| Article key | Leeson_2017 |
| Title | A Techno-economic analysis and systematic review of carbon capture and storage (CCS) applied to the iron and steel, cement, oil refining and pulp and paper industries, as well as other high purity sources |
| Year | 2017 |
| Review type | systematic review |
| Main topic | Carbon capture technologies for selected industries |
| Subjects area(s) | Environment and nature, Policy, administration and planning |
| Built environment scale | Material / Device |
| Application(s) | Product design, Implementation, Evaluation |
| Geographically focused | no |
| Prisma diagram used | no |
| Study focus start | 1957 |
| Study focus end | 2013 |
| Search string | "Industrial" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Cement" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Chemicals manufacturing" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Iron Ore" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Smelting" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Refineries" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Industrial" AND "Policy" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Pulp and Paper" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Steel production" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Bulk metals" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Fine metals" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Steelworks" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Ironworks" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Foundry" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Industrial" AND "Cost" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Food and drink" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Industrial" AND "Economics" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" "Fine chemicals" AND "Carbon Capture and Storage" OR "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" ("cement production" OR "cement works") AND "Cost" AND "Carbon Capture" AND EXCLUDE(topics, "co2 emission, energy system") AND LIMIT-TO(topics, "co2 capture, ghg emission, carbon capture, cement industry, cement plant") "Petroleum refining" AND "refineries" AND "cost" AND "Carbon Capture" AND EXCLUDE(topics, "co2 emission, energy procedia, hydrogen production, fuel cell, renewable energy, hydrogen, oxygen carrier, life cycle, energy security") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "natural gas") AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "injection project, kingdom, mixed alcohol") "Industrial" AND (("National Policy" OR "National Legislation")OR ("International Policy" OR "international Legislation")) AND "Cost" AND "Carbon Capture" AND NOT "wind farm" AND NOT "Solar" AND NOT "Photovoltaic" AND EXCLUDE(topics, "renewable energy, nuclear power") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "power plant, electricity generation") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "radiative forcing") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "fuel cell, natural gas") AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") AND EXCLUDE(cids, "271486","Fuel and Energy Abstracts") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "marine energy, mercury emission, minh city, mixed conducting") ("minerals processing" OR "rare earth metals processing") AND "Carbon capture" AND "Cost" AND NOT "Steel production" AND NOT "Iron ore extraction" AND NOT "Iron Ore processing" AND NOT "Aluminium Processing" AND NOT "Aluminium smelting" AND NOT "Aluminium extraction" AND NOT "Copper mining" AND NOT "Bulk metals" AND EXCLUDE(topics, "renewable energy, nuclear power, energy system") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "goldschmidt abstract") ("iron production" OR "iron refining" OR "ironworks") AND "Carbon Capture" AND NOT "hydrogen production" AND ("cost" OR "economics") ("Steel production" OR "steel refining" OR "steelworks") AND "Carbon Capture" AND ("cost" OR "economics") AND NOT "hydrogen production" AND NOT "mineralisation" AND EXCLUDE(topics, "china, mineral carbonation, India, developing country, minlp model") AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") ("Smelting" OR "foundry") AND "carbon capture" AND ("cost" OR "economics") AND NOT "hydrogen production" AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") AND EXCLUDE(cids, "271486,271472","Fuel and Energy Abstracts, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "china, goldschmidt abstract, wind power, bauxite residue, jiangsu province") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "liaoning province, MacArthur river, mercury emission, mineral carbonation") "food and drink" AND "carbon capture" AND ("cost" OR "economics") AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") ("paper manufacturing" OR "paper production") AND "carbon capture" AND ("cost" OR "economics") AND EXCLUDE(contenttype, "2,3,4,5",",Book") AND EXCLUDE(topics, "china, brazil, fuel cell") AND EXCLUDE(cids, "271486","Fuel and Energy Abstracts") |
| No. of original sources | 250 |
| Synthesis method | qualitative + quantitative |
| Quantitative map included | no |
| Conflict of interest | not declared specifically |
| Comments |
| Search sources |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Keywords used in search |
| Authors |
|
| Funding sources |
|
| Article type | Journal article |
| Article category | Text |
| Geographical scale | |
| Language | English |
| Chapter or part | |
| Conference date | |
| Conference venue | |
| Published date | 2017-04-10 |
| Edition | |
| Issue | |
| Journal | International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control |
| Pagination | 71-84 |
| Peer reviewed | yes |
| Publication place | |
| Publisher | Elsevier Ltd. |
| School / department or centre | |
| Series volume no. | |
| Series title | |
| Series sort no. | |
| Volume | 61 |
| Website owner | |
| Copyrights of article | Authors |
| Licences of article | Open Access: |
| Identifiers of article | DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.020, ISSN: 17505836 |
| Quality measure | Details | Score | Comments |
| QA question 1 | Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? | 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. | general but concrete description of aims |
| QA question 2 | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? | 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. | not provided |
| QA question 3 | Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. | cross-sectional, longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs (no justification) |
| QA question 4 | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). | 4 databases |
| QA question 5 | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. | No description how many reviewers participated |
| QA question 6 | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. | No description how many reviewers participated |
| QA question 7 | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. | not provided |
| QA question 8 | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. | Tables 1-5, Table 8 (SI) |
| QA question 9 | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. | not provided |
| QA question 10 | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. | not provided |
| QA question 11 | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | N/A | no meta-analysis |
| QA question 12 | If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? | N/A | no meta-analysis |
| QA question 13 | Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? | 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. | not provided |
| QA question 14 | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. | general discussion |
| QA question 15 | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | N/A | no meta-analysis |
| QA question 16 | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | 0 = ”No” = The authors did not provide statement on competing interests and funding sources, and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. | not provided |
| Quality index | Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. | C | no protocol and no list of excluded studies |
| Suggested review type | Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. | rapid review | N/A |
| Risk of bias level | How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? | high | no protocol, search and selection strategy not well described, included studies not quality assessed |