer in nature, which is found in the shells of crabs and shrimp, fungi, and insects.^170,171 As a natural biopolymer, CS has several inherent benefits, including affordability, biodegradability, biocompatibility, non-toxicity, and effective sorption capabilities. In particular, the free amino-hydroxyl groups give CS features including antibacterial activity, chelating with heavy metals, protein affinity, solubility in water, and most significantly, the simplicity of processing and modification.^166,172,173 CS has a strong adsorption capacity. However, given its low reusability, weak mechanical properties, and ease of solubilization in acids, its applicability is limited.¹⁷⁰ Nevertheless, these limitations can be resolved by chemical or physical modifications. In addition to enhancing mechanical strength and adsorption capabilities, physical and chemical modifications can prevent the dissolution of CS in strong acids. Physical modification often involves combining (derivatives) CS with other materials or transforming it into distinct forms, including membranes, microspheres, fibers, gels, and porous particles without altering the inherent features of CS.¹⁷⁴ Given the capability of CO₂ molecules to hop between the matrix's arbitrary openings, CS is anticipated to allow selective CO₂ permeation due to the basic amino groups present in the polymeric chain (Fig. 7).^175,176 In this section, we have reviewed the CO₂ adsorption features of different CS-based materials such as composites, membranes, hydrogel, etc.

Fig. 7 Adsorption of CO₂ molecules by CS.

4.1.5.1 Chitosan-based aerogel materials. To prepare aerogels with high CO₂ absorption, much research has been carried out. For example, in 2021, using a phase inversion technique followed by freeze-drying, Luzzi et al. were able to successfully embed zeolite 13X (ZX) powder in the CS framework to prepare composite aerogel beads (Fig. 8).¹⁷⁷ This method completely utilized the potential of the constituents, resulting in a sample with 561 m² g⁻¹ HSSA and 4.23 mmol g of CO₂ uptake capacity for the sample containing 90% zeolite. The beads were coherent, mechanically stable, and reusable after regeneration using a gentle pressure swing technique, and had an exceptional ability to adsorb CO₂. In this study, the presence of zeolite has increased the efficiency of the adsorbent due to its porous structure.

Fig. 8 Production of the hydrogel beads by the phase inversion method.¹⁷⁷

Furthermore, in 2021, Liu and colleagues developed a model high-strength hydrogel and aerogel using CS and lithium sulfonate double networks using an electron beam.¹⁷⁸ The aerogels had a double network structure with CO₂-philic properties, which gave them a porous structure and 67.9 mg g⁻¹ CO₂ capture capacity at 0.1 MPa and 298 K, indicating that they had a HSSA of 114.18 m² g⁻¹. Applications for harvesting CO₂ in real-world settings are feasible because of the physical and chemical strength of the aerogel. The innovation of this is the shape of the adsorbent structure, which is in the form of a double network structure.

A unique GO/Laponite® RD/CS was prepared by Du and co-workers.¹⁷⁹ Ternary composite produced using the freeze-drying and sol–gel methods was then employed as a CO₂ adsorbent. Aerogel-type solid amine adsorbent had a CO₂ adsorption capacity of 78.9 mg g⁻¹ and was capable of both physical and chemical adsorptions. This adsorbent had several advantages, including inexpensive starting materials, environmental friendliness, and a comparatively high adsorption capacity.

According to the research by Hsan and co-workers in 2019, CS-grafted GO aerogels have a wide surface area, high porosity, and a significant number of amine groups, which allow CO₂ adsorption gas. At 1 bar, CS-grafted GO aerogels had an approximate adsorption capacity of 0.257 mmol g⁻¹.¹⁸⁰ To reversibly capture CO₂ from the environment through humidity swing, Song et al. employed cost-effective quaternized CS (QCS)/PVA hybrid aerogels containing quaternary ammonium groups and hydroxide ions (Fig. 9a). The capability of QCS/PVA hybrid aerogel to extract CO₂ was predicted to be 0.18 mmol g⁻¹ in the temperature range of 10–30 °C (Fig. 9b).¹⁸¹

Fig. 9 (a) Preparation of QCS/PVA hydrogel and QCS/PVA aerogel¹⁸¹ and (b) adsorption of CO₂ by humidity swing.¹⁸¹

Alhwaige et al. synthesized MMT-CTS-PBZ nanocomposite aerogels using biobased CS-poly benzoxazine (CTSPBZ) as a precursor for high CO₂ adsorbing carbon aerogels and montmorillonite (MMT) to reinforce the CTS-PBZ aerogel.¹⁸² MMT-CTS-PBZ aerogels were prepared using the freeze-drying method and subsequently cross-linked by the ring-opening polymerization of benzoxazine and carbonization at 800 °C. Even at high pressure, polybenzoxazine enhanced the structural stability for CO₂ removal from the environment. The carbon aerogels had strong reversible CO₂ adsorption–desorption activity by a maximum of 5.72 mmol g⁻¹ and mesoporous materials with pore sizes in the 2–7 nm range, high BET surface area, and mesoporous materials. The innovation of this work was the application of MMT along with chitosan to make the absorbent. In another study in 2013, CS, an environmentally safe biopolymer was combined with varying concentrations of GO by Alhwaige et al. to develop hybrid monolith aerogels. The adsorption capacities of the aerogels for CO₂ collection were investigated. Upon the addition of 20 wt% GO, the quantity of CO₂ adsorbed at 25 °C increased from 1.92 to 4.15 mol kg⁻¹.¹⁸³ In fact, the addition of GO significantly improved the adsorption capacity.

4.1.5.2 Chitosan-based composite materials. In the conversion of CO₂ to valuable products, in 2018, Kumar et al. studied CO₂ adsorption and its conversion to cyclic carbonates in the absence of any solvent using an environmentally friendly method based on CS/GO nanocomposite film. At 4.6 bar, a CSGO nanocomposite with an adsorption capacity of 1.0152 mmol g⁻¹ was reported.¹⁸⁴ In this study, after adsorbing CO₂, it was converted into carbonate products, which is an interesting innovation.
4.1.5.3 Chitosan-based hydrogel materials. One method for CO₂ capture is the use of hydrogels, which are made of a polymeric network. In 2021, Kunalan et al. examined the gas transport properties of hydrogel CS and CS-polyethylene glycol (CS + PEG) polymer mix surface-modified poly-vinyl trimethyl silane (PVTMS) composite membranes for pure CO₂, N₂, and CH₄ gases.¹⁸⁵ The transmembrane pressure of 76 cmHg and the reaction temperature of 30 °C, which were the optimal conditions, allowed the CS + PEG-modified PVTMS membranes to achieve an acceptable CO₂ permeability of 153 barrer. The innovation of this work is the application of a mixed polymer matrix to make membranes. In another study, Wen and colleagues prepared a unique bimetal-based inorganic–carbonic anhydrase hybrid nanoflower (CANF), which immobilized carbonic anhydrase using bimetal ions (Cu²⁺ and Zn²⁺) rather than individual metal ions. These CANF composites were then embedded into PVA/CS hydrogel membranes (PVA/CS@CANF) to produce a new decorated carbonic anhydrase for CO₂ capture.¹⁸⁶ Exceptional mechanical strength, great catalytic performance, and ease of flow were all characteristics of the PVA/CS@CANF hydrogel membranes. PVA/CS@CANF, in particular, might effectively absorb CO₂. CaCO₃ production by PVA/CS@CANF was 9 and 2-fold more than those of free carbonic anhydrase and CANF, respectively. Consequently, there may be a lot of potential applications for bimetallic-based protein hybrid hydrogel membranes in CO₂ capture.
4.1.5.4 Chitosan-based membrane materials. Technologies employing membranes to capture CO₂ have the following advantages: they use less energy, are easier to design and operate, and have superior thermal and mechanical stability. In 2022, Li et al. fabricated thin-film composite (TFC) membranes with piperazine (PIP) solution and carboxymethyl chitosan (CMC) chains, which have water-swelling properties, using interfacial polymerization (IP) to enhance the performance of CO₂ separation (Fig. 10a)¹⁸⁷ This research proposed a quick and efficient way to adjust the membrane shape and improve assisted transport. The application of CO₂/N₂ mixed gas, PIP/TMC, CMC/TMC, and PIP-CMC/TMC membranes was also investigated. For CO₂ capture from flue gas, PIP-CMC/TMC membranes with octopus-branched nanostructures exhibited good CO₂ permselectivity and offered a wide range of potential applications.

Fig. 10 Preparation of (a) PIP-CMC/TMC membranes. Reproduced from ref. 187 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2022 and (b) HPEI-GO/CS-PVAm/PS membranes.¹⁸⁸

Shen et al. fabricated a transport mixed matrix membranes via the surface coating process by dispersing GO grafted with hyperbranched polyethylenimine (HPEI-GO) nanosheets in CS cross-linked with polyvinyl amine (PVAm) polymer matrix solution for CO₂/N₂ separation (Fig. 10b).¹⁸⁸ The maximum CO₂ performance was 36 GPU in a 2 wt% HPEI-GO membrane, while the best CO₂/N₂ selectivity was 107 in a 3 wt% HPEI-GO membrane.

4.1.5.5 Chitosan-based MOF materials. Due to their advantages, MOFs, a type of hybrid nanoparticle material, have attracted a lot of attention. Using a packed bed column and a gas mixture containing 15% CO₂ and 85% N₂, Singo and co-workers impregnated a sodalite zeolite-like MOF (sod-ZMOF) with CS in 2017 and studied its capability of absorbing CO₂.¹⁸⁹ At a temperature of 25, an FR of 25 ml min⁻¹, and a pressure of 1 bar, Sod-ZMOF-CS showed maximum adsorption capacity of 978 mg g⁻¹. In this study, sodalite, which is a scarce mineral, was used in the preparation of the absorbent.

Using mathematical modeling, Yoro et al. studied the behavior of Sod-MOFs/CSs as an adsorbent for post-combustion CO₂ absorption.¹⁹⁰ Sod-ZMOF/CS demonstrated a two-stage adsorption process with an initial quick CO₂ absorption and a later sluggish CO₂ adsorption process under various adsorption temperatures. The tests performed to validate these models were carried out at temperatures of 30, 45, and 60 °C, an operating pressure of 200 kPa, a gas FR of 2.5 mL s⁻¹, and a mass of adsorbent of 0.1 g.

4.1.5.6 Chitosan-based heteroatom-doped materials. Malini and co-workers prepared N-doped porous AC using CS and hexamethylenetetramine (HMT) (in ratios of 1 : 1 and 1 : 3 wt/wt) as the carbon precursor and an additional nitrogen source, respectively.¹⁹¹ The CS/HMT-derived AC had a larger N-content and enhanced thermal stability, but as the HMT content increased, the surface characteristics decreased. At 25 °C, the CO₂ adsorption of AC produced from CS was determined to be 97.98 mg g⁻¹, compared to 72.95 and 55.11 mg g⁻¹ for AC/HMT (1 : 1) and AC/HMT (1 : 3), respectively.

In another study, CS and NaNH₂ were used by Yang et al. to synthesize N-doped under solvent-free conditions.¹⁹² At 273.15 K and 100 kPa, the adsorption capacity of CO₂ reached 6.33 mmol g⁻¹. Using N-doped porous carbon as a promoter, CO₂ could be converted into various formamides with good yields in the absence of metals. These CS-based N-doped porous carbons are therefore possible candidates for CO₂ capture and conversion due to their good uptake of CO₂, great reactivity, the cost-effectiveness of the precursor, and simple production method. The novelty of this work was the preparation of the absorbent in the absence of solvents.

Li et al. prepared N-doped carbon nanosheets using various activators such as KOH, KAc, K₂CO₃, KHCO₃, and CS derived from biomass as a carbon precursor.¹⁹³ The materials produced by KOH activation (CN6-750-KOH) demonstrated a remarkable CO₂ adsorption capacity of 3.91 mmol g⁻¹ at 298 K and 1 bar. Surprisingly, a carbon activated via KAc (CN6-750-Kac), performed comparably to CN6-750-KOH, attaining a CO₂ capture capacity of 3.54 mmol g⁻¹. In this study, different types of activators were used.

Preparation of the N,P co-doped porous carbon materials (NPPCs) with phytic acid (PA)-induced self-assembled CS materials was performed by Xiao and colleagues through pyrolysis and activation processes.¹⁹⁴ PA works as a P source, an acid regulator, and a structure-directing agent to form more pores with enhanced activation efficiency. A small amount of NaNO₃ is concurrently utilized as a template and an activator. The as-prepared NPPCs, which are bifunctional carbon materials, performed well at adsorbing CO₂ and storing electrochemical energy. NPPC-0.75-600 showed CO₂ adsorption capacities of 5.31 and 3.02 mmol g⁻¹ at pressures of 500 and 100 kPa, respectively.

He and colleagues synthesized AC by carbonizing rice husk, followed by activation with KOH. KOH activation was carried out concurrently with surface modification using CS as a nitrogen source.¹⁹⁵ At 273 K and 1 bar, with a CO₂ adsorption activity of 5.83 mmol g⁻¹, CAC-5 (modified AC) outperformed AC-5 (generic AC) due to the formation of CO₂-philic active sites on the surface of the modified AC by N-species.

To fabricate N,S co-doped carbons (NSCDCs), Shi et al. developed a unique and simple strategy through the chemical blowing process.¹⁹⁶ Carbon and nitrogen were provided by CS while sulfur was supplied by hydroquinonesulfonic acid potassium salt (HAPS), which was also utilized as the blowing agent (Fig. 11a). By carbonizing, a combination of CS and HAPS in one step, NSCDC with a hierarchically porous structure was produced. At pressures of 20 and 1 bar and temperature of 25 °C, the best CO₂ uptakes were 12.9 and 2.4 mmol g⁻¹, respectively.

Fig. 11 Synthesis of (a) NSCDC¹⁹⁶ and (b) N,S,O doped hierarchical micro porous carbons from CS. Reproduced from ref. 197 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2021.

