Review

Received: 3 September 2015 Revised: 23 November 2015 Accepted article published: 26 November 2015 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 21 December 2015

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jctb.4860

Applications of biofiltration in drinking water

treatment – a review
Onita D Basu,a* Sahil Dhawana and Kerry Blackb

Abstract
Biofiltration is a process in which an otherwise conventional granular filter is designed to remove not only fine particulates
but also dissolved organic compounds through microbial degradation. Biofiltration can reduce the need for chemicals in
drinking water treatment and thus improved applications of biofiltration in drinking water treatment can be viewed as green
or sustainable engineering technology. Recent trends in biofiltration technology for drinking water treatment have or have
attempted to extend the performance of biofilters through gaining a better understanding of operational constraints. This
review articles summarizes important operational parameters influencing biofiltration performance such as hydraulic loading,
empty bed contact time (EBCT), temperature, media type, and backwashing conditions. In addition, recent advancements
in biofiltration operations including, ozonation, ammonia removal and the influence of nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorous)
supplementation to facilitate carbon removal are explored.
© 2015 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: biofiltration; temperature impacts; hydraulic loading rate; filter acclimation; nutrient supplementation

INTRODUCTION organic matter prior to disinfection, and thereby helps minimize

Filtration is a key component to successful treatment of surface
water for the production of drinking water. Filtration is the removal
of particles from the water phase by passing the water through a
granular or porous media and can be subcategorized as rapid gran-
ular filtration, slow sand filtration and biological filtration. Rapid
granular filtration focuses on the removal of suspended particles
whereas slow sand filtration and biological filtration remove both
suspended and dissolved organic particles from the water phase.
One of the first filtration systems installed for a centralized system
was in Paisley, Scotland in 1804 which was used to treat water for
both industrial purposes and to supply water to the local popula-
tion; at the time cleaned water was delivered by cart to residents.1
In North America filtration was first implemented at Poughkeep-
sie, NY, USA in 1872.2 Early filtration systems utilized slow sand
filtration practices, which as the name may imply, have very low
filtration rates (ranging from approximate initial historical lows of
0.1 m h−1 to more modern averages of 0.4 m h−1 ); rapid granular
filtration has much higher filtration rates, ranging from approxi-
mately 5 to 20 m h−1 .
Conventional water treatment processes typically involve some
level of coagulation and flocculation followed by filtration and
disinfection.3 The first two processes can help remove organic
matter in the water, however, the latter two do not. Residual
organic matter in the water combines with disinfectants to form
disinfection by-products (DBP) which have been shown to have
carcinogenic properties. Conventional treatment processes expe-
rience difficulty in removing organics and disinfection by-product
precursors.4 In addition, residual organic matter that exits a drink-
ing water treatment facility may cause biological regrowth in the
distribution system as a result of biodegradable organic matter
(BOM), NH4 + , Fe2+ , Mn2+ that may have been left untreated.5 Biofil-
both the production of DBP and reduces the occurrence of bio-
logical regrowth in the distribution system; as such it has gained
prominence in North America since the 1980s.6
Given the growing prominence of biofiltration in drinking water
treatment, a recent review paper is needed. Several papers and ref-
erences on biofiltration have been published in the past, and the
reader is directed to them for further information.3,5 – 9 However, a
recent review paper focused on drinking water treatment biofiltra-
tion with the inclusion of important design parameters is needed.
This paper will also examine impacts of cold temperatures, oxida-
tion pretreatment, biofiltration for membrane fouling control, as
well as the capacity of biofilters to remove nitrogen compounds,
and the potential influence of available phosphorous on biofilter
performance.
BIOFILTER DESIGN
Media selection for biofiltration
While conventional filters are commonly composed of numerous
types of granular material including sand, granular activated car-
bon (GAC), anthracite and expanded ceramics, biofiltration may be
ideally suited with all or at least part of the media bed composed
of GAC. GAC has been used extensively in drinking water treat-
ment processes due to its adsorptive capacity to remove specific
∗ Correspondence to: Onita D. Basu, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
E-mail: onita.basu@carleton.ca
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
585

