ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Characterization of Natural Organic Matter and Humic Substance Isolates by Size Exclusion Chromatography following Reduction with Sodium Borohydride
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Characterization of Natural Organic Matter and Humic Substance Isolates by Size Exclusion Chromatography following Reduction with Sodium Borohydride
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Hang Li
    Hang Li
    Zachry Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States
    More by Hang Li
  • Blair Hanson
    Blair Hanson
    Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering  and  Environmental Engineering Program, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80303, United States
    More by Blair Hanson
  • Garrett McKay*
    Garrett McKay
    Zachry Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States
    *Email: [email protected]. Phone: (979) 458-6540.
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS Environmental Au

Cite this: ACS Environ. Au 2024, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.4c00075
Published December 20, 2024

© 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Chemical reduction with sodium borohydride has been used for over four decades to probe the presence and function of carbonyl-containing moieties in dissolved organic matter (DOM). One of these structure–property relationships is the attenuation of UV–visible absorbance after borohydride reduction, an effect that has been observed universally across DOM of different origins. We previously demonstrated that DOM with similar bulk physicochemical properties exhibits bifurcating reactivity with borohydride depending on the source (i.e., soil vs. aquatic), as judged by the kinetics of fractional absorbance removal during reduction at a fixed borohydride:DOM mass ratio. This result and data from other studies suggest that a portion of borohydride-reducible chromophores in DOM may be inaccessible to the water solvent, explaining the incomplete absorbance attenuation even at very high borohydride mass excesses. Here, we study the reactivity of five DOM isolates with sodium borohydride via size exclusion chromatography coupled to total organic carbon, absorbance, and fluorescence detectors. Reduction with sodium borohydride resulted in quantifiable yet exceedingly small decreases in DOM molecular weight, suggesting that the reduction of carbonyl groups to alcohols does not markedly impact the DOM secondary structure. Interestingly, higher molecular weight DOM exhibited the most prominent changes in optical properties after reduction, suggesting that larger molecules contain a high proportion of borohydride-reducible moieties. Optical surrogates were inversely correlated to molecular weight across a single isolate, both native and reduced. However, the correlation broke down at lower molecular weights, wherein optical surrogates remained constant with continued decreases in elution volume, suggesting that there is an intrinsic lower limit to the ability of optical surrogates to capture further decreases in molecular weight. Overall, these results provide insights into the DOM structure and help inform future applications of sodium borohydride for studying the DOM source and reactivity.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
© 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Special Issue

Published as part of the ACS Environmental Au special issue “2024 Rising Stars in Environmental Research”.

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Naturally occurring dissolved organic matter (DOM) is a mixture of compounds that are present in all water bodies and plays critical roles in natural and engineered systems. (1−3) The role of DOM in these systems is, in part, governed by its chemical and physical structure; however, efforts to resolve DOM structure have been challenged by its heterogeneity and molecular complexity. (1,4) For example, although ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry reveals that DOM contains many thousands of different molecules, (5−8) resolving precise chemical structure from these data requires additional experiments or analyses. (9−11)
One way to probe DOM’s chemical composition involves selective transformation of key functional groups. (11−13) Monitoring the DOM property of interest before, during, and after such reactions provides a direct link between the chemistry of that transformation and observable properties, provided that appropriate controls are performed to test for the potential impact of reaction conditions. A nonexhaustive list of chemical transformations used to study structure–function relationships in DOM includes ozone, (14−16) reduction with metals (17,18) and electrodes, (19−21) acetylation, (22) and proton exchange. (11,23,24)
One of the most common transformations, spanning over four decades of use, is chemical reduction with sodium borohydride (NaBH4). Borohydride is a common reagent used in organic chemistry for reducing ketones and aldehydes to their corresponding alcohols (Scheme 1). The initial step in the reaction involves hydride transfer from the nucleophilic borohydride (BH4) to the electrophilic C═O group, with the alcohol formed upon acidic workup. In an early study, Leenheer et al. used NaBH4 to help infer the predominance of aromatic ketone’s contribution to C═O groups in humic substance isolates from the Suwannee River. (25) Tinnacher and Honeyman later used tritiated borohydride as a radiolabeling technique, demonstrating via size exclusion chromatography (SEC) that 3H was uniformly distributed over the molecular size range of Suwannee River fulvic acid. (26) Pioneering work by Del Vecchio, Blough, and colleagues studied the impact of borohydride reduction on absorbance and fluorescence spectra of DOM and humic substances. (27) These studies and others have demonstrated a consistent response of optical properties to borohydride reduction–preferential attenuation of visible absorption, increased and blue-shifted fluorescence emission, and increasing fluorescence quantum yields–for a diverse set of humic substance isolates, (27,28) marine whole waters and isolates, (29−31) and other complex carbonaceous materials (e.g., atmospheric brown carbon). (32) More recently, studies combining mass labeling (using NaBD4) have demonstrated that >30% of formulas detected by negative mode electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry contain a borohydride-reducible moiety. (33) Although DOM can contain both aliphatic and aromatic carbonyls, (34) the latter are likely more important chromophores in sunlit waters. (35,36) Taken together, these prior studies indicate carbonyl moieties play an important role in DOM chemistry.

Scheme 1

Scheme 1. Influence of Borohydride Reduction on Electron Acceptor Moieties, Including Ketones/aldehydes (A) and Quinones (B). Borohydride Reduction of Carbonyl-containing Acceptors is Hypothesized to Disrupt Charge-Transfer Interactions in DOM (C)
Results from NaBH4 reduction have been broadly used to support a photophysical model in which interacting chromophores play a key role in the emergence of DOM optical and photochemical properties. In this model, electron-poor acceptor moieties (e.g., aromatic aldehydes and ketones, or quinones) interact in their ground or excited electronic state with electron-rich donor moieties (e.g., phenols, alkoxy phenols, and polyphenols). (37−39) Transformation of carbonyl-containing electron acceptors to their corresponding alcohols removes these moieties’ ability to serve as electron acceptors. Loss of such donor–acceptor complexes is consistent with the changes observed after NaBH4 reduction, including increases in spectral slope (less visible absorbance due to charge-transfer) and blue-shifted and enhanced fluorescence emission (increased emission from local excited states due to a decreased rate of excited state proton/electron transfer). It has been argued that the impacts of NaBH4 reduction are inconsistent with reduction of isolated chromophores and fluorophores and that only an electronic interaction model can explain these aggregate observations. (27,38,40)
In prior work seeking to elucidate the role of charge-transfer interactions on the optical properties of DOM, McKay, Korak et al. demonstrated that absorbance and fluorescence spectra of DOM were largely independent of solvent polarity and temperature, which was taken as evidence that donor–acceptor complexes do not play a significant role in DOM optical properties. (41) In response, Del Vecchio and Blough hypothesized that charge-transfer complexes in DOM were thermodynamically stable and isolated from solvent (and therefore not in contact with organic solvent) because they were encapsulated in a hydrophobic DOM core. (40,42) They further argued that the incomplete absorbance attenuation of humic substances during NaBH4 reduction even at very high borohydride doses is evidence for encapsulated charge-transfer complexes. (12,40) A corollary to this hypothesis is that donor–acceptor complexes themselves may play a role in modulating DOM structure. Indeed, past research using SEC, (43,44) NMR, (45) and molecular dynamics simulations (46,47) has suggested that noncovalent interactions between smaller molecules may contribute to DOM three-dimensional structure. Based on this prior literature, we hypothesized that chemical reduction of DOM with NaBH4, which could disrupt charge-transfer contacts, would result in DOM with a lower molecular weight. Isolated charge-transfer complexes may also lead to unique dependence of optical properties of DOM on molecular weight due to varying accessibility of donor–acceptor pairs or differences between fractions in the abundance of borohydride-reducible groups.
To test this hypothesis, we reduced five DOM isolates with NaBH4 and employed SEC to characterize the size distribution of total organic carbon (TOC), absorbance, and fluorescence in native and reduced samples. In addition, apparent fluorescence quantum yields (AQY) of the native and reduced fractions were calculated as a function of elution volume using a recently developed methodology. (48) Spectral changes observed during SEC were compared to those for bulk samples. In addition to testing the impact of borohydride reduction on the molecular weight of DOM, these measurements allow us to examine the size dependence of the borohydride-induced changes in optical properties. Overall, results and analyses from this study provide insight into the distribution of borohydride-reducible groups in DOM, informing future applications of NaBH4 for differentiating sources and reactivity of DOM and other complex mixtures.

Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Chemicals and DOM Samples

Humic substance and natural organic matter (NOM) isolates were obtained from the International Humic Substances Society, including Elliot Soil humic acid (ESHA 5S102H), Elliot Soil fulvic acid (ESFA 5S102F), Suwannee River humic acid (SRHA 3S101H), Suwannee River fulvic acid (SRFA 3S101F), and Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM, 2R101N). Solutions for reduction experiments and the control group were prepared at 200 mg/L in pH 7 ultrapure water (≥18.2 MΩ-cm, Barnstead Nanopure). NaBH4 stock solution (5 g/L) were made in water preadjusted to pH 12 with NaOH. All humic substance and NOM solutions were filtered with 0.45 μm poly(ether sulfone) syringe filters (Supor) right before the reaction with borohydride. The filters were prerinsed with 20 mL of ultrapure water.

Borohydride Reduction

For the reduction group, 25-fold mass excess of NaBH4 was added to the DOM samples and fully stirred. (12) The control group was prepared at the same DOM concentration but without addition of NaBH4. Both the reduction and control group solutions were adjusted to pH 10 with 2 M NaOH and maintained at this pH for 4 days, in the dark. Although past work has shown minimal changes in spectral shape and intensity of bulk samples during high pH exposure, (28) the control experiment done here ensures that potential changes in spectra across the size gradients produced in SEC are due to reaction with NaBH4 and not hydroxide ions. After 4 days, both groups were adjusted to pH 7 with 2 M HCl to quench residual borohydride.

Analytical Methods

The reduction group and control group samples were diluted to 20 or 40 mg L–1 in 0.01 M phosphate buffer of pH 6.8 and filtered with water-rinsed 0.45 μm poly(ether sulfone) syringe filters. Absorbance and fluorescence spectra were measured on diluted (bulk) samples using an Aqualog (Horiba). The excitation wavelength (λex) ranged from 240 to 800 nm (in 5 nm increments) and the emission wavelength (λem) ranged from 250 to 800 nm (bin setting of 2.33 nm). The sample integration time was 0.2 or 0.5 s depending on the sample absorbance and emission intensity.
Aliquots of the diluted samples were shipped overnight to CU Boulder (Boulder, CO) in ice-packed coolers for SEC analysis as described previously. (48) Briefly, the in-line SEC system employed a Toyopearl HW-50S column with a mobile phase of phosphate buffer with sodium sulfate of pH 6.8, 0.1 M ionic strength, at a flow rate of 1 mL min–1. Samples (1.8 mL, 10 mg L–1) were adjusted to the eluent ionic strength (0.1 M) prior to injection using a concentrated mobile phase solution. Following elution from the SEC column, samples passed through multiple detectors, including an Agilent 1260 Infinity Series G1315D Diode Array Detector (DAD) from 200 to 700 nm with 2 nm increments, 1260 Infinity II Series G7121B Fluorescence Detectors (FLD) at λex = 350 nm and λem = 350–700 nm with 5 nm increments, and a Sievers M9 TOC Analyzer. The TOC analyzer utilizes UV/persulfate oxidation and was calibrated with standard solutions of potassium hydrogen phthalate (KHP). The SEC run time lasted up to 200 min to ensure complete sample elution prior to the next injection.

