(PDF) Biological Iron Removal From Groundwater - A Review

03/11/2018 (PDF) Biological iron removal from groundwater: A review
See all › See all › Search forSee all › or Discover by subject

publications, researchers, or questions Export this citation Share area Join for free full-text PDF
Download Log in
37 Citations 42 References 2 Figures
Biological iron removal from groundwater: A review
Article (PDF Available) in Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology

- AQUA 54(4):239-246 · June 2005 with 1,975 Reads
DOI: 10.2166/aqua.2005.0022}
Export this citation
Saroj Sharma Branislav Petrusevski

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
Jan Cornelis Schippers

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
Abstract
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242022150_Biological_iron_removal_from_groundwater_A_review 1/30
Iron is generally removed from groundwater by the process of aeration or chemical oxidation followed by rapid sand ltration. Different mechanisms
See all › See alland
(physicochemical › biological)
See
mayall contribute
› to iron removal in lters but the dominant mechanism depends on the physical and chemical
37 Citations 42 References
characteristics of the water and2process
Figures conditions applied. Nowadays, there are increasing numbers of publications on methods of biological iron
removal which are reported to be much more ef cient and cost effective than conventional physicochemical iron removal. However, the biological
iron removal mechanism is not fully understood and there are still controversies about whether the mechanism of iron removal in lters could be
solely biological or whether the presence of iron oxidising bacteria supplements the physicochemical iron removal mechanisms under certain
speci c conditions. This paper reviews the theoretical background of biologically mediated iron removal, the process conditions required, the
advantages and limitations of the method and a few case studies. A literature review revealed that biological iron removal is not suitable when pH
and oxygen concentrations are high and/or , H2S and Zn are present. Physicochemical removal mechanisms can achieve the same removal
ef ciency under the conditions that are reported to be favourable for biological iron removal. Biological iron removal is likely to be supplementary to
conventional physicochemical iron removal.
Discover the world's research

15+ million members
118+ million publications
700k+ research projects
Join for free
Figures - uploaded by Jan Cornelis Schippers Author content
See all › See all › See all ›

| Summary of biological iron removal treatment plants | Field of activity of iron bacteria (Mouchet, 1992)
Content uploaded by Jan Cornelis Schippers Author content
Download full-text PDF

239 Q IWA Publishing 2005 Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA | 54.4 | 2
Biological iron removal from groundwater: a review

Saroj K. Sharma, Branislav Petrusevski and Jan C. Schippers
ABSTRACT
Iron is generally removed from groundwater by the process of aeration or chemical oxidation Saroj K. Sharma (corresponding author)
Branislav Petrusevski
followed by rapid sand filtration. Different mechanisms (physicochemical and biological) may Jan C. Schippers
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education,
contribute to iron removal in filters but the dominant mechanism depends on the physical and PO Box 3015, 2601 DA, Delft,
chemical characteristics of the water and process conditions applied. Nowadays, there are The Netherlands
Tel: +31 15 2151 772
increasing numbers of publications on methods of biological iron removal which are reported to Fax: +31 15 2122 921
E-mail: s.sharma@unesco-ihe.org
be much more efficient and cost effective than conventional physicochemical iron removal.
However, the biological iron removal mechanism is not fully understood and there are still
controversies about whether the mechanism of iron removal in filters could be solely biological or
whether the presence of iron oxidising bacteria supplements the physicochemical iron removal
mechanisms under certain specific conditions. This paper reviews the theoretical background of
biologically mediated iron removal, the process conditions required, the advantages and
limitations of the method and a few case studies. A literature review revealed that biological iron
+
removal is not suitable when pH and oxygen concentrations are high and/or NH4, H2S and Zn are
See all › See all › Physicochemical
present. See all › removal mechanisms can achieve the same removal efficiency under
the conditions that are reported to be favourable for biological iron removal. Biological iron
removal is likely to be supplementary to conventional physicochemical iron removal.
Key words | biological oxidation, filtration, groundwater, iron removal
INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is the major source of drinking water ,0.05 mg/l in order to minimise the distribution sys
throughout the world. Iron being the fourth most abundant maintenance costs.
element and the second most abundant metal in the Earth’s Several methods, namely oxidation–precipitati
crust (Silver 1993; WHO 1996), it is a common constituent of filtration, lime softening, ion-exchange, sub-surface
groundwater. There are no health-based guidelines for the removal and membrane processes, have been employed
concentration of iron in drinking water. However, it is iron removal from groundwater. Stabilisation with ph
undesirable as it causes several aesthetic and operational phate or silicates is applied as well to avoid the oxidatio
problems including bad taste, discolouration, staining, precipitation of iron. Among the different techniq
deposition in distribution systems leading to aftergrowth mentioned above, aeration or chemical oxidation follo
and incidences of high turbidity. Based on taste and by rapid sand filtration is most widely used (O’Connor 1
nuisance considerations, the World Health Organisation Wong 1984; Salvato 1992; Twort et al. 2000; Sommer
(WHO) recommends that the iron concentration in drink- 1999). A sedimentation step sometimes precedes the ra
ing water should be less than 0.3 mg/l (WHO 1996). The EC filtration for solid liquid separation, especially when
directive recommends that the iron in water supplies should concentration is very high, in order to reduce the load
be less than 0.2 mg/l (EC 1998). In the Netherlands, several subsequent rapid filters. Aeration–rapid sand filtratio
water supply companies are aiming at an iron level of the preferred method in developed as well as in develop