tration, has the capacity to remove both suspended and dissolved b Department of Civil Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 www.soci.org © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
 www.soci.org
Table 1. BOM removals at 5 ∘ C and 20 ∘ C (adapted from Ref. 14)
GAC/Sand media (HLR = 7.5 m h−1 ; EBCT = 5.6 min)
BOM Component % Removal 5 ∘ C % Removal 20 ∘ C
Acetate 85 90
Formate 85 90
Formaldehyde 85 95
Glyoxal 65–80 79
contaminants from solution. Conventionally, once the adsorptive
capabilities of the GAC are exhausted, the media is removed and
replaced with virgin GAC. However, once the adsorptive capabili-
ties of the GAC are exhausted, the media may be maintained in the
bed if the filter is intended to operate as a biofilter in which case it
may be labeled biologically activated carbon (BAC) filtration. BAC is
a filtration system in which granular activated carbon (GAC) is used
as a growth medium to support beneficial microorganims, rather
than for adsorption.10 GAC supports more dense microbial popu-
lations than sand or anthracite (i.e. 4 to 8 times more biomass per
gram of media), due to a combination of factors including poros-
ity, surface area, surface roughness, surface charge and adsorption
capacity.11
Presumably the higher microbial density will translate into
improved dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal within a biofil-
ter. For instance, Thiel et al.12 conducted a pilot scale study to com-
pare the performance of GAC and anthracite. At an empty bed
contact time (EBCT) of 8 min, DOC removals by GAC varied from
approximately 11% to 14% whereas with anthracite DOC removals
varied from approximately 1–3%. At an EBCT of 16 min, DOC
removals by GAC varied from approximately 15–20%, whereas
removals by anthracite varied from approximately 2% to 7%. In a
full scale study, Emelko et al.13 found that at warmer temperatures
(21–24 ∘ C), GAC and anthracite showed similar TOC removals,
however, at colder temperatures (1–3 ∘ C), median TOC removals
were 23% by GAC filters and 14% by anthracite filters.
A bench scale study conducted by Liu et al.14 investigated the
effects of media type and chlorinated backwash on biological
organic matter removal. It was found that GAC/sand filters showed
similar high levels of BOM removal at 5 ∘ C and 20 ∘ C whereas
the anthracite/sand filters demonstrated a much more variable
performance. A summary of removals obtained in this study has
been provided along with a comparison with anthracite media in
Table 1.
Basu and Huck15 studied TOC removal by biofiltration at lab
scale with anthracite/sand columns and an EBCT of 22 min, with
TOC removal varying from 10 to 36%, with a water composition
comprised of humic acids (65%) and readily biodegradable car-
bons (35%). Price et al.16 reported removals of 17% and 9% for
GAC and GAC/sand dual media filters, respectively, at EBCT of
10 min. Wang et al.17 reported average removals of 29%, 16% and
20% when using GAC, dual media filters and sand, respectively, at
EBCT of 9.2 min. Klevens reported 12% and 14% removal of TOC
using BAC, when operated with 5 and 10 min EBCT, respectively.18
Seredynska-Sobecka et al.19 observed higher removal of humic
acids during combined ozonation and biofiltration than with
biofiltration alone, using GAC. Fan et al.20 found 54% removal of
humic acid using GAC, in a landfill leachate study. Overall, while
biofiltration can occur with several media types, it has generally
586
been demonstrated that GAC provides a more robust media
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
OD Basu, S Dhawan, K Black
Anthracite/Sand media (HLR = 7.5 m h−1 ; EBCT = 5.6 min)
% Removal 5 ∘ C % Removal 20 ∘ C
45–85 85–90
30–80 90
95 10–85
75–80 10–55
surface for microbial growth and attachment that is less sensitive
to changes in water temperature.
Empty bed contact time (EBCT) and hydraulic loading rate
(HLR)
Empty bed contact time (EBCT) has been accepted as one of
the single most common parameters for helping predict removal
of organic matter in biofilters, although there is some discrep-
ancy on the time frame involved which may indicate that other
operational parameters still need investigation to help predict
removal of organic matter in biofilters. For instance, many ear-
lier studies found that removal of organic matter is directly pro-
portional to EBCT.21 – 23 LeChevallier et al.21 reported increases in
TOC removal from approximately 30 to 50% when the EBCT was
increased from 5 to 20 min. However, other research has shown
that the EBCT had little effect on TOC removal so long as the EBCT
range was between 4 and 20 min.24 Similar optimal EBCT ranges
have also been reported.17,25 Work by Hozalski et al. found that
decreased operating temperatures resulted in increased empty
bed contact time requirements to achieve steady state.26 Wert
et al.27 studied the impact of EBCT on AOC removal with two par-
allel anthracite/sand biofilters with EBCT of 3.2 min and 8.3 min,
respectively. Both columns demonstrated similar levels of removal
and in both cases, AOC removal stabilized at approximately 60%
after 175 days of operation.
Hydraulic loading rate (HLR), also referred to as surface load-
ing rate, is one of several parameters affecting biofiltration. How-
ever, its exact impacts on biodegradation and removal still require
research. Early work by Galvis et al. found that removal efficiencies
varied widely depending on the influent loading rate and source
water characteristics.28 Carlson and Amy22 found that the removal
of DOC decreased as the filter loading rate increased. Carlson and
Amy29 further concluded that biomass utilization as a function
of EBCT did not depend on the HLR, indicating ‘that EBCT is an
acceptable biofilter design parameter throughout a range of HLRs
and filter bed depths.’ It is further possible that decreased removal
of DOC at higher loading rates may be due to poor filter acclima-
tization, suggesting that the available biomass generally acclima-
tizes at a lower hydraulic loading rate and were unable to assimi-
late the carbon as efficiently at the higher loading rate without a
sufficient new time period allowed for the biomass to re-acclimate
to the new biofilter conditions.29,30 In their study, Melin and Ode-
gaard found that the removal of oxidation by-products was not
directly affected by hydraulic loading rate, but rather by influent
concentration and EBCT.30 They found that the removal of these
oxidation by-products varied greatly. Melin and Odegaard sug-
gested that the biomass and bacteria present at high loading rates
may prefer more easily biodegradable compounds.30 Cleary con-
cluded that the hydraulic loading rates were a critical parameter in
achieving good effluent quality, particularly in a less biologically
mature system.31
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595
Review of water treatment biofiltration
Liu et al.14 studied the effects of hydraulic loading rate on the
removal of conventional pollutants (AOC, NH3 -N, TP, etc.) and
microbial communities within a biofilter. Six biofilter units were
operated in parallel. Each column had an effective height of
100 cm with an internal diameter of 10 cm and contained 2.3 L of
GAC and 1.1 L of sand. The columns were started on a hydraulic
loading rate of 1 m h−1 (EBCT = 3 h). After 35 days of operation,
hydraulic loading in columns 2–6 was increased to 1.5 m h−1
(EBCT = 2 h), 2 m h−1 (EBCT = 1.5 h), 3 m h−1 (EBCT = 0.97 h),
5 m h−1 (EBCT = 35 min) and 8 m h−1 (22 min), respectively.
During the initial 35 days, removal of AOC, NH3 -N and TP
remained fairly constant at 84.5% ± 0.5%, 73.6% ± 0.7% and
76.9% ± 0.5%, respectively. As the HLRs were increased, a sharp
decline was observed in the removal of these contaminants which
was followed by a trend of increasing removal within 7 days with
steady state being reached within 14 days. The filter operating
at 3 m h−1 achieved highest AOC removal (85.2%) whereas high-
est NH3 -N and TP removal 84.4% and 87.1%, respectively, were
observed in the filter operating at 2 m h−1 . As HLR increased the
biomass concentration was noted to increase as well. Removals
for various pollutants ranged from 80% (HLR = 1 m h−1 ) to as low
as 20% (HLR = 8 m h−1 ); however, it should be noted that in all
cases as the HLR was adjusted the EBCT was altered as well.
Using polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel elec-
trophoresis (PCR-DGGE), the authors were able to determine the
dominant bacterial species in the columns. Shigella sp. was found
in all the biofilters. At low HLRs (1–3 m h−1 ), E. fergusonii was found
to be more dominant than in the columns with higher HLRs. The E.
coli bands in the DGGE analysis for the filters operating at 1 m h−1
and 1.5 m h−1 were denser than those operating at higher HLRs.
Ko et al.32 conducted a study on a pilot scale system with 3
dual media GAC/sand biofilter columns operated in parallel with
pre-ozonation (0.75 mg O3 mg−1 DOC). The filters each contained
2 m of GAC followed by 20 cm of sand. HLRs for three filters were
24 m h−1 (EBCT = 5 min) for filter 1, 12 m h−1 (EBCT = 10 min) for
filter 2 and 6 m h−1 (EBCT = 20 min) for filter 3. Eight sampling ports
were present on the filters, 25 cm apart. The removals for DOC
were 31%, 26% and 19% for filters 3, 2 and 1, respectively. This
would indicate a higher EBCT and lower HLR are advisable for DOC
removal. Biomass analysis was conducted on the media obtained
from the eight ports on each filter. An HLR of 12 m h−1 in filter
2 gave the maximum biomass concentrations (75 nmol PO4 − g−1
GAC to 120 nmol PO4 − g−1 GAC) compared with 24 m h−1 in filter 1
(70 nmol PO4 − g−1 GAC to 130 nmol PO4 − g−1 GAC) and 6 m h−1 in
filter 3 (42 nmol PO4 − g−1 GAC to 100 nmol PO4 − g−1 GAC).
Filter acclimation and filter depth
Acclimation refers to the operation of a biofilter under steady
state conditions for particular contaminant removals it generally
implies when removal of a DOC (or BOM for instance) has reached
a maximum steady state removal value. Development of biomass
is important as some research has shown that removal of DOC
during biodegradation is limited by biomass concentration or BOM
formation and not filter operating parameters.29
Acclimation periods required to reach steady state can vary
widely and depend largely on source water characteristics,
media selection and temperature. Acclimation periods have been
reported to range between 20 days and >16 months.14,15,17,25,33,34
For instance, Basu and Huck15 demonstrated that for waters with
a high humic content acclimation was close to 16 months, while
Liu et al.14 demonstrated that filter acclimation was impacted by
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
temperature, backwash, media type and type of organics which
resulted in filter acclimation periods ranging from 20 to 140 days.
Lower temperatures in particular took longer times for removal
with anthracite demonstrating times >140 days whereas GAC was
80 days at lower temperatures.
Although filter acclimation times can vary significantly it is
important to note that GAC filters first operate under adsorption,
and then transition to biofiltration as the adsorptive capacity is
reached. Therefore it may be possible to maintain a high removal
of DOC during biofiltration colonization phase.3
Some studies indicate that the amount of biomass decreases
with increasing depth and that the greatest level of removal occurs
at the top of the biofilters.17,35 Others demonstrated biomass
development through the biofilter column, for instance, Velten
et al.36 measured biomass development throughout the depth of
an O3 /BAC filter from start-up with virgin GAC media. Initially, 80%
of the influent DOC was removed through the filter column, which
was directly attributed to the adsorptive capacity of the virgin
GAC media by the study authors. This was followed by a transition
phase of decreasing DOC removal which then leveled off at 20%
removal of DOC after 90 days which is ascribed to the resultant
biomass development The authors studied biomass accumulation
throughout the depth of the bed which reached steady state after
a period of 90 days and coincided with the steady state DOC
removal observed in the columns These steady state values ranged
from 1.17 (±0.2) × 10−6 gATP g−1 GAC at a depth of 10 cm versus
0.8 (±0.2) × 10−6 gATP g−1 GAC at a depth of 115 cm. Similarly,
Boon et al.37 monitored DOC removal per ATP count throughout
the depth of biofilter columns at 10, 45, 80, and 115 cm.
Backwashing
Proper backwashing influences the performance of biological
filters through various mechanisms, including detachment and
removal of biomass (bacteria, protozoa and other microorgan-
isms), redistribution of media and associated fixed biomass,
adverse impacts of potential oxidants in the backwash water, and
elimination of accumulated particles. Chlorine and air scour can
be implemented to supplement regular backwashing procedures.
Emelko et al.13 published a comprehensive paper examining the
effects of air scour and subfluidized backwash on TOC and oxalate
removal at both warmer temperatures (21–24 ∘ C) and colder
temperatures (1–3 ∘ C), GAC/sand filters and anthracite sand filters
showed no significant change in TOC removal with and without
air scour. Both TOC and oxalate removal remained unaffected by
collapse pulsing. The backwash conditions are summarized in
Table 2.
Liu et al.14 showed no significant impact on BOM removal for
backwash water chlorinated with 0.5 mg Cl2 L−1 at 20 ∘ C for
both GAC and anthracite/sand biofilters, although glyoxal removal
decreased from70% to 50% observed in the anthracite/sand filter
only when exposed to chlorine versus no chlorine in the backwash
while the GAC filter was unaffected. Similarly, at 5 ∘ C, a detrimental
effect was observed on BOM removal for the anthracite/sand biofil-
ter with chlorine (0.5 mg L−1 ) versus without chlorine; for example,
glyoxal removal was 55% without chlorinated backwash water as
opposed to 11% with chlorinated backwash water. Thus it appears
that GAC biofilters are more robust to changes in both temperature
and backwash conditions than anthracite/sand biofilters.
Wert et al.27 examined the effects of various backwash proce-
dures (dechlorinated backwash water versus chlorinated water
587
with air scour) and varying filtration rates (4.8–14.6 m h−1 ) on
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
Table 2. Backwash procedure details (adapted from Ref. 13)
Backwash protocol Details
Standard (Air scour) Air scour: 2 min; 3 scfm ft−2
Settling time: 1 min
Chlorinated low rate wash: 9 min; 10.7 m h−1
Chlorinated high rate wash: 11–12 min;
42.7 m h−1
No air scour Chlorinated low rate wash: 9 min; 10.7 m h−1
Chlorinated high rate wash: 11–12 min;
42.7 m h−1
Collapse pulsing Chlorinated low rate wash: 9 min; 10.7 m h−1
Subfluidization wash with air scour; 7 min;
water wash - 7.3 m h−1 ; air scour 3 scfm ft−3
BOM removal. BOM (measured as AOC) was unaffected by back-
wash procedures and filtration rates. A 60% reduction in AOC was
observed after 165 days of filter operation. Formaldehyde removal
was also monitored and not impacted with backwash conditions,
formaldehyde removal reached 70% removal after 165 days of
operation.
Hozalski et al.26 observed that backwashing had very little effect
on removal of biological organic matter, until the amount biomass
lost during backwashing exceeded 60%. Their study also found
that filter acclimatization was relatively insensitive to backwashing
so long as the biomass loss during backwashing did not exceed
60%. They concluded that backwashing did not significantly affect
biofilter performance.26 Amburgey38 proposed extended terminal
subfluidizaation wash (ETSW) to backwash both biologically active
and conventional filters. ETSW is a process to backwash filters
under subfluidization conditions at the end of a regular fluidized
backwash to minimize the particle ripening stage of filters.
In a study conducted by Liao et al.39 the impacts of backwashing
on DOC, dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) and N-nitrosamine pre-
cursor removal through a GAC filter system were investigated. The
study also looked at the impact of backwashing on microbial com-
munity structure and biomass concentrations. The study made use
of a two-stage downflow BAC filtration system. Feedwater con-
sisted of lake water pretreated with pre-ozonation, rapid mixing,
flocculation, sedimentation, sand filtration and post ozonation and
was fed at a hydraulic loading rate of 8 m h−1 . Before the study,
the filters had been operating continuously for 18 months. Back-
washing consisted of a 2 min air scour (61 m2 s−1 ) followed by
a dechlorinated water only wash (81 m2 s−1 ) for 5 min and sam-
pling took place over 5 days. Filter influent and effluent were col-
lected immediately prior to backwash, immediately after back-
wash and 2, 5 days post-backwash. At this time, GAC samples from
the first downflow filter were also collected. Analysis indicated that
biomass concentrations decreased from approximately 32 nmol-P
g−1 dry media before backwashing to 15 nmol-P g−1 dry media
immediately after backwashing. This was followed by a recovery to
approximately 25 nmol-P g−1 dry media 5 days after the backwash.
Table 3 indicates the impact of backwashing on DOC, DON and
N-nitrosamine precursor removal, further the data indicates that
it is possible that backwashing can have a transitionally favorable
impact on DOC, DON and N-nitrosamine precursor removal.
TEMPERATURE EFFECTS
The majority of research has demonstrated that filtration per-
588
formance with respect to biodegradation of organics decreases
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
OD Basu, S Dhawan, K Black
at lower operating temperatures.23,26,40 – 44 At colder temper-
atures, filters exhibit decreased microbiological activity and
therefore exhibit decreased removal efficiencies. However,
some research has found limited impact on biofiltration at cold
temperatures.13,14,34,45
Specifically, reductions in the removal of E. coli were impaired at
lower temperatures, resulting in a decreased reduction of E. coli by
50% when influent temperatures were reduced from 20 to 2 ∘ C.40
Similarly, Bellamy et al. found reduced removal of total coliforms
when influent temperatures were reduced to 5 ∘ C, but found that
removal of Giardia remained constant.41 Work by Huck et al. found
that in the case of biofiltration, removal of organic matter from the
source water was significantly hindered at water temperatures that
dropped below 5 ∘ C.23 Similar results were observed by Hozalski
et al.26 In contrast, work by Melin et al. has shown that significant
biological activity can be achieved despite low temperature or
nutrient deprived conditions.34 Their study also showed good
removal of colour and TOC, as well as 50% removal of BDOC during
filter operation under cold temperatures. In this case, raw water
temperatures were around 2–4 ∘ C during the winter months, and
remained below 10 ∘ C during the summer months.
Work by Wulfeck and Summers44 found a 34% decrease in TOC
removal and a 59% decrease in removal of disinfection by-product
precursors for a full-scale biofilter operated at less than 14 ∘ C,
compared with the performance at temperature above 14 ∘ C.
Nishijima et al.45 showed that DOC removal was unaffected by
temperature as long as the EBCT was above 24 min. Their work
also showed that despite temperature changes on the order of
5 to 30 ∘ C, seasonal changes in the removal of DOC and THMFP
were not observed. Mofidi et al. found that filter start-up time was
significantly longer for cold temperature filters.46 Their work found
that filters started in warmer temperatures achieve 64% removal
after 3 months, versus 70% removal after 5 months for colder
temperature start-ups. Research performed by Moll et al. found
that biofilters operated at 5 ∘ C showed decreased biofiltration
performance compared with operation at 20 and 35 ∘ C.47 In their
work, AOC levels decreased on average by 23%, while removal of
some DBPs decreased by >50%.
Work by Liu et al. found that temperature was an important fac-
tor affecting steady-state removal of biological organic matter.14
Further, their work found that biological filtration performed favor-
ably at temperatures as low as 5 ∘ C provided that backwashes
were performed in the absence of chlorine. In addition, GAC vs
anthracite filters were found to reach steady state faster (20–80
days vs 20–140 days). Fonseca and Summers48 found that lower
operating temperatures decreased the overall removal of DOC,
and BDOC, but that there was no significant effect on the removal
of THM and HAAs. In addition, their work found that while tem-
perature affected the activity of the biomass, the concentration of
biomass remained relatively unchanged. Work by Emelko et al.13
found that neither GAC nor anthracite was significantly affected by
temperature when TOC removal was investigated. GAC however,
consistently exhibited better TOC removal than anthracite under
cold temperature conditions.
Persson et al.43 found that BDOC removal continued steadily at
cold water conditions of 5 ∘ C. Their study also found no correlation
between AOC removal and temperature, suggesting that AOC
removal is independent of raw water temperature. However, their
research did find that the specific activity of biofilter biomass was
significantly impacted by temperature.43 Jasim et al.49 conducted
a pilot scale study to investigate the effect of ozone on cold
water coagulation. Treatment occurs through two parallel trains
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595
Review of water treatment biofiltration www.soci.org