Nazir et al. designed a sequence of non-doped/heteroatom (N,S,O)-doped porous carbons by a two-step pyrolysis-KOH chemical activation after extracting CS from used shrimp shells by deproteination and deacetylation methods (Fig. 11b).¹⁹⁷ At 273 K and 1 bar, the as-prepared material exhibited outstanding CO₂ adsorption capacity (236.8 mg g⁻¹).

In 2019, using CS (NCS-T) and glucose (NCS_NH3-T) as the starting materials, Wu et al. synthesized two kinds of carbon microspheres with abundant porous N-containing groups utilizing practical and affordable methods.¹⁹⁸ Due to the micropores and ultramicro pores formed, the CO₂ adsorption capacities of NCS-T and NCS_NH3-T were 51–141 and 180–243 mg g⁻¹, respectively. In this study, two types of starting materials were used to synthesize N-containing materials.

Fujiki and Yogo prepared extremely porous N-doped AC (NACs) via chemical CS activation using alkali carbonates.¹⁹⁹ 1.6 and 4.9 mmol g⁻¹ CO₂ capacities were displayed by the NACs at temperatures and pressure of 25, 15 °C and 100 kPa, respectively. At low partial pressures, the addition of N-doped improved CO₂ adsorption. Furthermore, Fan and co-workers used CS and K₂CO₃ as a precursor and activator, respectively, to prepare N-doped porous carbons for CO₂ capture.²⁰⁰ These porous carbons exhibited high CO₂ adsorption capacity. In particular, the sample prepared using K₂CO₃/CS = 2 at 635 °C showed a considerably high CO₂ capture capacity of 3.86 mmol g⁻¹ at temperature and pressure of 25 °C and 1 atm., respectively. In another study, Thote et al. used CS as the biopolymer template to produce N-doped mesoporous alumina. At 55 °C, the adsorption capacity was 29.4 mg g⁻¹.²⁰¹ At 55 °C, this value was 4 times higher than that of commercial mesoporous alumina. This increased CO₂ adsorption is caused by the basicity of the alumina surface in combination with the nitrogen in the template in the synthesized sample.

Table 1 shows further examples of CO₂ capture technologies based on chitosan-based polymers.

Table 1 Chitosan-based materials for CO₂ capture

Entry	CS-based sorbent	Operating conditions (temperature and pressure (bar))	Capacity (mmol g^−1)	Ref.
a Hydrothermal carbonization of CS. b Hierarchical porous nitrogen-containing AC derived from CS. c CS grafted multi-walled carbon nanotube. d Cu-BTC-integrated CS/PVA nanofibrous membranes. e CS-bleaching earth clay composite. f CS based meso-tetrakis(4-sulfonatophenyl)porphyrin. g Polyethylenimine-functionalized porous CS. h Amine-functionalized AC with CS. i AC impregnated CS.
1	NaOH@CS-Fe3O4	25 °C and 9	3.21	202
2	CM-Cs in BMI·OAc	r.t. and 1 atm	2.32	203
3	Biochar derived CS	0 °C and 1	4.11	204
4	HTC of CS^a	25 °C and 1	4-Fold	205
5	N-ACs from CS^b	0 °C/25 °C and 1	7.9/5.6	206
6	CSMWCNT^c	298 K and 1	1.92 ccg^−1	207
7	TiO2-grafted CS film	—	—	208
8	CNFs/Cu/BTC-3^d	298 K and 100 kPa	9.5 cm^3 g^−1	209
9	Micro porous carbons from CS	273 K and 1	280 mg g^−1	210
10	Micro porous carbons from CS	0 °C and 0.15	17.3–22	211
11	Furfuryl-imine-CS fibers	295 K and 0.610	0.978	212
12	CS-derived mesoporous carbon	100 °C under atmospheric pressure	3.72	213
13	Chi-BE^e	38.13 °C	344.98 mg g^−1	214
14	CS/MWCNT	45 °C and 1.1	3 mg g^−1	215
15	CS-TPPS^f	—	0.9	216
16	Triphenyl amine CS derivative	5	0.85 mmol/mmol	217
17	CS/mesoporous silica	25 °C and 1 atm	0.98	218
18	PEI-CS bead^g	313 K and 15 kPa	2.3	219
19	AC-CS^h	298 K and 40	13.65	220
20	CGAC^i	—	0.25 mol kg^−1	221
21	CS modified CMK-3s	—	—	222
22	Graphitic carbons derived from CS	0 °C and atmospheric pressure	5	45
23	Zeolite ZY-chitosan composite	4.6	1.7	223
24	CS/ZIF-8 composite	275.15 K and 500 kPa	3.6	224

---

4.1.5.7 Summary of this section. Chitosan is a natural polymer containing an amine functional group. On the other hand, it can form various types of gels. As a result, many studies have been conducted in the field of CO₂ capture using chitosan-based materials. In the field of chitosan-based gels for CO₂ capture, two studies have been performed using hydrogels and aerogels. Moreover, chitosan is capable of forming Com with other materials. However, there is still much work to be done in the future. Membranes are also effective materials for CO₂ capture and chitosan has been used to make membranes. Of course, membranes are mostly used when there is a mixture of several gases. The combination of chitosan and MOFs has also been reported to have a relatively high adsorption capacity. As pointed out at the beginning, chitosan possesses an amino functional group. However, there are relatively many studies on the application of chitosan-based N-doped materials for CO₂ capture. This shows that the presence of amine groups is useful and necessary for the capture of CO₂. In addition, and the studies in this field show the high adsorption capacity of CO₂ in these materials.

4.1.6 Cellulose-based materials. The most common polymer on earth is cellulose, a linear polysaccharide. Natural cellulose fibers may be found in materials such as cotton, linen, and wood. These materials are reasonably priced, biodegradable, and biocompatible.^225–228 Linear homopolysaccharide cellulose, with the chemical formula (C₆H₁₀O₅)_n, is built of β-D-anhydroglucopyranose units and possesses a hydrogen bond because of the electrostatic interactions between hydrogen and oxygen atoms. This hydrogen bond reduces the solubility of cellulose in polar liquids.^229,230

As shown in Fig. 12, some examples of nanocelluloses are cellulose nanofibril (CNF), cellulose nanocrystal (CNC), cellulose nanocomposite, and bacterial cellulose (BC).^231,232 Low mechanical properties, poor microbiological resistance, and limited porosity are only a few of the challenges associated with the practical application of cellulose. Several conventional methods, including physical adsorption and surface chemical alterations, have been developed over time to provide various functions on cellulose materials.^233–236 The CO₂ adsorption characteristics of several cellulose-based materials, including hydrogel, composites, membranes, etc., have been reviewed in this part.

Fig. 12 Types and structure of cellulose.

4.1.6.1 Cellulose-based composite materials. To investigate the impact of packing materials on the efficiency of cryogenic CO₂ removal from natural gas, in 2019, Babar and colleagues used three different types of packing materials; namely, spherical glass beads, cellulose acetate (CA) monofilament and hollow fibers, and composite CA/NH₂-MIL-101(Al) hollow fibers.²³⁷ In addition, it was found that the composite CA/NH₂-MIL-101(Al) hollow fibers collected CO₂ more effectively than glass beads and pure CA fibers. Additionally, it was found that the CO₂ removal efficiencies of composite hollow fibers were 141.9 and 9.5% higher than those of spherical glass beads and pure CA hollow fibers, respectively. In another study in 2016, Gunathilake et al. developed amidoxime-functionalized microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)-mesoporous silica composites using a two-step procedure. At first, in the presence of Pluronic P123 triblock copolymer under acidic conditions, solvent evaporation-induced self-assembly of MCC, tetraethylorthosilicate, and (3-cyanopropyl)triethoxysilane produced MCC-mesoporous silica containing cyanopropyl groups (MCC-CP).²³⁸ The material was then treated with hydroxylamine hydrochloride in a further step to convert the cyanopropyl groups into amidoxime functionalities and generate a mesoporous MCC-AO composite. At a high temperature of 120 °C, they achieved the remarkable CO₂ adsorption capacities of 2.15–2.41 mmol g⁻¹ (MCC-CP) and 2.84–3.85 mmol g⁻¹ (MCC-AO).
4.1.6.2 Cellulose-based MOF materials. MOFs have been broadly employed as adsorbents for CO₂ adsorption and separation. For example, Jabbar et al. prepared micro and nanocomposites of cellulose@MOF-199 using cotton fabrics and nanobacterial cellulose (NBC) (Fig. 13).²³⁹ Under standard conditions of temperature and pressure, NBC@MOF-199 and Cotton@MOF-199 both displayed high adsorption capacities of 2.9 and 1.2 mmol g⁻¹, respectively.

Fig. 13 Schematic representation of carboxymethylation and MOF-199 growth processes on the surface of nanobacterial cellulose.²³⁹

In 2021, by synthesizing Cu Luzzi et al. were able to successfully embed zeolite-1,3,5-tricarboxylate [Cu₃(BTC)₂], Zn 2-methylimidazolate [Zn(MeIm)₂], and AlBTC in situ in a mesoporous cellulose template made of balsa wood, Wang et al. successfully prepared foam-like TO-wood/MOF composites (Fig. 14).²⁴⁰ TO-wood/Cu₃(BTC)₂ composite had a greater CO₂ adsorption capacity than TO-wood/Zn(MeIm)₂ and TO-wood/AlBTC composites, at 1.46 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C and atmospheric pressure.

Fig. 14 Synthesis of the TO-wood/MOF composite using Cu₃(BTC)₂. Reproduced from ref. 240 with permission from American Chemical Society, copyright 2021.

To capture CO₂, Policicchio and colleagues developed a novel composite containing 2% CNC with a range of surface functional groups (such as carboxylic acids, sulfonic acids, and amines) incorporated into UiO-66.²⁴¹

Yang et al. used cellulose paper packed with precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) to produce cellulose paper@MOF-5 composite (Fig. 15).²⁴² According to gas adsorption experiments, the as-prepared paper@MOF-5 composite showed a superior capacity to adsorb nitrogen gas and may have a lot of potentials to adsorb or store other gaseous products such as H₂, CO₂, CH₄, etc.

Fig. 15 Preparation of cellulose paper@MOF-5 composite.²⁴²

4.1.6.3 Cellulose-based membrane. In 2022, Brunetti et al. continuously exposed cellulose-based carbon hollow fiber membranes to a gas stream, which also contained H₂S and/or water vapor for 183 days while observing the separation performances of the membranes.²⁴³ At 298 K and 10 bar, CO₂ and CH₄ showed adsorption capacities of 2.98 and 2 mmol g⁻¹, respectively. Moreover, in 2022, mixed matrix membranes (MMMs) with better CO₂ adsorption capability were prepared by Rehman and colleagues.²⁴⁴ Cu-MOF-GO composite was added to CA polymer matrix as filler at a rate of 1 to 5 wt% to form MMMs (Fig. 16a). At a pressure of 15 bar, the maximal CO₂ absorption rate was 1.79 mmol g⁻¹ and 7.98 wt%. According to the adsorption data, Cu-MOF-GO composite and CA-based MMM can both effectively collect CO₂.

Fig. 16 Synthesis of (a) pristine CA membranes (blank) and MMMs of Cu-MOF-GO loading in CA-matrix²⁴⁴ and (b) thiazole-based PMs-1-9.²⁴⁷

To produce a novel class of MMMs for selective biogas upgrading, Regmi and co-workers combined TiO₂ nanotube (TNT) amalgamated GO matrix with cellulose triacetate (CTA) (TNT@GO/CTA).²⁴⁵ The resulting MMMs had a higher affinity for CO₂ adsorption. Almost 7 times more CO₂ was permeable, reaching 22.54 Barrer. Using materials such as TNT, GO, and CTA, the adsorption performance was considerably enhanced. In a cellulose-based polymer matrix, Ali et al. assessed the possible intercalated effects of metal-induced microporous polymer (MMP) dots.²⁴⁶ Under both dry and humid conditions, the CO₂ separation efficiency and plasticization pressure of MMP-intercalated smart membranes were assessed. According to the gas permeation measurements, adding MMP nanodots to cellulose polymer increased CO₂ permeability from 14.1 to 108.9 Barrer. HSSA, hydrolytic stability, and effective performance for natural gas-type effluents under humid conditions are only a few of the promising characteristics of ultrathin intercalated membranes developed employing MMP nano-dots.

Green blend membranes were developed by Akbarzadeh et al. using glassy CA combined with ortho-linked thiazole-based polyimine (PM-4) and thioether linkage (Fig. 16b).²⁴⁷ The materials had great resistance to thermal properties. 3.72 mmol g⁻¹ of this polymer may absorb a lot of CO₂ at 1 bar and 298 K.

For CO₂ separations, Raza and colleagues produced novel blended membranes made of CTA and cellulose diacetate (CDA).²⁴⁸ CTA and CDA blends were selected due to their similar chemical structures, strong separation performance, availability, and environmental friendliness. With a CO₂ permeability of 17.32 barrer and a CO₂/CH₄ selectivity of 18.55, CTA : CDA (80 : 20) has moved higher in Robeson's upper bound curve. In 2020, to separate CO₂/CH₄ and CO₂/N₂, Jamil et al. prepared MMMs using CA and various bentonite (Bt) clay loadings.²⁴⁹ At a pressure of 2 bar pressure and 1 wt% Bt loading, the highest value of optimum selectivity for CO₂/CH₄ was attained, which is 79% greater than that of pure CA membranes. The optimal selectivity for CO₂/N₂ at a pressure of 4 bar was 123% greater than that of the clean membranes.

Nanocellulose fibril surfaces may be effectively modified for improved performance in CO₂ separation membranes, as shown by Janakiram and colleagues.²⁵⁰ Using humid gas permeation experiments, thin composite membranes with the modified nanofibers in water-swelling PVA and a combination of sterically hindered polyallylamine (SHPAA) and PVA were formed and evaluated (Fig. 17). Compared to pure PVA membranes, the addition of nanocellulose showed improved CO₂ permeance and CO₂/N₂ selectivity. Using a combination of SHPAA and PVA, CO₂ permeance up to 652 GPU and a CO₂/N₂ selectivity of 41.3 was achieved.