240 S. K. Sharma et al. | Biological iron removal from groundwater Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA | 54.4 | 2005
countries because, compared to other methods, this method The adsorption –oxidation mechanism of iron removal has
is more economical, less complicated and generally avoids several advantages, e.g.:
the use of chemicals, which is not usually welcome in the † it allows higher filtration rates and longer filter run
water industry. lengths, since the specific volume of iron oxide adsorbed/-
Different mechanisms (physicochemical and biological) precipitated on the sand grains is much lower than that of
may contribute to iron removal in filters but the dominant iron hydroxide flocs,
one depends on the physical and chemical characteristics of † its high filtrate quality.
the water and process conditions (Lerk 1965; Rott 1985;
Hatva 1988, 1989; Mouchet 1992; Michalakos et al. 1997; In conventional iron removal plants both of these physico-
Søgaard et al. 2000). In the commonly applied oxidation – chemical removal mechanisms occur simultaneously. The
precipitation–filtration method (physicochemical iron dominant mechanism under given conditions depends on
removal process) two mechanisms can be identified the water quality and process conditions applied; specifi-
(Figure 1), namely: cally, low oxygen concentration and a short pre-oxidation
time in the supernatant of the filters reduces the role of the
† Oxidation–floc formation (floc filtration), in which
“oxidation–floc formation” mechanism and as a conse-
iron(II) is first oxidised to iron(III) by oxygen or
quence the “adsorption –oxidation” mechanism will be
chemical oxidant, which upon hydrolysis and agglom-
dominant. At high pH values, the rate of oxidation of
eration forms iron hydroxide flocs. These flocs are
iron(II) is higher which is in favour of the “oxidation –floc
subsequently removed in rapid (sand) filters.
formation” mechanism. This paper focuses on the role of
fi h
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242022150_Biological_iron_removal_from_groundwater_A_review h 6/30
† Adsorption–oxidation (adsorptive filtration), which the biological iron removal mechanism.

See all › See all › the adsorption
involves See all › of iron(II) onto the surface of
37 Citations 42 References
the filter media 2and
Figures
its subsequent oxidation in the
presence of oxygen or other oxidant to form a new iron
BIOLOGICAL IRON REMOVAL
oxide layer. This oxide layer (coating) enhances the
adsorption and oxidation of iron(II) and facilitates the Biologically mediated oxidation and removal of iron has
process. Oxidant concentration and pre-oxidation time been reported in rapid sand filtration of groundwater
have to be limited to avoid the oxidation–floc formation (Frischherz et al. 1985; Czekalla et al. 1985; Bouwer &
mechanism to occur. Corstjens 1993; Badjo & Mouchet 1989; Hatva 1989;
Figure 1 | Physicochemical iron removal mechanisms

Mouchet 1992; Bourgine et al. 1994; Tyrell 1997; Tyrell et al. Mechanism and process conditions
1998). Biological iron removal is attributed to the activities
The exothermic oxidation of iron(II) can be catalysed
of microorganisms. These microorganisms are reported to
some bacteria due to the oxidation–reduction enzymes
have the unique property of causing oxidation and
they excrete (flavins); trivalent iron rendered insolubl
precipitation of dissolved iron under pH and redox
hydroxide form is then stored in the mucilagin
potential (Eh) conditions that are intermediate between
secretions (sheaths, stalks, capsules, etc.) of these bacte
those of natural groundwater and those required for
The organisms responsible for this phenomenon belon
conventional (physical –chemical) iron removal (Wolfe
the genera Gallionella, Leptothrix, Crenothrix, Clonoth
1964; Mouchet 1992).
Siderocpasa, Sphaerotilus, Ferrobacillus and Sideromo
Mouchet (1992) defined the field of activity of these iron
(Wolf 1964; Degremont 1991; Corstjens 1993). These ir
bacteria, which straddles the theoretical boundary between
oxidising bacteria are widespread and are prevalen
the fields of Fe2 þ stability and the formation of iron
groundwater, ponds, hypolimnion of lakes or impou
hydroxides as defined by thermodynamic analysis of the
ments, sedimentary deposits and soil. Two mechanism
electrochemical equilibria (Figure 2). This is related to the
bacterial oxidation have been reported (Czekalla et al. 1
fact that iron bacteria relying on iron(II) oxidation as a
Bourgine et al. 1994):
source of energy are gradient organisms, signifying that they
are not likely to develop under strongly reducing or strongly (i) intracellular oxidation by enzymatic action of a
oxidising conditions, but rather at the point where they trophic bacteria (Gallionella and Leptothrix oc
have a source of both ferrous ions and air (Wolfe 1964; cea),
bl l ) i h d (ii) extracellular oxidation by the catalytic action