Table 3. Approximate percentage parameter removals immediately before, immediately after, 2 days and 5 days after backwash (adapted from
Ref. 39)

Parameter removal (%)

Parameter Influent range (mg L−1 ) Before backwash After backwash Day 2 Day 5

DOC 3.11 - 3.2 31.3 42.1 35 26.3

DON 0.15–0.2 25.3 64 39.6 19.6
N-nitrosamine precursor 100–130 × 10−6 25 62 40 20

with two filters: anthracite/sand followed by GAC/sand. In each

Table 4. Removal efficiencies for oxidation processes involving
train, pretreatment occurs through coagulation and flocculation. ozone*
An ozone dose of 1–2 mg L−1 was applied to train 2 only. Train 2
witnessed lower particle counts and lower turbidity for the filter Removal efficiency
effluent than train 1. Characteristic Ozone oxidation* Ozone + biofiltration
Limited research is available on the effect of sustained tempera-
ture regimes of less than 5 ∘ C; more recent research indicated that Colour 52–74% n/a
the impact of low temperatures can be somewhat mitigated by Dissolved Organic Carbon 2–33% 14–50%
appropriate operating conditions. Further research is needed to Biodegradable dissolved Increase of 5 increase of 10 to 55%
determine how to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of cold organic carbon (BDOC) to 50%
temperatures on biofiltration in order to ensure year round perfor- UVA (254 nm) 28–75% 60–80%
mance of biofiltration columns. THM precursors 5–55% 40–80%

*Adapated from Refs 71, 72, 50, 26, 73, 55, 74 and 54.

