A one-dimensional model for water desalination
by flow-through electrode capacitive deionization
Eric N. Guyes,1 Amit N. Shocron,1 Anastasia Simanovski,1
P.M. Biesheuvel,2 Matthew E. Suss1,*
1
2

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Wetsus, European Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology, Leeuwarden, The
Netherlands.
*
mesuss@tx.technion.ac.il

Abstract
Capacitive deionization (CDI) is a fast-emerging water desalination technology in which a
small cell voltage of ~1 V across porous carbon electrodes removes salt from feedwaters via
electrosorption. In flow-through electrode (FTE) CDI cell architecture, feedwater is pumped
through macropores or laser perforated channels in porous electrodes, enabling highly compact
cells with parallel flow and electric field, as well as rapid salt removal. We here present a onedimensional model describing water desalination by FTE CDI, and a comparison to data from a
custom-built experimental cell. The model employs simple cell boundary conditions derived
via scaling arguments. We show good model-to-data fits with reasonable values for fitting
parameters such as the Stern layer capacitance, micropore volume, and attraction energy. Thus,
we demonstrate that from an engineering modeling perspective, an FTE CDI cell may be
described with simpler one-dimensional models, unlike more typical flow-between electrodes
architecture where 2D models are required.

Introduction
Capacitive deionization (CDI) is a rapidly growing research field, with primary applications
in brackish water desalination and wastewater purification.1 A CDI cell typically consists of
two carbon-based porous electrodes that are electronically isolated by a separator, and
feedwater is pumped through the cell. Applying a voltage across the electrodes causes charged
ions in the feed to migrate to oppositely charged electrodes and to be electrostatically contained
in electric double layers (EDLs) within micropores.2,3 This process constitutes the charge halfcycle, and is also the desalination stage. Once the electrodes are fully charged, they can be
discharged by short circuiting the electrodes, allowing the stored ions to be released into the
flow and resulting in a waste brine stream. A number of CDI cell architectures have been
developed,4–7 but the earliest and most common architecture is composed of two electrodes
separated by a separator channel, through which the feed water is pumped. This architecture is
1

often referred to as flow-by or flow-between electrodes (FB).1
An alternative CDI cell architecture is the flow-through electrodes (FTE) architecture, where
the feedwater flows directly through electrode macropores rather than between the electrodes
(see Figure 1A).8–10 One main advantage of FTE relative to FB is that the electric field and flow
directions are parallel, allowing for facile optimization of ionic and flow resistances8. Further,
since the separator is no longer the main flow channel in an FTE cell, the separator thickness
may be minimized (provided the electronic isolation remains adequate), resulting in improved
desalination rates and more compact cells.8,11 However, it has been reported that anode
corrosion occurs at a faster rate in FTE CDI systems relative to FB systems, though nitrogen
sparging to reduce dissolved oxygen content in the feedwater has been shown to increase FTE
cell stability to a level comparable to FB cells.12 Further, surface charge modification has been
shown to reduce anode corrosion and improve charge efficiency in FTE systems.9 Another
potential drawback of FTE is that such cells can require greater feed pressures than FB cells in
order to flow through the electrodes’ macropores with the desired throughput.8 However, recent
work by Guyes et al. has demonstrated that laser perforating electrodes with roughly 200 µm
diameter flow channels enabled orders of magnitude improvement in electrode hydraulic
permeability without affecting the electrodes salt adsorption capacity or gravimetric
capacitance.13
Several engineering models for water desalination by CDI have been proposed which couple
macroscopic porous electrode theory to an EDL structure model.14–18 The models developed to
date are generally applied to flow-between CDI cells, where flow and electric field are
perpendicular, necessitating a 2D model approach.17,18 Hemmatifar et al. demonstrated the first
fully 2D model for flow-between CDI cells, which employed a Donnan EDL model.18 A
widely-applied model utilizes a modified Donnan theory to describe the EDL in micropores of
CDI electrodes, and which demonstrates good fits to data over a wide range of experimental
conditions and electrode materials.19,20 While FTE CDI is a promising CDI cell architecture, to
our knowledge there has not been a comparison between FTE CDI data to an appropriate
model. We here develop a 1D model and simplified boundary conditions for FTE CDI cells,
employing a modified Donnan EDL model. We further present the fitting of our model to FTE
CDI data from a custom-built cell.

