Evaluation of the anthropogenic Evaluation of the anthropogenic - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

Evaluation of the anthropogenic Evaluation of the anthropogenic impact on surface water systems: impact on surface water systems: case of Lower Arges Basin, case of Lower Arges Basin, Romania Romania

Elfrida M. Carstea*, Gabriela Pavelescu*, Cristian Ioja** and Elfrida M. Carstea*, Gabriela Pavelescu*, Cristian Ioja** and Luminita Cristescu* Luminita Cristescu*

* National Institute of R&D for Optoelectronics, Magurele, RO * National Institute of R&D for Optoelectronics, Magurele, RO-

• 077125, Romania

077125, Romania (E (E-

• mail:

mail: frida@inoe.inoe.ro frida@inoe.inoe.ro; ; gpavel@inoe.inoe.ro gpavel@inoe.inoe.ro; ; cristescu@inoe.inoe.ro cristescu@inoe.inoe.ro) ) ** University of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research an ** University of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact, d Impact, Bucharest, Romania (E Bucharest, Romania (E-

• mail:

mail: cristi@portiledefier.ro cristi@portiledefier.ro) )

Purpose of the study

• Evaluate the degree of contamination with sewage

water:

• Bucharest sewage water
• NO wastewater treatment facility
• Potential to use fluorescence spectroscopy for

sewage water detection

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Fluorescence spectroscopy – pros & cons

• Fast
• Sensitive
• Small quantities of sample
• No sample pretreatment
• Correlates with standard

methods

• Qualitative
• Influenced by external

factors

• Only organic

contamination

No continuous monitoring fluorescence – based instrument

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Principles of fluorescence

Absorption 10-15 s Internal conversion 10-12 s

• Excitation spectra are mirror images of the emission spectra
• Emission has lower energy compared to absorption

S0 S1 S2

Fluorescence 10-9 s

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Fluorescence spectra

• Emission spectrum
• Excitation spectrum
• Synchronous fluorescence spectrum
• Excitation – emission matrix

abscissa – excitation wavelength

• rdinati - emission wavelength
• Synchronous fluorescence map

250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Intensity (a.u.) Wavelength (nm) Polluted water

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

300 350 400 450 500 50 100 150 200 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 50 100 150 200 250 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 50 100 150 200 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 50 100 150 200 250 300 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 100 200 300 400 500 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 100 200 300 400 500 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 20 40 60 80 100 120 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 20 40 60 80 100 120 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 20 40 60 80 100 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) 300 350 400 450 500 200 400 600 800 1000 Wavelength (nm) Intensity (a.u.) W a v e l e n g t h ( n m ) Wavelength (nm) 200.00 225.00 250.00 275.00 300.00 325.00 350.00 375.00 400.00

300.00 325.00 350.00 375.00 400.00 425.00 450.00 475.00 500.00 962.48 887.43 812.38 737.33 662.28 587.23 512.18 437.13 362.09 287.04 211.99 136.94 61.89

• 13.16

Fluorescence spectra

• Excitation 300 nm

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

SLIDE 2

Natural Organic Matter (NOM)

• comprises the decay products of animal and plant matter.
• NOM:
• Autochthonous – microbially derived
• Allochthonous – terestrially derived

Natural Organic Matter Dissolved Organic Matter Particulate Organic Matter

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Natural Organic Matter (NOM)

Dissolved Organic Matter Proteins Humic substances Tryptophan Tyrosine Phenylalanine Fulvic acid Humic acid

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Methodology

NO water treatment facility

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Methodology

• 1 – Sabar River
• 2 – Colibasi on Arges

River

• 3 – Hotarele on Arges

River

• 4 – Budesti on Dambovita

River

• 5 – Soldanu on Arges

River

• 6 – Clatesti on Arges

River

• 7 – Sampling point on

Danube

• 8 –Dambovita River
• 9 –Dambovita River

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Methodology

• Q

Q-

• switched

switched YAG:Nd YAG:Nd Laser Laser

• Second, third, forth harmonics

Second, third, forth harmonics

• 10 Hz repetition rate

10 Hz repetition rate

• 4

4-

• 6 ns pulse duration

6 ns pulse duration

• Samples taken every

season

• Measured within 24 h

from collection

• Preserved at aprox. 40 C
• Spectrofluorimeter

Spectrofluorimeter PerkinElmer LS 55 PerkinElmer LS 55

• Portable spectrograph Ocean Optics USB2000

Portable spectrograph Ocean Optics USB2000– – FL FL

• Pulsed light source Xenon PX

Pulsed light source Xenon PX-

• 2.

2.

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Results

250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Intensity (a.u.) Wavelength (nm) Polluted water

300 350 400 450 500 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Intensity (a.u.) Wavelength (nm)

Sabar Hotarele Colibasi Clatesti Budesti (morning) Budesti (noon)

February 2007

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

SLIDE 3

Results

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Results

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Results

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Hourly evaluation Seasonal evaluation

Results

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions

Conclusions

• Significant contamination with wastewater discharged from Bucharest, especially

at Budesti.

• An hourly organic matter trend connected to increased human activity in

morning and afternoon hours.

• The usefulness of fluorescence spectroscopy in the

quick evaluation of pollution for the water management (Amelene)

Introduction Methodology Results Conclusions