OXIDATION PRETREATMENT
Combined oxidation and biofiltration systems have the potential
to result in the production of biologically stable water through
the removal of biodegradable organic matter (BOM), this has
the benefit of minimizing the potential for bacterial regrowth
within the distribution system as well as removing disinfection
by-product precursors, reducing chlorine demand, and the poten-
tial removal/control of oxidation by-products.50,51
Ozone
During ozonation, natural organic matter (NOM) is oxidized and
transformed into intermediates still present as DOC.52,53 There-
fore, very little reduction in DOC is observed during low-dose
ozonation. Typically, a shift from humic to non-humic, and
high to low molecular weight NOM has been observed during
ozonation.52,54 The reaction of ozone with the aromatic structures
and double bonds of NOM results in a significant decrease in UV
absorbance.4,55,56 For instance, one study found than an ozone
dosage of 3 mg L−1 decreased UV260 absorbance by 50% [4],
another study reported a 50% decrease in UV254 at a 0.5 mg ozone
mg−1 DOC dosage and this value increased to 78% at a 1.5 mg
ozone mg−1 DOC dosage.55
Ozonation can occur via two pathways; direct or indirect. The
direct pathway favours reactions primarily with unsaturated
double bonds and aromatic compounds, though reaction with
amines or sulphides being common.57,58 With the indirect path-
way, hydroxyl radicals are formed and react with NOM. Hydroxyl
radicals are strong, unselective oxidants. At higher pH, the indirect
pathway is favored.59
Extensive work has shown that pre-ozonation doses of 1 to
2 mg O3 mg−1 TOC were optimal for enhancing biodegradation
of NOM in biofilters.6,26,34,60 – 65 Goel et al.66 found that an ozone
dose of 2 mg O3 mg−1 DOC was a reasonable compromise between
enhancing biodegradability of the NOM and ozone consumption,
but also found that sometimes up to 4 mg O3 mg−1 DOC was
Zhang et al.67 sought to compare O3 /BAC and GAC (conventional
non-biologically active filter) processes for organics removal. Both
processes showed similar removals of TOC (33.3% and 21.1%,
respectively). However, upon varying the ozone dose from
2 mg L−1 to 8 mg L−1 , the O3 /BAC process showed significantly
higher removals of AOC. At an ozone dose of 3 mg L−1 , the AOC
dropped from 380.9 μg acetate-C L−1 to 40.2 μg acetate-C L−1 in
the O3 /BAC versus 117.6 μg acetate-C L−1 in GAC.
A summary of the reported effects of ozonation and ozona-
tion + biofiltration is provided in Table 4. This table represents a
summary of the work by several researchers for ozone doses rang-
ing from 1 to 5 mg O3 mg−1 DOC.
Disadvantages to the use of ozone are the formation of ozone
by-products (OBPs) such as aldehydes (formaldehyde, acetalde-
hyde, glyoxal, methyl glyoxal, etc.), ketoacids and carboxylic
acids.58,75 – 78 However, most ozonation by-products are highly
biodegradable and can be removed through biofiltration prior to
releasing the water into the distribution system, which is one rea-
son why ozone/biofiltration are complimentary processes.79,80
For instance, the formation potentials of THMs, HAAs, and
chloral hydrate were reduced by as much as 70–80% using
ozonation–biofiltration treatment.63
Fonseca et al.81 compared microbial activity in biofilters treat-
ing ozonated water versus those treating non-ozonated water:
three separate biofilter systems each containing three sand fil-
ters in series were set up and consisted of intermediate oxida-
tion (1.3 ± 0.52 mg O3 mg−1 DOC), pre-oxidation (1.3 ± 0.35 mg O3
mg−1 DOC) and no oxidation, respectively. For the pre-oxidation
set of columns, analysis was carried out over two temperatures
(12 ∘ C and 3 ∘ C). It was observed that ozonation of the water
increased BDOC levels by 30%. DOC results indicated that the
pre-oxidation columns operating at 3 ∘ C performed better than
the non-oxidation set of columns.
Yavich et al.25 sought to compare the biodegradation of NOM
589

needed, depending on the raw water chemistry. from three separate source waters under the influence of different

