4.8 Article

Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter in Municipal Wastewater Using Fluorescence PARAFAC Analysis and Chromatography Multi-Excitation/Emission Scan: A Comparative Study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 2603-2609

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es404624q

关键词

-

资金

  1. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
  2. National Science Foundation of China [51178215, 51290282, 51308283]
  3. Jiangsu Nature Science Fund for Distinguished Scientists, P. R. China [BK2011032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in municipal wastewater was mainly characterized using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and size exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) with multi-excitation/emission fluorescence scan. Meanwhile, fluorescence excitation emission-matrix combined with parallel factor analysis (EEM-PARAFAC) was also applied. Compared with chromatography fluorescence fingerprints, the EEM-PARAFAC model could not reflect the variety of DOM species with similar fluorescence but different physicochemical properties. The chromatography results showed that the protein-like species were variable among different municipal wastewater treatment plants, some of which are in combination with humic-like species; while there were two major humic-like species fractionated by hydrophilicity and molecular weight (MW), which are also the major contributors to UV absorbance at 254 nm. It was also identified that the relatively hydrophilic humic fractions were slightly larger than the relatively hydrophobic humic fractions. In all the investigated wastewater treatment plants, the relatively hydrophilic and larger MW humic fraction mainly contributed to the fluorescence intensity of humic-like EEM-PARAFAC components. As well as facilitating interpretations of EEM-PARAFAC components, the HPLC/HPSEC fluorescence fingerprints also contributed to a better understanding of fluorescent DOM species in municipal wastewater.

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

4.8
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