Data Processing

SEC data included absorbance spectra, fluorescence emission spectra at λex = 350 nm, and TOC measured at each elution volume. Several data treatment procedures were performed on the raw data. Signals measured prior to and after elution of DOM were averaged and used for blank subtraction and to correct for baseline drift in the case of SEC-absorbance data. Fluorescence data were further treated for instrument-specific correction factors, inner filter corrections, and masking of first order Rayleigh scatter. Although emission spectra were collected on the SEC out to 700 nm, they were trimmed at >600 nm due to low signal-to-noise ratios for some samples and large second order Rayleigh scatter. AQY as a function of elution volume were calculated according to Hanson et al. (48) Briefly, the method utilizes salicylic acid (quantum yield of 0.36 at 300 nm excitation), (49) dissolved in the same mobile phase used for sample analysis, as a fluorescence reference (note that salicylic acid was also used for detector alignment). One limitation of AQY calculations is that, because emission data is trimmed, a portion of the fluorescence signal (emission >600 nm) cannot be integrated. This results in a lower integrated fluorescence intensity and consequently a lower AQY. SRHA and ESHA, which have the most red-shifted fluorescence spectra, would have the greatest impact from this limitation.
Because TOC, absorbance, and fluorescence detectors acquired data at different frequencies, chromatographic data were interpolated to achieve a uniform elution volume increment (0.5 mL). A cubic spline interpolation was tested against other methods and found to give the lowest residuals, with smoothing parameters of 1, 0.95, and 0.90 used for spectra, absorbance chromatograms, and fluorescence chromatograms, respectively.
Bulk sample fluorescence spectra were corrected using standard procedures, (50) including blank subtraction, inner filter corrections, Rayleigh and Raman masking, and Raman normalization.

Quality Control Criteria

Quality control criteria were developed for both chromatographic and spectral data. Spectral data between 0 and 20 mL elution volume were used as the baseline. The quality check threshold is determined to be 20 times the 95% cumulative background noise, which is the standard deviation of baseline data. For fluorescence data, inner filter and instrument-specific correction factors were used to calculate non corrected data prior to determining the background noise threshold. Several other methods were attempted for fluorescence quality control, which are described in SI Text S1. Chromatograms and spectra with a maximum signal lower than the threshold were excluded from subsequent data analysis. To further filter noisy data, summed intensities at each elution volume that were less than 10% of the maximum summed intensity were excluded. (51)

Data Analysis

In addition to qualitative analysis of chromatograms, several metrics were calculated to evaluate quantitative differences between the control and reduction group. Inspired by Wünsch et al., (52) we calculated Tucker Congruence Coefficients (TCC) (53,54) and Shape Sensitive Congruence (SSC) to compare chromatograms of the native and reduced samples. TCC describes the difference in peak position between two chromatograms (eq 1)
TCC(s1,s2)=Σs1s2Σs12Σs22
(1)
where s1 and s2 represent chromatograms to be compared (e.g., native and reduced) with identical x-axes. SSC is thought to be a more sensitive quantification of peak differences by including penalty terms α and β that represent the difference in maximum position and area of the two peaks (eq 2)
SSC(s1,s2)=TCCα,β
(2)
where
α(s1,s2)=|Vs1Vs2|VmaxVmin
(3)
β(s1,s2)=|s1s2|VmaxVmin
(4)
In eqs 3 and 4, |Vs1Vs2| is the difference in peak position between s1 and s2 in milliliters, VmaxVmin represents the range of observed elution volume in milliliters, and |∫s1–∫s2| is the difference in areas of s1 and s2 normalized to their respective maximum peak intensities.
Although TCC > 0.95 is considered a “match” for PARAFAC components, there is no such accepted threshold for SSC, which tends to be lower than TCC, (52) nor is there an accepted threshold for comparing SEC chromatograms. As a first approximation, we derived threshold TCC and SSC values from replicate chromatograms of SRFA, SRHA, and SRNOM (n = 4 per sample, n = 12 total). Complementing this replicate analysis, we also compared chromatograms of native DOM samples that been passed through a column of Sephadex G-10 resin to remove borate salts, which is not expected to modify DOM molecular weight (see Text S2), but has been employed previously in borohydride reduction workflows. (12)
Additional quantitative metrics for comparing spectra included the intensity-weighted shift in wavelength, which was calculated for both absorbance and fluorescence spectra as a function of elution volume (eqs 5 and 6). Ared,i and Anat,i are the absorbance at each absorbance wavelength (λi) of the reduced and native samples, respectively. Fred,i and Fnat,i are the corresponding fluorescence data at λex = 350 nm, and each λem. These parameters describe the increase in steepness of absorbance spectra and decrease in peak emission maxima for the reduced sample compared to the control.
ΔλA=λiAred,iAred,iλiAnat,iAnat,i
(5)
ΔλF=λem,iFred,iFred,iλem,iFnat,iFnat,i
(6)
Finally, optical surrogates were calculated as a function of elution volume. The first, A250/A364, is nearly identical to the widely used E2:E3 ratio (defined as A250/A365). (55,56) A250/A364 was used instead of E2:E3 because the SEC absorbance detector wavelength increment was 2 nm. The second optical surrogate is closely related to the fluorescence index (FI), (57,58) which is defined as the ratio of fluorescence emission at 470 to 520 at 370 nm excitation. In this study, the SEC fluorescence detector was set at 350 nm excitation and the ratio of fluorescence emission at 470 to 520 nm was calculated (F470/F520). While 370 nm has been used in previous studies of bulk DOM fluorescence, SEC results in a significant dilution of samples. The choice of 350 nm relates to the absorbance signal needed for AQY calculations where a lower absorbance threshold of 0.5 mAu was used as a QA/QC measure, below which AQY is not calculated. Because the absorbance spectra of DOM are generally characterized by an exponential decrease with increasing wavelength, 350 nm provides a greater absorbance signal and extends the range of elution volumes for which AQY is calculated.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Typical Chromatograms for TOC, Absorbance, and Fluorescence Detectors

This study presents chromatograms with elution volume on the x-axis. Elution volume is proportional to retention time (elution volume = retention time × flow rate) and, in SEC, is inversely proportional to molecular size. Although SEC studies often convert column retention time to molecular weight using polymer standards, we chose not to do so (detailed explanation presented in Text S3). The term “molecular weight” will be used in the later sections to describe the distribution of DOM fractions presented by retention time, while recognizing that SEC separates by size.
Figure 1 shows SEC chromatograms for SRFA measured by TOC, absorbance, and fluorescence detectors. Although we use the term TOC, the sample was filtered through 0.45 μM filter prior to injection and thus the signal is attributable to dissolved organic carbon. The absorbance chromatogram shown in Figure 1B is at a wavelength of 350 nm. The fluorescence detector was set to 350 nm excitation and Figure 1C represents the integrated fluorescence emission. Finally, AQY values shown in Figure 1D are calculated utilizing both absorbance and fluorescence data.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Chromatography of SRFA. From top to bottom: TOC, absorbance at 350 nm, integrated fluorescence emission at 350 nm excitation, and fluorescence quantum yield vs elution volume.

Peak elution volumes for TOC occur just before absorbance and the fluorescence peak elution volume occurs after absorbance, consistent with a prior study of SRFA. (48) Because of the elution volume offset between absorbance and fluorescence, AQY values are highest at elution volumes larger than the peak of both absorbance and fluorescence chromatograms.
Figure 1 also demonstrates the typical impacts of NaBH4 reduction observed in SEC data that will be evaluated in detail below. Native and reduced SRFA exhibit highly similar TOC chromatograms, with reduced SRFA slightly shifted to larger elution volumes (lower molecular weight). The absorbance chromatogram of reduced SRFA is ∼50% lower in intensity at the peak than native SRFA, with integrated fluorescence being larger for the reduced sample. Taken together, these changes result in an increase in AQY at all elution volumes for reduced compared to native SRFA. A notable observation from these data is that optical changes occur across a range of elution volumes (large to small), indicating that SRFA has borohydride-reducible moieties that contribute to optical signals across a range of molecular weights.

Impact of NaBH4 Reduction on TOC Chromatograms

One objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that intermolecular electron donor–acceptor complexes contribute to the three-dimensional structure of DOM (Scheme 1C), as proposed by Blough and Del Vecchio. (40) Because SEC with TOC detection provides an evaluation of the size distribution of all carbon-containing molecules in DOM, we reasoned that comparing TOC chromatograms of native and reduced samples would be a good test of this hypothesis. If NaBH4 reduction disrupts donor–acceptor complexes, TOC chromatograms would be expected to shift toward larger elution volumes (lower molecular weight). This hypothesis was tested using both a qualitative comparison of the chromatograms and a more quantitative approach utilizing TCC and SSC. (52)
Figure 2A–E show that the primary peak of reduced sample’s TOC chromatograms is slightly shifted to larger elution volumes. Although small, the shift to larger elution volume for reduced samples is statistically significant, indicating the possibility that borohydride reduction decreases DOM molecular weight. Importantly, native samples were controlled by maintaining solutions at pH 10 for 4 days (the equivalent pH of borohydride reduced samples) to account for the potential of hydroxide-catalyzed reactions to decrease molecular weight.

Figure 2

Figure 2. TOC chromatograms of native and reduced DOM isolates normalized to peak intensity, including (A) Suwannee River fulvic acid (SRFA), (B) Suwannee River humic acid (SRHA), (C) Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM), (D) Elliot Soil fulvic acid (ESFA), and (E) Elliot Soil humic acid (ESHA). (F) Tucker Congruence Coefficient (TCC) and size sensitive congruence (SSC) for samples under different conditions. SSC is equal to TCC subtracted by penalization terms that consider differences in peak area and peak position. The replicate injections label evaluates the difference between replicate native samples. TCC ± 95% CI and SSC ± 95% CI indicate 95% confidence intervals from four replicates. The native–reduced label evaluates the impact of NaBH4 reduction. An asterisk indicates that the value falls below the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI.

Unique to SRHA and SRNOM is the appearance of a peak at ∼27 mL at lower elution volumes that is either absent or less apparent in the native chromatogram. It is important to note that potential complexation of residual borate ions, which were not removed prior to SEC analysis (see Text S2), has been shown to decrease DOM’s electrophoretic mobility. (59) Such complexations would likely cause an increase in molecular size, which may explain the ∼27 mL peak for SRHA and SRNOM.
TCC and SSC values for the native-reduced group (treatment) TOC chromatograms are shown in Figure 2F and are compared to the lower 95% confidence interval of the equivalent values for native replicates (control). The replicates are derived from multiple injections of the same samples, which is considered a threshold for evaluating TCC and SSC of DOM samples. All TCC values for the treatment group are lower than the control TCC (<0.997). Considering SSC, four out of five values for the treatment group are lower than the control, with SRFA (SSC of 0.992) being the exception.