Fig. 17 Surface modification of nanocellulose fibrils.²⁵⁰

In 2015, pure CA and CA-TiO₂ composite membranes were produced by Hafeez and co-workers to study the CO₂ adsorption behavior.²⁵¹ The high CO₂ adsorption capacity may improve CO₂ solubility and diffusion in the CA-TiO₂ composite membrane, improving CO₂ separation. Nevertheless, compared to pure CA membrane, CO₂ adsorption is higher in the CA-TiO₂ mixed membranes from 2.5 bars.

4.1.6.4 Cellulose-based aerogel materials. In 2023, Chen et al. developed an epoxy-functionalized PEI-modified epichlorohydrin-cross-linked cellulose aerogel as an adsorbent for CO₂ collection during the freezing-thawing processes (Fig. 18).²⁵² By a maximum adsorption capacity of 6.45 mmol g⁻¹ and freeze-drying, the sample displayed good adsorption performance.

Fig. 18 Synthesis of epoxy-functionalized PEI-modified epichlorohydrin-cross-linked cellulose aerogel. Reproduced from ref. 252 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2023.

Cheng et al. synthesized 3D network-shaped biomass-derived cellulose carbon aerogels from Typha Orientalis (TO).²⁵³ The results showed that the material possessed 0.6 wt% hydrogen storage capacity at ambient temperature and adsorption capacities of 16 mmol g⁻¹, 123.31 and 124.57 mg g⁻¹ for o-xylene and o-dichlorobenzene, respectively.

In 2022, by tert-butanol substitution, gradual heating, high-temperature activation, and freeze-drying, Zhang et al. fabricated a cellulose nanofiber (CNF)/PVA/GO aerogel.²⁵⁴ The amount of GO in the material improved its HSSA (392.41 m² g⁻¹) and CO₂ adsorption capacity (432.76 cm³ g⁻¹ at 273 K). In fact, the novelty of this work is the presence of GO, which improves SSA.

Sun and colleagues used a simple vacuum impregnation approach along with a directional freeze-drying procedure to form a novel composite aerogel made of konjac glucomannan (KGM)/TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers (TOCNF)@HKUST-1 (KTA@HKUST-1) utilizing KGM and TOCNF as starting materials.²⁵⁵ The CO₂ adsorption capacity of KTA@HKUST-1-10 (KTA@H10) may be as high as 3.50 mmol g⁻¹ at 1 bar and 298 K and the adsorption capacity retention rate can be as high as 91.43% after 7 cycles, according to the experimental findings.

By employing BC as a template, Gong et al. developed a hydrothermal synthesis method to quickly construct hierarchical pompon-like SAPO-34. To prepare SAPO-34, SiO₂-loaded BC aerogel was synthesized and employed as a silicon source.²⁵⁶ Furthermore, the CO₂ adsorption capacity of the hierarchical pompon-like SAPO-34 crystals was 2.26 mmol g⁻¹ at 100 kPa and 298 K, and the corresponding CO₂/CH₄ ideal separation factor was 5.7, which was greater than that of trigonal SAPO-34 crystals. In a study by Othaman et al., they prepared nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) from oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (OPEFB) and grafted it with three different aminosilanes; namely, 3-(aminopropyl) trimethoxysilane (APTMS), 3-(2-aminoethylamino) propyl-dimethoxymethylsilane (AEAPDMS), and N-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)diethylenetriamine (DET3)).²⁵⁷ According to these findings, APTMS-NCC aerogel has a greater CO₂ adsorption (0.20 mmol g⁻¹) than NCC aerogel, which has not been changed (0.010 mmol g⁻¹).

Jiang and colleagues used a phase inversion-induced sol–gel method with supercritical drying to synthesize a cellulose aerogel. 3-Aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES) was grafted onto the cellulose gel structure to produce an amine-grafted cellulose aerogel (AGCA).²⁵⁸ AGCA demonstrated remarkable stability within 20 adsorption–desorption cycles, reaching a CO₂ adsorption capacity of 1.20 mmol g⁻¹ with dry 1% CO₂. In another study, Zhou et al. produced cellulose whiskers/silica by a sol–gel technique. Tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOs) and an alkaline silica solution were used to form solid aerogels from skim cotton (Fig. 19).²⁵⁹ Achieving a maximum adsorption capacity of 2.25 mmol g⁻¹, the sample CSA-TEPA-70% showed good adsorption capacity.

Fig. 19 The preparation of (a) CWs and (b and c) CSA.²⁵⁹

Xu and colleagues were able to functionalize CNC aerogel by employing aminosilane in a vapor-phase process.²⁶⁰ At 25 °C and 101.33 kPa, the adsorption capacity reached 2.57 mmol CO₂ and was completely dominated by chemisorption. The adsorption capacity was reduced only 3–4% after six cycles. In addition, Zhu et al. prepared an amino CNC aerogel using 3-(2-aminoethylamino)-propylmethyldimethoxy silane (APS) as the modifier via chemical vapor deposition, which maintained the CO₂ adsorption performance while improving the utilization ratio of the modifier.²⁶¹ The CNC aerogel grafted with APS showed a CO₂ adsorption capacity of 1.5034 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C, 1 bar, and a pure dry CO₂ environment. After 10 cycles, the APS-CNC aerogel demonstrated outstanding CO₂ adsorption/desorption recyclability. According to the results obtained in this study, the adsorbent had a high stability up to 10 cycles.

For the in situ preparation of a variety of silica/cellulose aerogels in a NaOH/urea solution, Miao et al. employed fly ash-based fresh wet silica gel and cellulose derived from old corrugated containers.²⁶² With a CO₂ adsorption value of 3.68 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C and 1 atm, the CA-Si-0 (Si-free aerogel) sample showed the highest adsorption.

In 2020, Zhang and colleagues used a facile amine gas phase modification technique to prepare a biomass-based nano cellulose aerogel with excellent CO₂ adsorption capability.²⁶³ The modified nano cellulose aerogel adsorption capacity for CO₂ improved from 0.19 to 1.59 mmol g⁻¹, a factor of 7.4, compared to the unaltered one. Furthermore, Li and co-workers used N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropylmethyldimethoxysilane (APMDS) to add amines to CNFs during the functionalization process.²⁶⁴ The uptakes of CO₂ by chemical and physical interactions at 15 kPa and 25 °C were 1.01 and 0.35 mmol g⁻¹, respectively. In another study, Tang et al. functionalized cellulose with acrylamide in the 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (BMIMCl) ionic liquid system by free radical grafting polymerization.²⁶⁵ At 313.15 K and 190 kPa, aerocellulose had an adsorption capacity of 0.52 mmol g⁻¹. The sorption of AM-g-AC (38.59%), which was 2.06 times higher than that of AC, was 1.07 mmol g⁻¹ under the same conditions.

Miao and colleagues synthesized a series of aerogels with different cellulose concentrations in NaOH/urea solution using old corrugated containers (OCCs) with small recycling potential as the starting material by freeze-drying method (Scheme 1a).²⁶⁶ At room temperature and pressure, the aerogels exhibited excellent CO₂ adsorption capacities in the range of 1.96–11.78 mmol g⁻¹.

Scheme 1 Synthesis of (a) cellulose aerogel from OCCs²⁶⁶ and (b) the CO₂ adsorption mechanism of A-CNC-aerogel.²⁶⁷

Zhang et al. developed a method for the preparation of CNC aerogel spheres modified with N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-amino-propylmethyldimethoxysilane (AEAPMDS) using a water phase heat treatment.²⁶⁷ The amount of CO₂ adsorbed at a pressure of 3 bar by the modified aerogel (2.63 mmol g⁻¹) was significantly higher than that of the unmodified aerogel (0.26 mmol g⁻¹). Scheme 1b displayed the CO₂ adsorption mechanism of A-CNC-aerogel. According to this Scheme, the in anhydrous conditions, the π bond in the chemical structure of CO₂ was broken owing to the attacking of the lone pair electrons of the N in the structure of the A-CNC-aerogel to the C atom on the acid gas CO₂ which led to formation of the carbamate.

Wang and Okubayashi used the sol–gel method, hydrolysis, and cross-linking to develop a novel PEI-cross-linked cellulose (PCC) aerogel sorbent. The CO₂ adsorption capacity of PCC aerogel was 2.31 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C in an environment with only dry, pure CO₂.²⁶⁸ After 10 cycles, the PCC aerogel displayed excellent CO₂ adsorption–desorption recyclability.

In 2018, unique amine-based aerogels, which may be employed as CO₂ adsorbents, were synthesized by Wu and colleagues using CNFs (Scheme 2a).²⁶⁹ A significant CO₂ adsorption capacity of 1.91 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C and 1 bar was observed in CNF grafted with aminosilane. In addition, heating the aerosol to 80 °C facilitated the regeneration process.

Scheme 2 Synthesis of (a) polymer aerogel²⁶⁹ and (b) aminated CNF/silica aerogel.²⁷¹

Using eucalyptus pulp as a starting material, Liu et al. produced cellulose nanofibres via a chemical mechanical process. Subsequently, using the suspension titration approach, the spherical CNFs hydrogel was generated.²⁷⁰ Amino-modified bio-spherical CNF aerogels were then produced using the freeze-drying technology and the grafting modification process. The aerogels exhibited good regeneration of more than 10 cycles and their highest CO₂ adsorption capacity was 1.78 mmol g⁻¹. Moreover, Jiang et al. developed CNF-silica aerogels using a one-step in situ aqueous sol–gel method, which involved polymerization as well as aging the silica precursor in the presence of CNFs (Scheme 2b).²⁷¹ CNF aerogels showed great flexibility and dry compressive strength and silica aerogels have had high thermal stability. Organosilane functionalization of CNF-silica aerogels resulted in the introduction of primary amine groups with an adsorption capacity of 1.49 mmol g⁻¹ for CO₂.

In 2017, Wu and colleagues grafted N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropylmethyldimethoxysilane (AEAPMDS) onto CNC derived from hybrid poplar residue.²⁷² High CO₂ adsorption capacities of 1.7 and 2.6 mmol g⁻¹ were determined at 1 bar at temperatures of 25 and 0 °C, respectively. By carbonizing and activation with CO₂, Dassanayake et al. could prepare AC from monoliths of cellulose-based aerogel (aerocellulose) (Fig. 20a).²⁷³ The aerocellulose retained its monolithic structure during the carbonization and activation operations. With CO₂ adsorption capacities of 5.8 and 3.7 mmol g⁻¹ at 0 °C, 1 atm and 25 °C, 1.2 atm, respectively, the resultant AC demonstrated outstanding adsorption characteristics toward CO₂.

Fig. 20 Synthesis of (a) aerocellulose monoliths²⁷³ and (b) hierarchical porous N-doped carbon aerogels.²⁷⁴

In 2016, Hu and colleagues developed a quick and convenient method for producing hierarchical porous N-doped carbons from cellulose to prepare high-performance supercapacitor and CO₂ capture applications. According to this procedure, hierarchical porous cellulose aerogels were first synthesized using a dissolving-gelling process, followed by carbonization in an atmosphere of NH₃ to produce hierarchical porous N-doped carbon aerogels with more linked mecropores and micropores (Fig. 20b).²⁷⁴ The CO₂ adsorption capacity of N-doped carbon aerogels was 4.99 mmol g⁻¹, which is substantially greater than that of other porous carbons. The innovation of this study is that a double compound acting as both a supercapacitor and a CO₂ absorber has been designed.

4.1.6.5 Cellulose-based ZIF materials. A potential method to fabricate hybrid materials, which blend organic and conventional materials, is the crystal development of zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs) on cellulose. In 2019, Valencia and Abdelhamid reported the one-pot synthesis of gelatin/nanocellulose leaf-like ZIF-L foams and ZIF-L stands to Zn(mim)₂(Hmim)_1/2(H₂O)_3/2, in which Hmim stands for 2-methylimidazole.²⁷⁵ As a model for nanocellulose, TOCNF was employed. Using water as the solvent, the in situ growth of ZIF-L into TOCNF was accomplished at room temperature.

In 2021, Abdelhamid and Mathew used a derivative of cellulose named TOCNF to modulate the crystal growth of ZIF-8 and ZIF-L, called CelloZIF-8 and CelloZIF-L, respectively.²⁷⁶ At room temperature, the synthesis process was carried out in the presence or absence of NaOH in water. CO₂, metal ions, and colors were all adsorbed using the resultant CelloZIFs materials.

In the same year, Mubashir et al. synthesized CA-based membranes by interfacial engineering and integration of ZIF-62 glass NPs for CO₂ separation.²⁷⁷ The maximum CO₂ permeability and CO₂/CH₄ ideal selectivity were also provided by this set of membranes at 84.8 Barrer and 35.3, an increase of 436.7 and 189.3%, respectively. In another study, BC, a renewable and biodegradable material, was employed by Ma and co-workers as the substrate for ZIF growth. Using an in situ growth technique, amino-functionalized ZIF-8 (ZIF-8-NH₂) was generated inside the BC substrate. The chelating action among zinc metal ions and –OH groups gives the composites great interface affinity and compatibility. Cellulose fibers were evenly covered with ZIF crystals.²⁷⁸ The final foams, produced at 25 °C and 1 bar, showed a high CO₂ adsorption capacity of 1.63 mmol g⁻¹.

