Cited by 312Mass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsWastewater Treatment and ReuseWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis

Molecular characterization of effluent organic matter identified by ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry

Gonsior, Michael, Zwartjes, Matthew, Cooper, William J., Song, Weihua, Ishida, Kenneth P., Tseng, Linda Y., Jeung, Matthew K., Rosso, Diego +2 more·2011·Water Research

Abstract

Effluent dissolved organic matter (EfOM) collected from the secondary-treated wastewater of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) located in Fountain Valley, California, USA was compared to natural organic matter collected from the Suwannee River (SRNOM), Florida using ultrahigh resolution electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICR-MS). Furthermore, the two different treatment processes at OCSD, activated sludge and trickling filter, were separately investigated. The blend of these two effluents was further evaluated after it had passed through the microfiltration process of the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) at Orange County Water District (OCWD). EfOM contained 872 different m/z peaks that were unambiguously assigned to exact molecular formulae containing a single sulfur atom and carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms (CHOS formulae). In contrast, the SRNOM sample only contained 152 CHOS formulae. The trend in CHO molecular compositions was opposite with 2500 CHO formulae assigned for SRNOM but only about 1000 for EfOM. The CHOS-derived mass peaks with highest abundances in EfOM could be attributed to surfactants such as linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (LAS), their co-products dialkyl tetralin sulfonates (DATS) and their biodegraded metabolites such as sulfophenyl carboxylic acids (SPC). The differences between the treatments were found minor with greater differences between sampling dates than treatment method…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2011.03.016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonsior, M., Zwartjes, M., Cooper, W. J., Song, W., Ishida, K. P., Tseng, L. Y., Jeung, M. K., Rosso, D., Hertkorn, N., & Schmitt-Kopplin, P.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Gonsior, Michael
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
45
Issue
9
Pages
2943-2953
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093576128
Cited by
312
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Water Reuse Foundation
  • WRF-08-11
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
wastewater treatment, activated sludge, biotrickling filter, molecular composition, linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, surfactants, microfiltration, Suwannee River natural organic matter, molecular characterization
MeSH terms
Alkanesulfonates, California, Carboxylic Acids, Environmental Monitoring, Florida, Fourier Analysis, Humic Substances, Mass Spectrometry, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Alkanesulfonic Acids

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