Trembley et al. 1998). By aerating the raw water and (ii) extracellular oxidation by the catalytic action
See all › See all ›
increasing the See all ›
dissolved oxygen concentration, the redox polymers excreted by iron bacteria (Gallion
37 Citations 42potential
Referencesof raw
2 Figures
water is increased in the pH– Eh range Leptothrix, Crenothrix, Clonothrix, Sphaerotilus
where biological iron oxidation is expected to take place Siderocapsa).
predominantly (Mouchet 1992).
In anaerobic groundwater, iron is mainly present in solu
forms of iron(II). Physicochemical removal proce
require aeration of this water in order to sufficiently r
the redox potential of the water so that the disso
iron(II) present will be converted into insoluble oxid
forms (Stumm & Lee 1961; Sung & Morgan 1980).
The metabolic activities of iron bacteria are not f
understood but it is believed that the same oxidation of
is carried out by some variation of the physical– chem
reaction:
4Fe2þ þ O 2 þ 10H2 O ! 4FeðOHÞ3 þ 8Hþ þ energy
It is believed that the energy that is released by this reac

allows the bacteria to reduce and assimilate the carbon f
CO 2, thereby synthesising their own nutrients. Howe
oxidation of ferrous ions does not furnish much energy o
molar basis and about 600 mol of Fe2 þ is needed
assimilate 1 mol of carbon (Viswanathan & Boettc
Figure 2 | Field of activity of iron bacteria (Mouchet, 1992) 1991; Mouchet 1992). This implies that large amount

iron have to be oxidised to satisfy the energy requirements Iron(III) Negligible

for the growth of iron oxidising bacteria. Inhibitory materials
Gage et al. (2001) stated that, whatever the metabolic (e.g. H2S, NH þ
4 , Zn) Negligible
pathway for the iron oxidation reactions, the biological
process is catalytic in nature and causes a rapid oxidation. However, it is to be noted that, in the presence of oxygen,
The red insoluble precipitates formed are all slightly iron(II) is always partly oxidised in the supernatant and in the
hydrated iron oxides that, beneficially, are more compact filter bed. So there will always be some iron(III) present when
forms than the precipitates formed when using physical– iron(II) is removed in the filter in the presence of oxygen.
chemical processes. This feature partially explains the
greater iron retention capacity between backwashes of Advantages and limitations of biological iron removal
biological filters when compared to physical chemical
Mouchet (1992) reported the marked improvement in
treatment filters. It is likely that in these “physical–chemical
performance by converting conventional iron treatment
filters” the oxidation–formation mechanism is dominant as
plants to biological ones. The primary advantages associ-
the observed effect of a greater iron retention capacity can
ated with this process were reported to be high filtration
also be attributed to the adsorption–oxidation mechanism.
rates (10–70 m/h), high retention capacity (1–5 kg Fe/m2),
Iron bacteria are generally robust and, because of the
elimination of chemical reagents, flexibility of operation,
variety of species involved, one type or another is able to
and reduced capital and operating costs. According to
thrive under most environmental conditions. A pH of 6–8 is
Mouchet (1992) a shift from physicochemical to biological
required for their activity. However, at a pH above 7.2,
precipitation of iron can increase the water treatment plant
biological processes will compete with conventional (physi-
biological processes will compete with conventional (physi-
capacity substantially and reduce operation costs by up to
cal–chemical) processes. The optimum temperature typi-
See all › See all › See all › 80%. However, high iron concentrations in the influent may
37 Citations
cally ranges from
42 References
10–15 8C for Gallionella ferruginea and
2 Figures cause breakthroughs, as the rate of absorption by the
20–25 8C for the Sphaerotilus–Leptothrix group (Mouchet
bacteria may not be high enough to match the supply rate.
1992). The biological oxidation process is, however, inhib-
Gage et al. (2001) reported that biological iron and
ited in the presence of H 2S, chlorine, NHþ
4 and some heavy
manganese removal systems could have the following
metals (Twort et al. 2000). Mouchet (1992) pointed out that
advantages:
water applied to the biological filter must contain , 0.01 mg
H2S/l. Furthermore, it was reported that the iron removal † smaller plants because of higher applied filtration rates
rate decreased by 50% in the presence of a zinc concen- (sometimes in excess of 50 m/h versus 10 –15 m/h) or
tration of 0.45 mg Zn/l and there was total inhibition of the because aeration and filtration can take place simul-
treatment when the zinc concentration reached 1 mg Zn/l. taneously in the same vessel;
Morris & Siviter (2001) mentioned that the biological † longer filter runs because of iron retention in the filter
iron removal process is not suitable for operation where due to the formation of more dense precipitates and the
there are rapid or large flow variations because the bacterial use of a more coarse media;
population needs to adjust over a period of time to the new † denser backwash sludge that is easier to thicken and
conditions. Constant flow and loading provide the optimum dewater;
operating conditions for biological iron removal plants. † higher net productions due to less water being required
They added that the following criteria are normally required for backwashing and being able to use raw water for the
for biological iron removal to be effective: backwash;
† require no chemical addition;
Dissolved oxygen , 1 mg/l (, 10% saturation) † no deterioration of water quality over time;
pH 5.5–7.5 † lower capital and operating costs through the elimin-
Redox potential . 100 mV ation of chemicals, less frequent backwashing, fewer
Iron(II) 0.1–10 mg/l components, etc.