Comparison of Native and Reduced Spectra for Bulk DOM and Size-Separated DOM at the Peak Elution Volume

Before presenting the dependence of optical spectra on elution volume, it is instructive to show spectra for native and reduced SRFA collected for the bulk sample and at the peak elution volume (∼40 mL) during SEC (Figure 3). The spectral shape before and after borohydride reduction are qualitatively similar for bulk and SEC measurements. Absorbance spectra decrease in intensity across the UV–visible range following borohydride reduction, concomitant with an increase and blue-shifted fluorescence emission. Notably, SRFA’s red-edge emission (>550 nm) is largely unaltered after reduction with NaBH4. There is also good quantitative agreement in the magnitude of bulk samples’ optical changes. The fractional absorbance removal, Ared/Anat, reaches a minimum of ∼0.5 for spectra collected at the peak emission volume; a similar minimum (∼0.4) is observed for the bulk sample. The lower Ared/Anat observed for bulk SRFA may also be due to the different signal-to-noise ratios of different instruments. The ratio of reduced to native fluorescence emission, Fred/Fnat, shows similar agreement, with maximum values near 2.5 to 3 at ∼400 nm and a minimum of ∼1 at ∼550 nm.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Absorbance (A and B) and fluorescence spectra (C and D) of Suwannee River fulvic acid at the peak elution volume (A and C) and bulk samples (B and D). The right y-axis (gray lines) shows the ratio of reduced to native spectra. Spectra in (D) are normalized to water Raman scattering, whereas units in (C) are arbitrary. Emission spectra in (C) and (D) are collected at 350 nm excitation.

Like results for SRFA, good qualitative and quantitative agreement is observed for spectra and their fractional change after NaBH4 reduction for other DOM isolates (Figure S1). Notable exceptions are that Ared/Anat for SRNOM and SRHA tend to be lower for bulk samples compared to Ared/Anat at the peak elution volume.

Impact of NaBH4 Reduction on DOM Absorbance Spectra and Chromatograms

NaBH4 reduction of all DOM isolates results in loss of UV and visible absorbance across a range of elution volumes (35 to 50 mL, Figure 4, Figure S2). Ared/Anat was lowest for elution volumes below ∼42 mL. In contrast, Ared/Anat for SRFA, SRHA, and ESFA remained largely the same at elution volumes above ∼45 mL (Figure 4A,B, and D). These results imply that material at a range of molecular weights (small to large) contains borohydride-reducible moieties, but that these groups play a more significant role in the absorbance of high molecular weight DOM. The inverse relationship between molecular weight and Ared/Anat (higher molecular weight, lower Ared/Anat) agrees with a prior study showing that Ared/Anat for size-fractionated (with a 5 kDa ultrafiltration membrane) SRFA decreased in the order SRFA < 5K, SRFA bulk, SRFA > 5K. (60)

Figure 4

Figure 4. Dependence of fractional absorbance (Ared/Anat) remaining on elution volume. Spectra collected at pH 7. NaBH4 reduction carried out for 4 days at 25-mass fold excess NaBH4. Heatmap: 35 to 50 mL elution volume. Ared/Anat of the bulk sample is indicated by a solid black line.

A second observation from Figure 4 is that for selected DOM isolates Ared/Anat is less dependent on wavelength for lower elution volumes (higher molecular weight). Ared/Anat for ESFA and ESHA at an elution volume of ∼35 mL (red lines in Figure 4D,E) decreases less with increasing wavelength in comparison to material eluting at larger elution volumes (lower molecular weight). This result is further reflected in the dependence of intensity-averaged absorbance wavelength shifts ΔλA (between native and reduced samples) on elution volume (vide infra). Briefly, ΔλA values for ESHA and ESFA approach zero at lower elution volumes (Figure 5N,O), indicating that absorbance attenuation in high molecular weight material is removed proportionally at different wavelengths.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Absorbance properties of DOM isolates as a function of molecular weight and reduction with NaBH4. Logarithm of area-normalized absorbance spectra (log Anorm) of (A–E) native and (F–J) reduced samples, with the heatmap indicating elution volume. The solid and dashed lines in (A–J) represent the absorbance spectra of the native and reduced bulk samples, respectively. (K–O) Intensity-weighted difference in absorbance wavelength (ΔλA) as a function of elution volume. The dashed lines represent ΔλA for the bulk sample. The chromatogram of absorbance at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–O).

To further explore the impact of molecular weight and reduction on absorbance spectral shape, Figure 5 shows logarithmic absorbance spectra (normalized to area) collected as a function of elution volume for native (Figure 5A–E) and reduced (Figure 5F–J) samples. Spectra for the bulk native and reduced samples are shown for comparison using solid and dashed black lines, respectively.
The variation in spectral slope as a function of elution volume is largest for SRFA, SRHA, and ESFA and smallest for SRNOM and ESHA. This is the case for both native and reduced samples. It has been demonstrated for many types of DOM that NaBH4, in general, results in increased spectral slope. (27−32) The change in spectral slope after NaBH4 reduction at each elution volume, judged here by ΔλA, is generally in good agreement with the bulk sample. SRNOM is an exception in that the bulk and SEC sample’s ΔλA differs by ∼5 nm. Most of the variation in spectral slope (for both native and reduced samples) is driven by high molecular weight material (lower elution volume). In contrast, spectra of DOM eluting at larger elution volumes are tightly spaced (blue colors in Figure 5A–J). This observation is consistent with prior studies of highly resolved size fractions of DOM. For example, using SEC coupled to a diode array detector, Wünsch et al. (51) demonstrated that spectral slopes (S300–600) of four Swedish lakes had the most variation between ∼1 to 4 kDa whereas S300–600 values were largely independent of molecular weight below 1000 Da. Similarly, using asymmetric field flow fractionation, Guéguen and Cuss (61) showed that S275–295 and S350–400 were less sensitive to decreasing molecular weight at molecular weights less than 1000 Da relative to spectral slopes measured at >1000 Da.
The above results regarding the impact of borohydride reduction on DOM absorbance are mainly focused on spectra. To explore how NaBH4 impacts the size distribution of absorbing material, Figure 6 plots absorbance chromatograms for native and reduced samples at multiple λex. A comparison of Ared/Anat as a function of elution volume is also shown for comparison, which reveals that higher molecular weight material (lower elution volume) has a greater fractional absorbance removal than lower molecular weight material. This finding is consistent with the lower Ared/Anat across the UV–visible at lower elution volumes (Figure 4). Although subtle, comparison of normalized chromatograms (Figure S3) indicates that reduced samples are slightly shifted to larger elution volumes.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Absorbance chromatograms at multiple wavelengths for all DOM isolates. The gray lines represent the fractional absorbance remaining (Ared/Anat) at the indicated wavelength. Wavelengths indicated apply to all columns in each row, and sample headings in each column apply to all rows.

To quantitatively describe changes in absorbance between native and reduced chromatograms, Figure S4 shows TCC and SSC values for native-reduced chromatograms compared to TCC and SSC for the column-no column control group. In the standard method for NaBH4 reduction, G-10 resin is used to remove borate. (12) However, Sephadex is also a size exclusion resin (G-10 has an exclusion limit of 700 Da), and prior studies have not rigorously tested whether borate cleanup changes the molecular weight distribution of DOM. Only SRNOM and SRHA were processed with and without the G-10 column (see Text S3), but we consider the values for these samples to be a good threshold for evaluating TCC and SSC of other DOM samples. Based on TCC values, which are derived solely from peak position, one would conclude that there are minimal differences in chromatograms between the native and control groups. However, larger differences are seen when shape is considered. For example, SSC values for absorbance chromatograms for the column-no column group are >0.99 but tend to be lower for the native-control group, especially for SRHA, SRNOM, and ESHA (SSC < 0.98). This result indicates that NaBH4 reduction results in a shift in the size distribution of absorbing DOM at a range of λex, albeit exceedingly small.

Impact of NaBH4 Reduction on DOM Fluorescence Spectra and Chromatograms

NaBH4 reduction results in increasing fluorescence intensity, despite the absorbance decrease, resulting in an increasing AQY. Increasing fluorescence emission and AQY has also been observed for NaBH4 reduction of bulk samples. (27,28) Our results indicate that this increase in AQY occurs at a range of elution volumes (low to high), demonstrating that AQY increases for all molecular weights. This increase in AQY at a range of molecular weights is consistent with a prior study demonstrating that SRFA molecular weight fractions (<5K, bulk, and >5K) had similar enhancements in AQY at different λex (between 2- and 3-fold). (60)
To further explore the impact of molecular weight and NaBH4 reduction on fluorescence spectral shape, Figure 7 shows the intensity-normalized emission spectra collected as a function of elution volume with the SEC fluorescence detector for native (Figure 7A–E) and reduced samples (Figure 7F–J). Spectra for the bulk native and reduced samples are shown for comparison. There are several interesting findings in Figure 7. First, emission spectra of the bulk samples more closely resemble spectra of material eluting at longer elution volumes, which can be explained by the higher AQY of lower molecular weight DOM. Second, there are large differences in peak emission maxima between the minimum and maximum elution volumes for each sample (e.g., > 50 nm for SRHA), with higher molecular weight exhibiting more red edge emission. Notably, the relative intensity of red edge emission is diminished in the reduced samples, suggesting that the emitting species responsible for this feature contain borohydride-reducible moieties. Third, for lower molecular weight material (e.g., at elution volumes greater than ∼45 mL), there is little change in emission maxima with elution volume. In contrast, spectra collected at lower elution volumes (high molecular weight) show a gradual blue-shift as the intensity of the ∼550 nm shoulder peak is diminished. Several prior reports using SEC, asymmetric field flow fractionation, and ultrafiltration have also demonstrated that higher molecular weight DOM tends to have red-shifted emission. (51,61) Finally, all samples besides SRFA exhibited a clear trend of increasing ΔλF with increasing elution volume, with good agreement between ΔλF for bulk and SEC samples. This shows that higher molecular weight material’s emission spectra is more blue-shifted after NaBH4 reduction compared to low molecular weight material.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Fluorescence emission properties of DOM isolates as a function of molecular weight and reduction with NaBH4. Intensity-normalized emission spectra (Fnorm) of (A–E) native and (F–J) reduced samples, with the heatmap indicating elution volume. The solid and dashed lines in (A–J) represent the emission spectra of the native and reduced bulk samples, respectively. (K–O) Intensity-weighted difference in fluorescence emission wavelength (ΔλF) as a function of elution volume. The dashed lines represent ΔλF for the bulk sample. The chromatogram of integrated emission at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–O).

In terms of chromatographic shape, the difference in SSC values between the column-no column and native-reduced groups is even more pronounced for fluorescence chromatograms (Figures S5 and S6) than absorbance chromatograms, especially for SRHA and ESHA. SSC values for the column-no column control group are near 0.99, while values for the native-reduced group are less than 0.98 and, in some cases, much lower (e.g., ESHA has SSC < 0.95). In contrast to the largely unidirectional shift in TOC and absorbance chromatograms to lower elution volumes, fluorescence chromatograms of reduced samples are slightly wider than native samples thus exhibiting increased signals (when both chromatograms are normalized to peak intensity) at both lower and higher elution volume. Collectively, these results indicate that the molecular weight of absorbing and emitting material at specific excitation and emission wavelengths is not appreciably changed by NaBH4 reduction.

