Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Peak Location
Sampling and Analysis
Pedro A. Palomino and *Treavor H. Boyer University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
*PO Box 116450, Gainesville, FL 32611 ~ (352)846-3351 ~ [email protected]
Impact
Drive DOC vs. Intensity SUVA vs. FI
Figure 2 – Florida Sampling Map
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
SW 1
SW 2
Syn
1
Syn
2
Syn
3
Syn
4
GW
1 L 1
L 2
L 3
L 4
L 5
DO
C (
mg
/L)
Inte
nsi
ty (
nm
)
Treated Source Waters
MicrobialTerrestrialDOC
M: R2 = 0.74
T: R2 = 0.69
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
SW 1
SW 2
Syn
1
Syn
2
Syn
3
Syn
4
GW
1 L 1
L 2
L 3
L 4
L 5
DO
C (
mg
/L)
Inte
nsi
ty (
nm
)
Raw Source Waters
MicrobialTerrestrialDOC
M: R2 = 0.54
T: R2 = 0.15 (a)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
SUV
A (
nm
*L/
mg
C)
Flu
ore
sce
nce
Ind
ex
Raw Source Waters
FISUVA
R2 = 0.88
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
SUV
A (
nm
*L/
mg
C)
Flu
ore
sce
nce
Ind
ex
Treated Source Waters
FI
SUVA
(b)
o Detailed monitoring is important in drinking water treatment,
especially for new processes like magnetic ion exchange (MIEX).
o Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and specific ultraviolet
absorbance at 254 nm (SUVA) are measured to determine MIEX
treatment efficiency.
o Fluorescence spectroscopy has been shown to be an effective
technique to characterize dissolved organic matter (DOM) in
natural systems, but its use in drinking water applications is an
active area of research.
o The goal of this work is to develop improved monitoring techniques
for MIEX treatment.
1) Understand the shift in fluorescence peak location.
2) Compare DOC to fluorescence intensity.
3) Compare the SUVA to fluorescence index (FI).
o Samples collected between
February 2009 and
January 2010.
o Sample sources include
landfills, surface water
bodies and a groundwater
aquifer. (Figure 2)
o Analytical measurements
include: UV254, DOC, and
fluorescence EEM.
o Fluorescence is the
emission of light only
during the absorption of the
excitation light. (Figure 3)
Syn2-4
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
L4
L5
SW2
SW1
L2-3
GW1 L1
Syn1
Figure 1 – Fluorescence peak location shift after MIEX treatment
Ichn
etu
ckne
e S
pri
ng
IH
SS
Isola
te o
f N
OM
fro
m S
uw
an
ne
e R
ive
r
Microbial
Peaks
Terrestrial Peak
FI = 2.1
FI = 1.6
Figure 4 – Contour EEMs of fluorescence standards
Figure 5 – DOC and fluorescence peak intensity for microbial and
terrestrial regions of both raw (a) and treated (b) samples
Figure 6 – SUVA and FI of both raw (a) and treated (b) samples
Peak Location
o MIEX treatment alters DOM chemistry
DOC vs. Intensity
o Raw
o DOC: Synthetic < Ground < Surface < Waste
o Terrestrial peaks’ intensity > Microbial peaks’ intensity
o Treated
o Microbial peak intensity is better correlated to DOC
o MIEX preferentially removes the terrestrial component
SUVA vs. FI
o Raw SUVA: Synthetic < Surface < Ground < Waste
o SUVA and FI are negatively correlated
Fluorescence measurements could be a
better alternative for monitoring MIEX
treatment efficiency.
Figure 3 – Jablonski Energy Diagram
(Johnson, Ian and Davidson, Michael. “Jablonski Energy
Diagram.” Microscopy Resource Center. Olympus
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/java/jablonski/jabintro/
index.html)
AEESP 2011 Research and Education Conference
Tampa, FL July 12th, 2011
R2 = 0.64
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jennifer Apell, Troy Chasteen, Sarah Deavenport, Katherine
Graf, Katie Indarawis, Stephanie Ishii, Christopher Rokicki, Paul
Stevenson, and Krystal Walker for sample and data collection.
(b)
(a)
Models for predicting MIEX treatment efficiency
with fluorescence spectroscopy
o DOC % Removal =
(1.24 Peak A Intensity % Removal) – 0.25
R2 = 0.93
o SUVA % Removal =
(- 2.24 * FI % Removal) + 0.06
R2 = 0.61