The main disadvantage of this method is the long have longer run lengths without appreciable head loss.
maturation time before full efficiency is achieved; perhaps biological filter not only met the 0.3 mg/l iron standard fa
50–60 days for a new filter and 5 days after a 2-month than the existing physicochemical plant after the backw
shutdown (Stevenson 1997). The other shortcomings of this but also reached a lower filtrate iron concentration. In all
method include: cases, the iron concentrations in the filtrate of biolog
filters were non-detectable (, 0.05 mg/l). Furthermore, s
† not suitable for all types of groundwater; the biological filters were using untreated water for ba
† anaerobic conditions may develop in the filter bed, thus washing and backwashed at lower rates, substantial w
converting back iron(III) to iron(II), resulting in an savings were realised.
elevated iron concentration in the filtrate; Michalakos et al. (1997) studied the removal of iro
† increased sludge production and backwash water with pilot-scale trickling filters and compared the performanc
filter ageing; the filters in the presence and absence of iron bacteria.
† need for two filtration stages to remove iron and process conditions applied in this study w
manganese as the required redox potential conditions temperature ¼ 288C, pH ¼ 7.0–7.3, O2 ¼ 8 mg/l
for iron and manganese oxidising bacteria are very Fe ¼ 1–17 mg/l. A start-up time of approximately 10 d
different; was necessary for the biological oxidation to begin. In o
† ineffective in the presence of ammonia (NH þ
4) and to assess the filter performance with physicochemical
inhibiting substances like H2S and Zn (Twort et al. oxidation alone, the same set of experiments were repea
2000; Stevenson 1997; Gage et al. 2001). after the filter was disinfected with 5% NaOCl to excl
bacterial growth. It was concluded that the existence of
bacteria in the filter dramatically improved the fi

See all › Comparison
See all › ofSee
iron
all ›removal mechanisms and case efficiency under the same operating conditions. For
37 Citations 42studies
References 2 Figures
same filtration rate, the biological oxidation allo
Czekalla et al. (1985) studied the performance of 15 treatment of almost double the iron concentration t
groundwater treatment plants in Hamburg, 3 reservoir physicochemical oxidation alone.
water treatment plants in the Harz Mountains, together There are several patented and trademark biolog
with a groundwater treatment plant and 2 test filtration iron removal systems now available on the mar
plants in Braunschweig, Germany. They analysed the Degremont (1991) has proprietary filters for biological
backwashing materials and microbial settlements in the and manganese removal, namely Ferazur and Magnazu
filter and reported that bacterial species of Gallionella, respectively. Anglian Water has developed “Biofer
Leptothrix, Toxothrix, Metallogenium, Hyphomicrobium, a biological process for the removal of iron from grou
Siderocapsa and Siderocytis were responsible for the waters. Biological iron removal has also been reported t
oxidation of iron and manganese in water. It was concluded employed for removing iron from handpump water supp
that rapid sand filters in waterworks not treated by oxidising (Tyrrel 1997; Tyrrel et al. 1998) and in slow sand fil
agents are biotechnological plants and the resident bacteria (Hatva 1988, 1989; Seppanen 1992).
require optimal care (i.e. physicochemical conditions) to It is to be noted that there is some contradiction am
operate efficiently, as in the case of any living system. the claims of different researchers regarding the oxy
Smith & Smith (1994) compared the efficiency of concentration in water in “biological iron removal”. S
physicochemical and biological iron removal processes for reported that for biological iron removal the oxy
three raw waters with iron levels of 1.8 mg/l, 2.4 mg/l and concentration in the water should be low (Mouchet 1
2.9 mg/l during the entire filter cycle. Performances of the Morris & Siviter 2001) while others claimed to h
filters were compared in terms of flow rates, filter run length, achieved biological iron removal even with high conc
backwash water savings and water quality. It was found that tration of oxygen at near neutral pH (Michalakos et al. 1
“biological filters” can operate at higher filtration rates and Czekalla et al. 1985; Hatva 1988, 1989; Seppanen 1992).

