Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

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 access
Hawks, Steven A., Ramachandran, Ashwin, Porada, Slawomir, Campbell, Patrick G., Suss, Matthew E., Biesheuvel, P.M., Santiago, Juan G., Stadermann, Michael·2019·Water Research

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.074

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 279

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.