Advertisement

Applications of Submersible Fluorescence Sensors for Monitoring Hydrocarbons in Treated and Untreated Waters

  • Vadim B. MalkovEmail author
  • Jeremy J. Lowe
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Fluorescence book series (SS FLUOR, volume 18)

Abstract

With development of new methods for oil and gas exploration, and in an effort to increase efficiency of petroleum production, rapid analysis of oil in water (OIW) has become increasingly important. Cost-effective, real-time analysis of refined oil products in water—whether their presence is as products or contaminants—enables nimble response to changing concentrations of analytes, which is not only of interest within the energy industry but also useful to ensure compliance within other industrial, municipal, and environmental applications. As a result of lab and field experimentation with a UV-fluorescence sensor responding to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) present in any oil derived from mineral sources, it was determined that OIW could be successfully measured through correlation of PAH and OIW concentration in industrial process water, wastewater, municipal water treatment, natural seawater, and source water samples containing stable oil content. In samples with repeatable and sustainable content, the concentration of hydrocarbons can be quantified, while the most useful application of the examined instrumentation was found for event detection and trending of oil in water.

Keywords

Cooling water Energy industry Industrial wastewater Municipal drinking water Oil and grease Oil-in-water OIW PAH Petroleum production Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Process water Refinery Seawater Source water UV fluorescence Wastewater 

Abbreviations

AOX

Adsorbable organic halides

API

American Petroleum Institute

ATR

Attenuated total reflectance

BOD

Biochemical oxygen demand

BTEX

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes

CDOM

Colored dissolved organic matter

CHC

Chlorinated hydrocarbons

COD

Chemical oxygen demand

DAF

Dissolved air flotation

DDT

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DOC

Dissolved organic carbon

DOM

Dissolved organic matter

EEM

Excitation-emission matrices

FEWS

Fiber optic evanescent wave spectroscopy

FTIR

Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy

GC

Gas chromatography

GC/MS

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GPRS

Global packet radio service

HOAB

High output air-blast system

HPLC

High-performance liquid chromatography

IAF

Induced air flotation

LOD

Limit of detection

LR

Low range

MAH

Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX)

MCA

Multicomponent analysis

OIW

Oil in water

PAH

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB

Polychlorinated biphenyls

PPB

Parts per billion

QMB

Quartz microbalance

RIfS

Reflectometric Interference Spectrometry

SEC

Standard error of calibration

SEP

Standard error of prediction

UN

United Nations

UV

Ultraviolet

UVMA

UV multiwavelength absorptiometry

WHO

World Health Organization

WW

Wastewater

References

  1. 1.
    Blais F (2004) Review of 20 years of range sensor development. J Electron Imaging 13(1):23–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macleod CJA (2010) What can we learn from systems based approaches: from systems biology to earth systems science? In: 5th international congress on environmental modelling and software, 162. Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchiveGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapman DV, World Health Organization (1996) Water quality assessments: a guide to the use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring, 2nd edn. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu R, Mizaikoff B, Li WW, Qian C, Katzir A, Raichlin Y, Sheng GP, Yu HQ (2013) Determination of chlorinated hydrocarbons in water using highly sensitive mid-infrared sensor technology. Sci Rep 3:2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bürck J, Mensch M, Krämer K (1998) Field experiments with a portable fiber-optic sensor system for monitoring hydrocarbons in water. Field Anal Chem Technol 2(4):205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg E, Krska R, Kellner R (1994) Theoretical and practical response evaluation of a fibre optic sensor for chlorinated hydrocarbons in water. Fresenius J Anal Chem 348(8-9):560–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krska R, Taga K, Kellner R (1993) New IR fibre-optic chemical sensor for in-situ measurements of chlorinated hydrocarbons in water. Appl Spectrosc 47(9):1484–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakusch M, Mizaikoff B, Kellner R, Katzir A (1997) Towards a remote IR fibre-optic sensor system for the determination of chlorinated hydrocarbons in water. Sensors Actuators B Chem 38(1-3):83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho CK, Robinson A, Miller DR, Davis MJ (2005) Overview of sensors and needs for environmental monitoring. Sensors 5(1):4–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storey MV, van der Gaag B, Burns BP (2011) Advances in on-line drinking water quality monitoring and early warning systems. Water Res 45(2):741–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forzani ES, Zhang H, Chen W, Tao N (2005) Detection of heavy metal ions in drinking water using a high-resolution differential surface plasmon resonance sensor. Environ Sci Technol 39(5):1257–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pashalidis I, Tsertos H (2004) Radiometric determination of uranium in natural waters after enrichment and separation by cation-exchange and liquid-liquid extraction. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 260(3):439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonard P, Hearty S, Brennan J, Dunne L, Quinn J, Chakraborty T, O’Kennedy R (2003) Advances in biosensors for detection of pathogens in food and water. Enzym Microb Technol 32(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCue RP, Walsh JE, Walsh F, Regan F (2006) Modular fibre optic sensor for the detection of hydrocarbons in water. Sensors Actuators B Chem 114(1):438–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrick NJ, Beckmann KH (1974) Internal reflection spectroscopy. Characterization of solid surfaces. Springer, Boston, pp 215–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sothivelr K, Bender F, Josse F, Ricco AJ, Yaz EE, Mohler RE, Kolhatkar R (2015) Detection and quantification of aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in water using SH-SAW sensors and estimation-theory-based signal processing. ACS Sens 1(1):63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cooper JS, Kiiveri H, Chow E, Hubble LJ, Webster MS, Müller KH, Raguse B, Wieczorek L (2014) Quantifying mixtures of hydrocarbons dissolved in water with a partially selective sensor array using random forests analysis. Sensors Actuators B Chem 202:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dickert FL, Achatz P, Halikias K (2001) Double molecular imprinting–a new sensor concept for improving selectivity in the detection of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water. Fresenius J Anal Chem 371(1):11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamacher C, Brito APX, Brüning IM, Wagener A, Moreira I (2000) The determination of PAH by UV-fluorescence spectroscopy in water of Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Bras Oceanogr 48(2):167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin F, Otto M (1995) Multicomponent analysis of phenols in waste waters of the coal conversion industry by means of UV-spectrometry. Fresenius J Anal Chem 352(5):451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tedetti M, Joffre P, Goutx M (2013) Development of a field-portable fluorometer based on deep ultraviolet LEDs for the detection of phenanthrene-and tryptophan-like compounds in natural waters. Sensors Actuators B Chem 182:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vadim Malkov, Dietmar Sievert (2009) Oil-in-water fluorescence sensor in wastewater applications. In: Paper presented at the international water conference 70th annual meeting, Orlando, FL (USA), 4–8 October 2009Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Malkov V, Sievert D (2010) Oil-in-water fluorescence sensor in wastewater and other industrial applications. Power Plant Chem 12(3):144–154Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vadim B. Malkov (2010) Applications of an oil-in-water probe built upon UV-fluorescence technology. In: Paper presented at ISA automation week 2010: technology and solutions event proceedings of international society of automation conference, Houston, TX (USA), 4–7 October 2010Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mario Tamburri et al. (2012) Performance verification of the hach FP360sc UV fluorometer. In: Alliance for coastal technologies ACT VS12-04 UMCES/CBL 2013-018 (www.act-us.info/evaluations)

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hach CompanyLovelandUSA

Personalised recommendations