Table 1 summarises some water quality and process with exoploymers of the bacterium Gallionella ferruginea.
parameters of the few “biological iron removal” plants The exopolymers acts as a catalyst for the oxidation process
reported in the literature. This shows that the method has of iron and prevent re-dissolution of iron hydroxides in
been applied in different parts of the world for a wide range spite of the oxic/anoxic conditions found in the biological
of iron concentrations (up to 16 mg/l), filtration rates (8– filters. Furthermore the fact that the iron-precipitating
30 m/h) and temperatures (11–318C). bacterium Gallionella ferruginea is chemolithotropic with
respect to the oxidation of iron(II) is not proven.
The reported increased efficiency and advantages of
DISCUSSION
biological iron removal can also be achieved if the mode of
It is still debated whether “near neutral pH bacteria” operation of iron removal filters is switched from predomi-
actually oxidise iron(II) and grow autotrophically or merely nantly floc filtration (oxidation –floc formation) to predo-
deposit iron in an oxidised form. Ehrlich (2002) stated that minantly adsorptive filtration (adsorption–oxidation)
“microbes can promote iron oxidation, but this does not (Sharma et al. 2001). The commercially available catalytic
mean that the oxidation is always enzymatic. Because filter media BIRM (a federally registered trademark of Clack
ferrous iron has a tendency to auto-oxidize (without Corporation, USA) also claims similar advantages as that of
bacteria or catalyst) in aerated solution at pH values biological iron removal reported by Mouchet (1992), Gage
above 5, it is difficult to demonstrate enzyme-catalyzed et al. (2001) and others. Therefore, it is still to be answered
iron oxidation in near-neutral air-saturated solutions. At what is the clear advantage of using bacteria for iron
this time the most extensive evidence for enzyme-catalyzed removal in place of physicochemical processes, as iron
iron oxidation in air-saturated solution by bacteria has been bacteria may not be available in all groundwaters.
amassed at pH values below 5”. In reality the boundary between physicochemical and
See all › See
In all
iron› Seeother
bacteria all › than the acidophile species, biological iron removal is not well defined (Degremont
autotrophy using ferrous iron as a source of energy has not 1991). Mouchet (1992) pointed out that the domain of
been conclusively demonstrated (Hughes & Poole 1989). effective biological iron removal is narrower than the field
The bacteria do, however, process iron intracellularly. of existence of iron bacteria, as shown in Figure 1. Iron
Environments high in iron(II) will lead to elevated iron removal from anoxic groundwater by adsorption onto new
levels inside the cell. The cells have mechanisms to remove or iron oxide coated filter media is possible in the pH–Eh
such unwanted ions. Therefore, oxidation of iron(II) may be range of iron bacteria (Sharma et al. 1999, 2001), which
purely to detoxify their intracellular environment rather indicates that the process is not necessarily biological. In
than to create energy. The cell membrane and extracellular many iron removal plants and pilot studies, nearly complete
polymers do provide many sites for the adsorption of removal of iron has been seen to occur immediately after
iron(II) ions. Once adsorbed the ions may undergo the the beginning of a filter run or test. The fact that iron was
oxidation reaction. This leads to the formation of the removed at the very beginning of the filtration process
characteristic sheaths often cited as evidence for biological strongly suggests that this process is predominantly a
iron removal. It appears that bacteria can act as a pathway physicochemical reaction. Furthermore, in the presence of
for iron(II) oxidation either via adsorption onto the cell oxygen iron(II) oxidation starts immediately (after the
membrane or via oxidation to detoxify the intracellular aeration step), implying that biological iron removal might
environment. It cannot be established if such mechanisms be only supplementary to the conventional oxidation –floc
provide a significant removal capacity (Hughes & Poole formation method of iron removal.
1989). It has been reported that in some plants the removal
Søgaard et al. (2000) proposed that a probable efficiency has increased after the development of bio films
explanation for the increased precipitation rate of iron in or “coatings” on the surface of the filter media (Mouchet
biological filters relative to physicochemical filters could be 1992; Bourgine et al. 1994). This improved efficiency can also
that precipitation of iron hydroxides takes place in contact be explained by the increased adsorption of iron(II) onto

Table 1 | Summary of biological iron removal treatment plants
Treatment plant Fe (mg/l) Mn (mg/l) pH Eh (mV) Temp. (8C) Filtration rate (m/h) Capacity (m 3/d) Media
Grove, Nottingham, 0.16 7.7 13.3 30 6700 Sand 8/16

England
Astrup Waterworks 11 – 13 0.45 – 0.7 6.5 – 6.9 2 60 11.6 6000 – 7200 Quartz 2 – 5
Esbjerg, Denmark
Grindsted, Denmark 3 7.3 2 60 8 7200 – 9600 Quartz

