Dissolved organic matter in bovine slaughterhouse wastewater using fluorescence spectroscopy associated with CP/PARAFAC and PCA methods

Murillo Cruz Matos; Amanda Maria Tadini; Fernando Rodrigues da Conceição; Amilcar Machulek Junior; Carlos Renato Menegatti; Stéphane Mounier; Anderson Rodrigues Lima Caires; Gustavo Nicolodelli

doi:10.1364/AO.461746

Applied Optics
Vol. 61,
Issue 22,
pp. 6590-6598
(2022)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.461746

Dissolved organic matter in bovine slaughterhouse wastewater using fluorescence spectroscopy associated with CP/PARAFAC and PCA methods

Murillo Cruz Matos, Amanda Maria Tadini, Fernando Rodrigues da Conceição, Amilcar Machulek Junior, Carlos Renato Menegatti, Stéphane Mounier, Anderson Rodrigues Lima Caires, and Gustavo Nicolodelli

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Murillo Cruz Matos, Amanda Maria Tadini, Fernando Rodrigues da Conceição, Amilcar Machulek Junior, Carlos Renato Menegatti, Stéphane Mounier, Anderson Rodrigues Lima Caires, and Gustavo Nicolodelli, "Dissolved organic matter in bovine slaughterhouse wastewater using fluorescence spectroscopy associated with CP/PARAFAC and PCA methods," Appl. Opt. 61, 6590-6598 (2022)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Abstract

In this work, we evaluated the potential application of fluorescence spectroscopy, associated with the canonical polyadic/parallel factor analysis and principal component analysis, to monitor the dissolved organic matter (DOM) generated from a slaughterhouse industry. During the monitoring process, we analyzed the residual water at the entrance and exit sites of the slaughterhouse effluent treatment as well as downstream and upstream the effluent receiving water body of a local river. The results revealed that the fluorescence analysis was able to identify proteins, chlorophylls, and humic substances at the entrance and exit sites of the slaughterhouse treatment plant and humic substances at the river water bodies. Our data also demonstrated that the industrial effluent discharged into the river did not impact the receiving water body quality as determined by the biological and humification indices obtained by fluorescence analysis, which was confirmed by conventional physicochemical analysis. In summary, the present findings indicate that fluorescence spectroscopy, in association with multivariate analysis, can be successfully applied as an analytical tool for evaluating the quality of DOM in slaughterhouse wastewater.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Design and daytime performance of laser-induced fluorescence spectrum lidar for simultaneous detection of multiple components, dissolved organic matter, phycocyanin, and chlorophyll in river water

Yasunori Saito, Kei Kakuda, Mizuho Yokoyama, Tomoki Kubota, Takayuki Tomida, and Ho-Dong Park
Appl. Opt. 55(24) 6727-6734 (2016)

Chlorophyll biomass in the global oceans: airborne lidar retrieval using fluorescence of both chlorophyll and chromophoric dissolved organic matter

Frank E. Hoge, Paul E. Lyon, C. Wayne Wright, Robert N. Swift, and James K. Yungel
Appl. Opt. 44(14) 2857-2862 (2005)

Collection of excitation-emission-matrix fluorescence of aerosol-candidate-substances and its application to fluorescence lidar monitoring

Yasunori Saito, Tetsuya Hosokawa, and Koichi Shiraishi
Appl. Opt. 61(3) 653-660 (2022)

Previous Article Next Article

Supplementary Material (1)

Name	Description
Supplement 1	supplemental materials

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (6)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (2)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Parameters	Conc.	Dissolved Organic Total ( $D O C . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( $B O D . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Chemical Oxygen Demand ( $C O D . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Total Phosphorus ( $T P . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Ammoniacal nitrogen ( ${N H}_{3} - N . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Total Nitrogrn ( $T N . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Oils and Greasesv ( $m g L^{- 1}$ )	Solids Total ( $m g L^{- 1}$ )	pH
Entrance	Min	449.3	1,670.0	4,450.0	17.4	10.2	21.0	88.5	2,752.0	6.6
	Max	466.7	2,340.0	4,722.0	21.6	89.5	145.5	437.0	3,518.0	8.1
	Avg	$458 \pm 9$	$1, 955 \pm 257$ ^b	$4, 590 \pm 93$ ^b	$19 \pm 2$ ^b	$57 \pm 31$ ^b	$92 \pm 47$ ^b	$253 \pm 123$ ^b	$3, 227 \pm 316$ ^b	$7.1 \pm 0.7$ ^b
Exit	Min	188.1	251.8	640.0	13.8	6.2	15.1	48.5	2,331.0	7.0
	Max	194.1	1,770.0	3,928.0	23.0	91.4	119.0	170.4	3,619.0	8.8
	Avg	$191 \pm 3$	$792 \pm 652$ ^b	$1, 867 \pm 1, 374$ ^b	$18 \pm 3$ ^b	$36 \pm 37$ ^b	$52 \pm 44$ ^b	$96 \pm 49$ ^b	$2, 875 \pm 496$ ^b	$8.2 \pm 0.8$ ^b
Upstream	Min	13.4	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.1	0.3	^a	$< 10.0$	160.0	7.0
	Max	14.0	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.5	0.4	^a	$< 10.0$	293.0	7.6
	Avg	$13.8 \pm 0.3$	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	$0.2 \pm 0.2$ ^b	$0.3 \pm 0.1$ ^b	^a	$< 10.0$	$207 \pm 57$ ^b	$7.3 \pm 0.2$ ^b
Downstream	Min	20.9	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.1	0.3	^a	$< 10.0$	175.0	4.8
	Max	23.0	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.6	0.4	^a	$< 10.0$	314.0	7.4
	Avg	$22 \pm 1$	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	$0.3 \pm 0.2$ ^b	$0.36 \pm 0.04$ ^b	^a	$< 10.0$	$224 \pm 60$ ^b	$6.5 \pm 1.1$ ^b