Theory
To develop a 1D FTE CDI model, we start with the volume-averaged, 1D, superficial molar
flux of an ion, Ji, given by the extended Nernst-Planck equation,
⎛ ∂c
∂φ ⎞
Ji = cmA,i ⋅ v − DmA,i ⋅ ⎜ mA,i + zicmA,i mA ⎟
∂x ⎠
⎝ ∂x

(1)
2

where cmA,i is the ion concentration in the macropores of the electrode (defined as a
concentration per unit macropore volume), v is the superficial fluid velocity of the electrolyte
phase, DmA,i is an effective ion diffusion coefficient, zi is the ion valence, φ is the dimensionless
macropore electric potential (which can be multiplied by the thermal voltage VT=RT/F to arrive
at a dimensional voltage), and x is a spatial coordinate along the flow and electric field
direction in our model FTE CDI cell (see Fig. 1). The effective ion diffusion coefficient in the
electrodes, DmA,i = pmA D∞,i / τmA , where D∞,i is the ion’s molecular diffusivity, includes a
correction for macropore porosity, pmA, and tortuosity, τmA. For simplicity, we assume a
binary electrolyte with univalent ions and equal cation and anion diffusivities, whereas future
works will investigate the effect of more complex electrolyte solutions.
A conservation of species applied to anion or cation yields
∂ceff,i
∂J
= − i , ceff,i = pmA cmA,i + pmicmi,i
∂t
∂x

(2)

where pmi is the porosity of the electrode’s micropores. We combine Eqs. (1) and (2) to arrive
at salt and charge balance equations, given by
∂c eff
∂c
∂ 2cmA
= −v ⋅ mA + DmA ⋅
, c eff = pmA cmA + 21 pmicmi,ions
∂t
∂x
∂x 2
∂σ
∂ ⎛
∂φ ⎞
pmi ionic = 2 ⋅ DmA ⋅
⎜ cmA mA ⎟
∂t
∂x ⎝
∂x ⎠

(3)

where cmA is the macropore salt concentration (= cmA,+ = cmA,- by electroneutrality), cmi,ions is the
total ion concentration in the micropores (= cmi,+ + cmi,-), and σionic is the ionic micropore charge
(= cmi,+ - cmi,-).
Micropores in porous CDI electrodes are responsible for salt electrosorption and present a
highly confined geometry. One method for modeling the EDL structure within such confined
geometry is a Donnan or modified Donnan approach.21 In the Donnan approach, the potential
in the micropore volume is assumed to be constant, independent of the distance to the carbon
wall. Furthermore, assuming that ion transport between micropores and macropores (those at
the same x-position) is rapid and so transport across the electrode thickness is rate limiting,
Boltzmann’s law relates ion concentrations in micro- and macropore volumes,
cmi,i = cmA,i ⋅ exp (− zi ⋅ ΔφD + µatt )

(4)

where ΔφD is the (dimensionless) Donnan potential, defined as the potential within the volume
of micropores relative to that in adjacent macropores. An empirical ion attraction term µatt is
used which aids in fitting of the theory to data (µatt is assumed to be the same for both ions),
which is an inverse function of total micropore ions concentration, µ att = E / c ions,mi , with E a
constant micropore attraction energy.22 This approach has the advantage of relative
3

mathematical simplicity and a good fit of data to theory.20,22 More recent theories model the
EDL structure without the use of a term µatt, instead including charged surface groups in the
micropores, termed an amphoteric Donnan model.23 We here do not employ the latter
approach, which can be explored in a future work that also experimentally determines the
surface groups and surface group charge density in FTE micropores.
For the modified Donnan EDL model, mobile ionic charge in the micropores,
magnitude to the electronic charge,
micropore,

σ ionic + σ elec = 0 .

