Supporting Information

Portable Seawater Desalination System for Generating Drinkable Water

in Remote Locations

Junghyo Yoona, Hyukjin J. Kwona, SungKu Kangb, Eric Brack c,*, and Jongyoon Hana,*

a
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington
Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
c
U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) - Soldier Center, 10
General Greene Ave, Natick, MA 01760, USA

*Corresponding authors.
E-mail address: eric.m.brack.civ@army.mil (E. Brack) and jyhan@mit.edu (J. Han)

S1
List of Supporting Information
S1. Development of the predictive model with machine learning .................................................. 4
S2. Various configurations of multistage electromembrane process and prediction of optimized
operating system and condition ...................................................................................................... 6
S3. Portable desalination unit ......................................................................................................... 7
Figure S1. (a) The change in current utilization of ICP (CUICP) as a function of current on the
system (I) with respect to the change flow rate of diluate stream (𝑄𝐼𝐶𝑃, 𝐷). (b) The voltage drop
by electrode pair (Velec). ................................................................................................................ 8
Figure S2. Experiment set up and result of (a) ICP and (b) ED. .................................................... 9
Figure S3. (a) An example of a 2-stage electromembrane process. (b) The intermediate responses
to be identified for the efficient evaluation of the configuration. ................................................. 10
Figure S4. The overall process of machine learning model construction and its utilization to predict
Vcell and SD: (a) Data collection via simple single-stage ICP and ED experiments; (b) training
machine learning model using the experimental data; (c) utilization of machine learning model to
predict intermediate response and ultimately overall performance of a multi-layer stacked
desalination device. ....................................................................................................................... 10
Figure S5. The detailed schematic diagram of three proposed configurations of multistage
electromembrane process, +nICP, nICP, and nICP/ED................................................................ 11
Figure S6. The flow chart to obtain EPIR for the corresponding N-stage electromembrane process.
....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure S7. Various multistage configurations and corresponding energy per ion removal (EPIR).
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure S8. (a) The change in EPIR of 2ICP/ED as a function of the number of cells for stage 1
(mS1) and stage 2 (mS2). The change in EPIR as a function of (b) mS1, (c) mS2, and (d) Qsys, D.
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure S9. The change in salinity of outlets and the salt removal rate (SRRate) of each stage in the
2ICP/ED process as a function of (a) mS1, (b) mS2, and (c) Qsys, D. ........................................ 13
Figure S10. The change in (a) actually applied and theoretically required currents and the linear
regression curve for the applied current and (b) SEC per salt removal (SECsalt, kWh/kg) to produce
drinking water as a function of feed salinity. ................................................................................ 14
Figure S11. The properties, (a) size and (b) zeta potential, of total suspended solids (TSS, formazin
particles.) ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure S12. The suspended solids removal by single-stage ICP (1ICP), two-stage ICP (2ICP), and
2ICP/ED. The gray shaded area indicates the range of crystal-clear water (< 1 NTU). ............... 14
Figure S13. DESAL controller. (a) The flowchart illustrates the operating process of the DESAL
controller. (b) The image of DESAL controller and connected status screen and buttons. .......... 15
Figure S14. The electric circuit diagram of the DC buck converters with feedback control. (b) and
(c) are output voltages as a function of resistance controlled by the microcontroller. ................. 16

S2
Figure S15. The captured image of a smartphone. (a) The main page includes buttons for real-time
control and shows the current power and salinity of product flow. The graphs in (b) and (c) show
the data collected during the run time. .......................................................................................... 16
Figure S16. The schematic diagram of the fluid flow configuration of the 2ICP/ED module. .... 17
Table S1. The specification of commercialized portable reverse osmosis product. ..................... 18
Table S2. The RMSE and standard deviation with predicted data by various types of machine
learning algorithms. ...................................................................................................................... 18
Table S3. NRMSE: Mean (Standard Deviation)........................................................................... 19
Table S4. The standard conditions for multistage electromembrane process. .............................. 19
Table S5. The number of sets to evaluate the scalability of production rate. ............................... 19
Table S6. The composition of feed, brine, and product water. ..................................................... 20
Table S7. The technical parameters for power consumption. ....................................................... 20

