Simulation-Based Comparative Study of CO₂ Absorption Techniques for Biogas Purification Using Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Plus
Aishah ROSLI, Aziatul Niza SADIKIN
Abstract. Upgrading biogas by removing CO₂ is essential to increase its energy value and usability as a clean fuel. This study compares three CO₂ absorption techniques using simulation: chemical absorption with monoethanolamine (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA), methyl diethanolamine (MDEA) with piperazine (PZ), and physical absorption with water. The MEA, DEA, and MDEA/PZ systems were simulated using Aspen HYSYS, while water scrubbing was simulated using Aspen Plus. The simulations used standardized biogas composition and analyzed the effect of parameters such as solvent concentration, temperature, pressure, and liquid-to-gas (L/G) ratio. MEA showed a maximum removal efficiency of 99.28% at 35 mol% and 60°C. MDEA/PZ performed well under low-pressure conditions, with improved absorption due to PZ activation. Water scrubbing showed better CO₂ removal at higher pressures and L/G ratios, but was less selective than amine solvents. The results highlight trade-offs between chemical and physical absorption: amine-based systems offer higher efficiency but may involve higher regeneration costs, while water scrubbing provides a more straightforward and cost-effective option. This study provides valuable insights for selecting efficient and sustainable biogas upgrading methods.
Keywords
Biogas Upgrading, CO₂ Removal, Chemical Absorption, Water Scrubbing
Published online 1/15/2026, 7 pages
Copyright © 2026 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA
Citation: Aishah ROSLI, Aziatul Niza SADIKIN, Simulation-Based Comparative Study of CO₂ Absorption Techniques for Biogas Purification Using Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Plus, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 59, pp 106-112, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903957-14
The article was published as article 14 of the book Separation Technology
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
References
[1] International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013). World energy outlook. Paris: OECD/IEA. https://doi.org/10.1787/weo-2013-en
[2] European Commission. (2014). 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. Brussels: European Union.
[3] Weiland, P. (2010). Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 85(4), 849-860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7
[4] Angelidaki, I., Treu, L., Tsapekos, P., Luo, G., Campanaro, S., Wenzel, H., & Kougias, P. G. (2018). Biogas upgrading and utilization: Current status and perspectives. Biotechnology Advances, 36(2), 452-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.01.011
[5] Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M., & Vervaeren, H. (2011). Techniques for transformation of biogas to biomethane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), 1633-1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.033
[6] Sun, Q., Li, H., Yan, J., Liu, L., Yu, Z., & Yu, X. (2015). Review of biogas upgrading technologies and applications in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 521-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.029
[7] Abatzoglou, N., & Boivin, S. (2009). A review of biogas purification processes. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 3(1), 42-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.117
[8] Persson, M., Jönsson, O., & Wellinger, A. (2006). Biogas upgrading to vehicle fuel standards and grid injection. IEA Bioenergy Task 37.
[9] Bauer, F., Hulteberg, C., Persson, T., & Tamm, D. (2013). Biogas upgrading – Review of commercial technologies. SGC Rapport 2013:270.
[10] Mandal, B., & Bandyopadhyay, S. S. (2005). Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous blends of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol and monoethanolamine. Chemical Engineering Science, 60(22), 6438-6451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.02.044
[11] Khan, I. U., et al. (2017). Membrane-based biogas upgrading processes: Review of commercial applications and ongoing R&D. Separation and Purification Technology, 188, 399-425.
[12] Kapdi, S. S., Vijay, V. K., Rajesh, S. K., & Prasad, R. (2005). Biogas scrubbing, compression and storage: Perspective and prospectus in Indian context. Renewable Energy, 30(8), 1195-1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.09.012
[13] Cozma, P., Wukovits, W., & Friedl, A. (2014). Influence of process parameters on the performance of biogas upgrading by high pressure water scrubbing. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(9), 2237-2244.
[14] Rasi, S., Veijanen, A., & Rintala, J. (2007). Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas production plants. Energy, 32(8), 1375-1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.10.018
[15] Abu-Zahra, M. R. M., Schneiders, L. H. J., Niederer, J. P. M., Feron, P. H. M., & Versteeg, G. F. (2007). CO₂ capture from power plants: Part I. A parametric study of the technical performance based on monoethanolamine. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(06)00007-7
[16] Bishnoi, S., & Rochelle, G. T. (2000). Absorption of carbon dioxide into aqueous piperazine/alkanolamine solutions. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 39(11), 4441-4446.
