Sistem biofilter kombinasi_lumpur_aktif_dan_rumput_laut_sebagai_sarana_perbaikan_pasokan_air_pada_ba
WRF Webcast Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual and biofilter performance
Transcript of WRF Webcast Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual and biofilter performance
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission.
WRF Webcast
Biofilter Conversion Guidance Manual
March 28, 2017
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biofiltration: Defining Benefits and
Developing Utility Guidance
By 2017, determine biofiltration effectiveness at
removing multiple contaminants, define benefits
and communicate to key stakeholders, and provide
utility guidance on optimizing biofiltration.
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Focus Area ProjectsProject Title
4459 Development of a Biofiltration Knowledge Base
4496 Converting Conventional Filters to Biofilters
4555 Optimizing Biofiltration for Various Source Water Quality
4559Simultaneous Removal of Multiple Chemical
Contaminants Using Biofiltration
4620Practical Monitoring Tools for the Biological Processes in
Biofiltration
4719 Biofiltration Guidance Manual
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biofilter Conversion Guidance
Manual
WRF Project #4496
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Speakers
• Jess Brown, PhD, PE – Carollo Engineers
• Giridhar Upadhyaya, PhD, PE – Carollo Engineers
• Ashley Evans, PE – Arcadis
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Agenda
• Motivation, Objectives
& Approach
• Survey Results
• Case Studies
• Assessment Tool
• Guidance Manual
“How suitable is biofiltration
for my facility and what are
recommended mitigation
strategies?”
Motivation, Objectives &
Approach
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conventional to Biological
Filtration
Flu
ori
de
Clearwell
Chlo
rine
Am
monia
Sodiu
m H
ydro
xid
e
Raw
Water
Rapid
Mix
Coagula
nt
Poly
mer
Flocculation /
SedimentationFiltration
Distribution
SystemC
hlo
rine
Conventional
Water Treatment
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conventional to Biological
Filtration
Flu
ori
de
Clearwell
Chlo
rine
Am
monia
Sodiu
m
Hydro
xid
e
Raw
Water
Rapid
Mix
Coagula
nt
Poly
mer
Flocculation /
SedimentationBiofiltration
Distribution
SystemC
hlo
rine
(Backup O
nly
)
Biofiltration
Operation
Conventional
Water Treatment
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conventional to Biological
Filtration
Flu
ori
de
Clearwell
Chlo
rine
Am
monia
Optional Ozone
Addition
Raw
WaterOzone
Rapid
Mix
Ozone
Coagula
nt
Poly
mer
Flocculation /
SedimentationBiofiltration
Distribution
SystemOzone
Ozone
Chlo
rine
(Backup O
nly
)
Biofiltration
Operation
Conventional
Water Treatment
Sodiu
m
Hydro
xid
e
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Project Driver
• Multiple factors may control bioacclimation and biofilter performance
• No industry guidance for testing, designing, and implementing this transition
− Success factors?
− Optimal operating conditions?
− Case studies?
− Issues and challenges?
− Mitigation strategies?
Construction Type Based on
WRF 4459: Biofiltration
Knowledge Base
New Construction
48%Retrofit
52%
Source: WRF Project 4459
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Overall Project Objective
To catalog and summarize
current biofilter conversion
practices with a focus on:
• Planning
• Evaluation (testing)
• Conversion implementation
• Operation and monitoring
• Process optimization
Conversion Guidance Manual
Conversion Assessment
Tool
Developed
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Research Approach
Lit ReviewConversion
Survey
Case
Studies
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conversion
Survey Lit Review
Case
Studies
Research Approach
Project Team
Experiences
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Research Approach
Project Team
Experiences
Conversion
Survey Lit Review
Case
Studies
Survey Results
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Utility Survey Design and Participants
• Facility Information
• Water Quality Information
• Driver for Biofiltration
• Evaluation Phase
• Planning Activities
• Implementation Experience
• Lessons Learned
• 23 to 750 MGD
• 2 to >17 years
• 61% were retrofitted from existing conventional filters
• 41% river, 24% reservoir & 35% blended source waters
17 full-scale facilities!
70 questions in 7 categories!
