4.7 Article

Fluorescence characterization of cross flow ultrafiltration derived freshwater colloidal and dissolved organic matter

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 68, 期 7, 页码 1304-1311

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.01.048

关键词

colloidal and dissolved organic matter; cross flow ultrafiltration; fluorescence; tryptophan

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C510532/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

3-D fluorescence excitation-emission matrix (EEM) spectrophotometry was applied to investigate the fluorescence characterization of colloidal organic matter (COM) and truly dissolved organic matter (DOM) from an urban lake and a rural river fractionated by the cross flow ultrafiltration (CFUF) process with a 1 kDa membrane. Relatively high tryptophan-like fluorescence intensity is found in the urban water, although the fluorescence of both water samples is mainly dominated by humic/fulvic-like fluorophores. During CFUF processing, the fluorescence intensities of humic/fulvic-like materials in the retentate increased rapidly, but a slight increase is also observed in the permeate fluorescence intensity. Very different ultrafiltration behaviour occurred with respect to the tryptophan-like fluorophore, where both permeate and retentate fluorescence intensities increase substantially at the beginning of the CFUF process, then tend to remain constant at high concentration factor (cf) values. Comparison with tryptophan standards demonstrates that freshwater tryptophan-like fluorescence is not dissolved and 'free', but is, in part, colloidal and related to the ultrafiltration behaviour of fulvic/humic-like matter. A good linear relationship between the retentate humic/fulvic-like fluorescence intensity and organic carbon concentration further reveals that fluorescent humic/fulvic-like substances are the dominant contributors to colloidal organic carbon, mainly in the colloidal fraction. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据