Difference between revisions of "Filter Media Additives for Phosphorus Removal"

From LID SWM Planning and Design Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 36: Line 36:
 
|Waste product reuse||Quality control (capabilities depend on source, treatment methods, storage time)
 
|Waste product reuse||Quality control (capabilities depend on source, treatment methods, storage time)
 
|}<br>
 
|}<br>
 +
 +
 +
{{:Biochar}}
 +
 
-------
 
-------
 
[[category: materials]]
 
[[category: materials]]
 
[[category: Phosphorus]]
 
[[category: Phosphorus]]
 
[[category: Water quality]]
 
[[category: Water quality]]

Revision as of 18:05, 11 August 2025

Overview[edit]

Design innovations to improve water quality treatment performance of filter media mixtures involve the incorporation of additives to enhance retention of reactive or dissolved pollutants. 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 some cases to make significant improvements on the discharged water quality over several years. For instance, a two year STEP research study that compared standard bioretention media, to the same media amended with Sorbtive™ in one plot and iron enriched sand (aka red sand) in another showed statistically significant improvements in effluent phosphorus concentrations from the two media amended plots (STEP, 2019)[1].

Determining when additive enhanced filter media needs replacing or maintenance represents a new challenge for stormwater asset managers, as there are no suitable visual indicators. Erickson et al. (2018) suggest effluent sampling and laboratory testing to identify when enhanced filter media pollutant retention is waning, or periodic sampling and batch (laboratory) testing of filter media to directly measure its capacity to retain the targeted pollutants[2]. Periodic replacement of filter media at inlet locations should be considered as an operation and maintenance best practice to maintain treatment performance.

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.

Filter Media Additives
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%[3] Proprietary
Iron filings or Zero valent iron (ZVI) Proven phosphorus retention
Retained phosphorus is stable
May harm plants[4]
Removal efficiency declines with increased concentration of incoming phosphorus
Red sand or Iron-enriched 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)



Biochar
Photo credit: K.salo.85

What Is It?[edit]

Biochar is a carbon-rich material produced by pyrolysis of organic feedstocks such as municipal, agricultural, and forestry wastes. It has a high surface area, which enhances soil aggregation, water holding capacity, and organic carbon content. However, biochar properties and effectiveness for pollutant sorption depends on feedstock and pyrolysis conditions (Iqbal et al., 2015). [5]

How is it being used?[edit]

  • Biochar additions to green roof substrate were tested at the University of Toronto. Biochar-amended sedum green roofs presented the best integrated water quality, including reduced discharge concentrations of dissolved P (Liao et al., 2024)[6].
  • Ongoing biochar research at the British Columbia Institute of Technology is testing the response of native plants to various soil/biochar mixes to be used in rain gardens and the comparison of biochar with different physico-chemical characteristics in chemical contaminants removal efficacy (BCIT, 2025) [7].
  • A bioretention system in China used biochar layered with or mixed into lateritic red soil, with some success in contaminant removal. The mixed biochar–soil design achieved the highest water retention, and both biochar-amended systems removed more contaminants (TN, NH₃-N, NO₃⁻, TP, PO₄³⁻, and Cu) than systems without biochar (Premarantha et al., 2023) [8].
  • In Delaware, two roadside filter strips amended with biochar reduced peak flow and runoff volume, but showed no notable change in pollutant concentrations (Center for Watershed Protection, Inc., 2025) [9].
  • In field experiments in Europe, biochar reduced nutrient leaching in green roofs, but did not reduce nutrient concentrations in effluent (Kuoppamäki et al., 2016) [10].

Benefits[edit]

One study states that the mixing of biochar with compost did not decrease the phosphorus leaching from the mixture (Iqbal et al., 2015). [5] Based on this study, it would seem that biochar is ineffective for phosphorus removal. An Australian study found that phosphorus removal efficiency was inversely related to the biochar content of sand media when used to treat secondary sewage and septage in constructed wetland mesocosms (Rozario et al., 2016)[11]. Another study, located in Portland, found that biochar could reduce metal concentrations in stormwater when used as an amendment to bioretention systems but has a limited impact on nutrients [12].