S3
S1. Development of the predictive model with machine learning
In this work, the overall performance (i.e., salt removal ratio (SRR) and energy per ion
removal (EPIR)) of an n-stage electromembrane process is predicted based on the intermediate
responses (e.g., output voltage and diluate salinity from the experiment results with a single-stage
ED cell or a single-stage ICP cell, Figure S2.)
Figure S3 shows an example of a 2-stage configuration (single-stage ICP with single-stage
ED for the end process), and the intermediate responses used to evaluate the overall performance.
EPIR and voltage drop of the system (𝑉!"! ) are calculated by the following equations:
IV#$# /Q #$#,&
EPIR =
zk ' T( (S#$#,) − S#$#,& )
/
V#$# = V*+*, + C m-. ∙ V-.
.01

where 𝑄!"!,2 is the diluate flow rate of the system. k ' T( is thermal energy (=2.479 kJ/mol, k ' is
the Boltzmann constant, and T0 (= 298.15 K) is the room temperature, respectively. 𝑆!"!,3 (=
35 g/L) and 𝑆!"!,2 (≈ 0.5 g/L) are the salinity of feed and diluate streams of the system,
respectively. 𝑛 is the number of stages of the system. 𝑚 is the number of cells for the nth-stage.
Specifically, to evaluate the performance of the 2-stage electromembrane process in Figure S3a, it
is necessary to identify the intermediate responses V*+*, , V-1 P= V456,,*++ Q, V-7 (= V8& ), 𝑆91,2 P=
𝑆456,& Q, and 𝑆-7,& P= 𝑆8&,& Q. To predict the intermediate responses in an arbitrary condition, we
define the functions 𝑓, 𝑔, ℎ, 𝑗, and 𝑘, which represent the intermediate response based on sets of
input parameters as follows and shown in Figure S3b.
Input Output
Function expression
parameters parameters
𝑉!"!# = 𝑓$𝐼$%$ & 𝐼$%$ 𝑉!"!#
𝑉&',#!"" = 𝑔$𝐼$%$ , 𝑆&',) , 𝑄&',#!"",' & 𝐼$%$ , 𝑆&',) , 𝑄&',#!"",' 𝑉&',#!""
𝑉*+,,#!"" = ℎ$𝐼$%$ , 𝑆*+,,) , 𝑄*+,,#!"",' , 𝑄*+,,#!"",+ & 𝐼$%$ , 𝑆*+,,) , 𝑄*+,,#!"",' , 𝑄*+,,#!"",+ 𝑉*+,,#!""
𝑆&',' = 𝑗$𝐼$%$ , 𝑆&',) , 𝑄&',#!"",' & 𝐼$%$ , 𝑆&',) , 𝑄&',#!"",' 𝑆&','
𝑆*+,,' = 𝑘$𝐼$%$ , 𝑆*+,,) , 𝑄*+,,#!"",' , 𝑄*+,,#!"",+ & 𝐼$%$ , 𝑆*+,,) , 𝑄*+,,#!"",' , 𝑄*+,,#!"",+ 𝑆*+,,'
In this work, we used machine learning models to approximate the functions 𝑓, 𝑔, ℎ, 𝑗, 𝑘,
such that one can efficiently predict the performance of a multi-layer stacked desalination device,
as shown in Figure S3a. Figure S4 shows the overall process of machine learning model
construction and its utilization to predict V,*++ and 𝑆& . First, experimental data (i.e., pairs of
independent variables and a response variable) are collected via single-stage experiments. Then a
machine learning model is trained using the experimental data to approximate a function
representing the intermediate response (i.e., f, g, h, j, or k), such that it can predict the intermediate
response for an arbitrary condition. Lastly, using a set of machine learning models, intermediate
responses are predicted to evaluate the overall performance of an arbitrary desalination multistage
configuration. This contributes to efficiently filtering out un-promising configurations, such that
physical experiments for different configurations can be performed in a significantly narrowed-
down design space. It should be noted that this approach is founded upon the assumption that the
interactions between stacked stages for multistage process, due to the change in current

S4
distribution, do not significantly affect the overall performance of the multistage process. For the
case where the interactions between stacked stages are not negligible, it is necessary to model the
interactions as well to obtain precise prediction results.
In this work, several machine learning algorithms have been tested and compared with linear
interpolation/extrapolation using single-cell experiments (12 measurements for 𝑉:;:<. , 81
measurements from ED cell, and 263 measurements from ICP cell).