σ el ec

σ ionic ,

is equal in

, which resides in the carbon matrix surrounding the

When anode and cathode have the same size and microporosity, the

thickness-averaged electronic charge in one electrode is equal in magnitude to the average
electronic charge in the other electrode: σelec,A + σelec,C = 0 . In this case, we can relate the ionic
current density in the separator layer, Jch, to the averaged electrode charge as
pmi

∂ σ elec,j
∂t

=±

J ch
Lelec

(5)

where the sign, +/-, depends on the electrode. The EDL model is completed with the following
equations, solved together with the PDEs (Eqs. 3) at each x-position,

(

µatt
2
2
cions,
mi = σionic + 2cmA e

2

)

(6)

(

(

))

φ1 − φmA = ΔφD + ΔφS = − sinh−1 σionic / 2cmA eµatt − σionic ⋅ F / (CSVT )

where in the above equations, CS is the volumetric Stern layer capacitance, and φ1 is the solid
phase (carbon) potential. The cell voltage is Vcell = VT ⋅ (φ1,A − φ1,C ), where A and C refer to anode
and cathode.
For the spacer, we use Eqs. (3) with pmi = 0 and pmA replaced by psp. Note that the effective
diffusion coefficient is different in the electrode and spacer due pore structure differences, see
Table 1. At the electrode-spacer interface, x = le and x = le+lsp, where le is the electrode
thickness and lsp is the spacer thickness (see Fig 1a), the continuity of salt flux results in
DmA

∂cmA
∂x

= Dsp
x = le , le + lsp

.

∂csp
∂x

(7)

x = le , le + lsp

Because of continuity of the current, the current density across the spacer, Jch, is given by
Jch = −2Dspcsp

∂φsp
∂x

.

(8)

Eq. (8) can be integrated to yield
le + lsp

Jch ⋅

∫c

−1
sp

dx = −2Dsp ⋅ [φsp (x = l e + l sp ) − φsp (x = l e )].

(9)

le

4

To derive boundary conditions for the upstream end of our FTE CDI cell (x = 0), we begin with
a balance of salt applied to a long upstream reservoir,
⎤
∂ ⎡
∂cmA
⎢ ∫ cres dx ⎥ = v [c feed − cmA (x = 0)] + DmA
∂t ⎣res
∂x
⎦

.

(10)

x =0

Since the reservoir is long, the concentration at the upstream end of the reservoir is
unperturbed by the desalination process and remains fixed at the feed concentration, cfeed . In
Eq. 10, the integral in the left-hand side is over the length of the upstream reservoir, and cres is
the local concentration in the upstream reservoir. Eq. 10 takes into account the advection of salt
into and out of the reservoir, the diffusion of salt into the upstream electrode of the FTE CDI
cell, and local changes in concentration in the reservoir as a result of salt diffusion. A
concentration boundary layer forms in the reservoir at the upstream reservoir/electrode
interface due to the diffusion of salt into the salt-depleted electrode pore space. Taking the limit
of high Peclet number, Pe = vle/DmA >> 1, the concentration boundary layer thickness,δ,
becomes much smaller than the geometric length scale so that ε≡δ/le<<1. If we now restrict the
reservoir domain to only the boundary layer, we can scale Eq. 10 using c*≡c/cfeed, t*=t DmA/le2,
x*≡x/δ, to obtain
Pe −1

*
⎤ 1
∂ ⎡ *
*
(x = 0) + 2 1 ∂cmA*
c dx * ⎥ = 1 − cmA
* ⎢ ∫ res
∂t ⎣res
ε Pe ∂x
⎦ ε

[

.

]

(11)

x =0

The time scaling used in Eq. (11) is the characteristic timescale for desalination by a CDI
cell,24 as this desalination is what drives salt removal from the upstream reservoir. For Pe >> 1
and so ε << 1 (for our experimental cell, Pe ~ 25), we can neglect the left-hand side term in Eq.
(11). Thus, we obtain a simple boundary condition for concentration which we employ at the
upstream end of the model cell, x = 0,
0 = v [c feed − cmA (x = 0)] + DmA

∂cmA
∂x

.