Size Dependence of Optical Surrogates for Native and Reduced Samples

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

SEC coupled to absorbance and fluorescence detectors provides an opportunity to test the underlying relationship between optical surrogates and DOM molecular weight. As highlighted recently, (62) many of these optical surrogates originated in specific contexts that may not be broadly applicable to others. One of the most well-tested contexts is size separation of a single sample, mostly by ultrafiltration, (63,64) with some studies also calculating optical surrogates from absorbance and fluorescence spectra collected during SEC. (51,61,65)
Here, we focus on one absorbance-based surrogate (A250/A364, similar to E2:E3) and one fluorescence-based surrogate (F470/F520 collected at 350 nm excitation, similar to FI). A250/A364 and F470/F520 for native and reduced samples are shown in Figure 8, with values from bulk sample shown for comparison. Both A250/A365 and F470/F520 increase with decreasing molecular weight (larger elution volume), consistent with several continued inquiries employing different size separation techniques (SEC, (51,66) asymmetric field flow fractionation, (61) and ultrafiltration (63,64)), providing support that these optical surrogates are good indicators of molecular weight for a single, size-fractionated sample. Perhaps more interesting is that there appears to be a limit beyond which further decreases in molecular weight (i.e., increasing elution volume) do not result in increased A250/A365 and F470/F520. These results indicate that there is a subset of DOM molecules that violate traditional optical surrogate-molecular weight interpretations. A similar observation (S275–295 and S350–400 did not vary at <800 Da) was reported for Canadian river water samples by Guéguen and Cuss. (61)

Figure 8

Figure 8. Dependence of optical surrogates on molecular weight for native and reduced DOM isolates. (A–E) A250/A364 (similar to E2:E3) as a function of elution volume. The chromatogram of absorbance at 250 nm is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). (F–J) F470/F520 at 350 nm excitation (similar to fluorescence index, FI). Blue circles and orange squares represent native and reduced, samples, respectively. The normalized chromatogram of integrated emission at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). Optical surrogates for bulk native and reduced samples are indicated by + and *, respectively. The dotted black lines (− - – ) correspond to the ratio of surrogates for the native and reduced samples (right y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–J).

Given that prior studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between FI and the emission maximum, (58,67−69) we calculated the intensity-weighted emission wavelength at 350 nm excitation (λem,iFred,iFred,i) and plotted these values against F470/F520 (Figure S7). There is a tight relationship in the F470/F520-emission wavelength curve that transcends DOM isolate origin (soil vs aquatic) and NaBH4 reduction status (native vs. reduced), resulting in a continuous exponential decrease in F470/F520 with increasing peak emission wavelength.
The continuous exponential relationship between F470/F520 and intensity-averaged emission maximum motivated us to evaluate whether there was an underlying mathematical explanation. To address this question, we modeled DOM fluorescence spectra using a Gaussian function and then took the ratio of fluorescence intensity at two wavelengths. The result of this derivation shown in eq S2.2 confirms the exponential relationship can be predicted mathematically (see also Text S4).
While the relationship between F470/F520 and intensity-averaged emission maximum is shown in part to be a mathematical result, the relationship between AQY and emission maximum has a fundamental photophysical basis. The fluorescence quantum yield (Φf) can be written as the rate of radiative decay divided by the total rate of singlet excited state decay, Φf = kf/(kf + kic + kisc) where kf, kic, and kisc are rate constants for fluorescence, internal conversion, and intersystem crossing, respectively. Typically >90% of singlet excited state DOM undergoes internal conversion. (39) The energy gap law states that the rate constant for internal conversion is an exponential function of the energy difference between the first excited electronic state (S1) and ground state (S0), kiceΔES1S0. (70) Being a mixture of absorbers, we use the intensity-weighted emission maximum as a surrogate for ΔES1S0; (16) the latter is normally determined by the mirror image rule. Thus, the energy gap law predicts that the AQY will decrease exponentially as a function of emission maximum. Consistent with this prediction, an exponential relationship between AQY and average emission wavelength is observed for most DOM isolates, both native and reduced (Figures S7 and S8). Notable exceptions to this relationship exist. For example, native ESFA shows a region (460–470 nm) in which AQY is insensitive to emission maximum. ESHA also shows behavior different than the Suwannee River isolates. Reduced ESHA exhibits a large range of AQY values over a very small emission wavelength range (500–510), and native ESHA has a large emission wavelength region (510–525 nm) in which AQY is constant. This bifurcation in emission properties of ESHA from other DOM isolates has been noted before in prior studies focused on solvation of DOM isolates in nonpolar organic solvents, (41) borohydride reduction, (28) and fluorescence quenching with cationic nitroxide free radicals. (71)

Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Here, we discuss the primary results of this study in the context of models for the three-dimensional structure of DOM and its relation to DOM optical properties.
Reduction of five DOM isolates by NaBH4 resulted in statistically significant but exceedingly small decreases in molecular weight observed by TOC and absorbance detectors. NaBH4 reduction converts carbonyls to alcohols, increasing molecular weight by 1 amu. Although minimal, a distinct shift to higher elution volume in TOC chromatograms is observed between 40–50 mL of all DOM isolates, which indicates a selective molecular weight decrease by NaBH4 reduction. The TOC shift is small compared to those typically observed during other chemical (e.g., ozone) (48,72,73) and physical (e.g., ultrafiltration) (64) treatments. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the carbonyl-to-alcohol conversion and any disrupted electron donor–acceptor complexes (Scheme 1C) play a minimal role in DOM secondary structure. Although we cannot completely rule out that intermolecular electron donor–acceptor complexes may be influencing DOM three-dimensional structure, their overall contribution is likely small compared to other intermolecular forces. Consistent with this, a study by Wünsch et al. (51) demonstrated a high degree of similarity in fluorescence spectral shape of bulk and SEC-separated DOM, suggesting a minimal role for intermolecular interactions in the formation of DOM fluorescence. On the other hand, the contribution of intramolecular charge-transfer interactions should also be taken into consideration. Disruption of intramolecular complexes could be expected after borohydride reduction, but the impacts on SEC results would be more difficult to predict. Loss of intramolecular interactions would not decrease molecular weight, but could enable more degrees of freedom that could be manifested in an increased apparent size measured by SEC.
It should be noted that one prior study employing dynamic light scattering (DLS) demonstrated an increase in the average diameter of Aldrich Humic Acid reduced with NaBH4 relative to the native sample. (74) Given prior problems noted with commercial humic acids as a model for humic substances (e.g., interbatch consistency, unreported ash content, and lack of information about source and isolation), (75) we believe the results shown here and those for Aldrich Humic Acid (74) are not necessarily in conflict.
Our results suggest that borohydride-reducible moieties (i.e., aromatic ketones or aldehydes, and quinones) are present throughout DOM’s molecular weight distribution and not isolated in one size class. This conclusion is also supported by Tinnacher and Honeymann (26) who demonstrated a near uniform distribution in radioactivity after labeling SRFA with 3H via tritiated NaBH4. That being said, changes in optical properties of larger sized molecules were more pronounced, such as lower Ared/Anat and more negative shifts in ΔλF. The origin of these more significant changes is currently unclear. One model contends that borohydride-reducible charge-transfer contacts are partially isolated in a hydrophobic core, (40,42) which seems inconsistent with our results. However, it is still possible that solvent-inaccessible borohydride-reducible moieties exist if there are enough solvent-accessible reduction sites. If true, this would suggest that higher molecular weight DOM contains a greater concentration of carbonyl-containing chromophores. Future work could address this question by solid-state 13C NMR analysis of high molecular weight DOM prepared by ultrafiltration.
Finally, our results contribute to the existing literature supporting optical measurements as surrogates for DOM molecular weight. (62) Importantly, the correlations observed between optical surrogates and molecular weight (via elution volume) are for five DOM isolates, native and reduced, developed over a fine size gradient achieved by SEC. Indeed, comparing optical surrogates for native and reduced values demonstrates that other variables besides molecular weight are impacting these surrogates. Although reduced DOM isolates do exhibit a very slight decrease in molecular weight (Figures 2, S3 and S4), the changes in optical surrogates are much more pronounced. In other words, it is likely that modification of the underlying chromophores is responsible for the increase in A250/A364 and F470/F520, not shifts in molecular weight. Consistent with several prior investigations (51,61,76−82) is the observation that absorbance and fluorescence spectral shape converge at lower molecular weights, which is reflected in the constancy of both A250/A364 and F470/F520 at >45 mL of the SEC chromatogram. This result implies that low molecular weight DOM may be insensitive to further spectral shifts, decreasing optical surrogate’s utility for monitoring molecular weight below a certain limit.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

By studying the impact of NaBH4 reduction using size exclusion chromatography coupled to TOC, absorbance, and fluorescence detectors, we demonstrated that
1.

Reduction with NaBH4 results in quantifiable yet exceedingly small decreases in the apparent size of DOM, indicating that intermolecular interactions involving borohydride-accessible carbonyl-containing moieties play a minimal role in modulating the three-dimensional structure of DOM.

2.

Borohydride-reducible groups are present in all size fractions of DOM. However, high molecular weight DOM may have a higher proportion of these groups based on the more pronounced changes in absorbance spectra (Ared/Anat) and fluorescence emission blue shift at lower elution volumes.

3.

The energy gap law is suggested as the photophysical mechanism responsible for the inverse dependence of AQY on emission maximum for DOM of varying size.

4.

Optical surrogates are highly sensitive to NaBH4 reduction despite minimal shifts in DOM molecular weight.

These results provide several potential avenues for future work. First, it would be of interest to perform NaBH4 reduction experiments on size-fractionated DOM (e.g., by ultrafiltration) and then subject samples to SEC analysis. Second, the relative wavelength independence of Ared/Anat for high molecular weight material calls into question the widely stated concept that preferential removal of visible absorption by borohydride reduction is evidence of charge-transfer interactions. Follow up studies could test this hypothesis by measuring Ared/Anat for model organic chromophores known to absorb/emit locally and as donor–acceptor complexes. Third and finally, additional studies are needed to support the mechanism responsible for the small decrease in molecular weight following borohydride reduction. Our hypothesis is that conversion of carbonyl moieties to alcohols results in loss of charge-transfer contacts that decreases DOM molecular weight. This could be tested experimentally using additional size characterization techniques (e.g., asymmetric field flow fractionation, electron microscopy) or computational approaches such as molecular dynamics.

Data Availability

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Data for this article is available in the main manuscript tables and figures or in the Supporting Information. Other data will be made available to upon reasonable request to the authors.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenvironau.4c00075.

  • Additional discussions, tables, and figures; see SI table of contents for specific details (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Hang Li - Zachry Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, United States
    • Blair Hanson - Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering  and  Environmental Engineering Program and , University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80303, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by an NSF CAREER Award (#2237194) to G.M. The authors are grateful for the feedback of three anonymous reviewers which improved the quality of the manuscript.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 82 other publications.