	Jan/21		Feb/21		Mar/21
Samples	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)
Entrance	$1.12 \pm 0.08$	$29, 173 \pm 925$	$1.2 \pm 0.4$	$32, 824 \pm 510$	$1.65 \pm 0.06$	$21, 945 \pm 430$
Exit	$0.96 \pm 0.01$	$36, 195 \pm 1102$	$0.9 \pm 0.2$	$97, 330 \pm 625$	$1.08 \pm 0.03$	$45, 627 \pm 1857$
Upstream	$0.56 \pm 0.02$	$17, 529 \pm 1102$	$0.63 \pm 0.04$	$22, 188 \pm 1863$	$0.58 \pm 0.00$	$17, 100 \pm 594$
Downstream	$0.58 \pm 0.01$	$18, 797 \pm 990$	$0.67 \pm 0.03$	$22, 657 \pm 370$	$0.59 \pm 0.05$	$16, 081 \pm 516$

Parameters	Conc.	Dissolved Organic Total ( $D O C . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( $B O D . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Chemical Oxygen Demand ( $C O D . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Total Phosphorus ( $T P . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Ammoniacal nitrogen ( ${N H}_{3} - N . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Total Nitrogrn ( $T N . m g L^{- 1}$ )	Oils and Greasesv ( $m g L^{- 1}$ )	Solids Total ( $m g L^{- 1}$ )	pH
Entrance	Min	449.3	1,670.0	4,450.0	17.4	10.2	21.0	88.5	2,752.0	6.6
	Max	466.7	2,340.0	4,722.0	21.6	89.5	145.5	437.0	3,518.0	8.1
	Avg	$458 \pm 9$	$1, 955 \pm 257$ ^b	$4, 590 \pm 93$ ^b	$19 \pm 2$ ^b	$57 \pm 31$ ^b	$92 \pm 47$ ^b	$253 \pm 123$ ^b	$3, 227 \pm 316$ ^b	$7.1 \pm 0.7$ ^b
Exit	Min	188.1	251.8	640.0	13.8	6.2	15.1	48.5	2,331.0	7.0
	Max	194.1	1,770.0	3,928.0	23.0	91.4	119.0	170.4	3,619.0	8.8
	Avg	$191 \pm 3$	$792 \pm 652$ ^b	$1, 867 \pm 1, 374$ ^b	$18 \pm 3$ ^b	$36 \pm 37$ ^b	$52 \pm 44$ ^b	$96 \pm 49$ ^b	$2, 875 \pm 496$ ^b	$8.2 \pm 0.8$ ^b
Upstream	Min	13.4	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.1	0.3	^a	$< 10.0$	160.0	7.0
	Max	14.0	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.5	0.4	^a	$< 10.0$	293.0	7.6
	Avg	$13.8 \pm 0.3$	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	$0.2 \pm 0.2$ ^b	$0.3 \pm 0.1$ ^b	^a	$< 10.0$	$207 \pm 57$ ^b	$7.3 \pm 0.2$ ^b
Downstream	Min	20.9	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.1	0.3	^a	$< 10.0$	175.0	4.8
	Max	23.0	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	0.6	0.4	^a	$< 10.0$	314.0	7.4
	Avg	$22 \pm 1$	$< 1.5$	$< 3.0$	$0.3 \pm 0.2$ ^b	$0.36 \pm 0.04$ ^b	^a	$< 10.0$	$224 \pm 60$ ^b	$6.5 \pm 1.1$ ^b

	Jan/21		Feb/21		Mar/21
Samples	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)	BIX	Humification Index (a. u.)
Entrance	$1.12 \pm 0.08$	$29, 173 \pm 925$	$1.2 \pm 0.4$	$32, 824 \pm 510$	$1.65 \pm 0.06$	$21, 945 \pm 430$
Exit	$0.96 \pm 0.01$	$36, 195 \pm 1102$	$0.9 \pm 0.2$	$97, 330 \pm 625$	$1.08 \pm 0.03$	$45, 627 \pm 1857$
Upstream	$0.56 \pm 0.02$	$17, 529 \pm 1102$	$0.63 \pm 0.04$	$22, 188 \pm 1863$	$0.58 \pm 0.00$	$17, 100 \pm 594$
Downstream	$0.58 \pm 0.01$	$18, 797 \pm 990$	$0.67 \pm 0.03$	$22, 657 \pm 370$	$0.59 \pm 0.05$	$16, 081 \pm 516$

Carlos Renato Menegatti	https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1282-3381
Anderson Rodrigues Lima Caires	https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2602-9480

Abstract

Supplementary Material (1)

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (6)

Tables (2)

Applied Optics