(12)

x =0

On the downstream end of the cell (x = 2le + lsp), salt transport between the electrode and
downstream reservoir is due to advection and diffusion. Unlike at the upstream end, a thin
concentration boundary layer is not expected to form in the downstream reservoir. As a result,
for conditions of high Pe, diffusive flux of salt at the interface is much smaller than advective
flux. Thus, we here neglect the diffusive flux, and apply a boundary condition at the
downstream end of the cell of ∂cmA ∂x x=2l +l = 0 . The boundary conditions applied at the
e

sp

upstream and downstream ends of the cell for potential are

∂φmA ∂x x = 0,2l

e + lsp

= 0,

as no ionic

current leaves or enters the cell and we assumed equal ion diffusivities.
Finally, we also include in our model a mixing tank and a plug flow reactor downstream of
the cell in order to capture the effect of a significant excess volume before the conductivity
5

sensor (~1 mL for our experimental system, see Materials and methods section). In this
volume, mixing and dispersion can act to reduce concentration gradients, affecting cell effluent
concentration measurements. The model for the stirred tank after the cell is given by
tmix

∂ccs
= c (x = 2l e + l sp ) − ccs
∂t

(13)

where tmix is the average residence time in the mixing tank (given by its volume divided by
volumetric flow rate), and where ccs is the concentration as sensed by the conductivity sensor.
The plug flow reactor simply institutes a time-delay, tplug, of the effluent conductivity profile.

Figure 1: a) Schematic of the 1D model domain, which includes both electrodes and the spacer. b)
Schematic of the experimental FTE CDI cell used in this work, with cell dimensions provided in the
Materials and Methods section.

Table 1. List of model parameters and their values.
Model parameter
ρelec: electrode mass density
vmi: Specific volume of micropores
pmi: microporosity
psk: “carbon skeleton”
pmA: mAcroporosity
E: ion attraction energy
CS: Stern capacity
le: electrode thickness
lsp, psp: spacer thickness and porosity
uL,sup: superficial velocity
tpc-mv: mixing vessel retention time
tplug: plug flow reactor time
D∞: ion diffusivity
D: effective diffusion coefficients
τ: Tortuosity

Value
0.25 g/mL
0.55 mL/g (fitting parameter)
ρelec ⋅ vmi = 0.1375
ρelec / ρsk = 0.1316 (ρsk ~ 1.9 g/mL)
1-pmi-psk=0.7309
700 “kT”⋅mol/m3 (fitting parameter)
145 F/mL (fitting parameter)
500 µm
260 µm, 0.85
66.4 µm/s
60 s
15 s
D∞=(DNa+DCl)/2=1.68⋅10-9 m2/s
DmA=D∞⋅pmA/τmA, Dsp=D∞⋅psp/τsp
τmA/sp=1/pmA/sp1/2 (Bruggeman equation)

