Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Fluorescence as a surrogate measurement of MIEX treatment efficiency
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Fluorescence as a surrogate measurement of MIEX treatment efficiency

361

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
361
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Fluorescence as a Surrogate Measurement of MIEX Treatment Efficiency
    Pedro A. Palomino and Treavor H. BoyerUniversity of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
    Peak Location
    Drive
    DOC vs. Intensity
    SUVA vs. FI
    Growing populations are stressing water supplies in many parts of the world. As a result, alternative water sources must be incorporated to meet demand. Dissolved organic matter (DOM) is a major concern in alternative water sources because of the formation of disinfection by-products. With the development of new treatment technologies, such as magnetic ion exchange (MIEX) resin, detailed monitoring is important to understand the treatment efficiency of DOM.
    In practice, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and specific ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm (SUVA) are measured to determine MIEX treatment efficiency. Fluorescence spectroscopy has been shown to be an effective technique to characterize DOM, while its use in drinking water processes is an active research area. (Figure 1)
    Several waters were studied to explore the differences among the source characteristics and treatability. The goal of this work is to better characterize DOM to improve treatability. The specific objectives are to (1)understand the shift in fluorescence peak location, (2)compare DOC to fluorescence intensity, and (3) compare the SUVA to fluorescence index (FI).
    Microbial
    Terrestrial
    FI = 1.6
    FI = 2.1
    IHSS Isolate of NOM from Suwannee River
    Ichnetucknee Spring
    Figure 4 – Fluorescence standards
    Rayleigh Line
    Figure 5 – Fluorescence peak location shift after MIEX treatment
    Figure 1 – Location of EEM peaks based on literature review
    (Chen, W.; Westerhoff, P.; Leenheer, J.A.; Booksh, K. Environmental Science and Technology. 2003, 37, 5701 – 5710)
    Sampling and Analysis
    Samples were collected between 2/09 and 1/10 from landfills, surface water bodies and a groundwater aquifer. (Figure 2) They were analyzed on a F-2500 Fluorescence Spectrophotometer. (Figure 3) MatLab programs were developed in house to analyze fluorescence data.
    Sample Cell
    Figure 6 – DOC and fluorescence peak intensity for microbial and terrestrial regions of both raw and treated samples
    Figure 7 – SUVA and FI of both raw and treated samples
    Syn2-4
    L4
    Syn1
    Photo Detector
    L5
    L1
    Impact
    SW2
    GW1
    SW1
    Emission Monochromator
    SW1: Lake Jesup
    SW2: St. Johns River
    Syn1: Santa Fe River
    Syn2-4: St. Mary’s River
    GW1: Cedar Key GW
    L1: Alachua SW Landfill
    L2-3: Polk Landfill
    L4: New River Landfill
    L5: Putnam Landfill
    L2-3
    Excitation Monochromator
    Peak Location
    • MIEX treatment alters DOM chemistry
    DOC vs. Intensity
    • Raw
    • 2. DOC: Synthetic < Ground < Surface < Waste
    • 3. Terrestrial peaks’ intensity > Microbial peaks’ intensity
    • 4. Treated
    • 5. Microbial peak intensity is better correlated (Table 1)
    • 6. MIEX preferentially removes the terrestrial component
    SUVA vs. FI
    • Raw SUVA: Synthetic < Surface < Ground < Waste
    • 7. SUVA and FI are negatively correlated (Table 2)
    Fig 3 – Fluorescence Spectrophotometer
    Table 1 – Correlation between microbial and terrestrial peak intensities versus the raw and treated DOC values
    Xenon Lamp
    Figure 3 – Fluorescence Spectrophotometer Schematic
    Table 2 – Correlation between SUVA and FI value for raw and treated samples
    Figure 2 – Florida Sampling Map
    Acknowledgements
    Thanks to all the students (Stephanie, Sara, Katie, Troy, Paul, Katie, Chris, Krystal, and Jennifer) in Dr. Treavor Boyer’s research group for sample and data collection.
    Fluorescence measurements could be a better alternative for monitoring MIEX treatment efficiency.

×