The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance metrics for the objective assessment of capacitive deionization systems
Open accessAbstract
In the growing field of capacitive deionization (CDI), a number of performance metrics have emerged to describe the desalination process. Unfortunately, the separation conditions under which these metrics are measured are often not specified, resulting in optimal performance at minimal removal. Here we outline a system of performance metrics and reporting conditions that resolves this issue. Our proposed system is based on volumetric energy consumption (Wh/m3) and throughput productivity (L/h/m2) reported for a specific average concentration reduction, water recovery, and feed salinity. To facilitate and rationalize comparisons between devices, materials, and operation modes, we propose a nominal standard separation of removing 5 mM from a 20 mM NaCl feed solution at 50% water recovery. We propose this particular separation as a standard, but emphasize that the rationale presented here applies irrespective of separation details. Using our proposed separation, we compare the desalination performance of a flow-through electrode (fte-CDI) cell and a flow between membrane (fb-MCDI) device, showing how significantly different systems can be compared in terms of generally desirable desalination characteristics. In general, we find that performance analysis must be considered carefully so to not allow for ambiguous separation conditions or the maximization of one metric at the expense of another. Additionally, for context and clarity, we discuss a number of important underlying performance indicators and cell characteristics that are not performance measures in and of themselves but can be examined to better understand differences in performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zhao, R., Porada, S., Biesheuvel, P. M., & van der Wal, A. (2013) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2013.08.017 · Cited by 383
Qu, Y., Campbell, P. G., Gu, L., Knipe, J. M., Dzenitis, E., Santiago, J. G., & Stadermann, M. (2016) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.09.014 · Cited by 159
Self-citation
Cited by
Zhang, C., Ma, J., Wu, L., Sun, J., Wang, L., Li, T., & Waite, T. D. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c06552 · Cited by 323
Comparison of energy consumption in desalination by capacitive deionization and reverse osmosis
Qin, M., Deshmukh, A., Epsztein, R., Patel, S. K., Owoseni, O. M., Walker, W. S., & Elimelech, M. (2019) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.01.003 · Cited by 292
Energy Efficiency of Capacitive Deionization
Wang, L., Dykstra, J. E., & Lin, S. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b04858 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Hawks, S. A., Ramachandran, A., Porada, S., Campbell, P. G., Suss, M. E., Biesheuvel, P. M., Santiago, J. G., & Stadermann, M.
- Venue
- Water Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-04
- Volume
- 152
- Pages
- 126-137
- ISSN
- 0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2799326804
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance metrics for the objective assessment of capacitive deionization systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.074
- The paper
- Hawks, S. A., Ramachandran, A., Porada, S., Campbell, P. G., Suss, M. E., Biesheuvel, P. M., Santiago, J. G., & Stadermann, M. (2019). Performance metrics for the objective assessment of capacitive deionization systems. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.074
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.