6

Materials and methods
The FTE CDI cell (Figure 1b) consists of a pair of commercial porous activated carbon
woven-fiber electrodes (ACC-507-15, Kynol Europa GmbH, ~500 μm thickness each, 1.75 ×
1.75 cm2). A porous separator (GE Life Sciences, Whatman GF/A borosilicate glass filter
paper, 260 μm thickness, 2.4 × 2.4 cm2) electronically isolates the electrodes. ePTFE gaskets
(W.L. Gore & Associates, Gore-Tex NSG16X-GP, 1.4 mm uncompressed thickness, 5 × 5
cm2) are used to seal the cell, while a laser-cut square in the gasket (1.55 × 1.55 cm2) permits
feedwater to pass through the electrodes and separator. The electrodes fit tightly into grooves
laser-cut on the aperture perimeter, preventing feedwater from leaking around the electrode
edges. The upstream negative current collector is milled from impervious graphite (FC-GR,
Graphitestore.com, Inc., Buffalo Grove, IL, USA), and the downstream positive collector is
milled from isomolded graphite (GM-10, Graphitestore.com). The current collectors both
contain an array of cylindrical channels (6 × 6 grid, 1.5 mm diameter, 3 mm length) that allow
water to pass through, and tabs to enable electrical contact with the voltage source. Water
reservoirs are created upstream and downstream of the collectors via two ePTFE gaskets on the
upstream side and a single ePTFE gasket and pyramidal contraction (the latter is ground by
hand with a Dremel cutting tool in the endplate on the downstream side). The downstream
reservoir components have a combined volume of ~0.5 mL. The cell terminates on either side
with endplates milled from PVDF (5 × 5 cm2) that each include one fluid flow line and one
vent that allows air removal from the cell. Effluent enters the outlet line with a tube volume
totaling 0.5 mL between the endplate and downstream conductivity sensor. The cell is sealed
with 8 bolts (M4 × 30 mm) tightened to 35 N·cm, which are electrically isolated from the
graphite current collectors via shrink tubing.
For desalination experiments, feedwater (NaCl 5 mM or 20 mM concentration) was drawn at
1 mL/min from a glass bulk reservoir by the peristaltic pump and fed into the CDI cell via
semi-rigid polyethylene tubing. The cell effluent was then fed into a conductivity cell (5-ring,
Metrohm, Inc., Switzerland) with a custom-milled insert to reduce the internal volume, and
then returned to the bulk reservoir. The bulk reservoir volume (~2 L) was significantly larger
than the volume of the rest of the setup (~20 mL) in order to maintain constant concentration in
the reservoir throughout experiments. During the charging half-cycle of the desalination
experiments, a constant voltage of between 0.2 and 1.2 V was applied to the cell by a voltage
source (SourceMeter 2400, Keithley Instruments, Inc., Solon, OH, USA), while during the
discharging half-cycle a cell voltage of 0 V was maintained.

7

25

10

a)

8

Eq-SAC (mg/g)

Charge (C/g)

20

b)

15

10

5

6

4

2

0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Vch (V)
0.8

1.2

1.4

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Vch (V)

1

1.2

1.4

c)

Charge Eff. Λ

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Vch (V)

1

1.2

1.4

Figure 2: Results of model-to-data fitting for several measured cell parameters at equilibrium including
a) charge stored, b) equilibrium salt adsorption capacity (eq-SAC), and c) charge efficiency, as function
of charging voltage Vch.

Results and Discussion
The first step towards comparison of data to the model is to fit equilibrium data of charge
stored and salt adsorption capacity (eq-SAC) to the equilibrium results of the model. Data was
taken with our custom-build FTE CDI cell operated in constant voltage mode, where the charge
half-cycle was continued until equilibrium. Equilibrium occurred when the effluent
concentration returned to the feed concentration and the current decreased to reach a steady
value (leakage current). Charge stored was obtained by integrating the cell’s current response
during the discharge half-cycle. Eq-SAC was obtained by integrating the difference between
feed and effluent concentration during the charge half-cycle, multiplied by the feed flow rate.
8

The results of the fitting are shown in Figure 2a and b, and as can be seen, model-to-data fitting
gave good agreement for fitting parameters of vmi = 0.55 g/mL, E = 700 kT⋅mol/m3 and
CS = 145 F/mL. These values are similar to those obtained from equilibrium model-to-data
fitting for other CDI electrode materials, though the value for E is at least twice higher than
previously reported.22,25 The latter may be due to slight variations in the micropore size of the
electrode material used here compared to those used previously, since the parameter E is
expected to scale as λp-4, where λp is micropore size.22 Figure 2c also shows a model-to-data
comparison for the equilibrium value of the parameter charge efficiency, which is defined as
the moles of salt stored in the electrodes to the moles of electrons stored. Charge efficiency of
our experimental cell varied from ~0.1 at a cell voltage of 0.2 V to roughly 0.7 at 1.2 V for the
case of 5 mM feed concentration, similar to the trends predicted by the model.
60

a)

data

I (mA)

20

20

charge

charge
0

0

discharge

discharge

-20

-20

-40

-40

-60

12

b)

theory
40

40

0

20

40

60

80

-60
0
100
12

10

8

8

discharge

4

40

charge

4

2

100

200

t (s)

300

400

500

d)

Vch = 1.2 V
cinflow = 5 mM

0
0

100

: c(x=2le+lsp)
: ccs

2

0

80

discharge

6

charge

60

theory

10

6

20

c)

data

ceffluent (mM)