4.1.6.6 Cellulose-based pellet materials. To capture CO₂, Zeng et al. prepared graphite-casted K₂CO₃-based adsorbent pellets with SiO₂, ZrO₂ and TiO₂ as porous supports.²⁷⁹ The ZrO₂-supported, 30 wt% K₂CO₃-loaded pellets showed the greatest CO₂ adsorption capacity, around 0.93 mmol g⁻¹, in contrast to the K₂CO₃ pellets supported by TiO₂ or SiO₂. The SiO₂-supported K₂CO₃ adsorbent pellets with a 30 wt% K₂CO₃ loading and 500 °C calcination showed an adsorption capability of 0.38 mmol g⁻¹. Furthermore, in 2022, Zheng et al. synthesized composite adsorbent pellets containing alkali metal salts (AMS) and MgO using the extrusion-spheronization technique.²⁸⁰ To enhance the porosity, morphologies, and CO₂ uptakes of the AMS-MgO pellets, pore-forming templates composed of MCC, urea (UA), ammonium bicarbonate (AB), and citric acid (CA) were used. A fixed-bed reactor was used to study the CO₂ uptakes and adsorption kinetics of the adsorbent pellets. At 340 °C and 50% CO₂, the ideal AMS-MgO-MC pellets modified with an MC template had a significant CO₂ absorption of 7.54 mmol g⁻¹, CO₂ absorption being maintained at 5 mmol g⁻¹ throughout the course of 20 cycles. In addition, Sun et al. produced CaO-based pellets using an extrusion–spheronization technique. Although the addition of a cellulose template helped increase the CO₂ absorption of CaO-based sorbent pellets above 0.32 g CO₂ per g sorbent after 25 cycles, the impact of the cellulose particle size in improving CO₂ capture performance was limited.²⁸¹

In 2018, by using a surfactant-assisted steam explosion technique, Helmlinger et al. developed a unique method for the rapid and economical preparation of amine-functionalized cellulose pellets.²⁸² A new laboratory reactor was used for capacity testing, and the results showed that the CO₂ capacity was 1 mmol g⁻¹, which is equivalent to those of other cellulose-based adsorbents reported in the literature. In another study, Hu and colleagues developed a facile gel-casting method to produce highly effective CaO-based sorbent pellets in a single step.²⁸³ In comparison to the unmodified pellets, the pellets modified with microcrystalline cellulose (CaOMC) achieved a significant CO₂ capture capacity of 0.48 g/g at the 25^th cycle under mild calcination conditions and maintained a reasonably exceptional efficiency of 0.41 g/g through 25 medium-cycle tests (CaO-pellets).

Sun et al. synthesized CaO-based pellets from residual carbide slag using a model extrusion-spheronization technique.²⁸⁴ For the first time, the pore architectures of the pellets were altered to improve their CO₂ adsorption capacity. These modifications involved the use of two different types of biomass-based pore-forming materials (MCC and rice husk).

Other examples of CO₂ collection using cellulose-based materials are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Cellulose-based materials for CO₂ capture

Entry	Cellulose-based sorbent	Operating conditions (temperature and pressure (bar))	Capacity (mmol g^−1)	Ref.
a Poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) immobilized on cellulose, cellulose tosylate (CT), and cellulose carbamate (CC). b CNF-based thermoresponsive bionic fiber. c Thermoresponsive cellulose nanofiber (TRCNF)-based PEI. d Cellulose impregnated with urea and KOH. e Cotton pulp as carbon fibers activated with KOH/C. f Jute as carbon fibers activated with KOH/C. g Kenaf as carbon fibers activated with KOH/C. h Ionic liquid 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate [BMIM][BF4] and monoethanolamine or triethanolamine dropped cellulose fibers. i N-(2-Aminoethyl) (3-amino-propyl) methyldimethoxysilane (AEAPMDS) grafted onto the CNCs. j CNF films modified with diaminosilane N-[3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ethylenediamine (DAMO) from corn husks (CH). k CNF films modified with DAMO from oat hulls (OH). l CNF films modified with DAMO from Kraft pulp (KP). m Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) modified with aminosilane, 3-(2-aminoethylamino)propyl-dimethoxymethylsilane (AEAPDMS).
1	Cellulose@CaCO3 composite	—	7.3	285
2	Cellulose gelation in NaOH (aq)	—	—	286
3	PEI-functionalized cellulose materials^a	80 °C	0.026 mgCO2 mgadsorbent^−1	287
4	CNF-TBFA^b	—	6.52	288
5	TRCNF/PEIA^c	60 °C	6.74	289
6	Biochar derived cellulose	25 °C and 760 mm Hg	3.6	290
7	CNC	25–45 °C	1.81	291
8	CNC-COOH	25–45 °C	3.19	291
9	CNC-NH2	25–45 °C	3.46	291
10	PAMAM functionalized CNC	25–45 °C	3.54	291
11	Cell-UK^d	273 K and 1	297.1 mg g^−1	292
12	CP-AC^e	25 °C and 35	14.3	293
13	J-AC^f	25 °C and 35	18.4	293
14	K-AC^g	25 °C and 35	17.8	293
15	Cellulose fibers/IL/TEA or MEA^h	25 °C and 25	141 mg of CO2 per g of fiber	294
16	Phthalimide-modified CNF	—	—	295
17	Quaternized bamboo cellulose	—	—	296
18	Cellulose-TiO2	298.15 K and 30	184.1 mg g^−1	297
19	Cellulose-Fe3O4	298.15 K and 30	130.6 mg g^−1	297
20	Formaldehyde-free decorative paper coated with AEAPMDS-CNCs^i	25 °C and 1	1.806	298
21	75 wt% cellulose-supported [N1888][Ac]	298 K and 30	30 g kg^−1	299
22	75 wt% cellulose-supported [N4444][Ac]	298 K and 30	31.6 g kg^−1	299
23	70 wt% cellulose-supported [N8888]Br	298 K and 30	19.8 g kg^−1	299
24	75 wt% cellulose-supported [Bmim]Br	298 K and 30	28.8 g kg^−1	299
25	CH-CNF-DAMO^j	—	0.89	300
26	OH-CNF-DAMO^k	—	1.27	300
27	KP-CNF-DAMO^l	—	2.11	300
28	CaO-based sorbent pellets	—	0.1 g CO2 per g of sorbent	301
29	Cellulose dissolved in NaOH (aq)	—	—	302
30	AC-derived Cladophora cellulose	273 K and 1	5.52	303
31	NCC-AO composite	120 °C and 1 atm	5.54	304
32	Cross-linked-TBA	25 °C and 3 MPa	71 mg g^−1	305
33	Organoclay-TOCNF	—	—	306
34	NCC-AEAPDMS^m	—	—	307
35	Ammonia activation of carbonized cellulose	—	2.44	308
36	Cellulose fiber-based porous carbon	298 K and 1	3.776	309
37	Nanofibrillated cellulose-polyethylenimine foams	—	2.22	310
38	Amine-functionalized nanofibrillated cellulose	—	—	311
39	Amine-functionalized nanofibrillated cellulose	90 °C and 30 mbar	0.90	312
40	Hollow fibres of deacetylated CA	—	—	313
41	Microfibrillated cellulose/Lupamin	—	—	314

---

4.1.6.7 Summary of this section. Various types of cellulose such as carboxymethylcellulose and microcrystalline cellulose have been used to prepare sorbent materials for CO₂ capture. The use of cellulose as an edifice material offers new opportunities expanding the prospects of cellulose for CO₂ capture. However, in future studies, new composites based on cellulose can be prepared and their efficiency of CO₂ absorption can be improved to a great extent. The combination of cellulose and MOF has performed relatively well for carbon dioxide absorption. Cellulose-based membranes used for gas separation have shown good selectivity and CO₂ capture efficiency. Studies conducted in the field of making cellulose-based aerogels show that cellulose is a suitable material for making aerogels in addition to possessing a high efficiency in absorbing and CO₂ trapping. Studies have also been performed on cellulose-based pellets, but much work remains to be done. In general, cellulose and cellulosic sources are the appropriate and predominant biopolymers for making materials for carbon capture.

4.2 Lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture

Lignin is a complex lignocellulosic biomass. After cellulose, lignin is the most abundant aromatic natural polymer. The sources of lignin are plant cell walls as well as a by-product of biorefineries and pulp manufacturing. In the structure of lignin, there are some functional groups such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, aldehyde, phenolic, and methoxy groups, which make this natural polymer very useful. Lignin has various properties such as biodegradability, low price, accessibility, HSSA, and stability, making it an attractive material applied in different industries including food packaging, medicine, catalysis, adsorption, etc. About 85% of the world's annual production of lignin is Kraft lignin although lignosulfonates are the prominent commercially available lignin source with a crop of about ∼1 million tons.^315–319 In this section, we review recent studies regarding lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture applications.

4.2.1 Lignin-based composite materials. HKUST-1 is a type of MOF. In 2022, López-Monreal and Loera-Serna investigated the synthesis of a bio-nanocomposite using HKUST-1 and lignin.³²⁰ They synthesized HKUST-1-supported lignin (HKUST-1@lignin) for CO₂ capture. Since HKUST-1 does not have a HSSA to act as an adsorbent, HKUST-1 was coated on the lignin surface to improve this property.

4.2.2 Lignin-based doped materials. The preparation of sulfur-doped (S-D) nano porous carbons through one-step synthesis (Fig. 21) was performed by Saha and colleagues.³²¹ For this aim, they used lignin as the precursor for the synthesis of nano porous carbons. Sodium thiosulfate and KOH were applied as sulfurizing and activating agents, respectively. The prepared S-D materials were applied for the CO₂ adsorption, N₂, and CH₄. At 298 K and 760 torr, the experimental results indicated that the equilibrium capture capacity of CO₂ was ∼11 mmol g⁻¹.

Fig. 21 Schematic of one-step preparation of S-D nano porous carbon from lignin.³²¹

In 2023, Gong and Bao reported the synthesis of the N,O-codoped porous carbon from lignin for CO₂ capture application.³²² For this work, they used precarbonization, pyrolysis, and chemical activation with KOH. Their results displayed that the CO₂ adsorption activity of the materials was considerably improved by the precarbonization of lignin. The adsorption capacity of the materials was 5.82 (at 273 K) and 3.98 mmol g⁻¹ (at 298 K) at 1 bar.

In another study, Demir and co-workers fabricated heteroatom-doped porous carbons (LHPCs) by hydrothermal carbonization following chemical activation.³²³ The prepared carbons have 2.5–5.6 and 54 wt% nitrogen and oxygen, respectively. The prepared materials possessed micro– and mesoporous structures. LHPCs were applied as CO₂ adsorbents and electrodes for supercapacitors. The adsorption capacity of the materials was 4.8 mmol g⁻¹ at 1 bar and 298 K. The innovation of this study is that a double compound functioning as both a capacitor and a CO₂ absorber has been designed.

Park et al. reported the synthesis of the N-doped ultra-porous carbon derived from lignin by hydrothermal carbonization and activation using KOH.³²⁴ The fabricated materials were applied for CO₂ adsorption. The adsorption capacity of the materials was 13.6 mmol g⁻¹ at 25 °C up to 10 atm and they showed high stability through 10 adsorption/desorption cycles. The results displayed that N-doped porous carbon had a high performance compared with non-doped porous carbon, indicating the enhancement of CO₂ adsorption by functionalization with N.

In 2017, Saha and colleagues prepared N-doped and hierarchical porous carbons using lignin as the precursor and KOH and NH₃ as activation agents.³²⁵ They used pyridinic, amino, and pyrrolic/pyridone materials for the functionalization of porous carbon. The materials prepared were applied for CO₂ adsorption. The adsorption capacities were 5.48 and 8.6 mmol g⁻¹ at 298 and 273 K and 1 bar, respectively.

4.2.3 Lignin-based aerogel materials. Geng and colleagues investigated the synthesis of high-performance multi-functional carbon aerogels using Kraft lignin and cellulose nanofibers through ice-templating and carbonization approaches.³²⁶ Cellulose and lignin were extracted from renewable resources. The prepared carbon aerogels were used for CO₂ capture as well as capacitive energy storage. At 273 K and 100 kPa, the results displayed excellent performance with adsorption capacity of 5.23 mmol g⁻¹.

4.2.4 Lignin-based other materials. Preparation of several types of porous carbon materials using black liquor lignin by chemical activation following the template technique was performed by Wang and co-workers.³²⁷ They used KOH as an activator for the synthesis of porous carbon (C-BLL-KOH), which has a HSSA (1336.5 m² g⁻¹) as well as high microporosity. These properties make the prepared materials very suitable for CO₂ adsorption applications. According to the results, C-BLL-KOH showed high performance in CO₂ capture and the maximum adsorption capacities were 5.20, 3.60, and 2.23 mmol g⁻¹ at 0, 25, and 50 °C at 100 kPa pressure, respectively.

Sun et al. studied the synthesis of ordered mesoporous carbons using lignin and siliceous mesostructured cellular foam as precursor and template, respectively, through a solvothermal procedure.³²⁸ The synthesized lignin carbon materials showed a 3D large mesopore system as well as thin pore size distribution center. The fabricated mesoporous lignin carbon can be used as a support for CO₂ adsorption. The results indicated that 60 wt% polyamines (polyethyleneimine (PEI)) could be loaded on the support and applied for CO₂ adsorption. The adsorption capacity was 129.9 mg or 2.95 mmol CO₂ per g-adsorbent at 75 °C. The meso porous carbon functionalized with PEI was highly stable and only 6% of the performance decreased after 50 runs.

In 2023, Liu and colleagues reported the preparation of lignin-based absorbents using grafted active amine group on a lignin-derived compound (vanillin and alkali lignin) and applied it for CO₂ absorption (Fig. 22a).³²⁹ The results displayed that the vanillin-functionalized acrylamide had high adsorption capacity of CO₂ (0.114 g CO₂ per g of absorbent at 25 °C and 100 kPa). The synthesized absorbent was highly stable even after 6 cycles.

Fig. 22 (a) The schematic representation of the synthesis of absorbent and CO₂ absorption process. Reproduced from ref. 329 with permission from Elsevier, copyright 2023 and (b) representation demonstration for the preparation process of HCP1∼HCP6 over Friedel–Crafts reaction.³³¹

In 2022, Sun and co-workers carried out the synthesis of several types of bio-carbon materials using Kraft lignin precursor through a chemical activation procedure.³³⁰ The Kraft lignin-derived carbons were applied for CO₂ adsorption. The adsorption capacities of the carbon synthesized at 600 °C were 3.29 and 2.01 mmol g⁻¹ at 0 and 25 °C at 15 kPa, respectively.

In the same year, the synthesis of the 6 aromatic units prepared from the depolymerization of the liquid products of lignin was performed by Chen and co-workers.³³¹ They synthesized O-rich hyper-cross-linked polymers (HCPs) through a one-pot Friedel–Crafts reaction using formaldehyde dimethyl acetal (FDA) as a crosslinker (Fig. 22b). The prepared HCPs exhibited high CO₂ uptake and selectivity of 64.1 mg g⁻¹ and 35.2 at 273 K, respectively.