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Participants Represented a Combined
2,286 MGD in Biofilter Capacity
750
280240 220
150120 110
75 59 54 50 40 30 30 30 25 23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Desi
gn C
apacit
y (
MG
D)
Facilities
Biofiltration Facility Design Capacity
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Participants Represented Over 140
Years of Combined Biofilter
Operational Experience
17
1110+ 10+ 10+ 10+ 10+ 10+
9 98
7 7
43 3
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Years
of
Opera
tion
Facilities
Years of Biofilter Operation
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Participants Included Facilities with a
Range of Biofiltration Design & Operating
Schemes
Backwash SchemeTreatment Scheme
Legend:
GAC: Granular Activated Carbon
S: Sand
A: Anthracite
A/S -Ozone47%
GAC or GAC/S -Ozone17%
GAC or GAC/S - No Ozone
18%
GAC/S -Chlorine Residual
18%
Non-Chlorinated Backwash
64%
Chlorinated Backwash
27%
Chloraminated Backwash
9%
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Most Utilities Targeted More than One
Treatment Objective with Biofiltration
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Organics Removal (TOC, AOC, etc.)
Costs / Media Change-out Frequency
Disinfection Byproducts Precursor Removal
Taste and Odor Removal
Increased Loading Rate
Metals (Fe/Mn) Removal
Distribution System Water Quality Stability
Chlorite Removal
In Use at Other Plants
Number of FacilitiesPrimary Drivers for Conversion
Highlighted in Purple
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Key Themes were Identified for Each
Stage of the Conversion Process
Evaluation
• Few infrastructure evaluations
• Pilot scale or full-scale evaluations
• Optimization strategies unavailable
• Limited knowledge transfer
Planning
• No implementation plans
• No mitigation strategies prior to start-up
• No biofiltration process training
• Monitoring parameters varied
Implementation
•Timing based on other factors (e.g., media replacement or construction schedule)
•No biofiltration process optimization
•Costs not tracked
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Most Facilities Completed Either a
Pilot or Full-Scale Evaluation Prior to
Conversion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bench & Pilot Pilot Pilot & Full-Scale Demo / Full-Scale
None
No.
of
Facilit
ies
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Most Participating Utilities Converted to
Biofiltration with Minimal Planning
Related to the Biofiltration Process
Number of Facilities
Implementation
Plans
Biofiltration
Process Training
Monitoring
Plans
ExtensiveConstruction Start-
Up DocumentNone
1
13 3 1
16
None Extensive
12 4 1
A Few New Parameters
Several New
Parameters Extensive
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Implementation Experiences Varied
Across the Participating Utilities
UtilityA
UtilityB
UtilityC
UtilityD
Full-Scale Challenges?
Summary
Tried Optimization?
No
YesSome
Still
Deciding
No
No
No
Issues
YesNot
Successful
YesContinuous
Continuous
Issues
YesNot
Successful
No
Significant
Planning
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Lessons Learned: Mitigation Strategies
were Generally Not Developed until
Challenges Occurred
Algae Control
Copper sulfate
added pre-settling
when temp >18°C
Nutrient & Headloss
Monitoring
Monitored
headloss to signal
underdrain fouling
Monitored for free
ammonia and
phosphorus
Manganese Control
Switched from
ferric to alum
coagulant
Replaced filter
media
Case Studies
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Data compared included:
Design and operating characteristics
Water quality
Microbial parameters
Aspects Evaluated in Case Studies
• Performance of biofilters
versus conventional filters
• Effects of media type
• Effects of media age
• Mn release during filter
conversion
Morsang
WTP, France
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Key Findings from the Case Studies
• Hydraulic and water treatment performance similar
before and after conversion
• Media age did not impact performance
• Faster acclimation on GAC compared to anthracite
• Legacy Mn release immediately after conversion
mitigated through:
— GAC media
— Performance enhancement strategies
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Conventional Filtration VS
Biofiltration
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Clearwell
Am
monia
Raw
Water
Rapid
Mix
Ferr
ic C
hlo
rid
e
Flocculation /
SedimentationFilters
Distribution
System
Chlo
rine
Ch
lori
ne
Conventional Filtration VS Biofiltration
Parameters Evaluated
- Hydraulic (Runtime, Headloss)
- TOC and turbidity removal
MediaAge: 10 years
Bottom Layer: 8 inches sand
Top Layer: 26 inches anthracite
Ozone
Ozone
ContactorClearwell
Am
monia
Raw
Water
Rapid
Mix
Alu
min
um
Sulf
ate
Flocculation /
Sedimentation
Distribution
System
Chlo
rine
Provision for Chlorinated Backwash
Chlo
rine
Biofilters
X
X
Ferr
ic C
hlo
rid
e
Ch
lori
ne
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Similar Hydraulic Performance Before and
After Conversion
Based on Median Values
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1 2
Loadin
g R
ate
(g
pm
/ft2
)
Before After
N =
36
1
N =
35
9
0
10
20
30
1 2
Filt
er
Runtim
e
(hour)
Before After
N =
36
1
N =
35
9
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1 2
Cle
an-b
ed
Headlo
ss (
ft)
N =
88
N =
27
85
Before After
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Similar Effluent Turbidity and TOC Before
and After Conversion
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 2
Influent T
urb
idity
(NT
U)
Before After
N =
43
22
N =
42
93
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
1 2
Efflu
ent T
urb
idity
(NT
U)
Before After
N =
43
16
N =
42
86
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
1 2
Efflu
ent T
OC
(m
g/L
)
Before After
N =
53
N =
49
Based on Median Values
Filter/Biofilter Influent
TOC data were not
available
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Effects of Media Type
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Does Media Type Affect Biofilter
Performance?