Table S2 and Table S3 present the mean and standard deviation of root mean square error
(RMSE) and normalized RMSE (NRMSE) of the algorithms, derived through 20 repetitions of 5-
fold cross-validation for each setting. Here, NRMSE is derived by dividing RMSE with the range
of observation values (i.e., experimental values), which represents a fraction of the overall range
resolved by the model (Table S3). The configuration for each algorithm is as follows:

• Support Vector Regression:

o Kernel function 𝐾(𝑥, 𝑥′) = 𝑥 > 𝑥′ ··· Linear function
• Gaussian Process Regression:
o Basis function 𝐻(𝑋) = [1, 𝑋] ··· Linear function
(A! BAC! )"
o Kernel function 𝐾(𝑥, 𝑥′) = 𝜎?7 exp a−b∑FG01 "
E!
d ··· Exponential function
kernel with automatic relevance determination (ARD), where
§ 𝜎? : Standard deviation of the response
§ 𝑑: The number of independent variables where 𝑚 = 1,2, … 𝑑
§ 𝜎G : Separate length scale for each independent variable
• Feedforward Network:
o 2 hidden layers where the number of hidden nodes is tuned via Bayesian
optimization.

The results imply that linear interpolation/extrapolation can predict the intermediate
responses following a simple linear trend ( V*+*, , 𝑆456,& , and 𝑆8&,& ), but machine learning
algorithms can provide more reliable results in predicting the intermediate responses with more
complex behavior (V8& and V456,,*++ ). Considering the complexity of the underlying physical
process, we assume that machine learning algorithms will provide better predictability than
interpolation/extrapolation in most cases. This advantage justifies the use of machine learning
algorithms to predict an optimal configuration of desalination devices. In this work, we used
Gaussian process regression to narrow down the design space for physical experiments, as it
provided the most reliable and accurate results. However, as the size of the dataset is relatively
small to train an artificial neural network, we believe an artificial neural network-based algorithm
can outperform Gaussian process regression, in case there are enough amount of training data.

S5
S2. Various configurations of multistage electromembrane process and prediction of optimized
operating system and condition
Three configurations of multistage electromembrane process are suggested in Figure S5: (i)
serial connection of n ICP processes with individual electrode pairs (+nICP), (ii) sequential stack
of n ICP processes between one electrode pair (nICP), and (iii) sequential stack of n ICP processes
with 1 cell of ED at the last stage (nICP/ED). It is necessary to set standard conditions for EPIR
analysis since there are countless flow rate conditions and the number of cells to be evaluated. The
standard conditions are described in Table S4. Figure S6 shows the flow chart to obtain EPIR of
n-stage electromembrane process. The corresponding EPIR values up to n=4 are calculated in
Figure S7. The EPIR of +2ICP (= 226) and +3ICP (= 207) decreases by ~ 42% and ~39%,
respectively, compared to that of 1ICP (= 534). This is because +nICP facilitates an operation with
lower EPIR for each stage (Figure S2), even though +nICP entails a loss of diluate stream from
the previous stage. The change in EPIR of +nICP starts to increase from +4ICP. The second
configuration, nICP, allows eliminating additional EPIR of the electrode (EPIRelec) in +nICP due
to the sequentially stacked stages between one pair of electrodes. The EPIRelec of 3ICP (= 30)
reduces by ~33% compared to that of +3ICP (= 91). The third configuration, nICP/ED, allows for
a further reduction of EPIR, minimizing EPIR at 2ICP/ED (= 127). The decrease in EPIR can be
explained in two ways by comparing 3ICP and 2ICP/ED. 2ICP/ED has an equivalent number of
the stage with 3ICP, but the recovery rate of 2ICP/ED (= 25%) is higher than that of 3ICP (=
12.5%) because the dilaute and concentrate streams from the second ICP stage are reused in ED.
In addition, in ICP, thicker diffusion layers from concentrate and diluate streams may lead to an
undesired internal mixing or a desalted flow leakage because concentrated and diluate streams
appear in the same spacer. The deployment of ED spacer in the end-stage allows avoiding the
problems arising from ICP because two streams are separated by ion-exchange membrane,
providing complete desalination.

Figure S8a shows the change in EPIR of 2ICP/ED in stages 1 (m-1 ) and 2 (m-7 ). The two
minimal points in EPIR for m-1 and m-7 (Figure S8b and c) represent an overall minimal EPIR
(= 109.3 with m#1 = 10 and m#7 = 4) within a certain range of m-1 and m-7 values (110% of
minimum EPIR with 6 < m#1 < 16 and 2 < m#7 < 6), where the most energy-efficient operating
conditions exist. Based on these results, we can reduce the cases in which we have to evaluate with
the experiment to m#1 < 16 and m#7 < 6. In addition, it is found that the optimal flow rate of
𝑄!"!,2 is observed around 5 ml/m, providing an approximate flow rate range (𝑄!"!,2 < 10 ml/m)
to be evaluated experimentally (Figure S8d).