Atta-Obeng and colleagues developed an efficient process for the synthesis of amine-functionalized carbons derived from technical lignin.³³² For this purpose, they first synthesized carbonaceous materials (CMs) from lignin using hydrothermal treatment, following activation by KOH. Afterward, they functionalized CMs using PEI, which is appropriate for CO₂ capture applications. The optimum amount of PEI for loading was 5% and a further increase in the amount of PEI decreased CO₂ absorption.

4.2.5 Summary of this section. Lignin is a natural polymer possessing many functional groups in its structure, which can be functionalized with various materials. However, there are relatively few studies in the field of making lignin composites for carbon capture. Given the unique capacities and characteristics of lignin, future studies in the field of preparing lignin-based composites are necessary. For example, lignin can be easily aminated through the Mannich reaction and these structures can be very beneficial for CO₂ capture. Moreover, in other studies, lignin has been used as a source of carbon and various atoms have been doped on it, yielding relatively effective materials. In general, considering the high potential of lignin as well as its many properties, there is a lot of work to be done in the future.

5. Summary and discussion

Since CO₂ is a toxic and dangerous gas for the environment and humans, it is necessary to identify routes to capture or convert it into useful materials.³³³ The materials used for CO₂ capture have been summarized in this review. In other words, in this review, the applications of polysaccharides and lignin-based materials, which are environmentally friendly and biodegradable, for capturing CO₂ have been reviewed. Different structures based on polysaccharides and lignin have been prepared and used for this purpose. The results have shown that the more nitrogen groups there are in the structure, the higher the ability to capture CO₂. On the other hand, the more porous the structure, the greater the ability to capture it. Polysaccharides and lignin are important for CO₂ removal because they are natural materials and do not harm the environment. The results also showed that they have a high absorption capacity and are thus suitable for CO₂ capture. There are other materials, which can capture CO₂. These materials are not made of natural materials, and in some cases, they may have relatively good absorbency. However, toxic, non-environmentally friendly materials may have been used in the process of making them, making them undesirable materials. In addition, other materials are not cost-effective. Other materials may have complex and expensive methods of preparation and purification, but polysaccharides and lignin are readily available because they are natural, affordable, and economical. A number of different materials, which do not have polysaccharides and lignin-based materials used for CO₂ capture, are reported in Table 3. Generally, these materials including graphene, MOF, zeolite, etc., are porous. The absorbability of these materials is not very high compared to polysaccharides and lignin-based materials, and are not very suitable because most of them do not have a natural source.

Table 3 Non-polysaccharide and lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture

Entry	Non-polysaccharide and lignin-based sorbent	Operating conditions (temperature and pressure (bar))	Capacity (mmol g^−1)	Ref.
a Co-grafting of polyethyleneimine (PEI) on mesocellular silica foam (MCF), and (3-glycidyloxypropyl)triethoxysilane (GPTES). b Synthetic silico-metallic mineral particles.
1	N-doped graphene composite	298 K and 1	2.7	334
2	Borane-modified graphene-based materials	1	1.82	335
3	Zeolite 13X (13X-C)	25 °C and 1	6.2	336
4	Zeolite 13X (13X-B)	25 °C and 1	4.8	336
5	Dispersing CaO on γ-Al2O3 support	650 °C	6.4	337
6	Polyethyleneimine-graphene-silica	75 °C and 7.5 bar	4.3	338
7	Polyethyleneimine-F-Ce-2.5 nanosheets	35 °C and 2 bar	1.32	339
8	MCF@G-PEI^a	50 °C	2.78	340
9	SSMMP^b-Ni 50%-ammonium Br	25 °C and 1	1.91	341
10	SSMMP-Ni 50%-imidazolium Br	25 °C and 1	1.64	341

---

6. Conclusion and future prospects

Climate change, largely linked to the emission of greenhouse gases, including CO₂, is disrupting our planet, threatening the lives of humans and other living beings. This review highlights interesting points to explore further and gaps to fill. As pointed out, many workers are interested in the separation of CO₂via post-combustion processes for CO₂ capture. Various classes of materials, which could be used for the capture and removal of CO₂ by adsorption (or absorption) have received a great deal of attention in recent years. These materials can be in different forms including composites, aerogels, hydrogels, pellets, heteroatom-doped materials, membranes, MOFs, porous carbons, etc. Among the materials already used or under examination, polysaccharides and lignin, which are classified as biopolymers, are of great interest to researchers because they have many advantages such as biodegradability, environmental friendliness, availability, low cost, and non-toxicity. As a result, making compounds using polysaccharides and lignin to capture CO₂ is a very effective method. In this review, recent publications regarding the application of polysaccharide and lignin-based materials for CO₂ capture have been reviewed. In other words, in these studies, researchers have used environmentally friendly materials to protect the environment by capturing CO₂.

Various polysaccharides such as alginate, starch, pectin, gum, chitosan, and cellulose have been used for CO₂ capture. According to the existing studies, starch, pectin and gum have rarely been used for this purpose. However, chitosan and cellulose were more frequently used; especially in the form of aerogel. This highlights the suitability, appropriability, and efficiency of chitosan and cellulose, as well as their aerogels, compared to other polysaccharides for CO₂ capture.

Undoubtedly, in gas separation applications, membranes offer the greatest potential. The studies conducted reveal that cellulose-based materials have been among the most studied in this field, and that the newly developed cellulose-based membrane materials have superior performance to most conventional commercial membranes. Studies on lignin have been less numerous and used lignin as a source for porous carbon supra-particle production. Nonetheless, lignin-based CO₂ sorbents have been synthesized by functionalization of the functional groups in the structure of lignin (such as hydroxyl, carbonyl, sulfur, aldehyde, etc.). It should be noted that there is still much work to be done in this field.

Although relatively many studies have been conducted in the field of the application of polysaccharides (especially cellulose and chitosan) and lignin to capture CO₂, there is still much work to be done in this field, which include:

• The combination of polysaccharides and lignin to increase the surface as well as mechanical and chemical properties.

• More use of pectin polysaccharides and gums for CO₂ capture.

• Using polysaccharides and lignin on an industrial scale for CO₂ capture

• These materials have been used as absorbents for CO₂ capture, but CO₂ can be converted into valuable compounds. Thus, these compounds can be made in such a way that after adsorbing (or absorbing) CO₂, they can convert it into valuable compounds.

• Using other biopolymers for CO₂ capture, such as collagen and gelatin, which are in the category of proteins.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

The supports from Iranian Nano Council, Iran University of Science and Technology and the University of Qom are appreciated. The authors also acknowledge the financial support from the “Belt and Road” Innovative Talents Exchange Foreign Experts Project of China (Grant No. DL2022026005L).