  1. 1
    Leenheer, J. A. Systematic Approaches to Comprehensive Analyses of Natural Organic Matter. Ann. Environ. Sci. 2009, 1130
  2. 2
    Thurman, E. M. Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters; Kluwer, 1985.
  3. 3
    Lim, S.; Shi, J. L.; von Gunten, U.; McCurry, D. L. Ozonation of organic compounds in water and wastewater: A critical review. Water Res. 2022, 213, 118053  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118053
  4. 4
    Leenheer, J. A.; Croue, J. P. Characterizing aquatic dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (1), 18A26A,  DOI: 10.1021/es032333c
  5. 5
    Stenson, A. C.; Marshall, A. G.; Cooper, W. T. Exact Masses and Chemical Formulas of Individual Suwannee River Fulvic Acids from Ultrahigh Resolution Electrospray Ionization Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectra. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75 (6), 12751284,  DOI: 10.1021/ac026106p
  6. 6
    Bahureksa, W.; Tfaily, M. M.; Boiteau, R. M.; Young, R. B.; Logan, M. N.; McKenna, A. M.; Borch, T. Soil Organic Matter Characterization by Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR MS): A Critical Review of Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Data Interpretation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (14), 96379656,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01135
  7. 7
    Young, R. B.; Pica, N. E.; Sharifan, H.; Chen, H.; Roth, H. K.; Blakney, G. T.; Borch, T.; Higgins, C. P.; Kornuc, J. J.; McKenna, A. M.; Blotevogel, J. PFAS Analysis with Ultrahigh Resolution 21T FT-ICR MS: Suspect and Nontargeted Screening with Unrivaled Mass Resolving Power and Accuracy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (4), 24552465,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08143
  8. 8
    Roth, H. K.; Borch, T.; Young, R. B.; Bahureksa, W.; Blakney, G. T.; Nelson, A. R.; Wilkins, M. J.; McKenna, A. M. Enhanced Speciation of Pyrogenic Organic Matter from Wildfires Enabled by 21 T FT-ICR Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94 (6), 29732980,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05018
  9. 9
    Leyva, D.; Jaffe, R.; Fernandez-Lima, F. Structural Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter at the Chemical Formula Level Using TIMS-FT-ICR MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92 (17), 1196011966,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c02347
  10. 10
    Baluha, D. R.; Blough, N. V.; Del Vecchio, R. Selective Mass Labeling for Linking the Optical Properties of Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter to Structure and Composition via Ultrahigh Resolution Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (17), 98919897,  DOI: 10.1021/es402400j
  11. 11
    Zherebker, A.; Shirshin, E.; Rubekina, A.; Kharybin, O.; Kononikhin, A.; Kulikova, N. A.; Zaitsev, K. V.; Roznyatovsky, V. A.; Grishin, Y. K.; Perminova, I. V.; Nikolaev, E. N. Optical Properties of Soil Dissolved Organic Matter Are Related to Acidic Functions of Its Components as Revealed by Fractionation, Selective Deuteromethylation, and Ultrahigh Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (5), 26672677,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05298
  12. 12
    Schendorf, T. M.; Del Vecchio, R.; Koech, K.; Blough, N. V. A standard protocol for NaBH4 reduction of CDOM and HS. Limnol. Oceanogr.:Methods 2016, 14 (6), 414423,  DOI: 10.1002/lom3.10100
  13. 13
    Nebbioso, A.; Piccolo, A. Modification of chemical and conformational properties of natural organic matter by click chemistry as revealed by ESI-Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407 (28), 85158523,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-9005-7
  14. 14
    Houska, J.; Salhi, E.; Walpen, N.; von Gunten, U. Oxidant-reactive carbonous moieties in dissolved organic matter: Selective quantification by oxidative titration using chlorine dioxide and ozone. Water Res. 2021, 207, 117790  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117790
  15. 15
    Wenk, J.; Aeschbacher, M.; Salhi, E.; Canonica, S.; von Gunten, U.; Sander, M. Chemical oxidation of dissolved organic matter by chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and ozone: effects on its optical and antioxidant properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (19), 1114711156,  DOI: 10.1021/es402516b
  16. 16
    Leresche, F.; McKay, G.; Kurtz, T.; von Gunten, U.; Canonica, S.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Effects of ozone on the photochemical and photophysical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (10), 56225632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06410
  17. 17
    Macalady, D. L.; Walton-Day, K. New light on a dark subject: On the use of fluorescence data to deduce redox states of natural organic matter (NOM). Aquat. Sci. 2009, 71 (2), 135143,  DOI: 10.1007/s00027-009-9174-6
  18. 18
    Macalady, D. L.; Walton-Day, K. Redox Chemistry and Natural Organic Matter (NOM): Geochemists’ Dream, Analytical Chemists’ Nightmare; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011; Vol. 1071, pp 85111.
  19. 19
    Maurer, F.; Christl, I.; Kretzschmar, R. Reduction and Reoxidation of Humic Acid: Influence on Spectroscopic Properties and Proton Binding. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (15), 57875792,  DOI: 10.1021/es100594t
  20. 20
    Yang, P.; Jiang, T.; Cong, Z.; Liu, G.; Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Shi, J.; Hu, L.; Yin, Y.; Cai, Y.; Jiang, G. Loss and Increase of the Electron Exchange Capacity of Natural Organic Matter during Its Reduction and Reoxidation: The Role of Quinone and Nonquinone Moieties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (10), 67446753,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08927
  21. 21
    McAdams, B. C.; Hudson, J.; Arnold, W. A.; Chin, Y. P. Effects of aquatic dissolved organic matter redox state on adsorption to goethite. Aquat. Sci. 2023, 85 (1), 19  DOI: 10.1007/s00027-022-00912-0
  22. 22
    Trofimova, A.; Hems, R. F.; Liu, T.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; Schnitzler, E. G. Contribution of Charge-Transfer Complexes to Absorptivity of Primary Brown Carbon Aerosol. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2019, 3 (8), 13931401,  DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00116
  23. 23
    Zhang, C.; Mo, S.; Liu, Z.; Chen, B.; Korshin, G.; Hertkorn, N.; Ni, J.; Yan, M. Interpreting pH-Dependent Differential UV/VIS Absorbance Spectra to Characterize Carboxylic and Phenolic Chromophores in Natural Organic Matter. Water Res. 2023, 244, 120522  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120522
  24. 24
    Allen, A.; Cheng, K.; Mckay, G. Evaluating the pH-dependence of DOM absorbance, fluorescence, and photochemical production of singlet oxygen. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2023, 25 (12), 19741985,  DOI: 10.1039/D3EM00316G
  25. 25
    Leenheer, J. A.; Wilson, M. A.; Malcolm, R. L. Presence and potential significance of aromatic-ketone groups in aquatic humic substances. Org. Geochem. 1987, 11 (4), 273280,  DOI: 10.1016/0146-6380(87)90038-6
  26. 26
    Tinnacher, R. M.; Honeyman, B. D. A New Method to Radiolabel Natural Organic Matter by Chemical Reduction with Tritiated Sodium Borohydride. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (19), 67766782,  DOI: 10.1021/es070563b
  27. 27
    Ma, J.; Del Vecchio, R.; Golanoski, K. S.; Boyle, E. S.; Blough, N. V. Optical properties of humic substances and CDOM: Effects of borohydride reduction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (14), 53955402,  DOI: 10.1021/es100880q
  28. 28
    Li, H.; McKay, G. Relationships between the Physicochemical Properties of Dissolved Organic Matter and Its Reaction with Sodium Borohydride. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (15), 1084310851,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01973
  29. 29
    Cartisano, C. M.; Del Vecchio, R.; Bianca, M. R.; Blough, N. V. Investigating the sources and structure of chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) in the North Pacific Ocean (NPO) utilizing optical spectroscopy combined with solid phase extraction and borohydride reduction. Mar. Chem. 2018, 204, 2035,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2018.05.005
  30. 30
    Andrew, A. A.; Del Vecchio, R.; Subramaniam, A.; Blough, N. V. Chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) in the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean: Optical properties and their relation to CDOM structure and source. Mar. Chem. 2013, 148 (C), 3343,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2012.11.001
  31. 31
    Osburn, C. L.; Kinsey, J. D.; Bianchi, T. S.; Shields, M. R. Formation of planktonic chromophoric dissolved organic matter in the ocean. Mar. Chem. 2019, 209, 113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2018.11.010
  32. 32
    Phillips, S. M.; Smith, G. D. Light Absorption by Charge Transfer Complexes in Brown Carbon Aerosols. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1 (10), 382386,  DOI: 10.1021/ez500263j
  33. 33
    Bianca, M. R.; Baluha, D. R.; Gonsior, M.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. Contribution of ketone/aldehyde-containing compounds to the composition and optical properties of Suwannee River fulvic acid revealed by ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry and deuterium labeling. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2020, 412 (6), 14411451,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-019-02377-x
  34. 34
    Zafiriou, O. C.; Xie, H. X.; Kieber, D. J.; Wang, W.; Song, G. S.; Cohen, N. Cyanohydrin Equilibria Implicate Non-Aromatic Aldehydes in Photochemical Production of Oceanic Carbon Monoxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58 (36), 1606616075,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c04637
  35. 35
    McNeill, K.; Canonica, S. Triplet state dissolved organic matter in aquatic photochemistry: reaction mechanisms, substrate scope, and photophysical properties. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2016, 18 (11), 13811399,  DOI: 10.1039/C6EM00408C
  36. 36
    Golanoski, K. S.; Fang, S.; Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. Investigating the Mechanism of Phenol Photooxidation by Humic Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (7), 39123920,  DOI: 10.1021/es300142y
  37. 37
    Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. On the Origin of the Optical Properties of Humic Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (14), 38853891,  DOI: 10.1021/es049912h
  38. 38
    Sharpless, C. M.; Blough, N. V. The importance of charge-transfer interactions in determining chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) optical and photochemical properties. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2014, 16 (4), 654671,  DOI: 10.1039/C3EM00573A
  39. 39
    McKay, G. Emerging investigator series: critical review of photophysical models for the optical and photochemical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2020, 22, 11391165,  DOI: 10.1039/D0EM00056F
  40. 40
    Blough, N. V.; Del Vecchio, R. Comment on The Case Against Charge Transfer Interactions in Dissolved Organic Matter Photophysics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (9), 55125513,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01189
  41. 41
    McKay, G.; Korak, J. A.; Erickson, P. R.; Latch, D. E.; McNeill, K.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. The Case Against Charge Transfer Interactions in Dissolved Organic Matter Photophysics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (2), 406414,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03589
  42. 42
    Del Vecchio, R.; Schendorf, T. M.; Blough, N. V. Contribution of Quinones and Ketones/Aldehydes to the Optical Properties of Humic Substances (HS) and Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (23), 1362413632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04172
  43. 43
    Piccolo, A.; Conte, P.; Cozzolino, A.; Spaccini, R. Molecular Sizes and Association Forces of Humic Substances in Solution; Clapp, C. E.; Hayes, M. H. B.; Senesi, N.; Bloom, P. R.; Jardine, P. M.; W I, Eds.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, 2001; pp 89118.
  44. 44
    Piccolo, A. The Supramolecular Structure of Humic Substances. Soil Sci. 2001, 166 (11), 810832,  DOI: 10.1097/00010694-200111000-00007
  45. 45
    Simpson, A. J. Determining the molecular weight, aggregation, structures and interactions of natural organic matter using diffusion ordered spectroscopy. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2002, 40 (13), S72S82,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1106
  46. 46
    Vialykh, E. A.; McKay, G.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Computational Assessment of the Three-Dimensional Configuration of Dissolved Organic Matter Chromophores and Influence on Absorption Spectra. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (24), 1590415913,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05860
  47. 47
    Vialykh, E. A.; Salahub, D. R.; Achari, G.; Cook, R. L.; Langford, C. H. Emergent functional behaviour of humic substances perceived as complex labile aggregates of small organic molecules and oligomers. Environ. Chem. 2019, 16 (7), 505516,  DOI: 10.1071/EN19095
  48. 48
    Hanson, B.; Wünsch, U.; Buckley, S.; Fischer, S.; Leresche, F.; Murphy, K.; D’Andrilli, J.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. DOM Molecular Weight Fractionation and Fluorescence Quantum Yield Assessment Using a Coupled In-Line SEC Optical Property System. ACS ES&T Water 2022, 2 (12), 24912501,  DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00318
  49. 49
    Pozdnyakov, I. P.; Pigliucci, A.; Tkachenko, N.; Plyusnin, V. F.; Vauthey, E.; Lemmetyinen, H. The photophysics of salicylic acid derivatives in aqueous solution. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2009, 22 (5), 449454,  DOI: 10.1002/poc.1489
  50. 50
    Murphy, K. R.; Butler, K. D.; Spencer, R. G. M.; Stedmon, C. A.; Boehme, J. R.; Aiken, G. R. Measurement of Dissolved Organic Matter Fluorescence in Aquatic Environments: An Interlaboratory Comparison. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (24), 94059412,  DOI: 10.1021/es102362t
  51. 51
    Wünsch, U. J.; Stedmon, C. A.; Tranvik, L. J.; Guillemette, F. Unraveling the size-dependent optical properties of dissolved organic matter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2018, 63 (2), 588601
  52. 52
    Wünsch, U. J.; Bro, R.; Stedmon, C.; Wenig, P.; Murphy, K. Emerging patterns in the global distribution of dissolved organic matter fluorescence. Anal. Methods 2019, 11, 888893,  DOI: 10.1039/C8AY02422G
  53. 53
    Lorenzo-Seva, U.; ten Berge, J. M. F. Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient as a Meaningful Index of Factor Similarity. Methodology 2006, 2 (2), 5764,  DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
  54. 54
    Tucker, L. R. Personnel Research Section Report No. 984. Department of the Army: Washington D.C.; 1951.
  55. 55
    De Haan, H.; Werlemark, G.; De Boer, T. Effect of pH on molecular weight and size of fulvic acids in drainage water from peaty grassland in NW Netherlands. Plant Soil 1983, 75 (1), 6373,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02178614
  56. 56
    Peuravuori, J.; Pihlaja, K. Molecular size distribution and spectroscopic properties of aquatic humic substances. Anal. Chim. Acta 1997, 337, 133149,  DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(96)00412-6
  57. 57
    Cory, R. M.; Miller, M. P.; McKnight, D. M.; Guerard, J. J.; Miller, P. L. Effect of instrument-specific response on the analysis of fulvic acid fluorescence spectra. Limnol. Oceanogr.:Methods 2010, 8 (2), 6778,  DOI: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.67
  58. 58
    McKnight, D. M.; Boyer, E. W.; Westerhoff, P. K.; Doran, P. T.; Kulbe, T.; Andersen, D. T. Spectrofluorometric characterization of dissolved organic matter for indication of precursor organic material and aromaticity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2001, 46 (1), 3848,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2001.46.1.0038
  59. 59
    Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Hertkorn, N.; Garrison, A. W.; Freitag, D.; Kettrup, A. Influence of Borate Buffers on the Electrophoretic Behavior of Humic Substances in Capillary Zone Electrophoresis. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70 (18), 37983808,  DOI: 10.1021/ac971223j
  60. 60
    McKay, G.; Couch, K. D.; Mezyk, S. P.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Investigation of the coupled effects of molecular weight and charge-transfer interactions on the optical and photochemical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (15), 80938102,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02109
  61. 61
    Guéguen, C.; Cuss, C. W. Characterization of aquatic dissolved organic matter by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation coupled to UV–Visible diode array and excitation emission matrix fluorescence. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218 (27), 41884198,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.038
  62. 62
    Korak, J. A.; McKay, G. Critical review of fluorescence and absorbance measurements as surrogates for the molecular weight and aromaticity of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2024, 26 (10), 16631702,  DOI: 10.1039/D4EM00183D
  63. 63
    Maizel, A. C.; Remucal, C. K. Molecular Composition and Photochemical Reactivity of Size-Fractionated Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (4), 21132123,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05140
  64. 64
    Mostafa, S.; Korak, J. A.; Shimabuku, K.; Glover, C. M.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Relation between optical properties and Formation of reactive intermediates from different size fractions of organic matter. In Advances in the Physicochemical Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter: Impact on Natural and Engineered Systems; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Vol. 1160, pp 159179.
  65. 65
    Lin, H.; Guo, L. Variations in Colloidal DOM Composition with Molecular Weight within Individual Water Samples as Characterized by Flow Field-Flow Fractionation and EEM-PARAFAC Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (3), 16571667,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07123
  66. 66
    Peuravuori, J.; Pihlaja, K. Preliminary Study of Lake Dissolved Organic Matter in Light of Nanoscale Supramolecular Assembly. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (22), 59585967,  DOI: 10.1021/es040041l
  67. 67
    Korak, J. A.; McKay, G. Meta-Analysis of Optical Surrogates for the Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58 (17), 73807392,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c10627
  68. 68
    Korak, J. A.; Dotson, A. D.; Summers, R. S.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Critical analysis of commonly used fluorescence metrics to characterize dissolved organic matter. Water Res. 2014, 49, 327338,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.025
  69. 69
    McKay, G.; Hohner, A. K.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Use of optical properties for evaluating the presence of pyrogenic organic matter in thermally altered soil leachates. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2020, 22, 981992,  DOI: 10.1039/C9EM00413K
  70. 70
    Turro, N. J.; Ramamurthy, V.; Scaiano, J. C. Modern Molecular Photochemistry of Organic Molecules; University Science Books: Sausalito, CA, 2012.
  71. 71
    Li, H.; McKay, G. Fluorescence Quenching of Humic Substances and Natural Organic Matter by Nitroxide Free Radicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (1), 719729,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c02220
  72. 72
    Wert, E. C.; Gonzales, S.; Dong, M. M.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Evaluation of enhanced coagulation pretreatment to improve ozone oxidation efficiency in wastewater. Water Res. 2011, 45 (16), 51915199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.07.021
  73. 73
    Buckley, S.; Leresche, F.; Hanson, B.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Decoupling Optical Response and Photochemical Formation of Singlet Oxygen in Size Isolated Fractions of Ozonated Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (14), 56035610,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c08155
  74. 74
    Guo, R.; Ma, J. Reduction-induced molecular signature of humic substances: structural evidence for optical changes. RSC Adv. 2014, 4 (49), 25880,  DOI: 10.1039/c4ra03051f
  75. 75
    Malcolm, R. L.; Maccarthy, P. Limitations in the Use of Commercial Humic Acids in Water and Soil Research. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1986, 20 (9), 904911,  DOI: 10.1021/es00151a009
  76. 76
    Xue, J.-P.; Cuss, C. W.; Wang, Y.; Javed, M. B.; Noernberg, T.; Pelletier, R.; Shotyk, W. Size-Resolved Fluorescence Underscores Negligible Interaction of Dissolved Organic Matter During Conservative Mixing in a Large Boreal River. Front. Environ. Chem. 2022, 3, 937721  DOI: 10.3389/fenvc.2022.937721
  77. 77
    Gao, Z.; Guéguen, C. Size distribution of absorbing and fluorescing DOM in Beaufort Sea, Canada Basin. Deep Sea Res., Part I 2017, 121, 3037,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2016.12.014
  78. 78
    Cuss, C. W.; Guéguen, C. Relationships between molecular weight and fluorescence properties for size-fractionated dissolved organic matter from fresh and aged sources. Water Res. 2015, 68, 487497,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.013
  79. 79
    Floge, S. A.; Wells, M. L. Variation in colloidal chromophoric dissolved organic matter in the Damariscotta Estuary, Maine. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2007, 52 (1), 3245,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0032
  80. 80
    Zanardi-Lamardo, E.; Moore, C. A.; Zika, R. G. Seasonal variation in molecular mass and optical properties of chromophoric dissolved organic material in coastal waters of southwest Florida. Mar. Chem. 2004, 89 (1–4), 3754,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2004.02.018
  81. 81
    Wu, F. C.; Evans, R. D.; Dillon, P. J. Separation and Characterization of NOM by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography and On-Line Three-Dimensional Excitation Emission Matrix Fluorescence Detection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (16), 36873693,  DOI: 10.1021/es020244e
  82. 82
    Her, N.; Amy, G.; McKnight, D.; Sohn, J.; Yoon, Y. Characterization of DOM as a function of MW by fluorescence EEM and HPLC-SEC using UVA, DOC, and fluorescence detection. Water Res. 2003, 37 (17), 42954303,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00317-8