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
ozone dosages using BDOC as an indicator. Increasing the ozone
dose at one of the sources from 0.6 mg O3 mg−1 C to 3 mg O3 mg−1
C only resulted in the formation of 0.13 mg L−1 of BDOC leading
the authors to conclude that a majority of the organic matter
from this source was refractory, i.e. not subject to biodegradation.
However, increasing the ozone dose from 0 mg O3 mg−1 C to 1 mg
O3 mg−1 C resulted in an increase in BDOC from 1.15 mg L−1 (in
the raw water) to 2.78 mg L−1 . Alternatively, at the third site, BDOC
formation increased to 7.39 mg L−1 from 5.04 mg L−1 in the raw
water upon increasing the ozone dosage from 0 mg O3 mg−1 C to
3 mg O3 mg−1 C
Yang et al.82 compared different treatment processes
post-conventional treatment (coagulation, flocculation, sedi-
mentation and rapid sand filtration) at pilot scale. Water from
the rapid sand filter was passed through GAC and ozone/BAC
processes with different EBCTs. The GAC column had an EBCT of
27.1 min while the BAC column had an EBCT of 39.1 min. Ozone
dosage was 4 mg L−1 . DOC removal by rapid sand filtration process
was 33.9%. The GAC process increased DOC removal efficiency by
10% compared with the rapid sand filter whereas O3 /BAC process
increased removal efficiency by 30% compared with the rapid
sand filter.
Hydrogen peroxide
Processes that use OH radicals as the main oxidant are called
advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). These hydroxyl radicals are
very short lived and extremely strong oxidizing agents. They react
with double bonds, or H-atom abstraction to form carbon centred
radicals. UV/ H2 O2 can be used to generate OH radicals. At high
doses, UV/ H2 O2 or UV/Ozone can mineralize NOM and decrease
the TOC concentration.9,56,57,68 – 70,83 The relatively high doses for
UV/H2 O2 (in excess of 1500 mJ cm−2 and 20 mg L−1 H2 O2 ) can
be economically unfeasible to achieve given the high energy
required. At the lower, more economically feasible doses (up to
1000 mJ cm−2 , and less than 10 mg L−1 H2 O2 ) NOM is oxidized into
intermediate compounds that are less aromatic and have been
shown to lower the tendency to form DBPs.56,84 – 87
Reductions of 14.5 to 27% of TOC, and 36–55% of UVA were
observed following treatment by combined UV and peroxide.88
In addition, Sarathy88 found that treatment led to a decrease in
hydrophobic fractions, and a shift from high molecular weight
NOM to low molecular weight NOM. Lauderdale et al.89 used
hydrogen peroxide at a dosage of 1 mg L−1 for a period of 10
days. Pilot scale, dual media (GAC/sand) columns were used. DOC
removal was observed to be 15% which was approximately 50%
higher than the control column. Supplementation of peroxide also
reduced terminal headloss by 60% compared with the control
column. Kozyatnik et al.90 investigated the effects of H2 O2 addition
on the efficiency of biofiltration to remove a solution of fulvic
acid (50 mg O dm−3 ). Biofilters contained only GAC. The H2 O2 was
dosed at a concentration of 5 mg dm−3 . It was found that the
adsorption capacity of the GAC for fulvic acid increased by 82%
with peroxide addition versus without.
BIOFILTER PRETREATMENT FOR MEMBRANES
Membrane fouling can affect membrane productivity, frequency
of cleaning, membrane replacement rate, energy consumption,
and overall operation and maintenance costs Strategies for min-
imizing fouling have been investigated for many years, including
the investigation of pretreatment by biofiltration or activated car-
590
bon filtration and hybrid membrane processes.15,91,92
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
OD Basu, S Dhawan, K Black
Table 5. TOC and DOC removals by biofilter and membranes under
various conditions (adapted from Ref. 93)
Flux TOC DOC
(L m−2 h−1 ) Unit operation removal (%) removal (%)
50 Biofilter 50 32
Membrane + Biofilter 60 32
Membrane (without 48 10
pretreatment)
35 Biofilter 60 40
Membrane + Biofilter 90 45
Membrane (without 55 10
pretreatment)
Combined ozonation with biofiltration ahead of membrane
filtration systems has been shown to be beneficial for mem-
brane fouling control.65,80 Mosqueda-Jimenez et al. investigated
the effect of biofiltration on membrane performance.93 Two hol-
low fiber ultrafiltration membrane units were used to assess
the impact of biofiltration pretreatment at two different perme-
ate fluxes (50 L m−2 h−1 and 35 L m−2 h−1 ) with one membrane
installed prior to the biofilter and one membrane installed after
biofiltration.
Table 5 lists the DOC removal with and without the biofilter
and membrane units; on their own the membranes show lim-
ited DOC removal (10%); when combined with biofiltration, the
removal increases to 45%. The authors attribute this to the molecu-
lar weight cutoff range of their membranes (500–30 000 Daltons).
At this range, the membranes would be able to remove larger
particles easily, as is indicated by the percentage TOC removals.
Their study on membrane permeability found that the higher flux
(50 L m−2 h−1 ) resulted in a quicker loss of permeability compared
with the lower flux (35 L m−2 h−1 ) for any volume of water fil-
tered. For instance, at a filtered volume of 260 L, the permeability
reduction at the higher flux was 67% for the membrane without
pretreatment versus 59% for the membrane with pretreatment.
In contrast, at the lower flux, the permeability reductions were
56% for the membrane without pretreatment versus 11% for the
membrane with pretreatment. Thus, differences in permeability
reduction were more evident at the lower flux. Biofiltration as a
pretreatment method to control membrane fouling has demon-
strated promise, however there is limited research associated with
temperature affects and adverse water quality events for this type
of system.
ORGANICS REMOVAL
In drinking water treatment, natural organic matter (NOM) is
responsible for imparting colour to the water. If left untreated
throughout the treatment process, NOM is a potential disinfection
by-product precursor in the presence of certain disinfectants;
such as chlorine.94 – 97 Biofiltration with or without ozonation is
effective in reducing the NOM content in the water source through
mineralization of NOM by the microbes in the biofilm contained
within the biofilter.25,98,99
Temperature has been found to be an important parameter influ-
encing BDOC removal.47,100 Modeling results by Laurent et al.100
indicate that BDOC removal is highly dependent on empty bed
contact time (EBCT) of the filters. It was found that for lower tem-
peratures (5 ∘ C), an EBCT of 12 min would provide approximately
22% BDOC removal. A similar EBCT for water at 25 ∘ C could achieve
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595
Review of water treatment biofiltration
Table 6. Summary of bulk organic carbon parameter percentage removal and filter specifications
Reference Filter specification
101 O3 /BAC, Filtration rate = 1.5 m3 h−1 , EBCT = 15 min
102 O3 /BAC, Filtration rate = 8 m3 h−1 , EBCT = N/A
103 O3 /BAC, Ozone Dose = 2–8 mg L−1 , EBCT = 11.5 min
GAC, EBCT = 11.5 min
47 Sand, loading rate = 3.6 m h−1 , EBCT = 7 min, T = 5 ∘ C
Sand, loading rate = 3.6 m h−1 , EBCT = 7 min, T = 20 ∘ C
Sand, loading rate = 3.6 m h−1 , EBCT = 7 min, T = 35 ∘ C
approximately 50% removal of BDOC. Moll et al.47 used sand filters
operating at 7 min EBCT with a hydraulic loading rate of 3.6 m h−1 .
Influent water temperature varied from 5 ∘ C to 35 ∘ C, at 5 ∘ C, DOC,
BDOC and AOC removals were found to be 15%, 38%, and 43%,
respectively. The corresponding removals at 35 ∘ C were 24%, 60%,
and 57%. Thus, the results showed a decrease in removal of DOC,
BDOC and AOC at lower temperatures.
Mofidi et al.46 conducted studies on biodegradable organic mat-
ter (BOM) removal at the Mills Water Treatment Plant in South-
ern California. Their goal was to achieve 70% BOM removal. The
plant was retrofitted with ozonation at the head of the treat-
ment process to make the BOM more readily biodegradable. Two
biofiltration systems (system 3 and system 4), each containing 16
anthracite/sand filters were present at the plant. BOM levels were
monitored by analyzing samples for short chain carboxylic acids
(CBXA). System 4 was initially set up for use with spent media
with an almost immediate 70% reduction in BOM; the media for
system 4 was then replaced by virgin media and less than 11%
BOM removal was observed for a period of 2 months; however
it must be noted that the media was replaced in winter with
water temperatures about 8 ∘ C which likely had an impact on
results. Following this 45% removal was observed after 2.5 months
operation and recovery to 70% BOM removal was attained only
after 5 months operation. System 3 was brought online with vir-
gin media (water temperature 14 ∘ C) with 64% removal of BOM
observed after 3 months operation. This research may demon-
strate that virgin GAC has properties which interfere with biofilm
development and thus exhausted GAC is a better media for
biofiltration.
Table 6 provides a summary of various filtration conditions and
organic removals levels with biofiltration.
Nitrogen (ammonia) removal
Nitrogen is found in surface water and groundwater in the form
of ammonia, nitrites and nitrates. All these forms are undesirable
in drinking water. Traditionally, breakpoint chlorination has been
used to remove ammonia. However, this can be cost inhibitive104
and can also result in a decrease in short-term chlorine demand.105
Developing nitrification in biological filtration is a cost-effective
method to achieve simultaneous BOM and ammonia removal.
In nitrification, Nitrosomonas bacteria convert ammonia to
