| Literature DB >> 25400979 |
Zhen Ding1, Shifu Peng2, Yuqin Jin3, Zhoubin Xuan3, Xiaodong Chen1, Lihong Yin2.
Abstract
This study was conducted to obtain the basic data of two common odorants-geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol (GSM and 2-MIB)-in environmental water. More specifically, the headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled to gas chromatography mass spectrometry (HS-SPME/GC-MS) was applied to determine the levels of GSM and 2-MIB in water samples, and the samples were collected depending on water sources, conventional treatment processes, and seasons. The significant difference was shown for the 2-MIB levels of source water (P < 0.05), the concentrations of GSM and 2-MIB decreased significantly as treatment process of tap water moved forward (P < 0.0001), and the significant differences for the levels of GSM and 2-MIB were observed among three sampling periods (P < 0.01). The levels of GSM and 2-MIB in all water samples were lower than 10 ng L(-1), the odor threshold concentration (OTC), and the conventional treatment process plays a significant role in removing odorants in tap water.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25400979 PMCID: PMC4225844 DOI: 10.1155/2014/743924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1The conventional treatment process for tap water.
The statistical analysis of GSM levels in four cities (n = 60).
| City |
Raw water |
Output water |
End water | Comparative analysis in one city | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| A | 2.27 ± 1.45 | 0.22 ± 0.1 | 0.09 ± 0.04 | 7.07 | 0.0143 |
| B | 0.72 ± 0.17 | 0.21 ± 0.11 | 0.14 ± 0.09 | 26.08 | 0.0002 |
| C | 3.55 ± 0.66 | 0.56 ± 0.67 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 44.04 | <0.001 |
| D | 0.73 ± 0.18 | 0.18 ± 0.17 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 26.18 | 0.0001 |
|
| |||||
| Comparing among four cities | |||||
|
| 0.84 | 0.84 | 1.64 | ||
|
| 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.24 | ||
The statistical analysis of 2-MIB levels in four cities (n = 60).
| City |
Raw water |
Output water |
End water | Comparative analysis in one city | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| A | 7.56 ± 3.38 | 1.50 ± 0.57 | 0.46 ± 0.33 | 10.24 | 0.0062 |
| B | 7.59 ± 2.85 | 1.64 ± 1.27 | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 11.16 | 0.0156 |
| C | 6.52 ± 2.71 | 1.46 ± 0.70 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 17.31 | 0.0004 |
| D | 1.30 ± 1.02 | 0.36 ± 0.25 | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 2.43 | 0.1575 |
|
| |||||
| Comparing among four cities | |||||
|
| 6.46 | 1.91 | 2.56 | ||
|
| 0.0045 | 0.19 | 0.17 | ||
Water samples from different processes of tap water treatment (n = 20).
| Compound | Raw water | Coagulation and sediment | Filtration | Chlorination |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSM | 0.72 ± 0.17 | 0.56 ± 0.22 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.11 | 15.65 | <0.0001 |
| 2-MIB | 7.58 ± 2.85 | 1.96 ± 0.45 | 0.75 ± 0.86 | 1.63 ± 1.28 | 16.69 | <0.0001 |
Water samples from different seasons (n = 45).
| Compound | Water type | Normal levela
| Drought periodb
| Wet seasonc
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSM | Raw water | 4.25 ± 2.56 | 3.55 ± 0.66 | 7.61 ± 1.70 | 7.07 | 0.01 |
| Output water | 1.06 ± 0.41 | 0.56 ± 0.67 | 1.23 ± 1.03 | 0.85 | 0.46 | |
| End water | 0.18 ± 0.16 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.00 | 1.71 | 0.25 | |
|
| ||||||
| 2-MIB | Raw water | 5.12 ± 2.16 | 6.52 ± 2.71 | 10.17 ± 1.96 | 6.43 | 0.01 |
| Output water | 1.02 ± 0.33 | 1.46 ± 0.70 | 1.15 ± 0.49 | 0.89 | 0.43 | |
| End water | 0.63 ± 0.63 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 1.08 | 0.38 | |
Note: a, b, and c represent algal cell count in their raw waters, and their values were 6.21 m L−1, 3.34, and 11.42, respectively.