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

ACS Environmental Au

Cite this: ACS Environ. Au 2024, XXXX, XXX, XXX-XXX
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.4c00075
Published December 20, 2024

© 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY 4.0 .

Article Views

296

Altmetric

-

Citations

-
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Scheme 1

    Scheme 1. Influence of Borohydride Reduction on Electron Acceptor Moieties, Including Ketones/aldehydes (A) and Quinones (B). Borohydride Reduction of Carbonyl-containing Acceptors is Hypothesized to Disrupt Charge-Transfer Interactions in DOM (C)

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Chromatography of SRFA. From top to bottom: TOC, absorbance at 350 nm, integrated fluorescence emission at 350 nm excitation, and fluorescence quantum yield vs elution volume.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. TOC chromatograms of native and reduced DOM isolates normalized to peak intensity, including (A) Suwannee River fulvic acid (SRFA), (B) Suwannee River humic acid (SRHA), (C) Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM), (D) Elliot Soil fulvic acid (ESFA), and (E) Elliot Soil humic acid (ESHA). (F) Tucker Congruence Coefficient (TCC) and size sensitive congruence (SSC) for samples under different conditions. SSC is equal to TCC subtracted by penalization terms that consider differences in peak area and peak position. The replicate injections label evaluates the difference between replicate native samples. TCC ± 95% CI and SSC ± 95% CI indicate 95% confidence intervals from four replicates. The native–reduced label evaluates the impact of NaBH4 reduction. An asterisk indicates that the value falls below the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Absorbance (A and B) and fluorescence spectra (C and D) of Suwannee River fulvic acid at the peak elution volume (A and C) and bulk samples (B and D). The right y-axis (gray lines) shows the ratio of reduced to native spectra. Spectra in (D) are normalized to water Raman scattering, whereas units in (C) are arbitrary. Emission spectra in (C) and (D) are collected at 350 nm excitation.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Dependence of fractional absorbance (Ared/Anat) remaining on elution volume. Spectra collected at pH 7. NaBH4 reduction carried out for 4 days at 25-mass fold excess NaBH4. Heatmap: 35 to 50 mL elution volume. Ared/Anat of the bulk sample is indicated by a solid black line.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Absorbance properties of DOM isolates as a function of molecular weight and reduction with NaBH4. Logarithm of area-normalized absorbance spectra (log Anorm) of (A–E) native and (F–J) reduced samples, with the heatmap indicating elution volume. The solid and dashed lines in (A–J) represent the absorbance spectra of the native and reduced bulk samples, respectively. (K–O) Intensity-weighted difference in absorbance wavelength (ΔλA) as a function of elution volume. The dashed lines represent ΔλA for the bulk sample. The chromatogram of absorbance at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–O).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Absorbance chromatograms at multiple wavelengths for all DOM isolates. The gray lines represent the fractional absorbance remaining (Ared/Anat) at the indicated wavelength. Wavelengths indicated apply to all columns in each row, and sample headings in each column apply to all rows.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7. Fluorescence emission properties of DOM isolates as a function of molecular weight and reduction with NaBH4. Intensity-normalized emission spectra (Fnorm) of (A–E) native and (F–J) reduced samples, with the heatmap indicating elution volume. The solid and dashed lines in (A–J) represent the emission spectra of the native and reduced bulk samples, respectively. (K–O) Intensity-weighted difference in fluorescence emission wavelength (ΔλF) as a function of elution volume. The dashed lines represent ΔλF for the bulk sample. The chromatogram of integrated emission at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–O).

