Developing processes for the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG), has been of tremendous research interest due to the serious global warming problems associated with CO2 emissions. Among other sources, CO2 that is produced from human activities such as energy production (especially from large point sources) are the main targets for CO2 emissions mitigation. One of the mature methods for CO2 removal from low-pressure gas steams is absorption using a chemical solvent such as monoethanolamine (MEA). Most of the literature has focused on corrosion characteristics of equipment exposed to the MEA environment. However, the characteristics of small components used in such plants, such as seals, are scant. This thesis research studied the chemical resistance of raw elastomers, namely, ethylene propylene diene monomers (EPDM), natural rubber (NR), isobutylene isoprene (IIR) and styrene butadiene (SBR) to aqueous solutions of MEA and MEA+CO2 in order to understand how these would affect the corresponding commercial elastomers when used in the amine environment. The raw elastomers (EPDM, NR, IIR and SBR) were immersed in the solutions of molarities of 3, 5 and 7 as well as 5 M MEA with 0.16, 0.25, 0.5 mol CO2/mol MEA for 30 days at 40 °C. After the completion of immersion, the raw elastomer specimens were investigated for their chemical resistance by measurement of mass change as well as chemical change, the latter of which used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) for analysis. The impurity and MEA concentration in the solutions were determined by using High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Other physical properties such as density, viscosity and refractive index were also measured. The results showed that SBR and NR had poor chemical resistance to the amine solution resulting in high percentage mass change. Moreover, they both reacted with aqueous solutions of MEA and MEA+CO2 to form amide compounds on their surfaces. In contrast, EPDM and IIR had very insignificant mass changes after the immersion. Also, their chemical structures did not have any significant changes. As raw EPDM and IIR revealed good chemical resistance to aqueous solutions of MEA and MEA+CO2, it became essential to test the commercial EPDM and IIR which would actually be used in real applications. PTFE, well known for having excellent resistance to most chemicals, was also included as the benchmark. These commercial materials were exposed to MEA solution (5 M with 0.5 mol CO2/mol MEA) at 40 and 120 °C for 30 days each. The specimens were then analyzed for changes in mass, hardness and tensile strength. The results showed that PTFE was the most compatible with the solution at both 40 and 120 °C compared to EPDM and IIR as the mass, hardness and tensile strength of PTFE remained the same before and after the immersion. For EPDM and IIR, the mass slightly increased while hardness and tensile strength slightly decreased after the immersion at 40 °C. At 120 °C, the mass changes of EPDM and IIR were significantly higher than those of the elastomers before immersion. This was attributed to the absorption of liquid into the elastomers which brought about the reduction of hardness and tensile strengths of EPDM and IIR. In conclusion, PTFE is the most recommended to be used in any part of the CO2 absorption process with amines (e.g. MEA). EPDM and IIR can be used in the absorber as it operates at low temperatures. However, in the regenerator column, EPDM and IIR are not recommended.