2.4 – 4 mm
Dalstrops Waterworks, 0.05 0.42 8

Sweden
Saint Hill Water 2.5 – 4.0 6.7 – 6.8 11 26 6500

Treatment Plant,
England
Lome, Togo 0.8 – 1.1 6.1 – 6.5 30 – 31 44000 Sand, effect

size 1.35 mm
B i O t i F 05 0 05
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242022150_Biological_iron_removal_from_groundwater_A_review
22 16/30
Barrie Ontario Ferazur, 0.5 , 0.05 22
See all › Canada
See all › See all ›
Waterloo, Quebec, 0.6 – 1.71 0.26 – 0.45 12 4128
Canada
South France 3.8 6.5 – 7.0 290 30 1000 Effective siz

1.18 mm
the surface of iron oxide coatings formed on the filter media bed as well, implying that biological iron removal is
(Sharma et al. 1999) or the increased rate of iron(II) likely to be supplementary to conventional physico-
oxidation in the presence of an iron oxide coated surface chemical iron removal.
(Tamura et al. 1976; Tufekci & Sarikaya 1996). Indeed,
t d th td b t t h th th
controversy surrounds the current debate as to whether the
See all › See all › of iron removal
mechanism See all › in filters is physicochemical or
37 Citations biological
42 References
in nature2 Figures
(Czkella et al. 1985; Mouchet 1992;
REFERENCES
Søgaard et al. 2000). However, it is to be noted that the Badjo, Y. & Mouchet, P. 1989 Appropriate technologies – example
adsorption–oxidation mechanism of iron removal can of a large biological iron removal plant in Togo. Aqua 38(3),
197 – 206.
achieve the same iron removal efficiency and has the Bourgine, F. P. et al. 1994 Biological processes at Saints Hill water
same advantages under the same process conditions that treatment plant, Kent. J. IWEM, 8 August, 379 – 392.
are favourable for biological iron removal. Bouwer, E. J. & Crowe, P. B. 1988 Biological process in drinking
water treatment. J. AWWA 80(9), 82 – 93.
Corstjens, P. 1993 Bacterial Oxidation of Iron and Manganese:
A Molecular-biological Approach. PhD Thesis, Rijsuniversitiet,
Leiden, The Netherlands.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Czekalla, C., Mevius, W. & Hanert, H. 1985 Quantitative removal of
A review of the available literature on biological iron iron and manganese by microorganisms in rapid sand filters
(in situ investigations). Wat. Supply 3(1), 111 – 123.
removal points to the following findings:
Degremont 1991 Water Treatment Handbook, 6th edn (1 and 2).
† Iron in groundwater could be removed by biological Degremont, France.
Official Journal of the European Communities. December 5 1998;
oxidation under specific water quality and process
Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended
conditions. It is not possible to employ the biological for human consumption. L330/32 – L330/50.
iron removal method for all groundwaters, especially Ehrlich, H. L. 2002 Geomicrobiology, 4th edn. Marcel Dekker,
when pH and oxygen concentrations are high and/or New York.
Frischherz, H., Zibuschka, F., Jung, H. & Zerobin, W. 1985
NH þ
4, H 2S and Zn are present.
Biological elimination of iron and manganese. Wat. Supply
† Biological iron removal is very sensitive to process 3(1), 125 – 136.
conditions (e.g. temperature, filtration rate, oxygen Gage, B., O’Dowd, D. H. & Williams, P. 2001 Biological iron and
concentration) and will not be suitable when there is manganese removal: pilot and full scale applications.
Presented at the Ontario Water Works Association Conference ,
rapid or large variation in the flow and water quality. 3 May, 2001. See http://www.degremont.ca/en/biological.pdf
† Biological iron removal is not necessarily the sole iron Hatva, T. 1988 Treatment of groundwater with slow sand filtration.
removal mechanism in the filters. Physicochemical mech- Wat. Sci. Technol. 20(3), 141 – 147.
Hatva, T. 1989 Iron and Manganese in Groundwater in Finland:
anisms like oxidation–floc formation and adsorption–
Occurrence in Glacifluvial Aquifers and Removal by
oxidation (adsorptive filtration) can achieve the same Biofiltration. National Board of Waters and Environment,
removal efficiency under the same conditions, so it is not Helsinki, Finland.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242022150_Biological_iron_removal_from_groundwater_A_review
H db T & W hlb T A 8U di f t k ith 18/30
clear which mechanism is dominant. Hedberg, T. & Wahlberg, T. A. 1998 Upgrading of waterworks with
a new bio-oxidation process for removal of manganese and
See all › See all
† The ›
presence of See
ironalloxidising
› bacteria in iron removal iron. Wat. Sci. Technol. 37(9), 121 – 126.
filters is not unlikely to increase the efficiency of iron Hughes, M. N. & Poole, R. K. 1989 Metals and Microorganisms.
removal in filters. They could contribute by catalytically Chapman and Hall, London.
