Journal of Geographical Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 473–479 | Cite as

Fluorescence characteristics of water soluble organic carbon in eastern China

  • Zhang Jia-fnshen
  • Tao Shu
  • Cao Jun
Water Resources & Environment


Fluorescence excitation and average molecular weight of 46 water soluble organic matter (WSOC) samples extracted from 20 soil types in eastern China were determined. It was found all samples shared similar spectroscopy. A good linear relationship existed between total organic carbon and excitation in the range of 350 to 450 nm though the content of organic carbon and pH of the samples vary in a wide range. No significant correlation between relative excitation intensity and average molecular weight of WSOC and FA was found, but the partial correlation became significant with pH as the controlling factor for WSOC samples. The relative excitation intensity showed a general trend of increasing from south to north in the study area. The pH value might play an important role in regulating the fluorescent spatial variation of WSOC.

Key words

eastern China soil water soluble organic carbon molecular weight spatial variation CLC number S153 

Document code


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Tao S, Lin B. Water soluble organic matter in soil and sediments.Water Research, 2000, 34: 1751–1755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Donald R G, Anderson D W, Stewart J W B. Potential role of dissolved organic carbon in phosphorus transport in forested soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1993, 57: 1661–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Magee B R, Llon L W, Lemley A T. Transport of dissolved organic macromolecules and their effect on the transport of Phenanthrene in porous media.Environment Science & Technology, 1991, 25: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Schnoor J L, Nitzschke J L, Lucas RDet al. Trihalomethane yields as a function of precursor molecular weight.Environment Science & Technology, 1979, 13: 1134–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Coble P G, Green S A, Blough NVet al. Characterization of dissolved organic carbon matter in the Black Sea by fluorescence spectroscopy.Nature, 1990, 348: 432–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Shotyk W, Sposito G. Fluorescence spectroscopy of aqueous leaf litter extracts and their complexes with aluminum.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1990, 54: 1305–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Cronan C S, Lakshman S, Patterfson H H. Effects of disturbance and soil amendments on dissolved organic carbon and organic acidity in red pine forest floors.Journal of Environmental Quality, 1992, 21: 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Visser S A. Fluorescence phenomena of humic matter of aquatic origin and microbial cultures. In Christman R. F Gjessing (ed). Aquatic and Terrestrial Humic materials. Ann Arbor Science, Ann arbor, MI. 1983. 183–202.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Donahue W F, Schindler D W, Page S Jet al. Acid-induced changes in DOC quality in an experimental whole-lake manipulation.Environment Science & Technology, 1998, 32: 2954–2960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Zsolnay A, Baigar E, Jimenez M. Differentiating with fluorescence spectroscopy the sources of dissolved organic matter in soils subjected to drying.Chemosphere, 1999, 38 (1): 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Tam S C, Sposoto G. Fluorescence spectroscopy of aqueous pine litter extracts: effects of humification and aluminium complexation.Journal of Soil Science, 1993, 44: 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Senesi N, Niano T M, Provenzano M Ret al. Characterization, differentiation and classification of humic substances by fluorescence spectroscopy.Soil Science, 1991, 152: 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Zhang Jiashen, Tao Shu, Cao Jun. Spatial distribution of molecular size of water soluble organic matter and fulvic acid in soils from eastern China.Geographical Research, 2001, 20 (1): 73–78.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Institute of Soil Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chemical and Physical Methods of Soil Analyses. Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 1978. 136–149.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Gjessing E T. Use of ‘Sephadex’ gel for the estimation of molecular weight of humic substances in natural water.Nature, 1965, 208: 1091–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Buffle J, Deladoey P, Haerdi W. The use of ultrafiltration for the separation and fractonation of organic ligands in fresh waters.Analytic Chimica Acta, 1978, 101: 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Miano T M, Sposito G, Martin J P. Fluorescence spectroscopy of humic substances.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1988, 52: 1016–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Smart P L, Finlayson B L, Rylands WDet al. The relation of fluorescence to dissolved organic carbon in surface waters.Water Research, 1976, 10: 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Stewart A J, Wetzel R G. Asymmetrical relationships between absorbance, fluorescence and dissolved organic carbon.Limnology and Oceanography, 1981, 26: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    DeHaan H, DeBoer T. Applicability of light absorbance and fluorescence as measures of concentration and molecular size of dissolved organic carbon in humic lake Tjeukemeer.Water Research, 1987, 25 (6): 731–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Hall K J, Lee G F. Molecular size and spectral characterization of organic matter in a meromictic lake.Water Research, 1974, 8: 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zsolnay A. Dissolved humus in soil waters. In: Piccolo A (ed). Humic Substances in Terrestrial Ecosystem. Elsevier Science, 1996. 185–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Environmental Sciences, LESP-MOEPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations