You are on page 1of 13

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp.

94-106, 2014
Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/ijsres
ISSN: 2322-4983; 2014 IJSRPUB
http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2014-p0094-0106

Review Paper

Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment
Nurazim Ibrahim, Hamidi Abdul Aziz*

School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: Email: cehamidi@usm.my; Tel: 04-5996215; Fax: 04-5941009

Received 03 January 2013; Accepted 19 February 2014

Abstract. Natural organic matter (NOM) can be defined as a mixture of complex organic compounds that universally present
in natural waters. High NOM content in water strongly impact the water quality and treatment in several ways (e.g. causing
colour and odour, filter fouling and increase coagulant dose). Besides that, NOM also acts as the main precursor to
disinfectant by products (DBPs) produce from the reaction of NOM and disinfectant during water treatment. DBPs are known
to be carcinogenic to human and animals. The formation of DBPs is depending on NOM characteristics. Generally, NOM
characteristics are differ according to the water sources. In order to understand NOM properties, NOM fractionation is required
and therefore different approaches have been proposed for its characterization. Meanwhile several methods of treatment have
been developed to remove or reduce the amount of NOM in drinking water sources to prevent DBPs formation. The aim of this
paper is to review and discuss the properties and available treatment techniques for NOM.

Keywords: Natural Organic Matter, Disinfectant By-products, Fractionation, Treatments

1. INTRODUCTION from drinking water was also developed (Wang et al.,


2013c; Duan et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2012;
Generally, natural organic matter (NOM) is defined as Comninellis et al., 2008; Cai et al., 2007).
a mixture of complex organic compounds that The presence of NOM has a significant impact to
universally present in natural waters (Matilainen et al., the quality of drinking water sources (Matilainen et
2010; Parson et al., 2004) as a result of organic matter al., 2010). Therefore, the amount of NOM has been
decomposition and metabolic reaction (DECWMD, observed by US authorities to monitor its content in
2011). NOM presence in water can be quantified by potable water sources. Primary concern of NOM
total organic carbon (TOC) or dissolved organic presence in water sources is related to the formation
carbon (DOC) and UV254 measurement. However, the of harmful disinfectant by products (DBPs) from
chemical properties of NOM were obtained through disinfection process during drinking water treatment
fractionation process. Typically NOM characteristic is (Yee et al., 2009). The most common DBPs detected
dependent on the biodegradable dissolved organic in drinking water are trihalomethanes (THMs) and
carbon (BDOC) content in water sources. NOM that haloacetic acids (HAAs) (Krasner et al., 2006).
originates from decayed of biota living in water Furthermore, certain DBPs products such as
bodies such as macrophites, algae and bacterias are Chloroform, Dichlorobromomethane and
known as autochthonous NOM (Nikolaou and Trichloroacetic acid are potentially carcinogen to
Themistokles, 2001). Meanwhile, allocthonous NOM human (Nikolaou and Lekkas, 2001).
was referred to NOM from external sources that enter Other disadvantages of NOM to drinking water
streams through natural cycle (e.g. soil leaching and sources and treatment process are, 1) acting as mobile
snow melting) or human activities (e.g. Effluent from carrier to inorganic and organic pollutants (increase
wastewater treatment plant) (Hwang et al., 2002; the transportation and distribution) 2) causing yellow/
Croue et al., 1999). brown colour to water and cause taste and odour
According to the past studies (Ahmad et al., 2002), problems 3) compete with other pollutants for
NOM characteristic and properties are differed adsorption sites 4) serve as substrate to undesirable
according to the origin of water sources. Hence biological growth in the distribution system 5) control
different methods were proposed for removing or coagulant and disinfectant dosage which cause an
reducing NOM amount in drinking water sources. increase of sludge volumes and DBPs formation 6)
Besides NOM treatment, methods for DBPs removal major compounds that cause membrane fouling
94
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

(Huang et al., 2011; Matilainen and Sillanpaa et al., TOC which indicate that DOC is the main fraction of
2010; Ahmad et al., 2002; Abbt-Braun and NOM. In addition, DOC present in natural water was
Frimmel,1999). mainly comprised of hydrophobic and hydrophilic
A number of studies have been conducted in order components whereas hydrophobic component
to find the best solution for controlling DBPs represents about 50% of DOC while hydrophilic
formation by reducing NOM amount in drinking ranging between 25-40%. The remaining fraction is
water sources (Xie et al., 2012; Toor and Mohseni, transphilic organic matter (Zularisam et al., 2006;
2007; Singer and Bilyk, 2002). Different approaches Parson et al., 2004).
were taken by researchers in developing methods at Moreover, hydrophobic and hydrophilic
different stages of drinking water treatment. This components can be further split into three different
paper aims to present information on NOM presence classes namely acid, bases, and neutral which have
in drinking water sources and its impact to drinking different chemical groups where hydrophobic classes
water in relation to DBPs formation as well as the is rich with aromatic carbon, phenolic structures and
possible methods of treatment. conjugated double bonds while hydrophilic classes
contains more aliphatic carbon and nitrogenous
2. NATURAL ORGANIC MATTER compounds (Kim and Yu, 2005; Duan and Gregory,
CHARACTERISTICS 2003; Nikolaou and Themistokles, 2001). Humic and
fulvic acids are examples of hydrophobic acid while
The main component of NOM was TOC which carboxylic and polyuronic acids are in hydrophilic
consists of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and acids group (Bond et al., 2012; Matilainen, 2007).
particulate organic carbon (POC) fraction. Figure 1 shows the relationship between NOM
Nevertheless, POC only represents a small amount of fraction and chemical groups of NOM.

Fig. 1: Relationship between NOM fraction and its chemical groups (Sources: Matilainen, 2010; Matilainen, 2007; Croue et
al., 1999; Marhaba et al., 2000)

95
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

Typically, allochthonous NOM is the major flood, drought and human activities (Hudson et al.,
contributor to hydrophobic fraction while 2007; Abdullah et al., 2003). This indicated that,
authotochthonous is the main sources for hydrophilic NOM concentration and characteristics is dependent
fraction (Croue et al., 1999). However, NOM to water origin and its surrounding (Bond et al., 2012;
concentration and characteristics in natural water are Zularisan et al., 2006). Table 1 shows variation in
not necessarily the same. The concentration may vary hydrophobic and hydrophilic concentration in river
according to many factors such as topography, season, water at different places.

Table 1: NOM fraction concentration at different origin


Sources Hydrophobic Hydrophilic Transphilic Unit References/ Countries

Ulu Pontian River, 2.38 2.6 1.7 mg/L Zularisam, et al., 2006.
Johor Malaysia
Luan or Yellow 1.35 1.00 1.43 mg/L Chen et al., 2008. Northern
River, Beijing China
Millstone River, 0.53 2.34 1.63 mg/L Marhaba, 2000. New Jersey
New Jersey

Harbin Water 43.8 15.6 40.6 % Lu et al., 2009. Harbin, China


Treatment Plant

Basically, humic substances in NOM represent a intermolecular forces (e.g. electrostatic interaction,
range of complex organic matter in water and soil that hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interaction and
originates from decayed animals and plants. Main multivalent cation formation) are expected to occur
component of humic substances are fulvic acid (water and form aggregates (Maurice and Namjesnik-
soluble at acidic to alkaline pH) and humic acid Dejanovic, 1999) of NOM with other pollutants.
(insoluble at acidic pH) (Maurice and Namjesnik- Meanwhile Wu et al. (2012) has suggested that
Dejanovic, 1999) known as hydrophobic acid. In molecular weight is one of the factor affecting
natural water, hydrophobic acid consists sorption behavior between NOM and metals.
approximately 90% of fulvic acids and 10% of humic Besides humic substances (hydrophobic), NOM
acids which is opposite to humic substances originate also consists non-humic substances (hydrophilic) that
from soil leaching that mostly consist of humic acids has low molecular mass (LMM). According to Croue
compared to fulvic acids (Uyak and Toroz, 2006; et al. (1999) hydrophilic fraction isolated from low
Nikolaou and Themistokles, 2001). Thus, water humic waters can be consider as a stronger precursor
sources that received more land based carbon has to THM and HAAs formation compared to
greater amount of humic substances. hydrophobic NOM. This fraction has a lower C/O
Beside its hydrophobicity, NOM was also ratio and specific UV absorbance (SUVA) value
characterized in accordance to its molecular mass/ which indicated that less aromatic carbon present
weight distribution. Humic acids in water have high (Croue et al., 1999). Treatment option such as
molecular mass (HMM) greater than 2000 Daltons. coagulation, and oxidation process are not effective
The suggestion was in agreement with data obtained for removing this type of fraction (Siva et al., 2011;
by Matilainen et al. (2005) where NOM molecular Bond et al., 2012; Matilainen et al., 2010). The best
mass recorded for humic substances reach up to removal mechanism for this fraction is expected to be
10,000 or larger. Similar results were also obtained. an adsorption. Thus, adsorption process such as
High molecular mass indicated that the water sources magnetic ion exchange resin (MIEX) is a better
mostly consist of aromatic carbon UV-absorbing treatment option (Bond et al., 2012) for hydrophilic
element. fraction.
In freshwater, humic and fulvic acids are the major To date, Malaysia is still using a conventional
causes for colour changes as well as odour and taste. treatment method which consist of coagulation,
Additionally, humic substances in natural water at pH flocculation sedimentation, filtration and disinfection
higher than 4 can be regarded as anionic processes. However, these treatments are not very
polyelectrolytes that carry negative surface charge as effective in removing NOM in drinking water sources.
a result of carboxyl and phenolic groups ionization The presence of NOM in water sources may disrupt
(Matilainen et al., 2010; Duan and Gregory 2003). coagulation process by competing for adsorption site
This characteristic allowed NOM to bind particles with other pollutant. Consequently, higher dosage of
with an opposite charges like heavy metals (Wu et al., coagulant required for the treatment process. High
2012) and escalate the rate of transportation and coagulant dosage may pose a risk to the consumer
distribution of pollutants in water sources. Different such as Alzheimers disease as a consequence of Al
96
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

residual in drinking water. However, low dosage of


coagulant causes an incomplete removal of NOM in
water. Residual of NOM will react with disinfectant
during treatment process and formed new products Moreover, SUVA values also can be used as
namely disinfection by products (DBPs) that is indicator to describe hydrophobicity of NOM in
harmful and carcinogenic. Hence, it is important to water. SUVA values lesser than 3, indicate that the
understand NOM characteristics before deciding the sample contains more hydrophilic and low molecular
suitable method for NOM removal. weight materials while SUVA values more than 4
indicated that water samples mostly consist of
2.1. NOM Characterization hydrophobic components with high molecular
materials (Wang et al., 2013b). This method was ease
Basic characteristics of NOM can be obtained by to use but high concentration of nitrate in low DOC
determine several parameters such as TOC, DOC, water may interfere with the measurement (Matilainen
UV-absorbance and SUVA. However more detail et al., 2011).
characterization study required more sophisticated
techniques and equipment. Characterization study 2.1.2. Fluorescence
based on bulk parameters (physical characterization)
only offers quantitative information of NOM. A fluorescence technique has been established in the
Meanwhile spectroscopic methods (Fluorescence, last 50 years for investigating organic composition in
UV-vis, FTIR, 1H NMR, 13C NMR, 15N NMR, 2-D water (Hudson et al., 2007). Since NOM consist of
NMR), and chromatographic methods (HP-SEC, heterogeneous compounds, it is difficult to identify
FIFFF, Mass spectrometric methods, FTICR MS, GC- individual fluorescent compounds in water. Thus, the
MS) measured NOM hydrophobicity, molecular fluorophores are usually groups into human-like,
weight or elemental composition which provide fulvic- like and proteins-like (Hudson et al., 2007).
further details on NOM quality in water in term of Alternatively, fluorophores can be identified through
chemical characteristics. individual chemical characteristics whereas
fluorescence spectrophotometric is conducted on
2.1.1. Bulk Parameters NOM to obtain three spectrums namely emission
spectra, excitation spectra and synchronous spectra
Basically the amount of NOM in water can be (Ahmad et al., 2002). Marhaba et al., (2000) had used
determined by three parameters which are TOC/ fluorescent spectrophotometric scan to determine six
DOC, UV254 and SUVA. TOC or DOC provides a different types of NOM fractions (hydrophobic acid,
total organic carbon concentration in the samples by hydrophobic base, hydrophobic neutral, hydrophilic
measuring level of organic carbon amenable to CO2 acid, hydrophilic base and hydrophilic neutral) in
oxidation after removing inorganic carbon (Volk et water treatment plant. The fractions were
al., 2002). Meanwhile, UV254 is used to describe UV distinguished according to the difference in excitation
absorbance measured by spectrophotometer at 254 nm and emission wavelength range. However, the
and reported in cm-1. SUVA (specific UV absorbance) emission wavelength that set these fractions spectrally
value represent the overall concentration of NOM in apart from each other (Marhaba, 2000). Table 2 shows
water, according to TOC/DOC and UV254 results, an emission wavelength obtained for NOM fraction
SUVA value can be obtained by dividing the value of derived from water intake (Raritan and Millstone
UV254 (cm-1) with TOC/DOC (mg/L) concentration River as well as Delaware and Raritan Canal) of
and multiply with 100 cm/M (EPA, 2009) as shown in Somerset water treatment plant.
equation 1.

97
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

Table 2: Fluorescence wavelength of NOM fraction (Adopted from Marhaba, 2000)


Fraction Wavelength, (nm)
Hydrophilic Acid 345-357
Hydrophilic Base 357-369
Hydrophilic Neutral 609-621
Hydrophobic Acid 417-429
Hydrophobic Base 369-381
Hydrophobic Neutral 309-321

Further development allowed fluorescence Nikolaou and Themistokles, 2001). Increasing in these
technology to advance whereas the rapid detection (<1 factors will increase the formation of DBPs during the
min) of three dimensional excitation emission treatment. In contrast, effect of pH is more
matrices (EEMs) is possible. EEM is a composite of complicated as certain DBPs formation increases at
emission scans from single sample recorded at higher pH (e.g. THMs) while other species may
incrementing excitation wavelengths and arranged in a increase at lower pH (e.g. 3-oxopentanedionic) (Bond
grid (excitation x emission x intensity) which et al., 2012).
providing a large amount of data that statically The use of alternative disinfectant such as ozone,
analyzed (Handerson et al., 2009) and give better chlorine dioxide and chloramine disinfectants was
understanding on NOM characteristics. able to reduce major DBPs formed by chlorine.
Unfortunately these disinfectants also formed its
3. FORMATION OF DISINFECTANT BY specific DBPs and occurred at higher level (Lu et al.,
PRODUCTS (DBPs) 2009; Krasner et al., 2006). According to Krasner et
al. (2006) about 600 new DBPs form from a reaction
Chlorination process is the main disinfection process of NOM with disinfectants such as chlorine,
use in water treatment because of its efficiency in chloramine, ozone, and chloride which found in
killing pathogenic organisms and cost effective. drinking water by the year 2006 and 70% of
However NOM in water react with chlorine to form halogenated DBPs reported are unidentified.
disinfectant by products (DBPs) that have reported as Meanwhile Bond et al. (2012) and Richardson et al.
hazardous materials to animals and humans (Bond et (2007) reported that the new products produce from
al., 2012; Payankapo et al., 2008). mono-chloramination such as N-
In water, NOM functional groups and structure Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), haloacetonitriles and
play an important role in DBPs formation. As an halonitromethanes known to have high cytotoxicity
example, hydrophobic fraction is more reactive with and genotoxicity. Table 3 shows the possible DBPs
chlorine while hydrophilic fraction is reactive to formed during disinfection process and permissible
bromine and iodine in water to form DBPs. limit in drinking water.
Nevertheless, Lu et al., (2009) reported that aromatic
carbon content in NOM was the main surrogate to 4. TREATMENTS
DBPs formation in chlorination process regardless of
its hydrophobicity nature. Therefore hydrophobic acid To date, there are several treatment methods that have
recorded the highest DBPs formation during the been proposed or applied for NOM removal such as
treatment (Matilainen et al., 2010). There are two enhanced coagulation, membrane filtration, adsorption
main DBPs species detected during the interaction of and ion exchange process and advanced oxidation
NOM and chlorine which are THMs and HAAs (Duan process. These methods of treatment have been
et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2007). developed and enhanced in order to reduce NOM
Generally the formation of DBPs is dependent on concentration in drinking water sources and minimize
several factors during the treatment such as DBPs formation. The merits and demerits as well as
disinfectant concentration, contact time, pH, limitation of each treatments will be discuss here.
temperature and NOM properties and concentration
(Lu et al., 2009; Yee et al., 2009; Hong et al., 2007;

98
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

Table 3: Possible DBPs formation during disinfection process


c
DBPs Species DBPs Drinking Water Standards Carcinogenicity
(mg/L)
a b
USEPA Malaysia
THMs Chloroform (CHCl3) 0.08 0.2 B2
(human carcinogen) Bromodichloromethanes (CHCl2Br) 0.08 0.06 B2
Dibromochloromethanes (CHClBr2) 0.08 0.1 C
Bromoform (CHBr3) 0.08 0.1 B2
HAAs Dichloroacetic acid (DCAA) 0.06 0.05 B2
Trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) 0.06 0.1 B2
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) - - NA
Nitrosamines N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) - - NA
Haloacetonitriles (HANs) Dichloroacetonitriles (DCAN) - 0.09 C
Trichloroacetonitrile (TCAN) - - C
Haloacetamides Dichloroacetamide (DCAcAm) - - NA
Haloaldehydes Dichloroacetaldehyde (DCA) - - NA
Trichloroacetaldehyde (chloral - - NA
hydrate) (TCA)
Haloketones 1,1,1-trichloropropanone (TCP) - - NA
Halonitromethanes (HNM) Trichloronitromethanes - - NA
(chloropicrin) (TCNM)
Note: aUSEPA. (2012); bMOH. (2000); cNikolaou and Themistokles (2001). Group A: Human carcinogen; Group B: Probable human carcinogen (B1: Limited
evidence from epidemiological studies, B2: Sufficient evidence from animal studies); Group C: Possible human carcinogen;
4.1. Enhanced Coagulation sulphate especially for high molecular mass materials
(> 3000 g/mol) during coagulation process.
Enhanced coagulation can be defined as methods that Study conducted by Wang et al. (2013a) exhibit
uses effective coagulant dosage to remove TOC or that coagulation process was able to significantly
minimized DOC residual after coagulation in drinking reduce the hydrophobic organic matter by destabilized
water sources (Xie et al., 2012; Singer and Bilk, 2002; the particles during coagulation. Meanwhile, Duan
Volk et al., 2002). In the beginning of water treatment and Gregory, (2003), suggested that co-precipitation
process, coagulation was employed with focus to and charge neutralization are the two main
reduce turbidity. However the reduction of turbidity is mechanisms in coagulation process that remove humic
not reducing the amount of NOM in water. Hence, a acid. Removing of humic substances through
suitable condition needs to be created to obtain enhanced coagulation may allowed the use of
optimum removal of NOM through coagulation disinfectant to treat pathogenic bacteria in drinking
process. Thus conventional coagulation process was water sources while reducing DBPs formation (Uyak
enhanced by optimizing pH and coagulant dosage. and Toroz, 2006). Still, coagulation process is not
Optimizing coagulant dosage is very important to effective in removing low molecular mass (< 500
avoid coagulant overdosing that lead to an increase in g/mol) compounds with post coagulation residual
the amount of sludge and pH reduction. Meanwhile reach up to 90% for low molecular mass and about
under-dosing usually leaves residual metal remained 50% for intermediate molecular mass (Matilainen et
in treated water. During treatment process, TOC al., 2005).
content plays an important role in determine
coagulation dosage required. For water sources with 4.2. Advanced Oxidation Process (AOPs)
SUVA value equal to 2 or less, TOC is not the factor
that control coagulant dose. But, if SUVA value Generally, AOPs is defined as aqueous phase
obtains is greater than 2, then coagulant dosage oxidation methods based on the intermediacy of
required is increase with TOC concentration. highly reactive species such as hydroxyl (-OH) radical
However, the efficiency of coagulation process is in the mechanism to remove the target pollutants
not only dependent to pH, coagulant type and dosage (Comninellis et al., 2008). In NOM and DBPs cases, -
but other factors as well such as NOM characteristics OH radicals is utilize to oxidize NOM as DBPs
and presence of divalent cations. According to precursor by eliminating hydrogen atoms or adding
Matilainen et al. (2005) and Yee et al. (2009), electrophiles to their double bonds (Toor and
coagulation process usually more effective in Mohseni, 2007). The reaction mechanism started with
removing larger molecular (1000 4000 g/mol) and OH radicals received an electron from organic
more hydrophobic NOM which primarily consist of materials. Then the process proceeded as carbon
humic substances. Based on the study conducted by centered radicals react rapidly with O2 to form peroxyl
Matilainen et al. (2005), ferric chloride is more radicals. This radical will react among themselves
effective for removing NOM compared to aluminium which produced ketones, aldehydes and/ or CO2
(Lamsal et al., 2011).
99
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

The efficiency of this treatment is depending on characteristic that has high water content and open
the specific type and concentration of pollutant itself structure make it able to adsorb any charge materials
where more intensive treatment is needed when higher more efficiently (Matilainen, 2007). In recent years,
concentration of pollutant is present and combination magnetic ion exchange resin (MIEX) was developed
of treatment may require to achieve optimal removal for reversible removal of negatively charge organic
(Matilainen and Sillanpaa, 2010). In order to obtain ion which mainly focuses on DOC removal with the
greater efficacy, AOPs can be enhanced through aim to reduce DBPs formation in drinking water.
various combination of AOPs to increase the rate of MIEX is a strong base anion with ammonia
reactive species formation (e.g. UV/H2O2, UV/ozone, functional group and a macroporous polyacrylic
UV/ TiO2/H2O2 and UV/ Fentons reagent) matrix in chloride form (Boyer and Singer, 2006).
(Comninellis et al., 2008). AOPs has great potential This treatment utilized a strong base-anion exchange
in reducing DBPs formation by: 1) reducing TOC in resin by incorporating magnetic iron oxide particles
drinking water sources through complete oxidation or into the resin matrix and applied to raw water in
mineralization of NOM to CO2 and 2) altering continuous-flow reactors (Drikas et al., 2011).
physical or chemical characteristics of NOM by David et al. (2004) show that the use of MIEX
partially oxidizes and reducing its molecular weight to was able to increase the removal of DOC level in raw
reduce its reactivity with disinfectant (Matilainen and water whilst reducing coagulant dosage during
Sillanpaa, 2010; Toor and Mohseni, 2007). coagulation process. Similar result was observed by
Instead of the whole NOM structure, AOPs Drikas et al. (2011) where large amount of DOC was
treatment mainly mineralized aromatic structure of removed during MIEX pre-treatment prior to
NOM which is part of hydrophobic fraction (Siva et coagulation process. Thus, the amount of coagulant
al., 2011). This indicated that AOPs reduce more of required during coagulation process also decrease.
high molecular mass structure. Meanwhile, during Drikas et al. (2011) also mentioned that MIEX
oxidation/ mineralization process, hydrophobic treatment is not dependent on the DOC concentration
structure was altered and molar mass of the fraction in raw water since a consistent removal was obtained
was decrease. Consequently, hydrophilic fraction was during 2 year of study regardless of DOC
increased compared to its concentration in raw water. concentration.
Nevertheless, the efficiency of this treatment was Besides that, Boyer and Singer (2006) were
affected by the presence of carbon and bicarbonate ion suggesting that MIEX resin has greater preference for
in raw water. Besides NOM components, hydroxyl hydrophobic fraction. However the performance of
radical is also reacts with this ions and decrease the MIEX resin was decreased with elevation of sulfate
number of radicals for NOM oxidation which lead to concentration in raw water. Meanwhile, Bond et al.
low NOM removal (Lamsal et al., 2011). Hence (2012) have mention that the efficiency of resin in
oxidation process is not suitable for treating high removing high molecular mass fraction (hydrophobic)
alkalinity water. There are more researches (Rizzo et is declining after rapidly used. These is happening
al., 2013; Sarathy et al., 2011; Grebel et al., 2010) because of humic and fulvic acid in water cause the
conducted and discussed on the effectiveness of AOPs resin to clog by blocking adsorption sites and prevent
in removing NOM and DBPs in drinking water. continuous adsorption of organic fraction onto resin.
Figure 2 shows the example in the application of Instead, removal of hydrophilic fraction was more
UV/H2O2 and BAC study conducted at Trojan consistent with consecutive use of the resin. This data
Technologies pilot facilities confirm that ion exchange method is more prominent
for removing low molecular mass fractions compare
4.3. Magnetic Ion Exchange Resin Treatment to hydrophobic fraction. Another drawback for
(MIEX) MIEX treatment is carry-over of resin fines (Boyer
and Singer, 2006). Therefore another treatment for
Ion exchange is another alternative method in solid liquid separation is required following this
removing NOM in drinking water. Resin treatment (Boyer and Singer, 2006).

100
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

Fig. 2: Schematic set-up for combination of AOPs and BAC treatment

Fig. 3: River bank filtration system

4.4. River Bank/ Bed Filtration (RBF) system exchange, adsorption, and dilution. Other factors that
also contribute for the successful of this treatment are
Riverbank filtration (RBF) is a water treatment river water and groundwater quality, the porosity of
technology that consists of extracting water from the medium, water residence time in the aquifer,
rivers by pumping wells in the adjacent alluvial temperature and pH conditions of water, and oxygen
aquifers (Jaramillo, 2012). Basic scheme of riverbank concentrations.
filtration is shown in Figure 3 Typically aquifers A study conducted by Singh et al. (2010) at river
consist of deposits of sand, sand and gravel, large bank of Yamuna River, India show that RBF was able
cobbles and boulders. However, ideal condition to reduce approximately 50 % of NOM component.
usually includes of coarse-grained, permeable water This study was suggesting that organic compounds are
bearing deposits that are hydraulically connected with diluted, sorbed and degrade during RBF process. Even
riverbed materials. though RBF is capable of removing DOC, the
A reduction in the concentration of pollutants is concentration of this component is still high and
achieved by physical, chemical, and biological exceed the upper limit (< 2 mg/L) recommended by
processes that take place, between the surface water British Columbia Environmental Protection
and groundwater, and with the substrate (Jaramillo, Department.
2012). The main processes in riverbank filtration that Another related study was conducted by Lee et al.
involve in pollution level reduction consist of (2009) in Republic of Korea. This study has reported
dispersion, physical filtration, biodegradation, ion that RBF demonstrate stable chemical constituents for
101
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

safely producing drinking water. In spite of that, the with suitable treatment may increase RBF
water produced from RBF is still possible to be performance.
directly polluted from anthropogenic sources such as
manures and fertilizer because of their shallowness. 4.5. Summary of treatment
This specifies that RBF system cannot stand alone to
produce good drinking water quality without Table 4 summarize the advantages and disadvantages
optimization of RBF scheme protection. However, of each treatment available for NOM removal in
some improvement, adjustment and/ or combination drinking water sources

Table 4: Methods of treatment used for NOM removal with positive and negative sides
Treatment Method Positive Negative References
Enhanced Coagulation Good in removing Required high coagulant Xie et al., 2012,
Hydrophobic fraction dosage and left Bond et al., 2012 and
transphilic(50 %) and Matilainen et al., 2005
hydrophilic(90 %) residual
in water
Advanced Oxidation Materialize/ Oxidize HMM Increase LMM components, Matilainen and Sillanpaa,
Process (AOPs) components of NOM to Not suitable for high 2010
LMM alkalinity water, Lamsal et al., 2011
Incomplete oxidation may
increase DBPs formation,
and
High cost

Anion Exchange Resin At neutral pH both anion Lower DOC removal for Croue et al., 1999
exchange and adsorption is high molecular mass
taking place accordingly (HMM) fraction
Magnetic ion Exchange Significantly remove all Clogging and reduce resin Bond et al., 2010
Resin Treatment (MIEX) NOM fraction. Hydrophilic efficiency to remove
fraction removal is more hydrophobic fraction after
consistent with consecutive rapidly used.
use of resin

Nanofiltration Effective for treating Fouling Bond et al., 2012


neutral hydrophilic Harisha et al., 2010
compounds
River Bank Filtration Remove most of Left NOM residual in water
(RBF) biodegradable materials especially hydrophilic
fraction
AOPs and BAC filter BAC filter increase the No significant reduction of Siva et al., 2011
biodegradability of NOM
pollutant to be remove

5. CONCLUSION plays an important role in deciding the treatment


option for raw water. Despite of all treatment
To date, water quality monitoring in Malaysia is still available for NOM removal, none of the discussed
focusing on general parameters such as BOD5, pH, treatments method is successful in removing all NOM
COD, turbidity, TDS and colour but less attention was fractions present in water sources. Hence, more study
given to NOM concentration in drinking water should be conducted to improve the efficiency of
sources. NOM is complex mixture of organic existing methods whilst exploring another possible
compounds that can cause many problems in drinking alternative technology such as composite adsorbent
water quality and the most concern is the formation of media (e.g. zeolite-carbon) which consist of both
DBPs such as THMs and HAA from NOM fraction hydrophilic and hydrophobic surface to exchange with
(humic and non-humic substances). Continuous an opposite ion charge of organic carbon in NOM.
exposure to DBPs in drinking water posing a serious
threat to human health thereby, the authorities set the Acknowledgments
permissible limit of these materials to ensure the water
is safe for drinking purposes. Hence, it is important to The authors are grateful to Ministry of Higher
remove NOM from raw water more efficiently. Education Malaysia for providing LRGS Grant No.
According to the pass studies (Table 1), NOM 203/PKT/6726001 River bank/bed Filtration for
characteristics are vary significantly from one sources Drinking Water Source Abstraction and MyBrain15
to another sources of water. Thus, its characteristic Scholarship to fund this research.
102
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

Final Report on Study on Characteristics and


REFERENCES removal of Natural Organic Matter in Drinking
Water Systems in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Abbt-Braun G, Frimmel FH (1999). Basic Newfoundland Labrador.
characterization of Norwegian NOM samples Drikas M, Dixon M, Morran J (2011). Long term case
Similarities and differences. Environment study of MIEX pre-treatment in drinking water;
International, 25(2): 161-180. understanding NOM removal. Water research,
Abdullah MP, Yew CH, Ramli MS, Rahmah A 45(4): 1539-1548.
(2003). Trihalomethanes (THMs) in Malaysian Duan J, Xiaoting C, Cheng C, Dongrui S, Genmao L,
drinking water. Malaysian Journal. Chem, 5(1): Dennis M (2012). Effects of Ca (OH)2 assisted
56-66. aluminum sulfate coagulation on the removal of
Ahmad UK, Ujang Z, Yusop Z, Fong TL (2002). humic acid and the formation potentials of tri-
Fluorescence technique for the characterization halomethanes and haloacetic acids in
of natural organic matter in river water. Water chlorination. Journal of Environmental
Science & Technology, 46 (9): 117-125. Sciences, 24(9): 1609-1615.
Bond T, Emma HG, Simon AP, Bruce J (2012). A Duan J, Gregory J (2003). Coagulation by hydrolysing
critical review of trihalomethane and haloacetic metal salts. Advances in Colloid and Interface
acid formation from natural organic matter Science, 100: 475-502.
surrogates. Environmental Technology Grebel JE, Pignatello JJ, William AM (2010). Effect
Reviews, 1(1): 93-113. of halide ions and carbonates on organic
Boyer TH, Singer PC (2006). A pilot-scale evaluation contaminant degradation by hydroxyl radical-
of magnetic ion exchange treatment for removal based advanced oxidation processes in saline
of natural organic material and inorganic waters. Environmental science & technology,
anions. Water Research, 40(15): 2865-2876. 44(17): 6822-6828.
Cai Z, Jaeshin K, Mark MB (2007). NOM removal by Henderson RK, Baker A, Murphy KR, Hambly A,
adsorption and membrane filtration using Stuetz PM, Khan SJ (2009). Fluorescence as a
heated aluminum oxide particles. potential monitoring tool for recycled water
Environmental science & technology, 42 (2): systems: A review. Water research, 43(4): 863-
619-623. 881.
Chen C, Xiao-jian Z, Ling-xia Z, Jing L, Wen-jie H, Hong HC, Liang Y, Han BP, Mazumder A, Wong
and Hong-da H (2008). Disinfection by- MH (2007). Modeling of trihalomethane
products and their precursors in a water (THM) formation via chlorination of the water
treatment plant in North China: Seasonal from Dongjiang River : Source water for Hong
changes and fraction analysis. Science of the Kong's drinking water. Science of the Total
Total Environment, 397(1): 140-147. Environment, 385(1): 48-54.
Comninellis C, Agnieszka K, Sixto M, Simon AP, Huang G, Fangang M, Xing Z, Yuan W, Zhigang W,
Ioannis P, Dionissios M (2008). Advanced Huijun L, Martin J (2011). Biodegradation
oxidation processes for water treatment: behavior of natural organic matter (NOM) in a
advances and trends for R&D. Journal of biological aerated filter (BAF) as a pretreatment
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, for ultrafiltration (UF) of river water. Applied
83(6): 769-776. microbiology and biotechnology, 90(5): 1795-
Crou J, Korshin GV, Benjamin M (2000). eds. 1803.
Characterization of natural organic matter in Hudson N, Andy B, Darren R (2007). Fluorescence
drinking water. American Water Works Assoc., analysis of dissolved organic matter in natural,
2000. waste and polluted waters: a review. River
Crou JP, Violleau D, Bodaire C, Legube B (1999). Research and Applications, 23(6): 631-649.
Removal of hydrophobic and hydrophilic Hwang CJ, Krasner S, Sclimenti M (2002). Polar
constituents by anion exchange resin. Water NOM: characterization, DBPs, treatment.
science and technology, 40 (9): 207-214. American Water Works Association.
David AF, Jenny B, Soizic G, Carmen ME, Bruce J, Krasner S, Howard W, Weinberg S, Susan DR,
Derek W, Peter H, Andrew T. C and Simon A. Salvador JP, Russell C, Michael JS, Gretchen
P (2004). Combination of ferric and MIEX for DO, Alfred DT (2006). Occurrence of a new
the treatment of a humic rich water. Water generation of disinfection byproducts.
Research, 38: 2551-2558. Environmental science & technology, 40(23):
Department of Environment and Conservation, Water 7175-7185.
Management Division (DECWMD) (2011).
103
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

