Decarbonisation Technology February 2026 Issue

degradation. On the liquid side, instruments include a total inorganic carbon analyser and Karl Fischer titration for water content measurement and control. Thermocouples throughout the column provide a detailed temperature profile, and temperatures are actively controlled to remain below thermal degradation limits. The pilot plant handles flue gas compositions simulating various point sources of CO₂, while the regenerator operates to maintain the desired solvent lean loading. Pilot testing can be configured to evaluate key PCCC variables,

Lean gas

Stripped CO

Wash tower

Knockout tower

Absorber

Lean solvent

Rich solvent

Regenerator

Gas tank

Cross exchanger

Lean solvent

Flue gas

Rich solvent

Blower

Figure 1 Process flow diagram for Koch-Glitsch’s PCCC test facility

Post-combustion carbon capture pilot plant Koch-Glitsch operates a carbon capture pilot unit in Wichita, Kansas, using artificial flue gas to evaluate solvents and packing types, including conventional and Flexipac CP structured packings. The system includes an absorber, water wash, regenerator, and auxiliary equipment, as shown in Figure 1 . It is equipped with advanced monitoring and control systems. On the gas side, CO₂ concentrations are measured at multiple absorber locations, and O2 concentration is tracked with online gas analysers. Moisture content is monitored, and O2 levels are kept low to minimise solvent

including absorber pressure drop, capture efficiency, regenerator specific reboiler duty, and operational limits such as foaming and flooding. A series of amine-based solvents was evaluated at the carbon capture facility to verify the performance of various conventional and Flexipac CP structured packing. On average, Flexipac CP structured packing exhibits up to a 65% reduction in pressure drop, as illustrated in Figure 2 . Additionally, it demonstrated up to a 25% increase in capture efficiency compared to the conventional structured packing (see Figure 3 ). As a result, it requires less height to achieve equivalent separation. The lower pressure drop

Lower pressure drop

Higher capture eciency

Higher

F lexipac CP s tructured packing Flexipac 250Y HC s tructured packing

Flexipac CP s tructured packing Flexipac 2X s tructured packing

Up to 25% higher

Up to 65% lower

Lower

Higher

Lower

Higher

Flue gas ow rate

Figure 2 Comparative performance of the pressure drop of Flexipac CP structured packing compared to Flexipac 250Y HC structured packing

Figure 3 Comparative performance of the efficiency of Flexipac CP structured packing compared to Flexipac 2X structured packing