60

0

100

200

300

t (s)

400

500

Figure 3: Comparison of model results to data for the charge half-cycle, cinflow=5 mM NaCl, and
Vch=1.2 V. a) and b) represent the comparison for current response of the CDI cell, while c) and d) are
for the cell effluent concentration. The red dashed lines in d) represent the effluent concentration
predicted by the model at the exit of the downstream electrode of the CDI cell.
9

After determining the fitting parameters from equilibrium model-to-data fitting, we could
compare dynamic model and data results, which is done in Figure 3 for the case of 5 mM NaCl
feedstream and Figure 4 for the case of 20 mM NaCl feedstream. In Figure 3 and 4, we can see
good qualitative agreement between model results and data when including the effect of the
downstream volume in our cell (Eq. 13). Good agreements are obtained for both the cell’s
current response (I, Fig 3a and b and 4a and b) and effluent concentration (ceffluent, Fig 3c and d
and 4c and d), and for both the charge and the discharge half-cycles.
60

a)

data
40

I (mA)

b)

theory
40

20

20

charge

charge

0

0

discharge

discharge

-20

-20

-40

-40

-60

-60
0

20

40

60

26

80

100

c)

data

24

ceffluent (mM)

60

0

20

40

26

60

80

100

d)

theory

24

22

22

discharge

20

discharge
20

charge

18

18

16

16

14

14

12

charge

: c(x=2le+lsp)
: ccs
Vch = 1.2 V
cinflow = 20 mM

12
0

100

200

t (s)

300

400

500

0

100

200

300

t (s)

400

500

Figure 4: Comparison of model results to data for the charge half-cycle, cinflow = 20 mM NaCl, and
Vch = 1.2 V. a) and b) represent the comparison for current response of the CDI cell, while c) and d) are
for the cell effluent concentration. The red dashed lines in d) represent the effluent concentration
predicted by the model at the exit of the downstream electrode of the CDI cell.

10

Also shown in Figure 3d and 4d is the predicted effluent concentration when not including
the effect of the downstream volume in the model (red lines), which shows sharper features and
poor comparison to the experimental data (Fig 3c and 4c). The latter demonstrates the
importance of accounting for the electrolyte volume and diffusion effects downstream of the
cell in predicting the effluent concentration at the location of the conductivity sensor. Further,
the results of Figs. 3 and 4 show that a 1D model can be used to predict experimental data from
FTE CDI cells. In FTE CDI cells, flow and electric field are parallel, unlike flow-between cells,
which necessarily require a 2D model as flow and electric field are perpendicular.

Conclusions
In conclusion, we present a model for flow-through electrode capacitive deionization (FTE
CDI) based on modified Donnan EDL structure model and porous electrode transport theory.
Although possessing similarities to models for flow-between CDI cells, our model was unique
in that a simple one-dimensional approach was able to capture experimental results, and simple
boundary conditions derived via scaling arguments were developed. Model-to-data
comparisons showed good qualitative agreement when including the effect of a significant
volume downstream of the cell. Future work can model other features important to desalination
by FTE CDI, such as pH variations in the cell effluent and the effects of charged surface groups
in porous electrodes.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge funding from the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures,
Energy and Water Resources.

References
1.

Suss, M. E. et al. Water desalination via capacitive deionization: what is it and what can
we expect from it? Energy Environ. Sci. 8, 2296–2319 (2015).

2.

Mirzadeh, M., Gibou, F. & Squires, T. M. Enhanced charging kinetics of porous
electrodes: Surface conduction as a short-circuit mechanism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113,
097701 (2014).

3.

Rica, R. A., Ziano, R., Salerno, D., Mantegazza, F. & Brogioli, D. Thermodynamic
relation between voltage-concentration dependence and salt adsorption in
electrochemical cells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 156103 (2012).

4.

Jeon, S. et al. Desalination via a new membrane capacitive deionization process utilizing
flow-electrodes. Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 1471–1475 (2013).
11

5.

