PARAFAC and FRI Preferred 3D Fluorescence Extraction Time of
Dissolved Organic Matter
YI Jun1, YANG Guang2, PAN Hong-wei2*, ZHAO Li-li1, LEI Hong-jun2, TONG Wen-bin2, SHI Li-li2
1. Henan Academy of Environmental Protection Sciences, Zhengzhou 450045, China
2. College of Water Conservancy, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450046, China
Abstract：The judgment and assessment of preprocessing scheme for 3D fluorescence spectroscopy Optimized still depend on the total extraction volume. Since the release of the DOM during extraction with the discrepancy between components, the studies might be more reasonable if we had considered the extraction of DOM components. This paper aims to clarify the differences in the extraction of DOM components and total and whether it is necessary to set the separate extraction time. Two common extraction methods, oscillating and centrifuging, were used. The time was set as the upper limit of the high-speed centrifuge and the constant temperature shaking box. PARAFAC and FRI were used to characterize the DOM compositional characteristics at different extraction times. According to the correlation and principal component analysis, it was found that there were different interactions between the components, and the optimal preprocessing time was screened out on the condition that the regional integral value and Fmax reached the maximum. The humus-like components were strongly positively correlated with the total (p<0.05), and the protein-like components were less correlated with the total using FRI analysis. The humic acid-like components were strongly positively correlated with the total.The fulvic acid-like fractions were weakly correlated with the total amount using PARAFAC analysis (p<0.05). There were differences in the extraction of total and components, which required separate pre-treatment time settings. The choice of extraction time is premised on the economy and stability of the distribution, the reby choosing the maximum of fluorescence regional integration or fluorescence intensity score (Fmax). The results showed that the optimal extraction times for entirety, humic acid-like, fulvic-like, complexine-like, tryptophan-like substances and microbial metabolites were 12, 21, 12, 12, 12, and12 h, respectively. PARAFAC analysis showed that the optimal extraction times for entirety, C1, C2, and C3 were 12, 21, 12, and 39 h, respectively. In summary, the two extraction methods have their advantages. The same extraction time can be used for the components and the overall time under the centrifugal treatment. The regional integral and Fmax values under the shaking treatment showed more oscillation than the centrifugation, and the extraction effect is relatively stable. The research results can provide a data basis and guidance for optimizing the preprocessing scheme when measuring DOM by three-dimensional fluorescence spectroscopy.
易 军，杨 光，潘红卫，赵丽莉，雷宏军，童文彬，史利利. 平行因子法和区域积分法优选可溶性有机物三维荧光提取方法及时间[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2022, 42(08): 2444-2451.
YI Jun, YANG Guang, PAN Hong-wei, ZHAO Li-li, LEI Hong-jun, TONG Wen-bin, SHI Li-li. PARAFAC and FRI Preferred 3D Fluorescence Extraction Time of
Dissolved Organic Matter. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2022, 42(08): 2444-2451.
[1] Tang J F, Li X H, Cao C L, et al. Ecological Indications, 2019, 104: 459.
[2] Wu M, Li G L, Wei S P, et al. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2021, 67(2): 166.
[3] Jones D L, Willett V B. Soil Biol. Biochem.，2006, 38: 991.
[4] Lu S B, Chen C R, Zhou X Q, et al. Geoderma，2012, 170: 136.
[5] KONG De-ming, CHEN Hong-jie, CHEN Xiao-yu, et al(孔德明, 陈红杰, 陈晓玉, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2021, 41(11): 3474.
[6] LIU Xiao-ming, YU Zhen, ZHOU Pu-xiong, et al(刘晓明, 余 震, 周普雄, 等). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2018, 39(8): 3807.
[7] Li S D, Lu L F, Wu Y F, et al. Ecological Indicators, 2021, 125: 107500.
[8] Yang J F, Duan Y M, Zhang R Q, et al. Industrial Crops and Products, 2020, 149: 112344.
[9] ZHU Yi, CHEN Hao, DING Guo-ping, et al(朱 弈, 陈 浩, 丁国平, 等). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2021, 42(11): 5264.
[10] SHEN Zhao-ying, GONG Xiao-feng, JIANG Liang，et al(申钊颖, 弓晓峰, 江 良, 等). Environmental Pollution and Control(环境污染与防治), 2020, 42(1): 39.
[11] ZHAO Peng-he, LIU Yu-ling, DOU Chuan-chuan, et al(赵鹏鹤, 刘玉玲, 窦川川, 等). China Environmental Science(中国环境科学), 2020, 40(11): 4841.
[12] Xie W M, Ma Y, Li S J, et al. Pedosphere, 2020, 30(5): 589.
[13] Chen W, Westerhoff P, Leenheer J A, et al. Environmental Science and Technology, 2003, 37(24): 5701.
[14] Sharma P, Laor Y, Raviv M, et al. Geoderma, 2017, 286: 73.
[15] D’Andrilli J, Junker J R, Smith H J, et al. Biogeochemistry, 2019, 142: 281.
[16] Wunsch U J, Murphy K. Water Research, 2021, 190: 116730.
[17] Romero C M, Engel R E, D’Andrilli J, et al. Geoderma, 2017, 306: 40.
[18] Chen B，Huang W，Ma S, et al. Water, 2018, 10: 861.
[19] Kothawala D N, Wachenfeldt E V, Koehler B, et. al. Science of the Total Environment, 2012, 433: 238.
[20] WANG Jing-bo, ZHANG Lin-nan, LI Zhen-shan, et al(王敬博, 张林楠, 李振山, 等). Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis(北京大学学报·自然科学版), 2018, 54(3): 633.
[21] LI Tai-kui, GUO Zhan-ling, KOU Chang-lin, et al(李太魁, 郭战玲, 寇长林, 等). Ecology and Environmental Sciences(生态环境学报), 2017, 26(11): 1878.
[22] ZHANG Zi-wei, ZHOU Shi-lei, CHEN Zhao-ying, et al(张紫薇, 周石磊, 陈召莹, 等). Environmental Science(环境科学), 2021, 42(11): 5250.
[23] GUO Wei-dong, WANG Chao, XU Jing, et al(郭卫东, 王 超, 徐 静, 等). Marine Science Bulletin(海洋通报), 2018, 37(6): 601.
