UG 6<br />New insights to MIEX treatment:   Fluorescence spectra across synthetic, natural and waste waters<br />Pedro A. ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

New insights to MIEX treatment: Fluorescence across natural, synthetic, and waste waters

222 views
177 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
222
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New insights to MIEX treatment: Fluorescence across natural, synthetic, and waste waters

  1. 1. UG 6<br />New insights to MIEX treatment: Fluorescence spectra across synthetic, natural and waste waters<br />Pedro A. Palomino and Treavor H. BoyerUniversity of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences<br />Drive<br />Excitation – Emission Spectra<br />Impact<br />With groundwater resources decreasing, surface water will become a necessary source for many drinking water utilities. This technology can improve the characterization and thus removal processes of NOM.<br />NOM mobilizes metals, pesticides and pharmaceuticals through water ways. NOM prevent light penetration in water bodies.<br />Fluorescence spectroscopy is a common method of analyzing the characteristics of natural organic matter (NOM) (see Fig. 1) in water samples. NOM is a major concern of surface withdrawing water plants due to the formation of disinfection <br />Table 1 - EM/EX Fulvic Acid max peak locations and intensities for all sources waters. Note: Polk and Alachua Landfills also exhibited a peak in the Tyrosine region with EM: 340 nm, EX: 225 nm and Intensity: 1.032 nm and 1.482 nm, respectively. <br />by-products. Still, due to the complexity of NOM, the data produced by fluorescence spectroscopy, such as excitation-emission matrices (EEMs), are not fully understood. The goal of this work is to better characterize NOM. The specific objectives are to understand (1) the difference in EEMs across different sources and DOC values and (2) <br />Fig. 1 – Structure <br />of NOM<br />Putnam Landfill<br />Santa Fe River<br />Polk Landfill<br />Cedar Key Groundwater<br />Looking Forward<br />Fig 2 – Location of EEM peaks based on literature reports <br />Sampling and Analyzing<br />Raw<br />Treated<br />Samples were collected between 2/09 and 1/10 from landfills, surface water bodies and groundwater aquifer (see Fig. 3). They were analyzed on a F-2500 Fluorescence Spectrophotometer (see Fig. 4)<br />Polk Landfill<br />Lake Jesup<br />Fig 6 – Raw sample of St. Johns River and a treated sample with a 10 mL/L Miex-Cl dose <br />Fig 5 – EEM contour and surface plots for 5 raw water samples<br />Fig 4 – Fluorescence Analyses<br />Fig. 3 – <br />Sampling Map<br />EES Poster Symposium, March 27, 2010<br />

×