References

1. Z. Sun, T. Wang, R. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Wu, S. Toan and Z. Sun, Bioresour. Technol., 2023, 382, 129197.
2. A. George, B. Shen, M. Craven, Y. Wang, D. Kang, C. Wu and X. Tu, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2021, 135, 109702.
3. L. Jeffry, M. Y. Ong, S. Nomanbhay, M. Mofijur, M. Mubashir and P. L. Show, Fuel, 2021, 301, 121017.
4. F. C. Özbuğday and B. C. Erbas, Energy, 2015, 82, 734–745.
5. U. Kamran and S.-J. Park, J. Cleaner Prod., 2021, 290, 125776.
6. L. Li, N. Zhao, W. Wei and Y. Sun, Fuel, 2013, 108, 112–130.
7. K. Riahi, E. S. Rubin and L. Schrattenholzer, in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies-6th International Conference, Elsevier, 2003, pp. 1095–1100.
8. Y. Qin, G. Niu, X. Wang, D. Luo and Y. Duan, J. CO₂ Util., 2018, 28, 283–291.
9. M. K. Mondal, H. K. Balsora and P. Varshney, Energy, 2012, 46, 431–441.
10. X. Shen, H. Du, R. H. Mullins and R. R. Kommalapati, Energy Technol., 2017, 5, 822–833.
11. A. Nosrati, S. Javanshir, F. Feyzi and S. Amirnejat, ACS Omega, 2023, 8, 3981–3991.
12. B. Dutcher, M. Fan and A. G. Russell, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, 2137–2148.
13. I. S. Omodolor, H. O. Otor, J. A. Andonegui, B. J. Allen and A. C. Alba-Rubio, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2020, 59, 17612–17631.
14. P. R. Yaashikaa, P. S. Kumar, S. J. Varjani and A. Saravanan, J. CO₂ Util., 2019, 33, 131–147.
15. S. Saeidi, N. A. S. Amin and M. R. Rahimpour, J. CO₂ Util., 2014, 5, 66–81.
16. A. Alok, R. Shrestha, S. Ban, S. Devkota, B. Uprety and R. Joshi, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2022, 10, 106922.
17. K. Sumida, D. L. Rogow, J. A. Mason, T. M. McDonald, E. D. Bloch, Z. R. Herm, T.-H. Bae and J. R. Long, Chem. Rev., 2012, 112, 724–781.
18. C. M. White, B. R. Strazisar, E. J. Granite, J. S. Hoffman and H. W. Pennline, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2003, 53, 645–715.
19. P. Markewitz, W. Kuckshinrichs, W. Leitner, J. Linssen, P. Zapp, R. Bongartz, A. Schreiber and T. E. Müller, Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 7281–7305.
20. N. MacDowell, N. Florin, A. Buchard, J. Hallett, A. Galindo, G. Jackson, C. S. Adjiman, C. K. Williams, N. Shah and P. Fennell, Energy Environ. Sci., 2010, 3, 1645–1669.
21. E. S. Rubin, H. Mantripragada, A. Marks, P. Versteeg and J. Kitchin, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 2012, 38, 630–671.
22. J. C. M. Pires, F. G. Martins, M. C. M. Alvim-Ferraz and M. Simões, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 2011, 89, 1446–1460.
23. A. A. Olajire, Energy, 2010, 35, 2610–2628.
24. Z. Zhang, T. N. Borhani and A. G. Olabi, Energy, 2020, 205, 118057.
25. N. P. Wickramaratne and M. Jaroniec, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2013, 5, 1849–1855.
26. J. M. Kolle, M. Fayaz and A. Sayari, Chem. Rev., 2021, 121, 7280–7345.
27. A. Saravanan, D.-V. N. Vo, S. Jeevanantham, V. Bhuvaneswari, V. A. Narayanan, P. R. Yaashikaa, S. Swetha and B. Reshma, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2021, 236, 116515.
28. J. Ma, N. Sun, X. Zhang, N. Zhao, F. Xiao, W. Wei and Y. Sun, Catal. Today, 2009, 148, 221–231.
29. B. Li, Y. Duan, D. Luebke and B. Morreale, Appl. Energy, 2013, 102, 1439–1447.
30. A. A. Chaugule, A. H. Tamboli and H. Kim, Fuel, 2017, 200, 316–332.
31. G. Zhao, Z. Li, B. Cheng, X. Zhuang and T. Lin, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2023, 315, 123754.
32. M. Li, Q. Xia, S. Lv, J. Tong, Z. Wang, Q. Nie and J. Yang, Green Chem., 2022, 24, 7500–7518.
33. S. Zhang, X. Bai, C. Zhao, Q. Tan, G. Luo, J. Wang, Q. Li, L. Wu, F. Chen and C. Li, Earth’s Future, 2021, 9, e2020EF001938.
34. M. Xi, C. He, H. Yang, X. Fu, L. Fu, X. Cheng and J. Guo, Chin. Chem. Lett., 2022, 33, 2595–2599.
35. C. Zhao, M. Xi, J. Huo, C. He and L. Fu, Chin. Chem. Lett., 2023, 34, 107213.
36. J. H. Choe, H. Kim and C. S. Hong, Mater. Chem. Front., 2021, 5, 5172–5185.
37. Z. Hu, Y. Wang, B. B. Shah and D. Zhao, Adv. Sustainable Syst., 2019, 3, 1800080.
38. N. H. Khdary, A. S. Alayyar, L. M. Alsarhan, S. Alshihri and M. Mokhtar, Catalysts, 2022, 12, 300.
39. R. Balasubramanian and S. Chowdhury, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 21968–21989.
40. S. Kumar, R. Srivastava and J. Koh, J. CO₂ Util., 2020, 41, 101251.
41. L. Yin, D. Li, S. Li, F. Gai, T. Zhang, Y. Liu and X. Zhao, J. Dispersion Sci. Technol., 2022, 44, 2303–2310.
42. E. Magnanelli, Ø. Wilhelmsen, E. Johannessen and S. Kjelstrup, J. Membr. Sci., 2016, 513, 129–139.
43. Y. Han and W. S. W. Ho, J. Membr. Sci., 2021, 628, 119244.
44. S. Yu, X. Zhao, J. Zhang, S. Liu, Z. Yuan, X. Liu, B. Liu and X. Yi, Cellulose, 2022, 29, 6783–6796.
45. A. Primo, A. Forneli, A. Corma and H. García, ChemSusChem, 2012, 5, 2207–2214.
46. S. Manzoor, M. Talib, A. V. Arsenin, V. S. Volkov and P. Mishra, ACS Omega, 2023, 8, 893–906.
47. Q. Yang, D. Teng, J. Qu, P. Li and Y. Cao, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2021, 60, 13023–13030.
48. J. Shen, Y. Yuan and S. Salmon, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2022, 10, 7772–7785.
49. D. E. F. Oliveira, J. A. O. Chagas, A. L. De Lima and C. J. A. Mota, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2022, 61, 10522–10530.
50. Z. Dai, J. Deng, Y. Ma, H. Guo, J. Wei, B. Wang, X. Jiang and L. Deng, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2022, 61, 9067–9076.
51. X. Qiu, S. Wang and S. Chen, Cellulose, 2022, 29, 5645–5658.
52. J. Ralph, C. Lapierre and W. Boerjan, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 2019, 56, 240–249.
53. S.-J. Sun, P. Deng, C.-E. Peng, H.-Y. Ji, L.-F. Mao and L.-Z. Peng, Polymers, 2022, 14, 2899.
54. M. Nasrollahzadeh, N. S. S. Bidgoli, N. Shafiei and F. Momenbeik, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 182, 59–64.
55. B. Jaleh, A. Moradi, M. Eslamipanah, S. Khazalpour, H. Tahzibi, S. Azizian and M. B. Gawande, J. Magnesium Alloys, 2023, 11, 2072–2083.
56. A. Nasri, B. Jaleh, S. Khazalpour, M. Nasrollahzadeh and M. Shokouhimehr, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2020, 164, 3012–3024.
57. M. Dohendou, K. Pakzad, Z. Nezafat, M. Nasrollahzadeh and M. G. Dekamin, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 192, 771–819.
58. Y. Orooji, Z. Nezafat, M. Nasrollahzadeh and T. A. Kamali, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 188, 950–973.
59. M. Nasrollahzadeh, N. Shafiei, Z. Nezafat and N. S. S. Bidgoli, Mol. Catal., 2020, 489, 110942.
60. G. A. M. Mersal, H. S. El-Sheshtawy, I. S. Yahia and K. I. Assaf, Comput. Theor. Chem., 2021, 1204, 113413.
61. P. Thiyam, C. Persson, D. F. Parsons, D. Huang, S. Y. Buhmann and M. Boström, Colloids Surf., A, 2015, 470, 316–321.
62. M. Sajjadi, F. Ahmadpoor, M. Nasrollahzadeh and H. Ghafuri, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 178, 394–423.
63. H. Rasoulzadeh, S. Motesaddi Zarandi, M. Massoudinejad, M. M. Amini and A. Sheikhmohammadi, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., 2021 DOI:10.1080/03067319.2021.2004408.
64. D. Bi, X. Yang, L. Yao, Z. Hu, H. Li, X. Xu and J. Lu, Mar. Drugs, 2022, 20, 564.
65. H. Wang, J. Qian and F. Ding, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2018, 66, 395–413.
66. X. Qiu, X. Wang and S. Chen, New J. Chem., 2022, 46, 6956–6965.
67. P. Jia, J. Xu, X. Wang, Z. Chen, Z. Xie and H. Jiang, J. Porous Mater., 2022, 29, 745–758.
68. K. Malini, M. Sasi, R. Meghanath, D. Selvakumar and N. S. Kumar, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., 2021 DOI:10.1080/03067319.2021.1965595.
69. A. Verma, S. Thakur, G. Goel, J. Raj, V. K. Gupta, D. Roberts and V. K. Thakur, Curr. Res. Green Sustainable Chem., 2020, 3, 100027.
70. Y. Chen, Y. Long, J. Sun, S. Bai, Y. Chen, Z. Chen and C. Zhao, Energy Fuels, 2021, 35, 13215–13223.
71. S. Ren, C. Li, Z. Tan, Y. Hou, S. Jia and J. Cui, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2019, 67, 3372–3379.
72. N. A. Rashidi, S. Yusup and B. H. Hameed, Energy, 2013, 61, 440–446.
73. Q. B. Meng and J. Weber, ChemSusChem, 2014, 7, 3312–3318.
74. B. Zhao, M. Borghei, T. Zou, L. Wang, L.-S. Johansson, J. Majoinen, M. H. Sipponen, M. österberg, B. D. Mattos and O. J. Rojas, ACS Nano, 2021, 15, 6774–6786.
75. J. Yi, D.-L. Zhong, J. Yan and Y.-Y. Lu, Energy, 2019, 171, 61–68.
76. B. Zhu, J. Huang, J. Lu, D. Zhao, L. Lu, S. Jin and Q. Zhou, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 2017, 12, 11102–11107.
77. W. H. Arnawtee, B. Jaleh, M. Nasrollahzadeh, R. Bakhshali-Dehkordi, A. Nasri and Y. Orooji, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2022, 290, 120793.
78. X. Wang, M. Tarahomi, R. Sheibani, C. Xia and W. Wang, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2023, 241, 124472.
79. Y. Wu, A. Parandoust, R. Sheibani, F. Kargaran, Z. Khorsandi, Y. Liang, C. Xia and Q. Van Le, Carbohydr. Polym., 2023, 318, 121102.
80. C. Xu, M. Nasrollahzadeh, M. Selva, Z. Issaabadi and R. Luque, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2019, 48, 4791–4822.
81. B. Jaleh, M. Nasrollahzadeh, A. Nasri, M. Eslamipanah, A. Moradi and Z. Nezafat, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 182, 1056–1090.
82. R. Mohami, A. Shakeri and M. Nasrollahzadeh, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2022, 285, 120373.
83. M. Nasrollahzadeh, N. S. S. Bidgoli and M. M. Karimkhani, Biomass Convers. Biorefin., 2023, 13, 9675–9688.
84. A. Khan, M. Goepel, J. C. Colmenares and R. Gläser, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2020, 8, 4708–4727.
85. F. Freitas, V. D. Alves, M. A. Reis, J. G. Crespo and I. M. Coelhoso, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2014, 131, 40047.
86. Z. Nezafat, B. F. Mohazzab, B. Jaleh, M. Nasrollahzadeh, T. Baran and M. Shokouhimehr, Inorg. Chem. Commun., 2021, 130, 108746.
87. C. Zhao, X. Chen, E. J. Anthony, X. Jiang, L. Duan, Y. Wu, W. Dong and C. Zhao, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 2013, 39, 515–534.
88. Q. Wang, J. Luo, Z. Zhong and A. Borgna, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 42–55.
89. A. E. Creamer and B. Gao, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50, 7276–7289.
90. C. H. Lee, S. Mun and K. B. Lee, Chem. Eng. J., 2014, 258, 367–373.
91. R. V. Siriwardane, M.-S. Shen, E. P. Fisher and J. Losch, Energy Fuels, 2005, 19, 1153–1159.
92. M. S. Duyar, S. Wang, M. A. Arellano-Trevino and R. J. Farrauto, J. CO₂ Util., 2016, 15, 65–71.
93. W. Zhang, H. Liu, Y. Sun, J. Cakstins, C. Sun and C. E. Snape, Appl. Energy, 2016, 168, 394–405.
94. P. Luis, T. Van Gerven and B. Van der Bruggen, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 2012, 38, 419–448.
95. Y. Han and W. S. W. Ho, Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 2018, 26, 2238–2254.
96. R. J. Littel, G. F. Versteeg and W. P. M. Van Swaaij, Chem. Eng. Sci., 1992, 47, 2037–2045.
97. M. Caplow, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1968, 90, 6795–6803.
98. H.-B. Xie, Y. Zhou, Y. Zhang and J. K. Johnson, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2010, 114, 11844–11852.
99. N. J. M. C. Penders-van Elk, S. Fradette and G. F. Versteeg, Chem. Eng. J., 2015, 259, 682–691.
100. P. Khakharia, L. Brachert, J. Mertens, C. Anderlohr, A. Huizinga, E. S. Fernandez, B. Schallert, K. Schaber, T. J. H. Vlugt and E. Goetheer, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 34, 63–74.
101. A. García-Abuín, D. Gomez-Diaz, A. B. López, J. M. Navaza and A. Rumbo, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2013, 52, 13432–13438.
102. L. Zhu, G. W. Schade and C. J. Nielsen, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 14306–14314.
103. J. E. Crooks and J. P. Donnellan, J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2, 1989, 331–333.
104. E. F. Da Silva and H. F. Svendsen, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2004, 43, 3413–3418.
105. B. Arstad, R. Blom and O. Swang, J. Phys. Chem. A, 2007, 111, 1222–1228.
106. H. Guo, Z. Zhou and G. Jing, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 2013, 16, 197–205.
107. S. Kasahara, E. Kamio and H. Matsuyama, J. Membr. Sci., 2014, 454, 155–162.
108. H. Sun, X. Zhou, Z. Xue, Z. Zhou and T. Mu, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014, 20, 43–48.
109. B. Lv, B. Guo, Z. Zhou and G. Jing, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49, 10728–10735.
110. S.-J. Han and J.-H. Wee, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2020, 27, 44951–44968.
111. T. L. Donaldson and Y. N. Nguyen, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 1980, 19, 260–266.
112. R. Yang, W. Fan, Y. Zheng, T. Wang, Y. Wang, T. Shi, D. Yao, L. Chen and A. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci., 2018, 53, 5172–5182.
113. J.-S. Yang, Y.-J. Xie and W. He, Carbohydr. Polym., 2011, 84, 33–39.
114. K. Y. Lee and D. J. Mooney, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2012, 37, 106–126.