• Media age: 14 years
Filter No. Media Type Chlorinated Influent?
Filter 1 Anthracite/sand Yes
Filter 4 Anthracite/sand No
Filter 6 GAC/sand No
Parameters Evaluated
- Hydraulic (Run length, Headloss)
- Water quality (Turbidity and aldehyde removal, Mn leaching)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Headloss was Similar Before and
After Conversion to Biofiltration
Max
Min
75th percentile
25th percentile
Median
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Lower Run Length Observed in GAC System
After Conversion to Biofiltration
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Similar Terminal Turbidity Before and
After Conversion to Biofiltration
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Faster Biological Acclimation Observed in
the GAC Biofilter Compared to the
Anthracite Biofilters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Ald
eh
yd
e (
µg
/L)
Time (days)
Influent
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Faster Biological Acclimation Observed in
the GAC Biofilter Compared to the
Anthracite Biofilters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Ald
eh
yd
e (
µg
/L)
Time (days)
Influent
Cl2 Anth
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Faster Biological Acclimation Observed in
the GAC Biofilter Compared to the
Anthracite Biofilters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Ald
eh
yd
e (
µg
/L)
Time (days)
Influent
Cl2 Anth
No Cl2 GAC
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Faster Biological Acclimation Observed in
the GAC Biofilter Compared to the
Anthracite Biofilters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Ald
eh
yd
e (
µg
/L)
Time (days)
Influent
Cl2 Anth
No Cl2 GAC
No Cl2 Anth
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Legacy Mn was not Released from the
GAC Biofilter during Filter Conversion
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
To
tal M
n (
mg
/L)
Time (days)
Cl2 Anth
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Legacy Mn was not Released from the
GAC Biofilter during Filter Conversion
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
To
tal M
n (
mg
/L)
Time (days)
Cl2 Anth
No Cl2 GAC
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Legacy Mn was not Released from the
GAC Biofilter during Filter Conversion
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
To
tal M
n (
mg
/L)
Time (days)
Cl2 Anth
No Cl2 GAC
No Cl2 Anth
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Legacy Mn was not Released from the
GAC Biofilter during Filter Conversion
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
To
tal M
n (
mg
/L)
Time (days)
Cl2 Anth
No Cl2 GAC
No Cl2 Anth
• Similar trend for dissolved Mn
• Dissolved Mn was 35 to 100 percent of total Mn
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Can Mn Release be
Controlled/Minimized during Filter
Conversion?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Ch
lori
ne
Filter No. Media Type Filter Type
Filter 19 Anthracite Conventional
Filter 21 Anthracite Biofilter
Filter 24 Anthracite Engineered Biofilter(pH 7.8, 0.02 mg/L P)
Can Mn Release be Controlled/Minimized
During Conversion?