However, some other papers indicate that biochar mixed with sand was able to retain some trace organic contaminants (TOrCs) (Ulrich et al., 2015), [13] and that after six months of operation, biochar-amended biofilters improved removal of total dissolved phosphorus and other TOrCs by greater than 60% (Ulrich et al., 2017a). [14] Amendment of LID systems with biochar has shown promise for improved removal of heavy metals, bacteria, nutrients, and TOrCs (Ulrich et al., 2017b). [15]



  1. STEP. 2019. Improving nutrient retention in bioretention. Technical Brief. Accessed: https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/06/improving-nutrient-retention-in-bioretention-tech-brief.pdf
  2. Erickson, A.J., Taguchi, V.J., Gulliver, J.S. 2018. The Challenge of Maintaining Stormwater Control Measures: A Synthesis of Recent Research and Practitioner Experience. Sustainability. 2018, 10, 3666. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3666
  3. 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.
  4. Logsdon SD, Sauer PA. Iron Filings Cement Engineered Soil Mix. Agron J. 2016;108(4):1753. doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0427.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Iqbal H, Garcia-Perez M, Flury M. 2015. Effect of biochar on leaching of organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus from compost in bioretention systems. Science of the Total Environment. 521-522: 37-45. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.060
  6. Liao, W., Sidhu, V., Sifton, M., Margolis, L., Drake, J., Thomas, S. 2024. Biochar and vegetation effects on discharge water quality from organic-substrate green roofs,
  7. BCIT. 2025. Biochar Amended Soil Matrix for Green Stormwater Infrastructure. https://commons.bcit.ca/nbs/rain-gardens-bioretention-cells/
  8. Premarathna, K. S. D., Biswas, J. K., Kumar, M., Varjani, S., Mickan, B., Show, P. L., Lau, S. Y., Novo, L. A. B., & Vithanage, M. 2023. Biofilters and bioretention systems: the role of biochar in the blue-green city concept for stormwater management. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 9(12), 3103-3119. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ew00054k. https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/74040133/D3EW00054K_authors_accepted_version.pdf
  9. Center for Watershed Protection, Inc. 2025. Biochar for bioretention systems: A Review of Biochar use in Bioretentions, Biofilters, and Bioretention Soil Media. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/files/documents/Appendix-A-Biochar-for-Bioretention-Systems_Literature-Review-031725.pdf
  10. Kuoppamäki, K., Hagner, M., Lehvävirta, S. & Setälä, H. 2016. Biochar amendment in the green roof substrate affects runoff quality and quantity. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 88, pp. 1–9.
  11. P. de Rozari, M. Greenway, A. El Hanandeh. 2016. Phosphorus removal from secondary sewage and septage using sand media amended with biochar in constructed wetland mesocosms. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.096.
  12. Struzak, M., Poor, C., Wolfand, J., Radke, A. 2024. Evaluation of Biochar as an Amendment for the Removal of Metals, Nutrients, and Microplastics in Bioretention Systems. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/JOEEDU.EEENG-7487
  13. Ulrich B, Im E, Werner D, Higgins C. 2015. Biochar and Activated Carbon for Enhanced Trace Organic Contaminant Retention in Stormwater Infiltration Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:6222-6230. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00376.
  14. Ulrich B, Loehnert M, Higgins C. 2017a. Improved contaminant removal in vegetated stormwater biofilters amended with biochar. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 3:726-734. doi: 10.1039/C7EW00070G
  15. Ulrich B, Vignola M, Edgehouse K, Werner D, Higgins C. 2017b. Organic Carbon Amendments for Enhanced Biological Attenuation of Trace Organic Contaminants in Biochar-Amended Stormwater Biofilters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:9184-9193. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01164.