115. M. G. Dekamin, S. Ilkhanizadeh, Z. Latifidoost, H. Daemi, Z. Karimi and M. Barikani, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 56658–56664.
116. B. Wang, Y. Wan, Y. Zheng, X. Lee, T. Liu, Z. Yu, J. Huang, Y. S. Ok, J. Chen and B. Gao, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2019, 49, 318–356.
117. N. T. T. Uyen, Z. A. A. Hamid, N. X. T. Tram and N. Ahmad, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2020, 153, 1035–1046.
118. J. Venkatesan, I. Bhatnagar, P. Manivasagan, K.-H. Kang and S.-K. Kim, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2015, 72, 269–281.
119. L. Wang, Y. Hou, X. Zhong, J. Hu, F. Shi and H. Mi, Carbohydr. Polym., 2019, 208, 42–49.
120. Y. Qin, J. Jiang, L. Zhao, J. Zhang and F. Wang, in Biopolymers for Food Design, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 409–429.
121. T. Ramdhan, S. H. Ching, S. Prakash and B. Bhandari, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2020, 106, 150–159.
122. X. Guo, Y. Wang, Y. Qin, P. Shen and Q. Peng, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2020, 162, 618–628.
123. A. Benettayeb, E. Guibal, A. Morsli and R. Kessas, Chem. Eng. J., 2017, 316, 704–714.
124. Z. Belattmania, F. Bentiss, C. Jama, M. Barakate, C. Katif, A. Reani and B. Sabour, Bionanoscience, 2018, 8, 617–623.
125. J. Venkatesan, S. Anil and S.-K. Kim, Seaweed Polysaccharides: Isolation, biological and biomedical applications, Elsevier, 2017.
126. H. Rasoulzadeh, S. Motesaddi Zarandi, M. Massoudinejad and M. M. Amini, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., 2021, 103, 3740–3761.
127. S. Hosseini, F. E. Babadi, S. M. Soltani, M. K. Aroua, S. Babamohammadi and A. M. Moghadam, Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 2017, 109, 387–399.
128. Y. Li, J. Wang, S. Fan, F. Wang, Z. Shen, H. Duan, J. Xu and Y. Huang, J. Energy Chem., 2021, 53, 168–174.
129. Y. Wu, Z. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Xu and Z. Liu, Fuel, 2018, 233, 574–581.
130. X. Ma, Y. Li, M. Cao and C. Hu, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 4819–4826.
131. Z. Li, W. Sun, C. Chen, Q. Guo, X. Li, M. Gu, N. Feng, J. Ding, H. Wan and G. Guan, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2019, 480, 770–778.
132. J. M. Park, D. K. Yoo and S. H. Jhung, Chem. Eng. J., 2020, 402, 126254.
133. P. Chen, X. He, M. Pang, X. Dong, S. Zhao and W. Zhang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 20429–20439.
134. K. Wang, Y. Tang, Q. Jiang, Y. Lan, H. Huang, D. Liu and C. Zhong, J. Energy Chem., 2017, 26, 902–908.
135. A. Kidanemariam, J. Lee and J. Park, Polymers, 2019, 11, 2090.
136. S. Xiao, M. Li, H. Cong, L. Wang, X. Li and W. Zhang, Polymers, 2021, 13, 4075.
137. S. Salehi and M. Hosseinifard, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 410, 128315.
138. G. Mondino, A. I. Spjelkavik, T. Didriksen, S. Krishnamurthy, R. E. Stensrød, C. A. Grande, L. O. Nord and R. Blom, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2020, 59, 7198–7211.
139. J. Xue, T. Wu, Y. Dai and Y. Xia, Chem. Rev., 2019, 119, 5298–5415.
140. A. Suratman, D. N. Astuti, R. Jonathan, A. Kuncaka and Y. Yusuf, Indones. J. Chem., 2022, 22, 317–330.
141. F. V. L. Koly and A. Suratman, Suyanta, Mor. J. Chem., 2020, 8, 053–063.
142. S. Wanjari, C. Prabhu, R. Yadav, T. Satyanarayana, N. Labhsetwar and S. Rayalu, Process Biochem., 2011, 46, 1010–1018.
143. S. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Lu, M. Rostam-Abadi and A. Jones, Bioresour. Technol., 2011, 102, 10194–10201.
144. D. Dziedzic, K. B. Gross, R. A. Gorski and J. T. Johnson, J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 2006, 56, 1631–1641.
145. N. Liu, G. M. Bond, A. Abel, B. J. McPherson and J. Stringer, Fuel Process. Technol., 2005, 86, 1615–1625.
146. Y. Zhu, W. Li, G. Sun, Q. Tang and H. Bian, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 49, 290–296.
147. A. Hussain and M.-B. Hägg, J. Membr. Sci., 2010, 359, 140–148.
148. Y. Zhang, Z. Wang and S. Wang, Chem. Lett., 2002, 31, 430–431.
149. Z. H. U. Yaqun, W. Zhi, C. Zhang, W. Jixiao and W. Shichang, Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 2013, 21, 1098–1105.
150. P. Mahajan, M. B. Bera, P. S. Panesar and A. Chauhan, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 180, 61–79.
151. B. Dereje, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2021, 187, 911–921.
152. M. Nasrollahzadeh, N. Shafiei, Z. Nezafat, N. S. S. Bidgoli and F. Soleimani, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 241, 116353.
153. F. Xie, E. Pollet, P. J. Halley and L. Averous, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2013, 38, 1590–1628.
154. W. Dang, Q. Lin, H. Pan and D. Zhang, J. Mater. Sci., 2022, 57, 12438–12448.
155. G. Nazir, A. Rehman and S.-J. Park, J. CO₂ Util., 2021, 51, 101641.
156. S. A. Anuar, W. N. R. W. Isahak and M. S. Mastar, in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing, 2019, vol. 268, p. 12093.
157. N. Rong, Y. Wu, J. Wang, L. Han and G. Wang, Energy Fuels, 2021, 35, 6056–6067.
158. R. Rajamathi, Bhojaraj and C. Nethravathi, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 2021, 4, 10969–10975.
159. A. Alabadi, S. Razzaque, Y. Yang, S. Chen and B. Tan, Chem. Eng. J., 2015, 281, 606–612.
160. M. Sevilla and A. B. Fuertes, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 1765–1771.
161. R. Mohammadinejad, A. Kumar, M. Ranjbar-Mohammadi, M. Ashrafizadeh, S. S. Han, G. Khang and Z. Roveimiab, Polymers, 2020, 12, 176.
162. F. Hussin, N. N. Hazani and M. K. Aroua, Mater. Today: Proc., 2023 DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.094.
163. T. Prasankumar, D. Salpekar, S. Bhattacharyya, K. Manoharan, R. M. Yadav, M. A. C. Mata, K. A. Miller, R. Vajtai, S. Jose and S. Roy, Carbon, 2022, 199, 249–257.
164. J. Chen, W. Liu, C.-M. Liu, T. Li, R.-H. Liang and S.-J. Luo, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 2015, 55, 1684–1698.
165. C. F. de Oliveira, D. Giordani, R. Lutckemier, P. D. Gurak, F. Cladera-Olivera and L. D. F. Marczak, LWT–Food Sci. Technol., 2016, 71, 110–115.
166. M. Nasrollahzadeh, M. Sajjadi, S. Iravani and R. S. Varma, Carbohydr. Polym., 2021, 251, 116986.
167. M. Vafaeinia, M. S. Khosrowshahi, H. Mashhadimoslem, H. B. M. Emrooz and A. Ghaemi, RSC Adv., 2022, 12, 546–560.
168. J. A. K. P. Jovellana and B. B. Pajarito, Key Eng. Mater., 2019, 801, 179–184.
169. A. Lagazzo, E. Finocchio, P. Petrini, C. Ruggiero and L. Pastorino, Mater. Lett., 2016, 171, 212–215.
170. K. V. H. Prashanth and R. N. Tharanathan, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2007, 18, 117–131.
171. F. Gu, J. Geng, M. Li, J. Chang and Y. Cui, ACS Omega, 2019, 4, 21421–21430.
172. M. J. Ahmed, B. H. Hameed and E. H. Hummadi, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 247, 116690.
173. K. Kurita, Mar. Biotechnol., 2006, 8, 203–226.
174. X. Liu, X. Zhao, Y. Liu and T. Zhang, Polym. Bull., 2022, 79, 2633–2665.
175. L. A. El-Azzami and E. A. Grulke, J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys., 2007, 45, 2620–2631.
176. M. H. Al Marzouqi, M. A. Abdulkarim, S. A. Marzouk, M. H. El-Naas and H. M. Hasanain, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2005, 44, 9273–9278.
177. E. Luzzi, P. Aprea, M. Salzano de Luna, D. Caputo and G. Filippone, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 20728–20734.
178. Z. Liu, R. Ma, W. Du, G. Yang and T. Chen, RSC Adv., 2021, 11, 20486–20497.
179. W. Du, R. Ma, Z. Liu, G. Yang and T. Chen, Materials, 2021, 14, 3224.
180. N. Hsan, P. K. Dutta, S. Kumar, R. Bera and N. Das, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2019, 125, 300–306.
181. J. Song, J. Liu, W. Zhao, Y. Chen, H. Xiao, X. Shi, Y. Liu and X. Chen, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2018, 57, 4941–4948.
182. A. A. Alhwaige, H. Ishida and S. Qutubuddin, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2016, 4, 1286–1295.
183. A. A. Alhwaige, T. Agag, H. Ishida and S. Qutubuddin, RSC Adv., 2013, 3, 16011–16020.
184. S. Kumar, M. Y. Wani, J. Koh, J. M. Gil and A. J. F. N. Sobral, J. Environ. Sci., 2018, 69, 77–84.
185. S. Kunalan, K. Palanivelu, E. K. Sachin, D. A. Syrtsova and V. V. Teplyakov, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2022, 139, 52024.
186. H. Wen, L. Zhang, Y. Du, Z. Wang, Y. Jiang, H. Bian, J. Cui and S. Jia, J. CO₂ Util., 2020, 39, 101171.
187. N. Li, Z. Wang and J. Wang, J. Membr. Sci., 2022, 642, 119946.
188. Y. Shen, H. Wang, J. Liu and Y. Zhang, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2015, 3, 1819–1829.
189. M. C. Singo, X. C. Molepo, O. O. Oluwasina and M. O. Daramola, Energy Procedia, 2017, 114, 2429–2440.
190. K. O. Yoro, M. Singo, M. O. Daramola and J. L. Mulopo, in Proceedings of the 33rd annual international pittsburgh coal conference. Omnipress, Capetown, South Africa, 2016.
191. K. Malini, D. Selvakumar and N. S. Kumar, J. Porous Mater., 2022, 29, 1539–1550.
192. C. Yang, T. Zhao, H. Pan, F. Liu, J. Cao and Q. Lin, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 432, 134347.
193. J. Li, A. Bao, J. Chen and Y. Bao, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2022, 10, 107021.
194. J. Xiao, Y. Wang, T. C. Zhang, L. Ouyang and S. Yuan, J. Power Sources, 2022, 517, 230727.
195. S. He, G. Chen, H. Xiao, G. Shi, C. Ruan, Y. Ma, H. Dai, B. Yuan, X. Chen and X. Yang, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2021, 582, 90–101.
196. J. Shi, H. Cui, J. Xu, N. Yan, C. Zhang and S. You, Fuel, 2021, 305, 121505.
197. G. Nazir, A. Rehman and S.-J. Park, J. Environ. Manage., 2021, 299, 113661.
198. Q. Wu, G. Zhang, M. Gao, L. Huang, L. Li, S. Liu, C. Xie, Y. Zhang and S. Yu, J. Alloys Compd., 2019, 786, 826–838.
199. J. Fujiki and K. Yogo, Chem. Commun., 2016, 52, 186–189.
200. X. Fan, L. Zhang, G. Zhang, Z. Shu and J. Shi, Carbon, 2013, 61, 423–430.
201. J. A. Thote, R. V. Chatti, K. S. Iyer, V. Kumar, A. N. Valechha, N. K. Labhsetwar, R. B. Biniwale, M. K. N. Yenkie and S. S. Rayalu, J. Environ. Sci., 2012, 24, 1979–1984.
202. M. Helmi, F. Moazami, A. Ghaemi and A. Hemmati, Fuel, 2023, 338, 127300.
203. M. Lopes, A. Cecílio, M. Zanatta and M. C. Corvo, J. Cleaner Prod., 2022, 367, 132977.
204. I. Barroso-Martín, J. A. Cecilia, E. Vilarrasa-García, D. Ballesteros-Plata, C. P. Jiménez-Gómez, Á. Vílchez-Cózar, A. Infantes-Molina and E. Rodríguez-Castellón, Polymers, 2022, 14, 5240.
205. J. A. O. Chagas, G. O. Crispim, B. P. Pinto, R. A. S. San Gil and C. J. A. Mota, ACS Omega, 2020, 5, 29520–29529.
206. P. Wang, G. Zhang, W. Chen, Q. Chen, H. Jiao, L. Liu, X. Wang and X. Deng, ACS Omega, 2020, 5, 23460–23467.
207. N. Hsan, P. K. Dutta, S. Kumar, N. Das and J. Koh, J. CO₂ Util., 2020, 41, 101237.
208. I.-H. Tseng, Z.-C. Liu and P.-Y. Chang, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 230, 115584.
209. P. Jiamjirangkul, T. Inprasit, V. Intasanta and A. Pangon, Chem. Eng. Sci., 2020, 221, 115650.
210. A. Rehman and S.-J. Park, Carbon, 2020, 159, 625–637.
211. G. Singh, S. Tiburcius, S. M. Ruban, D. Shanbhag, C. I. Sathish, K. Ramadass and A. Vinu, Emergent Mater., 2019, 2, 337–349.
212. L. Marin, B. Dragoi, N. Olaru, E. Perju, A. Coroaba, F. Doroftei, G. Scavia, S. Destri, S. Zappia and W. Porzio, Eur. Polym. J., 2019, 120, 109214.
213. H.-L. Peng, J.-B. Zhang, J.-Y. Zhang, F.-Y. Zhong, P.-K. Wu, K. Huang, J.-P. Fan and F. Liu, Chem. Eng. J., 2019, 359, 1159–1165.
214. M. A. Islam, Y. L. Tan, M. A. Islam, M. Romić and B. H. Hameed, Colloids Surf., A, 2018, 554, 9–15.
215. K. Osler, N. Twala, O. O. Oluwasina and M. O. Daramola, Energy Procedia, 2017, 114, 2330–2335.
216. S. Kumar, J. de A. e Silva, M. Y. Wani, J. M. Gil and A. J. F. N. Sobral, Carbohydr. Polym., 2017, 175, 575–583.
217. S. Kumar, J. de A. e Silva, M. Y. Wani, C. M. F. Dias and A. J. F. N. Sobral, J. Dispersion Sci. Technol., 2016, 37, 155–158.
218. G. Sneddon, A. Y. Ganin and H. H. P. Yiu, Energy Technol., 2015, 3, 249–258.
219. J. Fujiki and K. Yogo, Energy Fuels, 2014, 28, 6467–6474.
220. M. Keramati and A. A. Ghoreyshi, Phys. E, 2014, 57, 161–168.
221. C. Patkool, P. Chawakitchareon and R. Anuwattana, Environ. Eng. Res., 2014, 19, 289–292.
222. C.-C. Huang and S.-C. Shen, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng., 2013, 44, 89–94.
223. S. Kumar, K. Prasad, J. M. Gil, A. J. F. N. Sobral and J. Koh, Carbohydr. Polym., 2018, 198, 401–406.
224. C. Li, N. He, X. Zhao, X. Zhang, W. Li, X. Zhao and Y. Qiao, ChemistrySelect, 2022, 7, e202103927.
225. H. P. S. A. Khalil, A. H. Bhat and A. F. I. Yusra, Carbohydr. Polym., 2012, 87, 963–979.
226. A. Gholampour and T. Ozbakkaloglu, J. Mater. Sci., 2020, 55, 829–892.
227. K. A. Adegoke, I. A. Bello, O. S. Bello, M. A. Balogun and N. W. Maxakato, Sci. Afr., 2022, 16, e01138.
228. B. Zhang, H. Chen, Q. Hu, L. Jiang, Y. Shen, D. Zhao and Z. Zhou, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2021, 31, 2105395.
229. S. Wohlhauser, G. Delepierre, M. Labet, G. Morandi, W. Thielemans, C. Weder and J. O. Zoppe, Macromolecules, 2018, 51, 6157–6189.
