Difference between revisions of "Filter Media Additives for Phosphorus Removal"
Tvanseters (talk | contribs) |
Tvanseters (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|Documented total phosphorus removal of up to 71%<ref>Hood A, Chopra M, Wanielista M. Assessment of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside Swales for the Removal of Phosphorus from Stormwater. Water. 2013;5(1):53-66. doi:10.3390/w5010053.</ref>||[http://boldandgold.com/index.html Proprietary] | |Documented total phosphorus removal of up to 71%<ref>Hood A, Chopra M, Wanielista M. Assessment of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside Swales for the Removal of Phosphorus from Stormwater. Water. 2013;5(1):53-66. doi:10.3390/w5010053.</ref>||[http://boldandgold.com/index.html Proprietary] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | ![[Iron filings ( | + | ![[Iron filings (ZVI)]] |
|Proven phosphorus retention <br> Retained phosphorus is stable||May harm plants<ref>Logsdon SD, Sauer PA. Iron Filings Cement Engineered Soil Mix. Agron J. 2016;108(4):1753. doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0427.</ref> <br> Removal efficiency declines with increased concentration of incoming phosphorus | |Proven phosphorus retention <br> Retained phosphorus is stable||May harm plants<ref>Logsdon SD, Sauer PA. Iron Filings Cement Engineered Soil Mix. Agron J. 2016;108(4):1753. doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0427.</ref> <br> Removal efficiency declines with increased concentration of incoming phosphorus | ||
|- | |- | ||
Revision as of 20:02, 25 November 2019
A number of granular amendments have been demonstrated to improve nutrient removal from discharge water in BMPs such as bioretention systems, stormwater planters, absorbent landscapes, sand filters or green roofs.
There are two primary processes involved, chemical precipitation and adsorption. Both mechanisms are ultimately finite, but have been shown in come cases to make significant improvements on the discharged water quality over several years.
In our effort to make this guide as functional as possible, we have decided to include proprietary systems and links to manufacturers websites.
Inclusion of such links does not constitute endorsement by the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program.
Lists are ordered alphabetically; link updates are welcomed using the form below.
| Material | Benefits | Potential concerns |
|---|---|---|
| Biochar | Renewable Enhances soil aggregation, water holding capacity and organic carbon content |
Currently expensive Energy intensive to produce Some sources say ineffective for phosphorus removal |
| Bold & GoldTM | Documented total phosphorus removal of up to 71%[1] | Proprietary |
| Iron filings (ZVI) | Proven phosphorus retention Retained phosphorus is stable |
May harm plants[2] Removal efficiency declines with increased concentration of incoming phosphorus |
| Red sand | Proven phosphorus removal Also removes TSS |
Poor orthophosphate removal in hypoxic or anoxic conditions |
| Smart SpongeTM | Removes phosphorus, as well as TSS, fecal coliform bacteria and heavy metals Non-leaching |
1-3 year lifespan, after which the product is removed as solid waste Proprietary |
| Sorbtive mediaTM | High phosphorus removal efficiency | Proprietary |
| Water treatment residuals | Waste product reuse | Quality control (capabilities depend on source, treatment methods, storage time, etc of WTR) |
- ↑ Hood A, Chopra M, Wanielista M. Assessment of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside Swales for the Removal of Phosphorus from Stormwater. Water. 2013;5(1):53-66. doi:10.3390/w5010053.
- ↑ Logsdon SD, Sauer PA. Iron Filings Cement Engineered Soil Mix. Agron J. 2016;108(4):1753. doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0427.