S6
S3. Portable desalination unit
We designed and prototyped a portable desalination unit. For the portable unit, we assembled
the following components are assembled in a hard case with a size of 420 ⨉ 335 ⨉ 190 mm3
(AxiGear, US): a 114 Wh Li-Ion battery (Portable Power Bank 30Ah, Baseus 65W, Baseus,
China), a 2ICP/ED module, a diaphragm pump (a16061400ux0550, Uxcell, US) for feed (inflow
pump), a double head peristaltic pump (G328D, Aibecy, US) for diluate and concentrate outflows
(outflow pump), a TDS sensor (KS0429, Keyestudio, US), and a customized DESAL controller
including control and monitoring systems as well as a user-friendly mobile interface.
Figure S13a shows a flowchart illustrating the operational process of the DESAL controller.
The DESAL controller is designed to allow various power sources by adopting the USB-C power
delivery (PD) protocol. The ESP32 (Espressif Systems, China), which is a low-cost and low-power
system on a chip microcontroller with integrated Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, was used for the DESAL
controller enabling smartphone access in a real-time manner. A DC buck converter (MP1584EN,
MPS, USA) is used to power the 2ICP/ED module and two pumps, and the voltage and current are
measured with a digital potentiometer (AD8400, Analog Device, USA). The salinity of product
flow is monitored by the TDS sensor. The DESAL controller has a power switch and a start/stop
button, with a display showing the salinity, power consumption, and status of the desalination
procedure for the intuitive control. As shown in Figure S13b, each component of the DESAL
controller is compactly assembled with a dimension of 90 mm ⨉ 60 mm ⨉ 25 mm. It has a power
connector for the 2ICP/ED module and pumps and pins for the buttons and status screen. We can
turn on the briefcase desalination unit by pressing the power button and starting the initializing
stage. Then, the desalting stage is initiated by pressing the start button on the unit or the
smartphone. In the desalting stage, the DESAL controller automatically executes the flushing
process for the 2ICP/ED module with a maximum power of 11 V for both pumps. After that, the
voltage of the outflow pump is lowered to 3.25V, so that the production rate reaches 0.33 L/h. For
the 2ICP/ED module, the voltage is applied with a 0.5V step from 0.5V to 7.5V. Each step is
allowed to reach a steady state for 20 seconds to achieve better stability. Once the salinity reaches
the drinking level (<0.6 g/L), the controller notifies the message, “Drinking”, on the screen and
smartphone. It was programmed by open-source software (ESPHome).
To generate the stable and constant voltage output for the 2ICP/ED module and two pumps,
the DC buck converters with feedback control were used as shown in Figure S14a. To control the
voltage output by the microprocessor, we modified the DC buck converter’s circuit, where the
voltage divider is, for the feedback control. The upper resistor was replaced with a fixed resistor
and the bottom resistor was replaced by a digital potentiometer. The digital potentiometer was
connected to the microcontroller with I2C protocol, and thus each voltage output is controlled by
the microcontroller by controlling the resistance of the digital potentiometer. Graphs in Figure
S14b and c are output voltages as a function of resistance controlled by the microcontroller. The
digital potentiometers in the range of 0 ~ 100kΩ and 0 ~ 50kΩ were used for the voltage output of
the 2ICP/ED and the two pumps, respectively. The output voltage is inversely proportional to the
resistance of the potentiometer because the bottom resistor varies.
The DESAL controller can be connected to the network through WI-FI. To connect the
briefcase-style desalination unit over the internet or smartphone, open-source IoT software (Home
Assistant) was used, and for the real-time graph, an open-source-based graphing tool (Grafana)

S7
was used. Figure S15 shows the captured image of a smartphone for real-time control and data
collection.

Supporting figures

Figure S1. (a) The change in current utilization of ICP (CU456 ) as a function of current on the
system (I) with respect to the change flow rate of diluate stream (𝑄HIJ,2 ). (b) The voltage drop by
electrode pair (V*+*, ).

S8
Figure S2. Experiment set up and result of (a) ICP and (b) ED.

S9
Figure S3. (a) An example of a 2-stage electromembrane process. (b) The intermediate responses
to be identified for the efficient evaluation of the configuration.