    Figure 8

    Figure 8. Dependence of optical surrogates on molecular weight for native and reduced DOM isolates. (A–E) A250/A364 (similar to E2:E3) as a function of elution volume. The chromatogram of absorbance at 250 nm is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). (F–J) F470/F520 at 350 nm excitation (similar to fluorescence index, FI). Blue circles and orange squares represent native and reduced, samples, respectively. The normalized chromatogram of integrated emission at 350 nm excitation is depicted by the gray line (arbitrary y-axis). Optical surrogates for bulk native and reduced samples are indicated by + and *, respectively. The dotted black lines (− - – ) correspond to the ratio of surrogates for the native and reduced samples (right y-axis). The sample labels in (A–E) apply to (F–J).

  • References


    This article references 82 other publications.

    1. 1
      Leenheer, J. A. Systematic Approaches to Comprehensive Analyses of Natural Organic Matter. Ann. Environ. Sci. 2009, 1130
    2. 2
      Thurman, E. M. Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters; Kluwer, 1985.
    3. 3
      Lim, S.; Shi, J. L.; von Gunten, U.; McCurry, D. L. Ozonation of organic compounds in water and wastewater: A critical review. Water Res. 2022, 213, 118053  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118053
    4. 4
      Leenheer, J. A.; Croue, J. P. Characterizing aquatic dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (1), 18A26A,  DOI: 10.1021/es032333c
    5. 5
      Stenson, A. C.; Marshall, A. G.; Cooper, W. T. Exact Masses and Chemical Formulas of Individual Suwannee River Fulvic Acids from Ultrahigh Resolution Electrospray Ionization Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectra. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75 (6), 12751284,  DOI: 10.1021/ac026106p
    6. 6
      Bahureksa, W.; Tfaily, M. M.; Boiteau, R. M.; Young, R. B.; Logan, M. N.; McKenna, A. M.; Borch, T. Soil Organic Matter Characterization by Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR MS): A Critical Review of Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Data Interpretation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (14), 96379656,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01135
    7. 7
      Young, R. B.; Pica, N. E.; Sharifan, H.; Chen, H.; Roth, H. K.; Blakney, G. T.; Borch, T.; Higgins, C. P.; Kornuc, J. J.; McKenna, A. M.; Blotevogel, J. PFAS Analysis with Ultrahigh Resolution 21T FT-ICR MS: Suspect and Nontargeted Screening with Unrivaled Mass Resolving Power and Accuracy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (4), 24552465,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08143
    8. 8
      Roth, H. K.; Borch, T.; Young, R. B.; Bahureksa, W.; Blakney, G. T.; Nelson, A. R.; Wilkins, M. J.; McKenna, A. M. Enhanced Speciation of Pyrogenic Organic Matter from Wildfires Enabled by 21 T FT-ICR Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94 (6), 29732980,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c05018
    9. 9
      Leyva, D.; Jaffe, R.; Fernandez-Lima, F. Structural Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter at the Chemical Formula Level Using TIMS-FT-ICR MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92 (17), 1196011966,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c02347
    10. 10
      Baluha, D. R.; Blough, N. V.; Del Vecchio, R. Selective Mass Labeling for Linking the Optical Properties of Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter to Structure and Composition via Ultrahigh Resolution Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (17), 98919897,  DOI: 10.1021/es402400j
    11. 11
      Zherebker, A.; Shirshin, E.; Rubekina, A.; Kharybin, O.; Kononikhin, A.; Kulikova, N. A.; Zaitsev, K. V.; Roznyatovsky, V. A.; Grishin, Y. K.; Perminova, I. V.; Nikolaev, E. N. Optical Properties of Soil Dissolved Organic Matter Are Related to Acidic Functions of Its Components as Revealed by Fractionation, Selective Deuteromethylation, and Ultrahigh Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (5), 26672677,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05298
    12. 12
      Schendorf, T. M.; Del Vecchio, R.; Koech, K.; Blough, N. V. A standard protocol for NaBH4 reduction of CDOM and HS. Limnol. Oceanogr.:Methods 2016, 14 (6), 414423,  DOI: 10.1002/lom3.10100
    13. 13
      Nebbioso, A.; Piccolo, A. Modification of chemical and conformational properties of natural organic matter by click chemistry as revealed by ESI-Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407 (28), 85158523,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-9005-7
    14. 14
      Houska, J.; Salhi, E.; Walpen, N.; von Gunten, U. Oxidant-reactive carbonous moieties in dissolved organic matter: Selective quantification by oxidative titration using chlorine dioxide and ozone. Water Res. 2021, 207, 117790  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117790
    15. 15
      Wenk, J.; Aeschbacher, M.; Salhi, E.; Canonica, S.; von Gunten, U.; Sander, M. Chemical oxidation of dissolved organic matter by chlorine dioxide, chlorine, and ozone: effects on its optical and antioxidant properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (19), 1114711156,  DOI: 10.1021/es402516b
    16. 16
      Leresche, F.; McKay, G.; Kurtz, T.; von Gunten, U.; Canonica, S.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Effects of ozone on the photochemical and photophysical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53 (10), 56225632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06410
    17. 17
      Macalady, D. L.; Walton-Day, K. New light on a dark subject: On the use of fluorescence data to deduce redox states of natural organic matter (NOM). Aquat. Sci. 2009, 71 (2), 135143,  DOI: 10.1007/s00027-009-9174-6
    18. 18
      Macalady, D. L.; Walton-Day, K. Redox Chemistry and Natural Organic Matter (NOM): Geochemists’ Dream, Analytical Chemists’ Nightmare; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011; Vol. 1071, pp 85111.
    19. 19
      Maurer, F.; Christl, I.; Kretzschmar, R. Reduction and Reoxidation of Humic Acid: Influence on Spectroscopic Properties and Proton Binding. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (15), 57875792,  DOI: 10.1021/es100594t
    20. 20
      Yang, P.; Jiang, T.; Cong, Z.; Liu, G.; Guo, Y.; Liu, Y.; Shi, J.; Hu, L.; Yin, Y.; Cai, Y.; Jiang, G. Loss and Increase of the Electron Exchange Capacity of Natural Organic Matter during Its Reduction and Reoxidation: The Role of Quinone and Nonquinone Moieties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56 (10), 67446753,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c08927
    21. 21
      McAdams, B. C.; Hudson, J.; Arnold, W. A.; Chin, Y. P. Effects of aquatic dissolved organic matter redox state on adsorption to goethite. Aquat. Sci. 2023, 85 (1), 19  DOI: 10.1007/s00027-022-00912-0
    22. 22
      Trofimova, A.; Hems, R. F.; Liu, T.; Abbatt, J. P. D.; Schnitzler, E. G. Contribution of Charge-Transfer Complexes to Absorptivity of Primary Brown Carbon Aerosol. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2019, 3 (8), 13931401,  DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00116
    23. 23
      Zhang, C.; Mo, S.; Liu, Z.; Chen, B.; Korshin, G.; Hertkorn, N.; Ni, J.; Yan, M. Interpreting pH-Dependent Differential UV/VIS Absorbance Spectra to Characterize Carboxylic and Phenolic Chromophores in Natural Organic Matter. Water Res. 2023, 244, 120522  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120522
    24. 24
      Allen, A.; Cheng, K.; Mckay, G. Evaluating the pH-dependence of DOM absorbance, fluorescence, and photochemical production of singlet oxygen. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2023, 25 (12), 19741985,  DOI: 10.1039/D3EM00316G
    25. 25
      Leenheer, J. A.; Wilson, M. A.; Malcolm, R. L. Presence and potential significance of aromatic-ketone groups in aquatic humic substances. Org. Geochem. 1987, 11 (4), 273280,  DOI: 10.1016/0146-6380(87)90038-6
    26. 26
      Tinnacher, R. M.; Honeyman, B. D. A New Method to Radiolabel Natural Organic Matter by Chemical Reduction with Tritiated Sodium Borohydride. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (19), 67766782,  DOI: 10.1021/es070563b
    27. 27
      Ma, J.; Del Vecchio, R.; Golanoski, K. S.; Boyle, E. S.; Blough, N. V. Optical properties of humic substances and CDOM: Effects of borohydride reduction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (14), 53955402,  DOI: 10.1021/es100880q
    28. 28
      Li, H.; McKay, G. Relationships between the Physicochemical Properties of Dissolved Organic Matter and Its Reaction with Sodium Borohydride. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55 (15), 1084310851,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01973
    29. 29
      Cartisano, C. M.; Del Vecchio, R.; Bianca, M. R.; Blough, N. V. Investigating the sources and structure of chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) in the North Pacific Ocean (NPO) utilizing optical spectroscopy combined with solid phase extraction and borohydride reduction. Mar. Chem. 2018, 204, 2035,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2018.05.005
    30. 30
      Andrew, A. A.; Del Vecchio, R.; Subramaniam, A.; Blough, N. V. Chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) in the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean: Optical properties and their relation to CDOM structure and source. Mar. Chem. 2013, 148 (C), 3343,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2012.11.001
    31. 31
      Osburn, C. L.; Kinsey, J. D.; Bianchi, T. S.; Shields, M. R. Formation of planktonic chromophoric dissolved organic matter in the ocean. Mar. Chem. 2019, 209, 113,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2018.11.010
    32. 32
      Phillips, S. M.; Smith, G. D. Light Absorption by Charge Transfer Complexes in Brown Carbon Aerosols. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1 (10), 382386,  DOI: 10.1021/ez500263j
    33. 33
      Bianca, M. R.; Baluha, D. R.; Gonsior, M.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. Contribution of ketone/aldehyde-containing compounds to the composition and optical properties of Suwannee River fulvic acid revealed by ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry and deuterium labeling. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2020, 412 (6), 14411451,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-019-02377-x
    34. 34
      Zafiriou, O. C.; Xie, H. X.; Kieber, D. J.; Wang, W.; Song, G. S.; Cohen, N. Cyanohydrin Equilibria Implicate Non-Aromatic Aldehydes in Photochemical Production of Oceanic Carbon Monoxide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58 (36), 1606616075,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c04637
    35. 35
      McNeill, K.; Canonica, S. Triplet state dissolved organic matter in aquatic photochemistry: reaction mechanisms, substrate scope, and photophysical properties. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2016, 18 (11), 13811399,  DOI: 10.1039/C6EM00408C
    36. 36
      Golanoski, K. S.; Fang, S.; Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. Investigating the Mechanism of Phenol Photooxidation by Humic Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (7), 39123920,  DOI: 10.1021/es300142y
    37. 37
      Del Vecchio, R.; Blough, N. V. On the Origin of the Optical Properties of Humic Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (14), 38853891,  DOI: 10.1021/es049912h
    38. 38
      Sharpless, C. M.; Blough, N. V. The importance of charge-transfer interactions in determining chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) optical and photochemical properties. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2014, 16 (4), 654671,  DOI: 10.1039/C3EM00573A
    39. 39
      McKay, G. Emerging investigator series: critical review of photophysical models for the optical and photochemical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2020, 22, 11391165,  DOI: 10.1039/D0EM00056F