230. A. H. Tayeb, E. Amini, S. Ghasemi and M. Tajvidi, Molecules, 2018, 23, 2684.
231. D. Plackett, K. Letchford, J. Jackson and H. Burt, Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J., 2014, 29, 105–118.
232. Z. Dai, V. Ottesen, J. Deng, R. M. L. Helberg and L. Deng, Fibers, 2019, 7, 40.
233. Y. Habibi, L. A. Lucia and O. J. Rojas, Chem. Rev., 2010, 110, 3479–3500.
234. R. J. Moon, A. Martini, J. Nairn, J. Simonsen and J. Youngblood, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2011, 40, 3941–3994.
235. V. K. Thakur and M. K. Thakur, Carbohydr. Polym., 2014, 109, 102–117.
236. X.-F. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Ding, Y. Feng and J. Yao, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2021, 9, 23353–23363.
237. M. Babar, M. A. Bustam, A. Ali, A. S. Maulud, U. Shafiq, A. M. Shariff and Z. Man, Cryogenics, 2019, 101, 79–88.
238. C. Gunathilake, R. S. Dassanayake, N. Abidi and M. Jaroniec, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 4808–4819.
239. S. Q. Jabbar, H. Janani and H. Janani, J. Polym. Environ., 2022, 30, 4210–4224.
240. S. Wang, C. Wang and Q. Zhou, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2021, 13, 29949–29959.
241. A. Policicchio, M. Florent, M. F. Attia, D. C. Whitehead, J. Jagiello and T. J. Bandosz, Adv. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 7, 1902098.
242. Q. Yang, M. Zhang, S. Song and B. Yang, Cellulose, 2017, 24, 3051–3060.
243. A. Brunetti, L. Lei, E. Avruscio, D. S. Karousos, A. Lindbråthen, E. P. Kouvelos, X. He, E. P. Favvas and G. Barbieri, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 448, 137615.
244. A. Rehman, Z. Jahan, F. Sher, T. Noor, M. B. K. Niazi, M. A. Akram and E. K. Sher, Chemosphere, 2022, 307, 135736.
245. C. Regmi, S. Ashtiani, F. Průša and K. Friess, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2022, 282, 120128.
246. A. Ali, M. Mubashir, A. Abdulrahman and P. E. Phelan, Chemosphere, 2022, 306, 135482.
247. E. Akbarzadeh, A. Shockravi and V. Vatanpour, Carbohydr. Polym., 2021, 252, 117215.
248. A. Raza, S. Farrukh, A. Hussain, I. Khan, M. H. D. Othman and M. Ahsan, Membranes, 2021, 11, 245.
249. A. Jamil, M. Zulfiqar, U. Arshad, S. Mahmood, T. Iqbal, S. Rafiq and M. Z. Iqbal, Adv. Polym. Technol., 2020, 2020, 8855577.
250. S. Janakiram, X. Yu, L. Ansaloni, Z. Dai and L. Deng, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2019, 11, 33302–33313.
251. S. Hafeez, X. Fan, A. Hussain and C. F. Martín, J. Environ. Sci., 2015, 35, 163–171.
252. X. Chen, J. Lin, H. Wang, Y. Yang, C. Wang, Q. Sun, X. Shen and Y. Li, Carbohydr. Polym., 2023, 302, 120389.
253. J. Cheng, X. Cheng, Z. Wang, M. B. Hussain and M. Wang, Energy, 2023, 263, 125984.
254. Q. Zhang, W. Lu, M. Wu, G. Qi, Y. Yuan, J. Li, H. Su and H. Zhang, J. Environ. Manage., 2022, 302, 114044.
255. J. Sun, M. Shang, M. Zhang, S. Yu, Z. Yuan, X. Yi, S. Filatov and J. Zhang, Carbohydr. Polym., 2022, 293, 119720.
256. J. Gong, F. Tong, C. Zhang, M. S. Nobandegani, L. Yu and L. Zhang, Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 2022, 331, 111664.
257. N. H. Mohd, H. Kargazadeh, M. Miyamoto, S. Uemiya, N. Sharer, A. Baharum, T. L. Peng, I. Ahmad, M. A. Yarmo and R. Othaman, J. Mater. Res. Technol., 2021, 13, 2287–2296.
258. X. Jiang, Y. Kong, H. Zou, Z. Zhao, Y. Zhong and X. Shen, J. Porous Mater., 2021, 28, 93–97.
259. G. Zhou, K. Wang, R. Liu, Y. Tian, B. Kong and G. Qi, Colloids Surf., A, 2021, 631, 127675.
260. J. Xu, P. Jia, X. Wang, Z. Xie, Z. Chen and H. Jiang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2021, 138, 50891.
261. W. Zhu, Y. Yao, Y. Zhang, H. Jiang, Z. Wang, W. Chen and Y. Xue, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2020, 59, 16660–16668.
262. Y. Miao, M. Pudukudy, Y. Zhi, Y. Miao, S. Shan, Q. Jia and Y. Ni, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 236, 116079.
263. T. Zhang, W. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Shen and J. Zhang, Cellulose, 2020, 27, 2953–2958.
264. Y. Li, P. Jia, J. Xu, Y. Wu, H. Jiang and Z. Li, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2020, 59, 2874–2882.
265. Y. Tang, S. Tang and T. Zhang, Cellulose, 2020, 27, 3263–3275.
266. Y. Miao, H. Luo, M. Pudukudy, Y. Zhi, W. Zhao, S. Shan, Q. Jia and Y. Ni, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 227, 115380.
267. T. Zhang, Y. Zhang, H. Jiang and X. Wang, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 2019, 26, 16716–16726.
268. C. Wang and S. Okubayashi, Carbohydr. Polym., 2019, 225, 115248.
269. Y. Wu, Y. Zhang, N. Chen, S. Dai, H. Jiang and S. Wang, Carbohydr. Polym., 2018, 194, 252–259.
270. S. Liu, Y. Zhang, H. Jiang, X. Wang, T. Zhang and Y. Yao, Environ. Chem. Lett., 2018, 16, 605–614.
271. F. Jiang, S. Hu and Y. Hsieh, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 2018, 1, 6701–6710.
272. Y. Wu, F. Cao, H. Jiang and Y. Zhang, Mater. Res. Express, 2017, 4, 85303.
273. R. S. Dassanayake, C. Gunathilake, T. Jackson, M. Jaroniec and N. Abidi, Cellulose, 2016, 23, 1363–1374.
274. Y. Hu, X. Tong, H. Zhuo, L. Zhong, X. Peng, S. Wang and R. Sun, RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 15788–15795.
275. L. Valencia and H. N. Abdelhamid, Carbohydr. Polym., 2019, 213, 338–345.
276. H. N. Abdelhamid and A. P. Mathew, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 426, 131733.
277. M. Mubashir, L. F. Dumée, Y. Y. Fong, N. Jusoh, J. Lukose, W. S. Chai and P. L. Show, J. Hazard. Mater., 2021, 415, 125639.
278. H. Ma, Z. Wang, X.-F. Zhang, M. Ding and J. Yao, Carbohydr. Polym., 2021, 270, 118376.
279. P. Zeng, C. Zhao, C. Liang, P. Li, H. Zhang, R. Wang, Y. Guo, H. Xia and J. Sun, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2023, 306, 122608.
280. Y. Zheng, J. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. Guo, Z. Xu, Y. Huang, P. Huang, J. Zhang and C. Zhao, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 450, 137944.
281. J. Sun, C. Liang, X. Tong, Y. Guo, W. Li, C. Zhao, J. Zhang and P. Lu, Fuel, 2019, 239, 1046–1054.
282. L. Helmlinger, Y. Zhu, J. Gensel, T. Neumeyer, S. Thäter, F. Strube, C. Bauer, B. Rosemann and V. Altstädt, J. Renewable Mater., 2018, 6, 219.
283. Y. Hu, W. Liu, Y. Peng, Y. Yang, J. Sun, H. Chen, Z. Zhou and M. Xu, Fuel Process. Technol., 2017, 160, 70–77.
284. J. Sun, W. Liu, Y. Hu, J. Wu, M. Li, X. Yang, W. Wang and M. Xu, Chem. Eng. J., 2016, 285, 293–303.
285. H.-X. Zhao, J.-C. Li, Y. Wang, Y.-R. Guo, S. Li and Q.-J. Pan, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2023, 307, 122774.
286. G. Reyes, R. Ajdary, E. Kankuri, J. J. Kaschuk, H. Kosonen and O. J. Rojas, Carbohydr. Polym., 2023, 302, 120355.
287. M. P. Vocht, P. Tomasic, R. Beyer, A. Müller, U. Zuberbühler, B. Stürmer, F. Hermanutz and M. R. Buchmeiser, Macromol. Mater. Eng., 2022, 307, 2200093.
288. W. Lu, X. Shi, H. Zhou, W. Luo, L. Wang and H. He, Chem. Eng. J., 2022, 449, 137885.
289. J. Lin, W. Lu, X. Shi, Q. Lu, L. Wang and H. He, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2021, 9, 10184–10195.
290. N. Chouikhi, J. A. Cecilia, E. Vilarrasa-García, L. Serrano-Cantador, S. Besghaier, M. Chlendi, M. Bagane and E. R. Castellón, Biomass Bioenergy, 2021, 155, 106297.
291. Y. Wang, X. He and Q. Lu, Cellulose, 2021, 28, 4241–4251.
292. A. Rehman, G. Nazir, K. Y. Rhee and S.-J. Park, Chem. Eng. J., 2021, 420, 130421.
293. R. Ahmadi, M. Ardjmand, A. Rashidi and M. Rafizadeh, Energy Sources, Part A, 2020 DOI:10.1080/15567036.2020.1845878.
294. M. F. A. Hernández, M. F. Rojas, F. Bernard, S. Einloft and L. A. C. Diaz, Fibers Polym., 2020, 21, 2861–2872.
295. S. Sepahvand, M. Jonoobi, A. Ashori, F. Gauvin, H. J. H. Brouwers, K. Oksman and Q. Yu, Carbohydr. Polym., 2020, 230, 115571.
296. C. Hou, Y. Wu, T. Wang, X. Wang and X. Gao, Energy Fuels, 2018, 33, 1745–1752.
297. S. Campbell, F. L. Bernard, D. M. Rodrigues, M. F. Rojas, L. Á. Carreño, V. V. Chaban and S. Einloft, Fuel, 2019, 239, 737–746.
298. W. Zhu, M. Ji, Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, W. Chen and Y. Xue, Polymers, 2019, 11, 2021.
299. P. García-Gutiérrez, R. M. Cuéllar-Franca, D. Reed, G. Dowson, P. Styring and A. Azapagic, Green Chem., 2019, 21, 4100–4114.
300. F. Valdebenito, R. García, K. Cruces, G. Ciudad, G. Chinga-Carrasco and Y. Habibi, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 12603–12612.
301. Y. Zhang, X. Gong, X. Chen, L. Yin, J. Zhang and W. Liu, Fuel, 2018, 232, 205–214.
302. M. Gunnarsson, D. Bernin, Å. Östlund and M. Hasani, Green Chem., 2018, 20, 3279–3286.
303. C. Xu, C. Ruan, Y. Li, J. Lindh and M. Strømme, Adv. Sustainable Syst., 2018, 2, 1700147.
304. R. S. Dassanayake, C. Gunathilake, A. C. Dassanayake, N. Abidi and M. Jaroniec, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 7462–7473.
305. F. L. Bernard, D. M. Rodrigues, B. B. Polesso, A. J. Donato, M. Seferin, V. V. Chaban, F. Dalla Vecchia and S. Einloft, Fuel Process. Technol., 2016, 149, 131–138.
306. K. J. Shah and T. Imae, Biomacromolecules, 2016, 17, 1653–1661.
307. N. H. Mohd, N. F. H. Ismail, J. I. Zahari, W. Fathilah, H. Kargarzadeh, S. Ramli, I. Ahmad, M. A. Yarmo and R. Othaman, J. Nanomater., 2016, 2016, 4804271.
308. T. Y. Han, S. K. Park and J. S. Lee, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc., 2016, 37, 689–694.
309. Y.-J. Heo and S.-J. Park, Energy, 2015, 91, 142–150.
310. H. Sehaqui, M. E. Gálvez, V. Becatinni, Y. Cheng Ng, A. Steinfeld, T. Zimmermann and P. Tingaut, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2015, 49, 3167–3174.
311. C. Gebald, J. A. Wurzbacher, A. Borgschulte, T. Zimmermann and A. Steinfeld, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48, 2497–2504.
312. C. Gebald, J. A. Wurzbacher, P. Tingaut and A. Steinfeld, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47, 10063–10070.
313. X. He, J. A. Lie, E. Sheridan and M.-B. Hägg, Energy Procedia, 2009, 1, 261–268.
314. L. Ansaloni, J. Salas-Gay, S. Ligi and M. G. Baschetti, J. Membr. Sci., 2017, 522, 216–225.
315. S. Kang, X. Li, J. Fan and J. Chang, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 2013, 27, 546–558.
316. M. Nasrollahzadeh, M. Ghasemzadeh, H. Gharoubi and Z. Nezafat, J. Mol. Liq., 2021, 342, 117559.
317. Z. Nezafat, M. M. Karimkhani, M. Nasrollahzadeh, S. Javanshir, A. Jamshidi, Y. Orooji, H. W. Jang and M. Shokouhimehr, Food Chem. Toxicol., 2022, 168, 113310.
318. M. Nasrollahzadeh, F. Soleimani, Z. Nezafat, Y. Orooji and F. Ahmadpoor, Biomass Convers. Biorefin., 2023, 13, 12451–12465.
319. Y. Zhu, Z. Li and J. Chen, Green Energy Environ., 2019, 4, 210–244.
320. B. A. López-Monreal and S. Loera-Serna, MRS Adv., 2022, 7, 504–507.
321. D. Saha, G. Orkoulas and D. Bates, Materials, 2023, 16, 455.
322. L. Gong and A. Bao, J. CO₂ Util., 2023, 68, 102374.
323. M. Demir, T. Tessema, A. A. Farghaly, E. Nyankson, S. K. Saraswat, B. Aksoy, T. Islamoglu, M. M. Collinson, H. M. El-Kaderi and R. B. Gupta, Int. J. Energy Res., 2018, 42, 2686–2700.
324. S. Park, M. S. Choi and H. S. Park, Carbon Lett., 2019, 29, 289–296.
325. D. Saha, S. E. Van Bramer, G. Orkoulas, H.-C. Ho, J. Chen and D. K. Henley, Carbon, 2017, 121, 257–266.
326. S. Geng, J. Wei, S. Jonasson, J. Hedlund and K. Oksman, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020, 12, 7432–7441.
327. J. Zhao, W. Zhang, D. Shen, H. Zhang and Z. Wang, J. Energy Inst., 2023, 107, 101179.
328. S. Sani, X. Liu, M. Li, L. Stevens and C. Sun, Microporous Mesoporous Mater., 2023, 347, 112334.
329. Y. Cui, B. He, Y. Lei, Y. Liang, W. Zhao, J. Sun and X. Liu, Chin. J. Chem. Eng., 2023, 54, 89–97.
330. M. Li, X. Liu, C. Sun, L. Stevens and H. Liu, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2022, 10, 107471.
331. L. Shao, N. Liu, L. Wang, Y. Sang, P. Zhan, L. Zhang, J. Huang and J. Chen, Chemosphere, 2022, 288, 132499.
332. E. Atta-Obeng, B. Dawson-Andoh, E. Felton and G. Dahle, Waste Biomass Valorization, 2019, 10, 2725–2731.
333. L. Xu, Y. Xiu, F. Liu, Y. Liang and S. Wang, Molecules, 2020, 25, 3653.
334. K. C. Kemp, V. Chandra, M. Saleh and K. S. Kim, Nanotechnology, 2013, 24, 235703.
335. J. Oh, Y.-H. Mo, V.-D. Le, S. Lee, J. Han, G. Park, Y.-H. Kim, S.-E. Park and S. Park, Carbon, 2014, 79, 450–456.
336. C. Chen, D.-W. Park and W.-S. Ahn, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2014, 292, 63–67.
337. P. Gruene, A. G. Belova, T. M. Yegulalp, R. J. Farrauto and M. J. Castaldi, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2011, 50, 4042–4049.
338. S. Yang, L. Zhan, X. Xu, Y. Wang, L. Ling and X. Feng, Adv. Mater., 2013, 25, 2130–2134.
339. M. Zhao, J. Guo, Q. Xin, Y. Zhang, X. Li, X. Ding, L. Zhang, L. Zhao, H. Ye and H. Li, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2023, 324, 124512.
340. H. Shi, J. Yang, Z. Ahmad, H. Zhang and J. Chen, Sep. Purif. Technol., 2023, 325, 124608.
341. D. Rodrigues, J. Wolf, B. Polesso, P. Micoud, C. Le Roux, F. Bernard, F. Martin and S. Einloft, Fuel, 2023, 346, 128304.

---