1. The method used to determine the membrane resistance (Rm) appears fundamentally flawed. You measured the potential difference with and without a membrane and subtracted the values to get the membrane resistance. However, membrane resistance is typically measured using a four-electrode setup with the membrane in a well-defined, specific salt concentration, not by a direct subtraction method that ignores the concentration gradient and the contribution of the solution boundary layers. Given that the literature you cite (Galama et al.) uses a different, more rigorous method, how do you justify that your subtraction method, particularly at low conductivities where the solution resistance is dominant, yields the true, intrinsic resistance of the membrane, and not a significant artifact from the changing solution resistance?
2. There is a critical inconsistency in the application of your calculated parameters to the mathematical model. The exchange current density (j0) and Tafel slope (b) were determined using sodium acetate (CH3COONa) as the electrolyte, yet the subsequent desalination experiments and model simulations were performed using sodium chloride (NaCl). Electrode kinetics are notoriously sensitive to the specific anion species due to differences in adsorption and the reactions involved (e.g., chlorine evolution vs. oxygen evolution). How can you justify applying kinetic parameters derived from an acetate solution to a model simulating chloride desalination? This seems to invalidate the claimed improvement in the model’s accuracy, as you are comparing a model with “real” parameters that are not actually real for the system under study.