Lee, J., Kim, S., Kim, C. & Yoon, J. Hybrid capacitive deionization to enhance the
desalination performance of capacitive techniques. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 3683–3689
(2014).

6.

Gao, X., Omosebi, A., Landon, J. & Liu, K. Surface charge enhanced carbon electrodes
for stable and efficient capacitive deionization using inverted adsorption–desorption
behavior. Energy Environ. Sci. 8, 897–909 (2015).

7.

Srimuk, P. et al. MXene as a novel intercalation-type pseudocapacitive cathode and
anode for capacitive deionization. J. Mater. Chem. A 4, 18265–18271 (2016).

8.

Suss, M. E. et al. Capacitive desalination with flow-through electrodes. Energy Environ.
Sci. 5, 9511–9519 (2012).

9.

Cohen, I., Avraham, E., Noked, M., Soffer, A. & Aurbach, D. Enhanced charge
efficiency in capacitive deionization achieved by surface-treated electrodes and by means
of a third electrode. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 19856–19863 (2011).

10.

Johnson, A. M. & Newman, J. Desalting by means of porous carbon electrodes. J.
Electrochem. Soc. 118, 510–517 (1971).

11.

Qu, Y. et al. Energy consumption analysis of constant voltage and constant current
operations in capacitive deionization. Desalination 400, 18–24 (2016).

12.

Cohen, I., Avraham, E., Bouhadana, Y., Soffer, A. & Aurbach, D. The effect of the flowregime, reversal of polarization, and oxygen on the long term stability in capacitive deionization processes. Electrochim. Acta 153, 106–114 (2015).

13.

Guyes, E. N., Simanovski, A. & Suss, M. E. Several orders of magnitude increase in
hydraulic permeability of flow-through capacitive deionization electrodes via laser
perforations. Submitted (2016).

14.

Biesheuvel, P. M., Hamelers, H. V. M. & Suss, M. E. Theory of water desalination by
porous electrodes with immobile chemical charge. Colloids Interface Sci. Commun. 9, 1–
5 (2015).

15.

Gabitto, J. & Tsouris, C. Volume averaging study of the capacitive deionization process
in homogeneous porous media. Transp. Porous Media 109, 61–80 (2015).

16.

Shocron, A. & Suss, M. E. The effect of surface transport on water desalination by
porous electrodes undergoing capacitive charging. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 084003
(2017).

17.

Tang, W., Kovalsky, P., Cao, B. & Waite, T. D. Investigation of fluoride removal from
low-salinity groundwater by single-pass constant-voltage capacitive deionization. Water
Res. 99, 112–121 (2016).

18.

Hemmatifar, A., Stadermann, M. & Santiago, J. G. Two-Dimensional Porous Electrode
Model for Capacitive Deionization. J. Phys. Chem. C 119, 24681–24694 (2015).

19.

Gao, X. et al. Complementary surface charge for enhanced capacitive deionization.
Water Res. 92, 275–282 (2016).
12

20.

Kim, T. et al. Enhanced charge efficiency and reduced energy use in capacitive
deionization by increasing the discharge voltage. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 446, 317–326
(2015).

21.

Biesheuvel, P. M., Fu, Y. & Bazant, M. Z. Electrochemistry and capacitive charging of
porous electrodes in asymmetric multicomponent electrolytes. Russ. J. Electrochem. 48,
580–592 (2012).

22.

Biesheuvel, P. M., Porada, S., Levi, M. & Bazant, M. Z. Attractive forces in microporous
carbon electrodes for capacitive deionization. J. Solid State Electrochem. 18, 1365–1376
(2014).

23.

Biesheuvel, P. M. Activated carbon is an electron-conducting amphoteric ion adsorbent.
arXiv Prepr. arXiv1509.06354 (2015).

24.

Biesheuvel, P. M. & Bazant, M. Z. Nonlinear dynamics of capacitive charging and
desalination by porous electrodes. Phys. Rev. E 81, 031502 (2010).

25.

Dykstra, J. E., Zhao, R., Biesheuvel, P. M. & Van der Wal, A. Resistance identification
and rational process design in Capacitive Deionization. Water Res. 88, 358–370 (2016).

13