nitrite. The Nitrobacter bacterial species then converts nitrite to
nitrate.27
Olańczuk-Neyman and Bray106 studied the effects of chemical
(15 mmol L−1 sodium azide addition) and physical (high temper-
ature treatment) inhibition on the growth of nitrifying bacteria.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
Average removal (%)
BDOC AOC TOC
72 - -
- 51.2–60.6 -
- 89 33.3
- 69 21.1
38 43 -
60 55 -
60 57 -
Sodium azide was inhibitory to the ammonia oxidizing bacteria
even after its removal from the filters.
Wert et al.27 found that biofiltration was able to convert ammonia
to 50% NO2 -N and 50% NO3 -N in a column with 183 cm anthracite
and 20 cm sand after 290 days operation. In their study a high
loading rate (14.6 m h−1 ) and low EBCT (8.3 min) were used and
conversion of ammonia to nitrite began after 130 days. Full nitri-
fication was observed after 170 days. In contrast, filters with 53 cm
anthracite and 25 cm sand operating at a loading rate of 4.8 m h−1
(EBCT = 9.7 min) achieved complete ammonia removal by day 99.
Andersson et al.105 present an interesting comparison between
ammonia removals at pilot scale and full scale level. The study
made use of two different kinds of GAC media: closed superstruc-
tured (CS) and open superstructured (OS).
At pilot scale, while they observed a decrease in nitrification
at lower temperatures, a decrease in the quantity of nitrifying
biomass attached to the media was not observed. OS media
showed greater reduction in ammonia than CS media (77% ver-
sus 55%) during the initial filter acclimation period. At full scale,
for temperatures greater than 10 ∘ C, OS media showed 98%
removal while CS media showed 90% removal. The increased
removals compared with the pilot scale filters were thought to
be a result of greater EBCT for the full scale columns (20–30 min
vs 3.6 min).
Stembal et al.107 evaluated the concentration profiles of NH3 -N,
NO2 -N and NO3 -N through the depths of four rapid sand fil-
ters at varying filtration rates for groundwater sources. For filters
pre-acclimated with nitrifying bacteria, all the incoming ammo-
nia was converted to NO3 -N at a depth between 0.4 m and 0.8 m.
For filters not acclimated, the ammonia removals were observed
within 10 days of operation. Complete removal of ammonia was
observed within 25 days. This was accompanied by a spike in the
nitrite values which eventually decreased in another 10 days as
the nitrite was converted to nitrate. Utilization of biofilter columns
provides a cost effective method of converting ammonia to nitrate
and nitrite with further conversion to nitrogen also feasible. How-
ever, more research is needed on the microbial make-up of the
system as well as the required HLR and EBCT.
Nutrient supplementation
The molecular formula of a heterotrophic microorganism, such as
may be found in water systems, will of course vary; however a
generalized molecular formula for the biomass may be considered
to be C60 H87 O23 N12 P.108 Thus, while we are targeting the removal
of carbon in biofiltration applications it may be of importance
591
to keep in mind the expected, or required, C:N:P ratio to ensure
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
that all elements are available for carbon uptake. A study con-
ducted in Finland found that phosphorus is an important com-
pound to regulate microbial growth. Miettinen et al.109 determined
heterotrophic plate counts for treated water from three surface
water sources, two artificially recharged groundwater sources and
one groundwater source post phosphorus addition. Phosphorus
dosages varied from 1 μg P L−1 to 50 μg P L−1 . Strong correlations
were determined between phosphorus and AOC availability to
microbial growth. It was determined that AOC alone was not the
driving catalyst but rather its availability in the presence of phos-
phorus that drove the process of growth.
Nishijima et al.110 carried out phosphorus supplementation
experiments in a 220 mL continuously mixed reactor containing
110 mL of GAC. For an initial DOC concentration of 9.5 mg L−1 , the
average effluent DOC value from the filter was 3.9 mg L−1 for GAC
with adsorbed phosphorus (3.2 mg P g−1 GAC) and 8.7 mg L−1 for
GAC without adsorbed phosphorus. After 47 days, the influent to
the GAC without adsorbed phosphorus was spiked with 0.1 mg P
L−1 . This resulted in a dramatic decrease in DOC from 8.7 mg L−1
to 2.2 mg L−1 .
Xin et al.111 studied the effects of phosphorus supplementation
on two pilot scale GAC/sand filters. Each filter had a hydraulic
loading between 7.5 and 8.5 m h−1 . This corresponded to an
EBCT in the range 6.4–7.2 min. A 54% increase was observed
in the heterotrophic plate counts after phosphorus addition. An
increase in the permanganate index removal (CODMn ) was also
observed (20.56% removal with P addition versus 14.54% with-
out P addition). Lehtola et al. showed that phosphorous can be a
growth-limiting nutrient in ozonated waters.112 They found that
ozonation increased the content of phosphorous that can be easily
assimilated. Their work showed that lack of phosphorous inhib-
ited microbial growth in ozonated drinking waters, rather than
organic carbon and that even a minor increase in phosphorous
resulted in significant increases in microbial growth. These find-
ings however were restricted to phosphorus-limited waters. Laud-
erdale et al.89 supplemented phosphoric acid (∼20 μg L−1 PO4 -P)
in three pilot scale dual-media (GAC/sand) biofilter columns to
increase the C:N:P ratio to 100:10:1 on a mol basis. Supplemen-
tation was found to decrease biofilter headloss by greater than
15%. Sang et al.113 used two identical ceramic biofilters (biofil-
ters with porous ceramic media). One of the filters was dosed
with phosphorus (25 μg of PO3− 4 -PL−1 ) for 60 days while the other
which was nutrient limited was not, average TOC removals of
22–26.6% were observed in the phosphorous supplemented fil-
ter while 17.1–21.3% TOC removals were observed in the control.
Granger et al.114 investigated the effects of phosphorus supple-
mentation on manganese and DOC removal within bench scale
GAC/anthracite columns. Phosphorus was dosed at 20 μg L−1 to
200 μg L−1 . It was found that phosphorus was not a limiting nutri-
ent for manganese removal. However, on average, 23% of DOC
was removed in columns with phosphorus supplementation ver-
sus 12% in the control columns.
Research into nutrient supplementation for biofilter optimiza-
tion is a necessary field of study, and would be of particular use
when examined in conjunction with other operating parameters
such as temperature and hydraulic loading rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Biofiltration has proven to be a useful technology in drinking
water treatment systems. Biofiltration has the capacity to decrease
592
organic matter content that would otherwise enter into the water
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
OD Basu, S Dhawan, K Black
distribution system and contribute to bacterial regrowth. In
addition, removal of organics by biofiltration helps control dis-
infection by-product formation in water systems and may be a
useful step in controlling membrane fouling. Advanced oxidation
preceding biofiltration has demonstrated good correlation with
assisting in organics removal in combination with biofiltration.
Research examining microbial speciation in biofilters under vary-
ing conditions seems lacking and there is a lack of understanding
of the effects of bacterial growth within the biofilter column
and associated removal of organics. Finally, there is a lack of
research on cold water temperature effects and novel methods
to help overcome limitations to compensate for decreased bac-
terial growth rates under cold water temperatures with drinking
water applications. Nutrient supplementation has demonstrated
the potential to facilitate indigenous bacterial growth in the
biofilter to maximize organics removals and the need to assess
incoming water quality to ensure it is suitable for biofiltration
applications.
REFERENCES
1 Symons G, Water treatment through the ages. J Am Water Works Assoc
98:87–98 (2006).
2 Logsdon G, Horsley MB, Freeman SDN, Neemann JJ and Budd GC, Fil-
tration processes – a distinguished history and a promising future.
J Am Water Works Assoc 98:150–162 (2006).
3 Simpson DR, Biofilm processes in biologically active carbon water
purification. Water Res 42:2839–2848 (2008).
4 Kim WH, Nishijima W, Shoto E and Okada M, Pilot plant study on
ozonation and biological activated carbon process for drinking
water treatment. Water Sci Technol 35:21–28 (1997).
5 Chaudhary DS, Vigneswaran S, Ngo H, Shim WG and Moon H,
Biofilter in water and wastewater treatment. Korean J Chem Eng
20:1054–1065 (2003).
6 Uhl W, Biofiltration processes for organic matter removal, in Biotech-
nology, 2nd completely revised edn, Vol 11c, ed. by Rehm HJ
and Reed G. Environmental Processes III. Wiley-VCH, New York,
pp. 457–478 (2000).
7 Raghuvanshi S, Majumder S and Gupta S, Biofiltration: essentials,
research and applications, in Bioremediation and Sustainability:
Research and Applications, ed. by Mohee R and Mudhoo A. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA (2012).
8 Cohen Y, Biofiltration – the treatment of fluids by microorganisms
immobilized into the filter bedding material: a review. Bioresource
Technol 77:257–274 (2001).
9 [9]Randtke SJ and Horsley MB, Water Treatment Plant Design, 5th
edn. AWWA, American Society of Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill
(2012).
10 American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF),
Ozone and biological treatment for DBP control and biological
stability, ed. by Price ML. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO
(1994).
11 Wang G-S, Liao C-H, Chen H-W and Yang H-C, Characteristics of nat-
ural organic matter degradation in water by UV/H2 O2 treatment.
Environ Technol 27:277–287 (2006).
12 Thiel P, Zappia L, Franzmann P, Warton B, Alessandrino M, Heitz
A et al., Activated carbon vs anthracite as primary dual media
filters – a pilot plant study. In 9th Annual Water Industry Engineers
and Operators Conference, Bendigo Exhibition Centre (Vol. 5, pp.
8–14) (2006).
13 Emelko MB, Huck PM, Coffey BM and Smith EF, Effects of media,
backwash and temperature on full-scale biological filtration. J Am
Water Works Assoc 98:61–73 (2006).
14 Liu X, Huck PM and Slawson RM, Factors affecting drinking
water biofiltration. J Am Water Works Assoc 93:90–101 (2001).
15 Basu OD and Huck PM, Integrated biofilter-immersed membrane
system for the treatment of humic waters. Water Res 38:655–662
(2004).
16 Price ML, Bailey RW, Enos AK, Hook M and Hermanowicz SW, Evalua-
tion of ozone/biological treatment for disinfection byproducts con-
trol and biologically stable water. Ozone Sci Eng 15:95–130 (1993).
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595
Review of water treatment biofiltration
17 Wang JZ, Summers RS and Miltner RJ, Biofiltration performance:
Part 1. Relationship to biomass. J Am Water Works Assoc 87:55–63
(1995).
18 Klevens CM, Collins MR, Negm R and Farra MF, Characterisation of
NOM removal by biological activated carbon, in Advances in Slow
Sand and Alternative Biological Filtration, ed. by Graham N and
Collins R. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 79–88 (1996).
19 Seredynska-Sobecka B, Tomaszewska M and Morawski A, Removal
of humic acids by the ozonation-biofiltration process. Desalination
198:265–273 (2006).
20 Fan H, Chiu T, Yang H, Chen W and Furuya E, Removal of humic
acids, fulvic acids and non humic substances from landfill leachate.
J Environ Eng Manage 17:325–331 (2007).
21 LeChevallier MW, Becker WC, Schorr P and Lee RG, Evaluating the
performance of biologically active rapid filters. J Am Water Works
Assoc 84:136–146 (1992).
22 Carlson KH and Amy GL, The relative importance of HLR and EBCT in
biofiltration, in Proceedings of 1995 AWWA Water Quality Technol-
ogy Conference, New Orleans, LA.
23 Huck PM, Finch GR, Hrudey SE and Peppler MS, Design of biological
processes for organics control. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver,
CO (1998).
24 Hozalski RM, Goel S and Bouwer EJ, TOC removal in biological filters.
J Am Water Works Assoc 87:40–54 (1995).
25 Yavich AA, Lee KH, Chen KC, Papa L and Masten SJ, Evaluation of
biodegradability of NOM after ozonation. Water Res 38:2839–2846
(2004).
26 Hozalski RM, Bouwer EJ and Goel S, Removal of natural organic
matter from drinking water supplies by ozone-biofiltration. Water
Sci Technol 40:157–163 (1999).
27 Wer EC, Neemann JJ, Rexing DJ and Zegers RE, Biofiltration for
removal of BOM and residual ammonia following control of bro-
mate formation. Water Res 42:372–378 (2008).
28 Galvis G, Visscher JT and Lloyd B, Multi-stage surface water treatment
for community water supply in Columbia. Waterlines 10:26–29
(1992).
29 Carlson KH and Amy GL, BOM removal during biofiltration. J Am Water
Works Assoc 90:42–52 (1998).
30 Melin ES and Odegaard H, The effect of biofilters loading rate
on the removal of organic ozonation by-products. Water Res
34:4464–4476 (2000).
31 Cleary SA, Sustainable drinking water treatment for small communi-
ties using multistage slow sand filtration. Masters thesis, University
of Waterloo (2005).
32 Ko YS, Lee YJ and Nam SH, Evaluation of a pilot scale dual media
biological activated carbon process for drinking water. Korean J
Chem Eng 24:253–260 (2007).
33 Servais P, Billen G and Hascoet M, Determination of the biodegrad-
able fraction of dissolved organic matter in waters. Water Res
21:445–450 (1987).
34 Melin E, Skkog R and Odegaard H, Ozonation/biofiltration with cal-
cium carbonate as biofilter media, in Recent Progress in Slow Sand
and Alternative Biofiltration Processes, ed by Gimbel R, Graham NJD
and Collins MR. IWA Publishing, London, 406–413 (2006).
35 Urfer D and Huck PM, Measurement of biomass activity in drink-
ing water biofilters using a respirometric method. Water Res
35:1469–1477 (2001).
36 Velten S, Boller M, Köster O, Helbing J, Weilenmann HU and Hammes F,
Development of biomass in a drinking water granular active carbon
(GAC) filter. Water Res 45:6347–6354 (2011).
37 Boon N, Pycke BF, Marzorati M and Hammes F, Nutrient gradients
in a granular activated carbon biofilter drives bacterial com-
munity organization and dynamics. Water Res 45:6355–6361
(2011).
38 Amburgey JE and Amirtharajah A, Strategic filter backwashing tech-
niques and resulting particle passage. J Environ Eng 131:535–547
(2005).
39 Liao X, Chen C, Zhang J, Dai Y, Zhang X and Xie S, Operational per-
formance, biomass, and microbial community structure: impacts
of backwashing on drinking water biofilter. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22:546–554 (2015).
40 Huisman L and Wood WE, Slow Sand Filtration. World Health Organi-
zation, Geneva, Switzerland (1974).
41 Bellamy WD, Hendricks D and Logsdon GS, Slow sand filtration:
influences of selected process variables. J Am Water Works Assoc
77:62–66 (1985).
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
42 Fogel D, Isaac-Renton J, Guasparini R, Moorehead W and Ongerth
J, Removing giardia and cryptosporidium by slow sand filtration.
J Am Water Works Assoc 85:77–84 (1993).
43 Persson F, Heinicke G, Uhl W, Hedberg T and Hermansson M, Per-
formance of direct biofiltration of surface water for reduction of
biodegradable organic matter and biofilm formation potential.
Environ Technol 27:1037–1045 (2006).
44 Wulfeck WM Jr and Summers RS, Control of DBP Formation using
retrofitted GAC filter-adsorbers and ozonation. In Proceedings of the
1994 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA.
American Water Works Association (1994).
45 Nishijima W, Kim WH, Shoto E and Okada M, The performance of
an ozonation-biological activated carbon process under long term
operation. Water Sci Technol 38:163–169 (1998).
46 Mofidi A, Johnston R, Coffey BM, Gerringer FW and Krasner SW, Per-
formance of large-scale biological filtration for removal of particles
and BOM produced by ozonation. In Proceedings from the Water
Quality and Technology Conference, Quebec City, 2005. American
Water Works Association (2005).
47 Moll DM, Summers RS, Fonseca AC and Matheis W, Impact of temper-
ature on drinking water biofilter performance and microbial com-
munity structure. Environ Sci Technol 33:2377–2382 (1999).
48 Fonseca AC and Summers RS, Evaluation of different ozonation strate-
gies and of temperature effects on biological filter performance. In
Proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality and Technology Conference.
Philadelphia, PA (2003).
49 Jasim SY, Ndiongue S, Borikar D, Johnson B and Schweitzer L, The
effect of ozone on cold water coagulation. Ozone: Sci Eng 30:27–33
(2008).
50 Cipparone LA, Diehl AC and Speitel Jr GE, Ozonation and BDOC
removal: effect on water quality. J Am Water Works Assoc
89:84–97(1997).
51 Wu JJ, Wu C and Chuang W, Evaluation of oxidation by products
and control of organic matters using advanced oxidation processes
(AOPs) combined with biological fluidized bed for the treatment
of eutrophicated raw water. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Ozone Congress, Las Vegas, NV (2003).
52 Owen DM, Amy GL, Chowdhury ZK, Paode R, McCoy G and Viscosil
K, NOM characterization and treatability. J Am Water Works Assoc
87:46–63 (1995).
53 Fahmi NW and Okada M, Improvement of DOC removal by multistage
22 AOP-biological treatment. Chemosphere 50:1043–1048 (2003).
54 Bérubé PR, Mohseni M, Chin A and Toor R, Comparing UV-Ozone
and UV- hydrogen peroxide for the reduction of the disinfection
by-product formation potential. Proceedings of the 2004 AWWA
Water Quality Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas (2004).
55 Kleiser G and Frimmel FH, Removal of precursors for disinfection
by- products (DBPs) - differences between ozone- and OH radical-
induced oxidation. Sci Total Environ 256:1–9 (2000).
56 Thomson J, Parkinson A and Roddick FA, Depolymerization of
chromophoric natural organic matter. Environ Sci Technol
38:3360–3369 (2004).
57 Gottschalk C, Libra J and Saupe A, Ozonation of Water and Wastew-
ater: A Practical Guide to Understanding Ozone and its Application.
Wiley-VCH, New York (2000).
58 von Gunten U, Ozonation of drinking water: Part I. Oxidation kinetics
and product formation. Water Res 37:1443–1467 (2003a).
59 Hoigne J and Bader H, Ozonation of water - role of hydroxyl radicals
as oxidizing intermediates. Science 190:782–784 (1975).
60 Werner P and Hambsch B. Investigations on the growth of bacteria in
drinking water. Water Supply 4:227–235 (1986).
61 van der Kooij D, Hijnen WAM and Kruith JC, The effect of ozonation,
biological filtration and distribution on the concentration of easily
assimilable organic carbon (AOC) in drinking water. Ozone: Sci Eng
11:297– 311 (1989).
62 Murphy BM, Ozone-induced conversion of DBP precursors (DOC) to
biodegradable by-products (BDOC). Masters dissertation, Depart-
ment of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (1993).
63 Siddiqui MS, Amy GL and Murphy BD, Ozone enhanced removal
of natural organic matter from drinking water. Water Res
31:3098–3106 (1997).
64 American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF),