X
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Man
gan
ese (
mg
/L)
Filter Influent
Conversion
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Man
gan
ese (
mg
/L)
Filter Influent
Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Conversion
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Man
gan
ese (
mg
/L)
Filter Influent
Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Filter 21 - Biofilter
Conversion
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Man
gan
ese (
mg
/L)
Filter Influent
Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Filter 21 - Biofilter
Filter 24 - Eng. Biofilter
Conversion
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Mn
Rem
ova
l (m
g/L
) Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Mn
Rem
ova
l (m
g/L
)
Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Filter 21 - Biofilter
Conversion
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Performance Enhancement Strategies
Helped Minimize Mn Release
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
8/9 8/25 9/10 9/26 10/12 10/28 11/13 11/29 12/15 12/31
Dis
so
lved
Mn
Rem
ova
l (m
g/L
)
Filter 19 - Conv. Filter
Filter 21 - Biofilter
Filter 24 - Eng. Biofilter
Conversion
Conversion Assessment Tool
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Development of the
Assessment Tool was a
Collaborative Process
Workshop
No. 1:
Review of
Survey Results
and Themes
Workshop
No. 2:
"As Is," "Should
Be,"
"Uncertainties"
and "Tools"
Workshop
No. 3:
Assessment
Tool Draft
Workshop
No. 4:
Assessment
Tool Live
Preview
Beta-
Testing
Utility Survey of Full-Scale Biofilters
Developed Draft
Assessment Tool
Finalized Assessment
Tool & Industry Roll-Out
Updates Updates
Project Team
Utilities & PAC
Participants:
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Conversion Assessment Tool
The Tool Does:
• Identify factors that can
negatively affect biofilter
performance
• Identify associated
mitigation strategies
• Establishes facility-
specific relative
suitability for conversion
The Tool Does Not:
• Apply to groundwater
• Limit the application of biofiltration
• Replace a robust process evaluation (e.g., pilot study)
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Download the Assessment Tool from the
Project Website
Look under “Web Tools”
http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4496
The Macro-Based Excel (.xlsx) can be Downloaded and Saved Locally
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Utilities answer 24 multiple choice or select
all that apply questions related to:
• Water Quality
• Design Criteria
• Performance Goals
• Operational Information
• Other Key Factors
Step 1: Complete Survey Questions
►
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Step 2: Data Calculator (Optional)
• TOC
• Temperature
• AOC
The Assessment Tool will also calculate key statistics and compare them to data provided in the Biofiltration Knowledge Base.
►
Utilities may enter water quality data instead of
selecting a range for the filter influent:
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Step 3: Conversion Assessment Report
Utilities are provided a printer-friendly report
summarizing, for each question answered:
►
• Category
• Question
• Selected answer
• Suitability for conversion to biofiltration
• Text description of suitability
• Mitigation strategies
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Step 3: Conversion Assessment Report
►
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Step 4: Conversion Assessment Report
Utilities are provided a printer-friendly report comparing their planned facility to those facilities in the Biofiltration Knowledge Base
Option Selected
by the Utility
Highlighted in
Blue
Graphs
summarize
Knowledge
Base
Facilities
Guidance Manual
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Key Steps were Identified for Each Stage
of the Conversion Process
Planning
Evaluation
Implementation
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biofilter Conversion Planning Tasks
Conversion Assessment Tool
Evaluation at Bench-, Pilot-, or Full-Scale
Systems
Assess potential benefits & challenges
Determine water treatment &
operational goals
Determine “suitability”
Assess existing facility & resources
Determine potential process
modifications
Identify aspects to be evaluated
Identify potential monitoring parameters
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biofilter Conversion Evaluation Tasks
Testing Design Conduct
Testing
Determine Biological Acclimation
Determine Removal Efficiency/Kinetics
Assess Effectiveness of Monitoring
Parameters
Test Process Optimization
Strategies
Determine Process Upsets
Select Key Parameters for
Full-Scale Implementation
Evaluate Effectiveness of
Mitigation Strategies
Revisit Treatment Goals
Assess Available Budget
Determine Testing Parameters
Determine Testing Schedule
Refine Monitoring Parameters
Identify Water Sources
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Biofilter Conversion
Implementation Tasks
Implement Process
Modifications
Start Biofilter
Operation
Optimize Operating Conditions
Implement Mitigation Strategies
Add Ozone Contactor (if
desired)
Implement Other Modifications
Test the Modifications
Relocate Chlorine Injection
Assess System
Performance
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
WRF 4496: Converting to Biofiltration?
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Acknowledgements
• Other Project Team Members
— Jason Carter - Arcadis
— Chance Lauderdale - HDR
— Orren Schneider – American Water
— John Dyksen – Suez
— Scott Summers – University of Colorado
• Foundation Research Managers
— Hsiao-wen Chen
— Kenan Ozekin
• Project Advisory Committee
— Chris Owen – Tampa Bay Water
— David Scott – Toronto Water
— Eva Nieminski – Utah Department of Environmental Quality
— Hua Jiang – Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority
— Jen Smith – CDM Smith
• Participating Utilities− City of Peoria, AZ
− City of Phoenix, AZ
− Greenville Utilities Commission, NC
− Greater Cincinnati Water Works, OH
− Gwinnett County Department of Water
Resources, GA
− Iowa American Water
− Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, UT
− Kentucky American Water
− Lyonnaise-Des-Eaux, France
− Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, CA
− New Jersey American Water
− Newport News Waterworks, VA
− Suez, NJ
− Trinity River Authority, TX
− Tampa Bay Water, FL
− Toronto Water, Canada
− City of Tulsa, OK
− Utah Department of Environmental Quality, UT
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Questions & Answers
© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.© 2017 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Thank You
Comments or questions, please contact:
For more information visit: www.waterrf.org