1. Pedro A. Palomino and *Treavor H. Boyer
AEESP 2011 Research and Education Conference University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
Tampa, FL July 12th, 2011 *PO Box 116450, Gainesville, FL 32611 ~ (352)846-3351 ~ thboyer@ufl.edu
Drive Peak Location DOC vs. Intensity SUVA vs. FI
3 10000 3.5 8
o Detailed monitoring is important in drinking water treatment,
Microbial FI = 2.1 Microbial FI
especially for new processes like magnetic ion exchange (MIEX). 7
Peaks Terrestrial 3 SUVA
o Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and specific ultraviolet 2.5
1000
DOC
Ichnetucknee Spring
absorbance at 254 nm (SUVA) are measured to determine MIEX 6
2.5
Fluorescence Index
SUVA (nm*L/mg C)
treatment efficiency. 2
Intensity (nm)
5
DOC (mg/L)
o Fluorescence spectroscopy has been shown to be an effective 100 2
technique to characterize dissolved organic matter (DOM) in 1.5 4
natural systems, but its use in drinking water applications is an
10 1.5
active area of research. 3
o The goal of this work is to develop improved monitoring techniques 1
1
for MIEX treatment. 2
1
1) Understand the shift in fluorescence peak location. 0.5
0.5 1
2) Compare DOC to fluorescence intensity.
3) Compare the SUVA to fluorescence index (FI). 0 0.1 0 0
Syn 1
Syn 2
Syn 3
Syn 4
SW 1
SW 2
GW 1
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
(a) Raw Source Waters
M: R2 = 0.54 (a) Raw Source Waters
FI = 1.6 Terrestrial Peak T: R2 = 0.15 R2 = 0.88
from Suwannee River
IHSS Isolate of NOM
3 10000 3.5 9
Microbial FI
8
2.5 Terrestrial 3 SUVA
1000
DOC 7
2.5
Fluorescence Index
SUVA (nm*L/mg C)
2 6
DOC (mg/L)
Intensity (nm)
100
2 5
1.5
10 1.5 4
1 3
1
1 2
0.5
0.5
Figure 1 – Fluorescence peak location shift after MIEX treatment Figure 4 – Contour EEMs of fluorescence standards 1
0 0.1 0 0
Syn 1
Syn 2
Syn 3
Syn 4
GW 1
SW 1
SW 2
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
Sampling and Analysis (b) Treated Source Waters
M: R2 = 0.74
T: R2 = 0.69
(b) Treated Source Waters R2 = 0.64
Figure 5 – DOC and fluorescence peak intensity for microbial and Figure 6 – SUVA and FI of both raw (a) and treated (b) samples
terrestrial regions of both raw (a) and treated (b) samples
Syn2-4
Syn1 L4 o Samples collected between
L1 L5 February 2009 and
January 2010.
Impact
GW1 SW2
o Sample sources include
SW1 landfills, surface water
SW1: Lake Jesup bodies and a groundwater Peak Location
SW2: St. Johns River L2-3
aquifer. (Figure 2) Fluorescence measurements could be a
Syn1: Santa Fe River o MIEX treatment alters DOM chemistry
Syn2-4: St. Mary’s River
o Analytical measurements
DOC vs. Intensity
better alternative for monitoring MIEX
include: UV254, DOC, and treatment efficiency.
GW1: Cedar Key GW fluorescence EEM. o Raw
L1: Alachua SW Landfill o Fluorescence is the o DOC: Synthetic < Ground < Surface < Waste
L2-3: Polk Landfill Models for predicting MIEX treatment efficiency
L4: New River Landfill
emission of light only o Terrestrial peaks’ intensity > Microbial peaks’ intensity
during the absorption of the with fluorescence spectroscopy
L5: Putnam Landfill o Treated
excitation light. (Figure 3) o DOC % Removal =
o Microbial peak intensity is better correlated to DOC
(1.24  Peak A Intensity % Removal) – 0.25
Figure 2 – Florida Sampling Map o MIEX preferentially removes the terrestrial component
R2 = 0.93
Figure 3 – Jablonski Energy Diagram
SUVA vs. FI
o SUVA % Removal =
(Johnson, Ian and Davidson, Michael. “Jablonski Energy o Raw SUVA: Synthetic < Surface < Ground < Waste
Acknowledgements (- 2.24 * FI % Removal) + 0.06
Diagram.” Microscopy Resource Center. Olympus o SUVA and FI are negatively correlated
Thanks to Jennifer Apell, Troy Chasteen, Sarah Deavenport, Katherine
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/java/jablonski/jabintro/ R2 = 0.61
Graf, Katie Indarawis, Stephanie Ishii, Christopher Rokicki, Paul
index.html)
Stevenson, and Krystal Walker for sample and data collection.