oxidising iron(II) to iron(III) if the rate of oxidation of Lerk, C. F. 1965 Enkele aspecten van de ontijzering van grondwater.
PhD Dissertation Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
iron(II) is very slow in water. This type of iron oxidation (in Dutch).
is only possible if the iron is entering the filter bed in Michalakos, G. D., Nieva, J. M., Vaynes, D. V. & Lybertos, G. 1997
iron(II) form. However, in the presence of oxygen Removal of iron from potable water using a trickling filter.
Wat. Res. 31(5), 991 – 996.
iron(II) oxidation starts immediately (after the aeration
Morris, T. & Siviter, C. L. 2001 Application of a biological iron
step) in the supernatant and filter bed. Moreover the removal process at Grove Water treatment works. J. CIWEM
adsorption–oxidation mechanism will occur in the filter 15, 117 – 121.
Mouchet, P. 1992 From conventional to biological removal of iron Sung, W. & Morgan, J. J. 1980 Kinetics and products of ferrous
and manganese in France. J. AWWA 84(4), 158 – 167. oxygenation in aquatic systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14(5
Nielson, P. B. 1996 Biological iron and manganese removal. World 561 – 568.
Water and Environmental Engineering 19(2), 21. Tamura, H., Goto, K. & Nagayama, M. 1976 The effect of ferric
O’Connor, J. T. 1971 Iron and manganese. In Water Quality and hydroxide on the oxygenation of ferrous ions in neutral
Treatment A Handbook of Public Water Supplies chap 11 solutions Corrosion Sci 16 197 207
Treatment – A Handbook of Public Water Supplies, chap. 11. solutions. Corrosion Sci. 16, 197 – 207.
McGraw Hill, New York, pp. 378 – 396. Tremblay, C. V., Beaubien, A., Charles, P. & Nicell, J. A. 1998
See all › See all ›U. 1985 Physical,
Rott, See allchemical
› and biological aspects of the Control of biological iron removal from drinking water usi
removal of iron and manganese underground. Wat. Supply oxidation-reduction potential. Wat. Sci. Technol. 38(6),
3(2), 143 – 150. 121 – 128.
Salvato, J. A. 1992 Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, Tufekci, N. & Sarikaya, H. Z. 1996 Catalytic effect of high Fe(II
4th edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York. concentration on Fe(II) oxidation. Wat. Sci. Technol. 34(7
Sharma, S. K., Greetham, M. R. & Schippers, J. C. 1999 389 – 396.
Adsorption of iron(II) onto filter media. J. Wat. Supply Res. Twort, A. C., Ratnayaka, D. D. & Brandt, M. J. 2000 Water Sup
Tech. AQUA 48(3), 84 – 91. 5th edn. Arnold, London.
Sharma, S. K., Kappelhof, J., Groenendijk, M. & Schippers, J. C.
Tyrrel, S., Gardner, S., Howsam, P. & Carter, R. 1998 Biological
2001 Comparison of physicochemical iron removal
removal of iron from wellhandpump supplies. Waterlines
mechanisms in filters. J. Wat. Supply Res. Tech. AQUA 50(4),
16(4), 29 – 31.
187 – 198.
Tyrrel, S. 1997 Interim Design, Construction and Operation
Silver, J. 1993 Chemistry of Iron . Blackie, London.
Guidelines for a Biologically-Enhanced Iron Removal Filte
Smith, C. & Smith, J. F. 1994 Comparison of biological and
for Attachment to Handpumps. Cranfield University, UK.
chemical/physical iron removal. Proc. 1994 National
Viswanathan, M. N. & Boettcher, B. 1991 Biological removal of
Conference on Environmental Engineering, ASCE, New York.
from groundwater. Wat. Sci. Technol. 23, 1437 – 1446.
ASCE, New York, pp. 74 – 81.
WHO 1996 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Health Crite
Søgaard, E. G., Medenwaldt, R. & Abraham-Peskir, J. V. 2000
and Other Supporting Information, 2nd edition (2). WHO,
Conditions and rates of biotic and abiotic iron precipitation in
Geneva.
selected Danish freshwater plants and microscopic analysis of
Williams, P. 2002 Biological iron and manganese removal as a
precipitate morphology. Wat. Res. 34(10), 2675 – 2682.
viable alternative for groundwater treatment. Environ. Sci.
Seppanen, H. T. 1992 Experiences of biological iron and manganese
Engng. March, www.esemag.com
removal in Finland. J. IWEM 6, 333 – 341.
Sommerfeld, E. O. 1999 Iron and Manganese Removal Handbook. Wolf, R. S. 1964 Iron and manganese bacteria. In: Heukelekian,
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO. & Dondero, N. C. (eds) Principles and Applications in
Stevenson, D. G. 1997 Water Treatment Unit Processes. World Aquatic Microbiology. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
Scientific, Singapore, pp. 261 – 266, 275 – 293. pp. 82 – 97.
Stumm, W. & Lee, G. F. 1961 Oxygenation of ferrous iron. Indust. Wong, J. M. 1984 Chlorination-filtration for iron and manganese
Engng. Chem. 53(2), 143 – 146. removal. J. AWWA 76(1), 76 – 79.
First received 16 August 2004; accepted in revised form 22 March 2005