    40. 40
      Blough, N. V.; Del Vecchio, R. Comment on The Case Against Charge Transfer Interactions in Dissolved Organic Matter Photophysics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (9), 55125513,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01189
    41. 41
      McKay, G.; Korak, J. A.; Erickson, P. R.; Latch, D. E.; McNeill, K.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. The Case Against Charge Transfer Interactions in Dissolved Organic Matter Photophysics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52 (2), 406414,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03589
    42. 42
      Del Vecchio, R.; Schendorf, T. M.; Blough, N. V. Contribution of Quinones and Ketones/Aldehydes to the Optical Properties of Humic Substances (HS) and Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (23), 1362413632,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04172
    43. 43
      Piccolo, A.; Conte, P.; Cozzolino, A.; Spaccini, R. Molecular Sizes and Association Forces of Humic Substances in Solution; Clapp, C. E.; Hayes, M. H. B.; Senesi, N.; Bloom, P. R.; Jardine, P. M.; W I, Eds.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, 2001; pp 89118.
    44. 44
      Piccolo, A. The Supramolecular Structure of Humic Substances. Soil Sci. 2001, 166 (11), 810832,  DOI: 10.1097/00010694-200111000-00007
    45. 45
      Simpson, A. J. Determining the molecular weight, aggregation, structures and interactions of natural organic matter using diffusion ordered spectroscopy. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2002, 40 (13), S72S82,  DOI: 10.1002/mrc.1106
    46. 46
      Vialykh, E. A.; McKay, G.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Computational Assessment of the Three-Dimensional Configuration of Dissolved Organic Matter Chromophores and Influence on Absorption Spectra. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (24), 1590415913,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05860
    47. 47
      Vialykh, E. A.; Salahub, D. R.; Achari, G.; Cook, R. L.; Langford, C. H. Emergent functional behaviour of humic substances perceived as complex labile aggregates of small organic molecules and oligomers. Environ. Chem. 2019, 16 (7), 505516,  DOI: 10.1071/EN19095
    48. 48
      Hanson, B.; Wünsch, U.; Buckley, S.; Fischer, S.; Leresche, F.; Murphy, K.; D’Andrilli, J.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. DOM Molecular Weight Fractionation and Fluorescence Quantum Yield Assessment Using a Coupled In-Line SEC Optical Property System. ACS ES&T Water 2022, 2 (12), 24912501,  DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.2c00318
    49. 49
      Pozdnyakov, I. P.; Pigliucci, A.; Tkachenko, N.; Plyusnin, V. F.; Vauthey, E.; Lemmetyinen, H. The photophysics of salicylic acid derivatives in aqueous solution. J. Phys. Org. Chem. 2009, 22 (5), 449454,  DOI: 10.1002/poc.1489
    50. 50
      Murphy, K. R.; Butler, K. D.; Spencer, R. G. M.; Stedmon, C. A.; Boehme, J. R.; Aiken, G. R. Measurement of Dissolved Organic Matter Fluorescence in Aquatic Environments: An Interlaboratory Comparison. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (24), 94059412,  DOI: 10.1021/es102362t
    51. 51
      Wünsch, U. J.; Stedmon, C. A.; Tranvik, L. J.; Guillemette, F. Unraveling the size-dependent optical properties of dissolved organic matter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2018, 63 (2), 588601
    52. 52
      Wünsch, U. J.; Bro, R.; Stedmon, C.; Wenig, P.; Murphy, K. Emerging patterns in the global distribution of dissolved organic matter fluorescence. Anal. Methods 2019, 11, 888893,  DOI: 10.1039/C8AY02422G
    53. 53
      Lorenzo-Seva, U.; ten Berge, J. M. F. Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient as a Meaningful Index of Factor Similarity. Methodology 2006, 2 (2), 5764,  DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
    54. 54
      Tucker, L. R. Personnel Research Section Report No. 984. Department of the Army: Washington D.C.; 1951.
    55. 55
      De Haan, H.; Werlemark, G.; De Boer, T. Effect of pH on molecular weight and size of fulvic acids in drainage water from peaty grassland in NW Netherlands. Plant Soil 1983, 75 (1), 6373,  DOI: 10.1007/BF02178614
    56. 56
      Peuravuori, J.; Pihlaja, K. Molecular size distribution and spectroscopic properties of aquatic humic substances. Anal. Chim. Acta 1997, 337, 133149,  DOI: 10.1016/S0003-2670(96)00412-6
    57. 57
      Cory, R. M.; Miller, M. P.; McKnight, D. M.; Guerard, J. J.; Miller, P. L. Effect of instrument-specific response on the analysis of fulvic acid fluorescence spectra. Limnol. Oceanogr.:Methods 2010, 8 (2), 6778,  DOI: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.67
    58. 58
      McKnight, D. M.; Boyer, E. W.; Westerhoff, P. K.; Doran, P. T.; Kulbe, T.; Andersen, D. T. Spectrofluorometric characterization of dissolved organic matter for indication of precursor organic material and aromaticity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2001, 46 (1), 3848,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2001.46.1.0038
    59. 59
      Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Hertkorn, N.; Garrison, A. W.; Freitag, D.; Kettrup, A. Influence of Borate Buffers on the Electrophoretic Behavior of Humic Substances in Capillary Zone Electrophoresis. Anal. Chem. 1998, 70 (18), 37983808,  DOI: 10.1021/ac971223j
    60. 60
      McKay, G.; Couch, K. D.; Mezyk, S. P.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Investigation of the coupled effects of molecular weight and charge-transfer interactions on the optical and photochemical properties of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (15), 80938102,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02109
    61. 61
      Guéguen, C.; Cuss, C. W. Characterization of aquatic dissolved organic matter by asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation coupled to UV–Visible diode array and excitation emission matrix fluorescence. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218 (27), 41884198,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.038
    62. 62
      Korak, J. A.; McKay, G. Critical review of fluorescence and absorbance measurements as surrogates for the molecular weight and aromaticity of dissolved organic matter. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2024, 26 (10), 16631702,  DOI: 10.1039/D4EM00183D
    63. 63
      Maizel, A. C.; Remucal, C. K. Molecular Composition and Photochemical Reactivity of Size-Fractionated Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (4), 21132123,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05140
    64. 64
      Mostafa, S.; Korak, J. A.; Shimabuku, K.; Glover, C. M.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Relation between optical properties and Formation of reactive intermediates from different size fractions of organic matter. In Advances in the Physicochemical Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter: Impact on Natural and Engineered Systems; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2014; Vol. 1160, pp 159179.
    65. 65
      Lin, H.; Guo, L. Variations in Colloidal DOM Composition with Molecular Weight within Individual Water Samples as Characterized by Flow Field-Flow Fractionation and EEM-PARAFAC Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54 (3), 16571667,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b07123
    66. 66
      Peuravuori, J.; Pihlaja, K. Preliminary Study of Lake Dissolved Organic Matter in Light of Nanoscale Supramolecular Assembly. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (22), 59585967,  DOI: 10.1021/es040041l
    67. 67
      Korak, J. A.; McKay, G. Meta-Analysis of Optical Surrogates for the Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58 (17), 73807392,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c10627
    68. 68
      Korak, J. A.; Dotson, A. D.; Summers, R. S.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Critical analysis of commonly used fluorescence metrics to characterize dissolved organic matter. Water Res. 2014, 49, 327338,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.025
    69. 69
      McKay, G.; Hohner, A. K.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Use of optical properties for evaluating the presence of pyrogenic organic matter in thermally altered soil leachates. Environ. Sci.:Processes Impacts 2020, 22, 981992,  DOI: 10.1039/C9EM00413K
    70. 70
      Turro, N. J.; Ramamurthy, V.; Scaiano, J. C. Modern Molecular Photochemistry of Organic Molecules; University Science Books: Sausalito, CA, 2012.
    71. 71
      Li, H.; McKay, G. Fluorescence Quenching of Humic Substances and Natural Organic Matter by Nitroxide Free Radicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (1), 719729,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c02220
    72. 72
      Wert, E. C.; Gonzales, S.; Dong, M. M.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Evaluation of enhanced coagulation pretreatment to improve ozone oxidation efficiency in wastewater. Water Res. 2011, 45 (16), 51915199,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.07.021
    73. 73
      Buckley, S.; Leresche, F.; Hanson, B.; Rosario-Ortiz, F. L. Decoupling Optical Response and Photochemical Formation of Singlet Oxygen in Size Isolated Fractions of Ozonated Dissolved Organic Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57 (14), 56035610,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c08155
    74. 74
      Guo, R.; Ma, J. Reduction-induced molecular signature of humic substances: structural evidence for optical changes. RSC Adv. 2014, 4 (49), 25880,  DOI: 10.1039/c4ra03051f
    75. 75
      Malcolm, R. L.; Maccarthy, P. Limitations in the Use of Commercial Humic Acids in Water and Soil Research. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1986, 20 (9), 904911,  DOI: 10.1021/es00151a009
    76. 76
      Xue, J.-P.; Cuss, C. W.; Wang, Y.; Javed, M. B.; Noernberg, T.; Pelletier, R.; Shotyk, W. Size-Resolved Fluorescence Underscores Negligible Interaction of Dissolved Organic Matter During Conservative Mixing in a Large Boreal River. Front. Environ. Chem. 2022, 3, 937721  DOI: 10.3389/fenvc.2022.937721
    77. 77
      Gao, Z.; Guéguen, C. Size distribution of absorbing and fluorescing DOM in Beaufort Sea, Canada Basin. Deep Sea Res., Part I 2017, 121, 3037,  DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2016.12.014
    78. 78
      Cuss, C. W.; Guéguen, C. Relationships between molecular weight and fluorescence properties for size-fractionated dissolved organic matter from fresh and aged sources. Water Res. 2015, 68, 487497,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.013
    79. 79
      Floge, S. A.; Wells, M. L. Variation in colloidal chromophoric dissolved organic matter in the Damariscotta Estuary, Maine. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2007, 52 (1), 3245,  DOI: 10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0032
    80. 80
      Zanardi-Lamardo, E.; Moore, C. A.; Zika, R. G. Seasonal variation in molecular mass and optical properties of chromophoric dissolved organic material in coastal waters of southwest Florida. Mar. Chem. 2004, 89 (1–4), 3754,  DOI: 10.1016/j.marchem.2004.02.018
    81. 81
      Wu, F. C.; Evans, R. D.; Dillon, P. J. Separation and Characterization of NOM by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography and On-Line Three-Dimensional Excitation Emission Matrix Fluorescence Detection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (16), 36873693,  DOI: 10.1021/es020244e
    82. 82
      Her, N.; Amy, G.; McKnight, D.; Sohn, J.; Yoon, Y. Characterization of DOM as a function of MW by fluorescence EEM and HPLC-SEC using UVA, DOC, and fluorescence detection. Water Res. 2003, 37 (17), 42954303,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00317-8
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenvironau.4c00075.

    • Additional discussions, tables, and figures; see SI table of contents for specific details (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.