Advanced oxidation and biodegradation processes for the destruc-
tion of TOC and DBP precursors. AWWA Research Foundation, Den-
593
ver, CO (1999).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb
 www.soci.org
65 Kim HC, Yu MJ, Koo JY and Leo S, Application of O3 /GAC process
for advanced and selective removal of NOM from conventionally
treated water. Water Sci Technol 16:101–108 (2006).
66 Goel S, Hozalski RM and Bouwer EJ, Biodegradation of NOM: effect of
NOM source and ozone dose. J Am Water Works Assoc 87:90–105
(1995).
67 Zhang XX, Zhang ZY, Ma LP, Liu N, Wu B, Zhang Y et al., Influences of
hydraulic loading rate on SVOC removal and microbial community
structure in drinking water treatment biofilters. J Hazard Mater
178:652–657 (2010).
68 Shukairy HM and Summers RS, DBP speciation and kinetics as affected
by ozonation and biotreatment disinfection by-products in water
treatment: the chemistry of their formation and control, In Disin-
fection By-Products in Water Treatment, ed. by Minear RA and Amy
GL. CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton, FL (1995).
69 Speitel GE Jr, Symons JM, Mialaret JM and Wanielista MME,
AOP/Biofilm process for DOX precursors. J Am Water Works
Assoc 92:59–73 (2000).
70 Digiano FA, Singer PC, Parameswar C and Lecourt TD, Biodegradation
kinetics of ozonated NOM and aldehydes. J Am Water Works Assoc
98:92–104 (2001).
71 Greaves GF, Grundy PG and Taylor GS, Ozonation and slow sand
filtration for the treatment of coloured upland waters - pilot plant
investigations, in Slow Sand Filtration. Recent Development in Water
Treatment Technology, ed. by Graham NJD. Ellis Horwood, UK,
pp. 153–162 (1988).
72 Cable CJ and Jones RG, Assessing the effectiveness of ozonation fol-
lowed by slow sand filtration in removing THM precursor material
from an upland raw water, in Advances in Slow Sand and Alternative
Biological Filtration, ed. by Graham NJD and Collins R. John Wiley &
Sons, UK, pp. 29–37 (1996).
73 Westerhoff P, Debroux J, Aiken G and Amy G, Ozone induced
changes in natural organic matter (NOM) structure. Ozone Sci Eng
21:551–570 (1999).
74 Galapate R, Baes A and Okada M, Transformation of dissolved organic
matter during ozonation: effects on trihalomethane formation
potential. Water Res 35:2201–2206 (2001).
75 Singer PC, Formation and control of disinfection by-products in drinking
water. AWWA Publishing, Denver, CO (1999).
76 von Gunten U, Ozonation of drinking water: Part II. Disinfection and
by- product formation in presence of bromide, iodide or chlorine.
Water Res 37:1469–1487 (2003b).
77 Huang W-J, Chen L-Y and Peng H-S, Effect of NOM characteris-
tics on brominated organics formation by ozonation. Environ Int
29:1049–1055 (2004).
78 Hammes F, Salhi E, Koster O, Kaiser HP, Egli T and von Gunten U, Mech-
anistic and kinetic evaluation of organic disinfection by-product
and assimilable organic carbon (AOC) formation during the ozona-
tion of drinking water. Water Res 40:2275–2286 (2006).
79 Krasner SW, Sclimenti MJ and Coffeey BM, Testing biologically active
filters for removing aldehydes formed during ozonation. J Am Water
Works Assoc 85:62–70 (1993).
80 Karnik BS, Davies SHR, Chen KC, Jaglowski DR, Baumann MJ and Mas-
ten SJ, Effects of ozonation on the permeate flux of nanocrystalline
ceramic membranes. Water Res 39:728–734 (2005).
81 Fonseca AC, Summers RS and Hernandez MT, Comparative measure-
ments of microbial activity in drinking water biofilters. Water Res
35:3817–3824 (2001).
82 Yang J, Dong-Xing Y and Weng T, Pilot study of drinking water
treatment with GAC, O3 /BAC and membrane processes in Kinmen
Island, Taiwan. Desalination 263:271–278 (2010).
83 Toor R and Mohseni M, UV/H2 O2 based AOP and its integration
with biological activated carbon treatment for DBP reduction in
drinking water. Chemosphere 66:2087–2095 (2007).
84 Oppenlander T, Photochemical Purification of Water and Air.
Wiley-VCH, New York (2003).
85 Tuhkanen TA, UV/H2 O2 processes, in Advanced Oxidation Processes for
Water and Wasterwater Treatment, ed. by Parsons S. IWA Publishing,
London, pp. 86–110 (2004).
86 Chin A and Bérubé P, Removal of disinfection by-product pre-
cursors with ozone-UV advanced oxidation process. Water Res
39:2136–2144 (2005).
87 Sarathy S and Mohseni M, The Impact of UV/H2 O2 advanced oxidation
on molecular size distribution of chromophoric natural organic
594
matter. Environ Sci Technol 41:8315–8320 (2007).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
OD Basu, S Dhawan, K Black
88 Sarathy S, Effects of UV/H2 O2 advanced oxidation on physical and
chemical characteristics of natural organic matter in raw drinking
water sources. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC (2009).
89 Lauderdale C, Chadik P, Kirisits MJ and Brown J, Engineered
biofiltration: enhanced biofilter performance through nutrient
and peroxide addition. J Am Water Works Assoc 104:298–309
(2012).
90 Kozyatnik IP, Klimenko NA, Savchina LA and Vrubel TL, The use of
hydrogen peroxide for raising the efficiency of filter operation
with biologically activated carbon. Water Chem Technol 30:72–79
(2008).
91 Peldszus S, Benecke J, Jekel M and Huck PM, Direct biofiltration
pretreatment for fouling control of ultrafiltration membranes. J Am
Water Works Assoc 104:430–445 (2012).
92 Stoquart C, Servais P, Bérubé P and Barbeau B, Hybrid membrane
processes using activated carbon treatment for drinking water
production: a review. J Membr Sci 411–412:1–12 (2012).
93 Mosqueda-Jimenez DB, Huck PM and Basu OD, Fouling characteristics
of an ultrafiltration membrane used in drinking water treatment.
Desalination 230:79–91 (2008).
94 Chen M, Ohman K, Sinclair J, Petkau D, Yau R, Deng JF et al., Disin-
fection by-products in drinking water- a case study on Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. Water Quality Res J Canada 46:200–210 (2011).
95 Chae S, Evaluation of drinking water treatment processes focusing
on natural organic matter removal and on disinfection by-product
formation. Water Supply 2:459–464 (2002).
96 Sohn J, Amy G and Yoon Y, Process-train profiles of NOM through
a drinking water treatment plant. J Am Water Works Assoc
99:145–153 (2007).
97 Bekbolet M, Uyguner CS, Selcuk H, Rizzo L, Nikolaou AD, Meric S et al.,
Application of oxidative removal of NOM to drinking water and
formation of disinfection by-products. Desalination 176:155–166
(2005).
98 Chaiket T, Singer PC, Miles A, Moran M and Pallotta C, Effectiveness of
coagulation, ozonation, and biofiltration in controlling DBPs. J Am
Water Works Assoc 99:81–95 (2002).
99 Yavich AA and Masten SJ, Use of ozonation and FBT to control THM
precursors. J Am Water Works Assoc 95:159–171 (2003).
100 Laurent P, Prévost M, Cigana J, Niquette P, and Servais P, Biodegrad-
able organic matter removal in biological filters: evaluation of the
CHABROL model. Water Res 33:1387–1398 (1999).
101 Xiang H, Lu X, Yin L, Yang F, Zhu G and Liu W, Microbial commu-
nity characterization, activity analysis and purifying efficiency in a
biofilter process. J Environ Sci 25:677–687 (2013).
102 Liao X, Chen C, Wang Z, Wan R, Chang CH, Zhang X et al., Changes of
biomass and bacterial communities in biological activated carbon
filters for drinking water treatment. Process Biochem 42:312–316
(2013).
103 Kong LY, Zhang XJ and Wang ZS, Pilot plant study on ozonation
and biological activated carbon process for drinking water treat-
ment. J Environ Sci 18:232–235 (2006).
104 Wert EC, Rosario-Ortiz FL, Drury DD and Snyder SA, Formation of
oxidation byproducts from ozonation of wastewater. Water Res
41:1481–1490 (2007).
105 Andersson A, Laurent P, Kihn A, Prévost M and Servais P, Impact of
temperature on nitrification in biological activated carbon (BAC)
filters used for drinking water treatment. Water Res 35:2923–2934
(2001).
106 Olańczuk-Neyman K and Bray R, The role of physico-chemical
and biological processes in manganese and ammonia nitro-
gen removal from groundwater. Polish J Environ Studies 9:91–96
(2000).
107 Štembal T, Markić M, Ribičić N, Briški F and Sipos L, Removal of
ammonia, iron and manganese from groundwaters of north-
ern Croatia - pilot plant studies. Process Biochem 40:327–335
(2005).
108 Metcalf and Eddy Inc, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse.
McGraw-Hill, New York (2003).
109 Miettinen IT, Vartiainen T and Martikainen PJ, Phosphorus and bacte-
rial growth in drinking water. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:3242–3245
(1997).
110 Nishijima W, Shoto E and Okada M, Improvement of biodegra-
dation of organic substance by addition of phosphorus in
biological activated carbon. Water Sci Technol 36:251–257
(1997).
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595
Review of water treatment biofiltration www.soci.org

111 Xin, Y, Xiao-jian Z, Xiao-jian Z, Xiao-dong Z and Zhan-shen W, Phos-
phorous limitation in biofiltration for drinking water treatment.
J Environ Sci 15:494–499 (2003).
112 Lehtola MJ, Miettinen IT, Vartiainen T, Myllykangas T and Martikainen
PJ, Microbially available organic carbon, phosphorus and microbial
growth in ozonated drinking water. Water Resources 35:1635–1640
(2001).
113 Sang J, Zhanga X, Lib L and Wang Z, Improvement of organics removal
by bio-ceramic filtration of raw water with addition of phosphorus.
Water Res 37:4711–4718 (2003).
114 Granger HC, Stoddart AK and Gagnon GA, Direct biofiltration
for manganese removal from surface water. J Environ Eng
140:04014006-1-04014006-8 (2014).

595

J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2016; 91: 585–595 © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jctb