1	Using Fluorescence, Size Exclusion Chromatography, and Ultraviolet Spectrometry to Characterize Changes in Natural Organic Matter During Water Treatment
2	Disinfection/Oxidation Inactivates pathogenic microorganisms As an oxidant Taste/Odor control Removal of color- Natural organic matter (NOM) Oxidation of inorganic cpds Disadvantages Formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) Human and ecological health concern
3	Conventional Water Treatment
4	Natural Organic Matter Humic substances- produced within natural water and sediments by natural processes Heterogeneous-Aromatics/Aliphatics Nonhumic substances- carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids/proteins. Location and climate drives NOM characteristics
5	NOM Characterization Total organic carbon (TOC) Ultraviolet spectroscopy Fluorescence Size Exclusion Chromatography
6	Fluorescence
7	Size Exclusion Chromatography
8	Problem Statement The character of NOM is being changed with oxidant addition DBPs biofoulants Each oxidant will possibly offer a unique fingerprint signature. Relative to the oxidant demand.
9	Study Objectives Evaluate the use of SEC and fluorescence for characterizing NOM changes after oxidation
10	Approach Bench-scaled jar testing to simulate water treatment. Coagulant Alum- 100 mg/L Four represented oxidants KMnO4- 1.4 mg/L Cl2- 3.0 mg/L ClO2 – 3.5 mg/L O3- 0.5:1 TOC 2 water matrices Rapid Mix: 250 rpms for 3 min Floccuation taper 1: 30 rpms for 10 min. Flocculation taper 2: 20 rpms for 10 min Flocculation taper 3: 10 rpms for 10 min Sedimentation: 0 rpms for 90 min
11
12	Mt. Orab Sample Matrix
13
14	NOM Fluorescence All EEMs revealed two fluorophores, characteristic of fulvic acids. Occurring within ~425-450 nm emission spectra (depending on oxidation) According to literature review, microbial derived NOM has lower emission maxima than terrestrial.
15
16
17
18
19	Mt. Orab Coagulation/Sedimentation
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33	Mt. Orab Summary Discernable order in oxidative effects on fluorescence Ozone-Best (‘Knocked the Snot out of it’) ClO2- Very Good Cl2- Good KMnO4-Not as great as the rest Coagulation/Sedimentation played substantial role in NOM removal. Same order observed in Settled water samples SEC is a less sensitive measure of oxidative effects.
34	Tampa Bay Sample Matrix
35
36
37
38
39	"What about Ultraviolet spectroscopy?" What about Ultraviolet spectroscopy?
40	Ultraviolet Spectrometry/TOC of TB
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51	TB Summary Same patternized order of oxidation observed Coagulation/Flocculation removed greater percentage of TOC in TB matrix Small difference in fluorophore emission in KMnO4 sample compared to no oxidant
52	Conclusions Coagulation/Flocculation/Sedimentation removed a substantial amount of NOM seen in SEC, UV and Fluorescence results Implication for moving point of disinfectant/oxidant in water treatment NOM availability during treatment process Dosing oxidants at post-sedimentation yielded enhanced oxidation of NOM Greatest reduction fluorescence seen in ClO2 and O3
53	Comparing Raw and Settled ClO2 Treated Waters
54	"Preliminary data suggests that SEC..." Preliminary data suggests that SEC may be problematic for correlation to Fluorescence EEM. Eluent, mass balance, hydrophobic interactions, lag. (Mt. Orab) Preliminary data also suggests that UV can serve a good oxidative monitoring instrument. Detects all doubles bonds, not as selective. Pilot run
55	Barely Scratching the Surface Peak signatures are not fully understood and identified. Need to differentiate b/w humic and nonhumic cpds. The identification of functional groups of NOM can help better understand the transformation NOM oxidation undergoes. Quantification of remaining NOM, transformed NOM/DPB yield needs to be addressed.