EDI - Science topic

Electrodialysis is the closest cousin of capacitive deionization systems and has been successfully used for the desalination of brackish waters. But

CDI is novel, eco-friendly, economically and more flexible. CDI is mainly optimal for diluted or low concentration water.

In the electrodialysis system, inlet flow enters into membranes that are divided into two types of selective anionic and cationic membranes that are interspersed. The application of an electric field leads to the migration of anions and cations to the opposite pole, and through selective membranes, between the membranes, two distinct canals form one in between. One canal is associated with desalinating water, and in the other canal, thick water and salty water are formed. The biggest problem with electrodialysis systems is the use of selective anion and cation membranes, which are expensive to maintain or replace.

In capacitive deionization systems, the salty water passes through a canal, which has electrodes with a high contact surface. By applying the voltage, the ions are absorbed into the electric field at the electrode surface. As a result of this operation, the salinity of the water is reduced and fresh water is exited from another side of the system. To regenerate the electrodes, by reversing the applied voltage, the absorbed ions will be removed from the electrode surface and enter the water flow. This cycle can be repeated many times in capacitive deionization system.

Although you say it is new, I say it is just another recast of the same old thing. My personal experience is that your professional identity id ed pendent on yourself and your progression on the gatekeepers. The EDI role model approach or any other counts for nothing if you are faced with gatekeepers who do not want to include. It is, however, everything if your gatekeepers want to include. 

Countries are converging and so, emerging as a global village.

So useful -- exchange of data.

This is natural and exchange will increase in future for mutual benefits.

I believe that you may have done the calculation incorrectly, but I am not completely sure that I understand your questions. First, the Target Hazard Quotient is typically defined as a goal or decision criterion, and is often set to 1 (as a matter of policy, or the goals of the risk manager). The calculated HQ is compared to the THQ to determine whether or not the potential for noncancer effects warrants action and/or further analysis (e.g., above the THQ = bad). If the EDI is greater than the RfD, that means that the applied dose is above the reference dose, so the HQ should be greater than 1 (and, therefore, greater than the THQ). It could be that you flipped numerator and denominator and, if you did, you would be far from the first person to do that.

With regard to your second question, cancer risk is typically expressed as a probability (e.g., 1 in 100,000 excess risk of cancer) although one can certainly perform the calculation as an HQ (you could argue with risk assessors about that for a long time). That said, a cancer risk of 1 in a 100 should result in a very high HQ if you are using a target cancer risk of, say, 10^-6 since there is a three order of magnitude difference. This may be the same issue, namely, that you have inadvertently flipped numerator and denominator.

I would set up your equations with just the units and walk through it. That may reveal where the issue is with your calculation. Hope this was helpful.