Figure S4. The overall process of machine learning model construction and its utilization to
predict V,*++ and S& : (a) Data collection via simple single-stage ICP and ED experiments; (b)
training machine learning model using the experimental data; (c) utilization of machine learning
model to predict intermediate response and ultimately overall performance of a multi-layer stacked
desalination device.

S10
Figure S5. The detailed schematic diagram of three proposed configurations of multistage
electromembrane process, +nICP, nICP, and nICP/ED.

Figure S6. The flow chart to obtain EPIR for the corresponding N-stage electromembrane process.

S11
Figure S7. Various multistage configurations and corresponding energy per ion removal (EPIR).

Figure S8. (a) The change in EPIR of 2ICP/ED as a function of the number of cells for stage 1
(m-1 ) and stage 2 (m-7 ). The change in EPIR as a function of (b) m-1 , (c) m-7 , and (d) Q #$#,& .

S12
Figure S9. The change in salinity of outlets and the salt removal rate (SRRate) of each stage in
the 2ICP/ED process as a function of (a) m-1 , (b) m-7 , and (c) Q #$#,& .

S13
Figure S10. The change in (a) actually applied and theoretically required currents and the linear
regression curve for the applied current and (b) SEC per salt removal (SECsalt, kWh/kg) to produce
drinking water as a function of feed salinity.

Figure S11. The properties, (a) size and (b) zeta potential, of total suspended solids (TSS, formazin
particles.)

Figure S12. The suspended solids removal by single-stage ICP (1ICP), two-stage ICP (2ICP),
and 2ICP/ED. The gray shaded area indicates the range of crystal-clear water (< 1 NTU).

S14
Figure S13. DESAL controller. (a) The flowchart illustrates the operating process of the DESAL
controller. (b) The image of DESAL controller and connected status screen and buttons.

S15
 Figure S14. The electric circuit diagram of the DC buck converters with feedback control. (b)
and (c) are output voltages as a function of resistance controlled by the microcontroller.

Figure S15. The captured image of a smartphone. (a) The main page includes buttons for real-
time control and shows the current power and salinity of product flow. The graphs in (b) and (c)
show the data collected during the run time.

S16
Figure S16. The schematic diagram of the fluid flow configuration of the 2ICP/ED module.

S17
Supporting tables
Table S1. The specification of commercialized portable reverse osmosis product.
Production Power Dimension Weight
Model Ref.
rate (L/h) (Energy efficiency) 3
(cm ) (kg)

410 W
Naked Economy Pump: 47 ⨉ 23 ⨉ 24,
30 24 3
RO, Rainman (13.67 Wh/L) RO: 117 ⨉ 22 ⨉ 12

VENTURA 150, 108 W

24 4 components 27.7 4
SPECTRA (4.50 Wh/L)

110 W
Aquifer 200,
31.54 79 ⨉ 52 ⨉ 40 27.7 5
SPECTRA (3.49 Wh/L)

326.4 W
SW150, Ampac 23.6 55.9 ⨉ 48.26 ⨉ 40.64 62 6
(13.82 Wh/L)

Table S2. The RMSE and standard deviation with predicted data by various types of machine
learning algorithms.
V*+*, V8& V456,,*++ 𝑆456,& 𝑆8&,&

Linear
0.02293 0.6489 0.0782 0.3734 0.2634
interpolation/extrapo
(0.00307) (0.0874)* (0.0113)* (0.0321) (0.0273)
lation

Support Vector 0.04832 0.9996 0.2469 1.4442 1.3277

Regression (0.00429) (0.0453) (0.0091) (0.0154) (0.0348)

Gaussian Process 0.032037 0.488054 0.053289 0.387986 0.272528

Regression (0.004078) (0.031550) (0.006149) (0.027490) (0.017488)

Feedforward 0.058602 0.507195 0.0738 1.0460 0.3512

Network (0.045070) (0.162779) (0.0147) (1.0093) (0.2904)

* Note: Extrapolation failed for 13-14% of data on average, which makes it difficult to generalize
the results.

S18
Table S3. NRMSE: Mean (Standard Deviation)
V*+*, V8& V456,,*++ 𝑆456,& 𝑆8&,&

Linear
0.0075 0.7440 0.2633 0.0166 0.0269
interpolation/extrapo
(0.0011) (0.1165)* (0.0376)* (0.001406) (0.0029)
lation

Support Vector 0.0157 1.0254 0.8026 0.0640 0.1353

Regression (0.0018) (0.0872) (0.0451) (0.0008) (0.0042)

Gaussian Process 0.018125 0.078611 0.022499 0.008976 0.011034

Regression (0.002307) (0.005082) (0.002596) (0.000636) (0.000708)

Feedforward 0.0185 0.5466 0.2484 0.0456 0.0362

Network (0.0141) (0.1630) (0.0518) (0.0431) (0.0326)

* Note: Extrapolation failed for 13-14% of data on average, which makes it difficult to
generalize the results.

