This research project, titled “Experimental Evaluation of CO₂ Capture Performance of Circular Sorbents: Systematic Review,” evaluates experimental evidence on carbon dioxide capture using materials derived wholly or partly from waste, residues, industrial by-products, and recovered or recycled resources. Its purpose is to determine how these secondary materials perform as CO₂-capture media, identify the factors governing their effectiveness, and assess whether reported results support reproducible, durable and environmentally credible applications. The review will synthesize experimental peer-reviewed journal articles for Scopus, IEEE Xplore and Web of Science databases and screened using Catchii. Reporting follows PRISMA 2020, with a structured narrative synthesis used because differences in capture mechanisms, operating conditions, outcome definitions and statistical reporting prevent a defensible, pooled performance estimate. The evidence covers waste-derived porous carbons and biochars, calcium-looping sorbents, mineral-carbonation systems, zeolites and porous hybrids, and integrated capture applications. Studies are examined according to feedstock provenance, preparation and modification methods, material characteristics, CO₂ uptake, selectivity, regeneration, cyclic stability and testing under realistic gas conditions. A review-specific Circular Sorbent Experimental Study Appraisal Tool (CSESAT) assesses experimental reliability, outcome comparability, application relevance, and environmental and process reporting. The project’s expected outcomes include an organized evidence base linking circular feedstocks and preparation routes to mechanism-specific capture performance, identification of promising material–application combinations, and recommendations for more consistent experimental reporting. It also highlights gaps in independent replication, humid mixed-gas testing, long-term durability, regeneration energy, scale-up and life-cycle assessment. Ultimately, the review aims to guide future material development and process evaluation while distinguishing promising laboratory uptake from demonstrated practical performance and net environmental benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ujah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: