Measuring the surrogate parameters total organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon (TOC/DOC) is not adequate, alone, to reveal nuances in organic character for optimizing treatment in potable water reuse. Alternatively, analyzing each organic compound contributing to the surrogate measurement is not possible. As an additional analytical tool applied between these extremes, the use of excitation-emission matrix fluorescence spectroscopy with PARAllel FACtor (EEM-PARAFAC) analysis was investigated in this research to track categories (components) or families of organic compounds during treatment in recycled water schemes. Although not all organic molecules fluoresce, many do, and fluorescence helps track their fate through water treatment processes. The sites investigated in this research were Lake Lanier, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, USA; the F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center (FWH WRC) advanced wastewater treatment facility; and two pilot facilities operated in parallel representing the current indirect potable reuse (IPR) scheme as well as a pilot that evaluated direct potable reuse (DPR). A four-component nonnegativity PARAFAC model-elucidating protein-like (including tyrosine- and tryptophan-like fluorescence in a single component), soluble microbial product (SMP)-like, fulvic-like, and humic-like components-was fitted to the data. Each of the four components was spectrally and mathematically separated, implying that the fluorescing SMP-like component was not comprised of protein-, fulvic-, or humic-like components. PARAFAC excitation loadings with dual (double) pairs of fluorescing regions centered at the same emission wavelengths but different excitation wavelengths oriented parallel to the excitation axis and perpendicular to the emission axis were attributed to individual PARAFAC components. Significantly, the observation of PARAFAC emission loadings with multiple peaks-where the protein-like component exhibited fluorescence in both protein and fulvic/humic regions-is proposed to signify an intermolecular energy transfer (< 10 nm). Correct identification of EEM-PARAFAC components is fundamental to understanding water treatment.

In response to the increasing global water demand and the pressing environmental challenges posed by climate change, the development of advanced wastewater treatment processes has become essential. This study introduces novel electrochemical technologies and examines the scalability of industrial-scale electrooxidation (EO) methods for wastewater treatment, focusing on simplifying processes and reducing operational costs. Focusing on the effective removal of key nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, from wastewater, this review highlights recent advancements in electrode materials and innovative designs, such as high-performance metal oxides and carbon-based electrodes, that enhance efficiency and sustainability. Additionally, a comprehensive discussion covers a range of electrochemical methods, including electrocoagulation and electrooxidation, each evaluated for their effectiveness in nutrient removal. Unlike previous studies, this review not only examines nutrient removal efficiency, but also assesses the industrial applicability of these technologies through case studies, demonstrating their potential in municipal and industrial wastewater contexts. By advancing durable and cost-effective electrode materials, this study emphasizes the potential of electrochemical wastewater treatment technologies to address global water quality issues and promote environmental sustainability. Future research directions are identified with a focus on overcoming current limitations, such as high operational costs and electrode degradation, and positioning electrochemical treatment as a promising solution for sustainable water resource management on a larger scale.

Periods of drought coupled with increasing population growth have prompted increased interest in potable water reuse in Gwinnett County, Georgia, USA. However, such inland water recycling facilities are challenged with treatment approaches where reverse osmosis (RO) membrane concentrate disposal is a barrier to implementation of potable reuse. To evaluate alternative treatment processes, testing of two side-by-side pilot systems using multi-stage ozone and biological filtration without RO was conducted to compare indirect potable reuse (IPR) to direct potable reuse (DPR). Two water sources were investigated-influent from Lake Lanier for the IPR pilot, and a blend of 25 % reclaimed water mixed with lake water (75 %) for the DPR pilot. To assess the nature of organic matter removed during potable reuse, excitation-emission matrix (EEM) fluorescence spectroscopy/PARAllel FACtor (PARAFAC) analyses were examined as a fingerprinting tool. The objectives were to determine (a) if a DPR scenario, when preceded by advanced wastewater treatment, could achieve drinking water quality comparable to IPR and (b) if water quality monitoring using EEM/PARAFAC methods could predict results for DPR and IPR water quality, comparable to parameters obtained in a supplementary study that required more expensive, time-consuming, and complicated analytical techniques. Sample scores representing relative concentrations of fluorescing organic matter derived from the EEM-PARAFAC model decreased in the order of reclaimed water > lake water > DPR pilot > IPR pilot, demonstrating that EEM/PARAFAC could distinguish between DPR and IPR water quality. An assessment of a comprehensive list of individual organic compounds (reported separately) validated that blend ratios of 25 % reclaimed water, or higher mixed with lake water (75 %) did not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. Likewise, in this study, EEM/PARAFAC analysis demonstrated the 25 % blend did not provide drinking water quality indicating this simple, inexpensive method could be used for potable reuse monitoring.

Per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are being studied in all environmental matrices because of their ubiquitous presence and adverse human health impacts. This study conducted a surveillance of 27 water resource recovery facilities throughout the United States and Canada to screen the range of PFAS concentrations in pre‐stabilized sludge and post‐stabilized product. Among the 27 water resource recovery facilities, 82% use anaerobic digestion and the rest use chemical stabilization and/or incineration for sludge stabilization. Forty PFAS compounds were evaluated by US Environmental Protection Agency Method SW846/537.1, and four and nine compounds were reported in the pre‐stabilized sludge and post‐stabilized product, respectively. Concentrations of reported compounds in pre‐stabilized sludge and post‐stabilized product varied from 5 to 33 ng/g dry basis and 2 to 220 ng/g dry basis, respectively. 3‐Perfluoropentylpropanoic acid (5:3 FTCA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) were the most frequently observed compounds, and PFAS concentrations in the post‐stabilized products were generally higher than the corresponding pre‐stabilized sludge. Practitioner Points: Among the 40 target PFAS, four were above reporting limit in the pre‐stabilized sludge and nine in the post‐stabilized product. Incineration ash (post‐stabilized product) samples did not have any reportable PFAS. 5:3 FTCA and PFOS were the two frequently observed compounds; concentrations were higher in the post‐stabilized product compared to the pre‐stabilized sludge. PFPeA and PFHxA were the only two short chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids reported. PFOA was reported in only one of the 54 samples evaluated.