ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Comparison of Capacitive Deionization and Membrane Capacitive Deionization Using Novel Fabricated Ion Exchange Membranes.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Another technique for desalination, known as membrane capacitive deionization (MCDI), has been investigated as an alternative. This approach has the potential to lower the voltage that is required, in addition to improving the ability to renew the electrodes. In this study, the desalination effectiveness of capacitive deionization (CDI) was compared to that of MCDI, employing newly produced cellulose acetate ion exchange membranes (IEMs), which were utilized for the very first time in MCDI. As expected, the salt adsorption and charge efficiency of MCDI were shown to be higher than those of CDI. Despite this, the unique electrosorption behavior of the former reveals that ion transport via the IEMs is a crucial rate-controlling step in the desalination process. We monitored the concentration of salt in the CDI and MCDI effluent streams, but we also evaluated the pH of the effluent stream in each of these systems and investigated the factors that may have caused these shifts. The significant change in pH that takes place during one adsorption and desorption cycle in CDI (pH range: 2.3-11.6) may cause problems in feed water that already contains components that are prone to scaling. In the case of MCDI, the fall in pH was only slightly more noticeable. Based on these findings, it appears that CDI and MCDI are promising new desalination techniques that has the potential to be more ecologically friendly and efficient than conventional methods of desalination. MCDI has some advantages over CDI in its higher salt removal efficiency, faster regeneration, and longer lifetime, but it is also more expensive and complex. The best choice for a particular application will depend on the specific requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.