Table S4. The standard conditions for multistage electromembrane process.

Symbol Condition
𝑄!"!,2 5 ml/m
K
𝑄!"!,3 2 × 𝑄!"!,2
𝑆!"!,2 < 0.5 g/L, > 0.48 g/L
𝑆!"!,3 35 g/L
Recovery rate of ICP process 50 %
The cell number of nth ICP process 3 ∙ 2KB1

Table S5. The number of sets to evaluate the scalability of production rate.
Number of sets 1 set 2 sets 3 sets
m-. 6 12 18
m-/ 3 6 9
m-0 1 2 3
𝑄-1-,2 0.33 L/h 0.67 L/h 1.00 L/h
Weight ~ 3.6 kg ~ 4.5 kg ~ 5.4 kg
Size
31 cm ⨉ 15cm 31 cm ⨉ 15cm 31 cm ⨉ 15cm
(Length⨉Wide
⨉7.7cm ⨉10.7cm ⨉13.6cm
⨉Thickness)

S19
Table S6. The composition of feed, brine, and product water.
Feed
Standard
Solute (Seawater from Brine Product water
seawater [10]
Carson beach)
Cl 19261.9 19228.0 19606.0 114.2
Na 10730.9 10027.5 10237.5 149.5
S 2699.6 2704.3 2834.3 204.5
Mg 1277.7 1137.0 1155.8 24.1
Ca 410.2 369.6 392.9 5.1
K 397.2 678.7 688.8 2.8
B 27.3 2.7 2.7 2.4
Sr 7.9 3.8 4.0 0.1
Sum 34812.6 34151.6 34921.9 502.7

Table S7. The technical parameters for power consumption.

Component Voltage Current Power consumption Ref.
Microcontroller (ESP32) 3.3 V 20 ~ 25 mA 66 ~ 82.5 mW 7
Potentiometer (AD8400) 3.3 V N.A 27.5 µW * 3 EA 8
TDS sensor (KS0429) 3.3 V 3~6 mA 9.9 ~ 19.8 mW 9
Total 76.0 ~ 102.5 mW

SI References
1. Yoon, Junghyo, Vu Q. Do, Van-Sang Pham, and Jongyoon Han. "Return flow ion
concentration polarization desalination: A new way to enhance electromembrane desalination."
Water research 159 (2019): 501-510.
2. Kim, Bumjoo, Hyukjin Kwon, Sung Hee Ko, Geunbae Lim, and Jongyoon Han. "Partial
desalination of hypersaline brine by lab-scale ion concentration polarization device." Desalination
412 (2017): 20-31.
3. Rainman 12 Volt DC (Electric) Water Maker. Enjoy fresh water anywhere., (n.d.).
https://www.rainmandesal.com/12vdc-watermaker/ (accessed June 10, 2021).
4. Ventura 150, (n.d.). https://www.spectrawatermakers.com/us/us/11123-ventura-150
(accessed June 10, 2021).
5. Aquifer 200 DC, (n.d.). https://www.spectrawatermakers.com/us/us/11139-aquifer-
200#product-description (accessed June 10, 2021).

S20
6. Portable Emergency Seawater Desalination Watermaker 150GPD | 560LPD, (n.d.).
https://www.ampac1.com/portable-emergency-seawater-desalination-watermaker-150gpd-
560lpd-sw150.html (accessed June 10, 2021).
7. ESP32 Series - Data sheet, (n.d.).
https://www.espressif.com/sites/default/files/documentation/esp32_datasheet_en.pdf (accessed
June 10, 2021).
8. Analog Device - Digital Potentiometers, (n.d.).
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD8400_8402_8403.pdf
(accessed June 10, 2021).
9. KS0429 keyestudio TDS Meter V1.0 - Keyestudio Wiki, (n.d.).
https://wiki.keyestudio.com/KS0429_keyestudio_TDS_Meter_V1.0 (accessed June 10, 2021).
10. Millero, Frank J., Rainer Feistel, Daniel G. Wright, and Trevor J. McDougall. "The
composition of Standard Seawater and the definition of the Reference-Composition Salinity
Scale." Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 55, no. 1 (2008): 50-72.

S21