Lamsal R, Walsh ME, Gagnon GA (2011). Environmental science & technology, 33(9),
Comparison of advanced oxidation processes 1538-1541.
for the removal of natural organic matter. Water Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH) (2000). National
research, 45(10): 3263-3269. Standard for Drinking Water Quality. Malaysia.
Lee JH, Hamm SY, Cheong JY, Kim HS, Ko EJ, Lee Nikolaou AD, Lekkas TD (2001). The Role of Natural
KS, Lee SI (2009). Characterizing riverbank- Organic Matter during Formation of
filtered water and river water qualities at a site Chlorination Byproducts: A Review. Acta
in the lower Nakdong River basin, Republic of hydrochimica et hydrobiologica, 29(23), 63-
Korea. Journal of Hydrology, 376(1): 209-220. 77.
Lu J, Tao Z, Jun M, Zhonglin C (2009). Evaluation of Nikolaou AD, Themistokles DL (2001). The Role of
disinfection by-products formation during Natural Organic Matter during Formation of
chlorination and chloramination of dissolved Chlorination By-products: A Review. Acta
natural organic matter fractions isolated from a hydrochimica et hydrobiologica, 29(2 -3): 63-
filtered river water. Journal of Hazardous 77.
Materials, 162(1): 140-145. Panyakapo M, Sarisak S, Pongsri P (2008). Cancer
Marhaba TF (2000). Fluorescence technique for rapid risk assessment from exposure to
identification of DOM fractions. Journal of trihalomethanes in tap water and swimming
Environmental Engineering 126 (2):145-152. pool water. Journal of Environmental Sciences,
Marhaba TF, Lee R, Lippincott (2000). Application of 20(3): 372-378.
fluorescence technique for rapid identification Parsons SA, Bruce J, Emma HG, Peter RJ, David AF
of DOM fractions in source waters. Journal of (2004). Natural organic matter-the relationship
Environmental Engineering, 126(11): 1039- between character and treatability. Retrieved on
1044. 15 August 2013, from
Matilainen A (2007). Removal of the Natural Organic http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/68
Matter in the different Stages of the Drinking 81.
Water Treatment Process. Dissertation of Richardson SD, Michael JP, Elizabeth DW, Rita S,
Doctor of Philosophy. Tempere University of David MD (2007). Occurrence, genotoxicity,
Technology. and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging
Matilainen A, Sillanp M (2010). Removal of natural disinfection by-products in drinking water: a
organic matter from drinking water by review and roadmap for research. Mutation
advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere, Research/Reviews in Mutation Research,
80(4): 351-365. 636(1): 178-242.
Matilainen A, Lindqvist N, Tuhkanen T (2005). Rizzo L, Selcuk H, Nikolaou AD, Meric PS,
Comparison of the effiency of aluminium and Belgiorno V (2013). A comparative evaluation
ferric sulphate in the removal of natural organic of ozonation and heterogeneous photocatalytic
matter during drinking water treatment process. oxidation processes for reuse of secondary
Environmental technology, 26(8), 867-876. treated urban wastewater. Desalination and
Matilainen A, Lindqvist N, Korhonen S, Tuhkanen T Water Treatment, doi:
(2002). Removal of NOM in the different 10.1080/19443994.2013.787953.
stages of the water treatment process. Sarathy SR, Mihaela I, Stefan AR, Mohseni M (2011).
Environment International, 28(6): 457-465. Pilot-scale UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation
Matilainen A, Vepslinen M, Sillanp M (2010). process for surface water treatment and
Natural organic matter removal by coagulation downstream biological treatment: effects on
during drinking water treatment: A review. natural organic matter characteristics and DBP
Advances in colloid and interface science, formation potential. Environmental technology,
159(2): 189-197. 32 (15):1709-1718.
Matilainen A, Gjessing ET, Lahtinen T, Hed L, Shamrukh M, Abdel-Wahab A (2008). Riverbank
Bhatnagar A, Sillanp M (2011). An overview filtration for sustainable water supply:
of the methods used in the characterisation of application to a large-scale facility on the Nile
natural organic matter (NOM) in relation to River. Clean Technologies and Environmental
drinking water treatment. Chemosphere, Policy, 10(4): 351-358.
83(11): 1431-1442. Singer PC, Bilyk K (2002). Enhanced coagulation
Maurice PA, Namjesnik-Dejanovic K (1999). using a magnetic ion exchange resin. Water
Aggregate structures of sorbed humic Research, 36(16): 4009-4022.
substances observed in aqueous solution. Singh P, Kumar P, Mehrotra I, Grischek T (2010).
Impact of riverbank filtration on treatment of
104
Ibrahim and Aziz
Trends on Natural Organic Matter in Drinking Water Sources and its Treatment

polluted river water. Journal of environmental with typical Chinese source waters. Separation
management, 91(5): 1055-1062. and Purification Technology, 110: 188-195.
Toor R, Mohseni M (2007). UV-H2O2 based AOP and Wang Z, Choi O, Seo Y (2013c) Relative
its integration with biological activated carbon Contribution of Biomolecules in Bacterial
treatment for DBP reduction in drinking water. Extracellular Polymeric Substances to
Chemosphere, 66(11): 2087-2095. Disinfection By-Product Formation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environmental science & technology; 47: 9764-
(2012). Edition of the Drinking Water 9773.
Standards and Health Advisories. Washington, Wu J, Zhang H, Shao LM, He PJ (2012). Fluorescent
DC. characteristics and metal binding properties of
Uyak V, Ismail T (2006). Modeling the formation of individual molecular weight fractions in
chlorination by-products during enhanced municipal solid waste leachate. Environmental
coagulation. Environmental monitoring and Pollution, 162: 63-71.
assessment, 121(1-3): 501-515. Xie J, Dongsheng W, John VL, Yanmei Z, Linan X,
Volk C, Larry W, Bruce J, Jeff R, Hai WZ, Louis K Christopher WKC (2012). pH modeling for
(2002). Monitoring dissolved organic carbon in maximum dissolved organic matter removal by
surface and drinking waters. Journal of enhanced coagulation. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring, 4(1): 43-47. Environmental Sciences, 24 (2):276-283.
Wang DS, Zhao YM, Yan MQ, Chow CWK (2013a). Yee LF, Abdullah MP, Abdullah A, Ishak B, Abidin
Removal of DBP Precursors in Micro-polluted KNZ (2009). Hydrophobicity characteristics of
Source Waters: A comparative study on the natural organic matter and the formation of
enhanced coagulation behavior. Separation and THM. The Malaysian Journal of Analytical
Purification Technology, 118: 271-278. Sciences, 13(1): 94-99.
Wang D, Zhao Y, Xie J, Christopher WKC, Van Zularisam AW, Ismail AF, Salim R (2006).
Leeuwen J (2013b) Characterizing DOM and Behaviours of natural organic matter in
removal by enhanced coagulation: A survey membrane filtration for surface water treatment:
a review. Desalination, 194(1): 211-231.

105
International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2(3), pp. 94-106, 2014

Nurazim Ibrahim is a postgraduate student at School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus,


Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Dr Aziz is a Professor in environmental engineering at the School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains
Malaysia. Dr. Aziz received his Ph.D in civil engineering (environmental engineering) from University
of Strathclyde, Scotland in 1992. He has published over 200 refereed articles in professional
journals/proceedings and currently sits as the Editorial Board Member for 8 International journals. Dr
Aziz's research has focused on alleviating problems associated with water pollution issues from industrial
wastewater discharge and solid waste management via landfilling, especially on leachate pollution. He
also interests in biodegradation and bioremediation of oil spills.

106

You might also like