Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 990

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fluorescence as a potential monitoring tool for recycled water systems: A review

Open access
Henderson, R.K., Baker, A., Murphy, K.R., Hambly, A., Stuetz, R.M., Khan, S.J.·2009·Water Research

Abstract

A rapid, highly sensitive and selective detector is urgently required to detect contamination events in recycled water systems - for example, cross-connection events in dual reticulation pipes that recycle advanced treated sewage effluent - as existing technologies, including total organic carbon and conductivity monitoring, cannot always provide the sensitivity required. Fluorescence spectroscopy has been suggested as a potential monitoring tool given its high sensitivity and selectivity. A review of recent literature demonstrates that by monitoring the fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (DOM), the ratios of humic-like (Peak C) and protein-like (Peak T) fluorescence peaks can be used to identify trace sewage contamination in river waters and estuaries, a situation analogous to contamination detection in recycled water systems. Additionally, strong correlations have been shown between Peak T and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in rivers, which is indicative of water impacted by microbial activity and therefore of sewage impacted systems. Hence, this review concludes that the sensitive detection of contamination events in recycled water systems may be achieved by monitoring Peak T and/or Peak C fluorescence. However, in such systems, effluent is treated to a high standard resulting in much lower DOM concentrations and the impact of these advanced treatment processes on Peaks T and C fluorescence is largely unknown and requires investigation. This review has highlighted that further work is also required to determine (a) the stability and distinctiveness of recycled water fluorescence in relation to the treatment processes utilised, (b) the impact of matrix effects, particularly the impact of oxidation, (c) calibration issues for online monitoring, and (d) the advanced data analytical techniques required, if any, to improve detection of contamination events.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.027

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

See all 990

Metadata

Authors
Henderson, R. K., Baker, A., Murphy, K. R., Hambly, A., Stuetz, R. M., & Khan, S. J.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
863-881
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025721714
Cited by
990
References
68
FWCI
56.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fluorescence as a potential monitoring tool for recycled water systems: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.027
The paper
Henderson, R. K., Baker, A., Murphy, K. R., Hambly, A., Stuetz, R. M., & Khan, S. J. (2009). Fluorescence as a potential monitoring tool for recycled water systems: A review. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.027

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.