Citations (37) References (42)
... While the European Union has recommended 0.2 and 0.05 mg/L as accepted limits for
iron and manganese in water, respectively (European Union 1998). Thus, several methods
have been applied to remove Fe and Mn from water including biological treatment (
Sharma et al. 2005 ), oxidation (Ellis et al. 2000), ion exchange/solvent extraction (
Barlokova and Ilavsky 2010), membrane separation (Cartwright 1985), reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, and adsorption ( Shavandi et al. 2012). Adsorption by inexpensive and
ef cient materials appeared to be more promising approach and recommended for the re-
moval of heavy metals from water ( Shavandi et al. 2012). ...
Adsorption properties of kaolinite-based nanocomposites for Fe and Mn pollutants from

aqueous solutions and raw ground water: kinetics and equilibrium studies
Article Full-text available
Aug 2017 · Environ Sci Pollut Res

Mohamed Shaban · Mohamed E. M. Hassouna · Fadya M. Nasief · Mostafa R.
AbuKhadra
View Show abstract
... There have been many discussions as to whether the removal of iron through using
microorganisms can be effective or not. Some authors have made a review about the
topic and it relates mainly to the activity of microorganisms that consume Fe 2+ as a
source of energy under the reaction ( Sharma, Petrusevski, & Schippers, 2005 Keep in
mind that most of the measurements have varying values of pH from acidic to quite
neutral. This, unfortunately, would not be suitable for using iron bacteria or to use
biological iron removal as most of iron bacteria have tendency to have higher survivability
and growth rate (Gad, to build a treatment plant on the surface and introduce a chemical
that will increase pH to the desired level such as using CaCO3. ...
REPORT WATER PROJECT IN EGYPT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AN ELEVATED CONTENT

OF IRON
Technical Report Full-text available
May 2017
Adi Seno Abyoga
View Show abstract
... The third mechanism of iron and manganese removal in sand lters is the biological
oxidation of these compounds by iron and manganese oxidising bacteria (IOB and MOB).
A number of IOB have been reported in literature to be involved in the biological oxidation
of iron, such as: Leptothrix ochracea, Gallionella ferruginea, Toxothrix trichogenes,
Thiobacillus ferrooxidans and Crenothrix (Michalakos et al., 1997; Kirby et al., 1999;
Sharma et al., 2005; Rentz et al., 2007). Similarly, several bacterial strains involved in the
oxidation of manganese are found on lter grains and in the water phase and have been
reported, like Pseudomonas sp., Streptomyces sp., and Leptothrix sp. ...
Iron and manganese removal: Recent advances in modelling treatment ef ciency by rapid sand
lt ti
See all › Article See all › See all ›
Nov 2016 · WATER RES
D. Vries · C. Bertelkamp · F. Schoonenberg Kegel · B. Hofs · B. van den Akker
View Show abstract
Performance of membrane ltration in the removal of iron and manganese from Malaysia's
groundwater
Jun 2016
Norherdawati Kasim · Abdul Wahab Mohammad · Siti Rozaimah Sheikh Abdullah
View Show abstract
Emerson & de Vet |

Jan 2015 · J AM WATER WORKS ASS
David Emerson
View Show abstract
Is biological treatment a viable alternative for micropollutant removal in drinking water

treatment processes?
Aug 2013 · WATER RES
Jessica Benner · Damian E Helbling · Hans-Peter E Kohler · Janneke Wittebol · Nico Boon
View Show abstract
Sphaerotilus natans, a Neutrophilic Iron-Related Sheath-Forming Bacterium: Perspectives for

Metal Remediation Strategies
Jun 2013 · Geomicrobiol J

Marina Seder-Colomina · Guillaume Morin · Karim Benzerara · Georges Ona-Nguema ·
Eric D. van Hullebusch
View Show abstract
Fe and Mn retention in natural water by adsorption-oxidation on clinoptilolite

Mar 2013 · REV FAC ING-UNIV ANT
Carolina Cuchimaque Lugo · Luz Yolanda Vargas Fiallo · Carlos Alberto Ríos Reyes
View Show abstract
Effects of solution chemistry on the removal reaction between calcium carbonate-based

materials and Fe(II)
Dec 2012 · SCI TOTAL ENVIRON
Yu Wang · Saraya Sikora · Hwidong Kim · Treavor H Boyer · Timothy G Townsend
View Show abstract
UTILIZATION OF BENTONITE AS AN ADSPRPENT MATERIAL IN THE REMOVAL OF IRON (III)

Oct 2012
Ehssan Nassef
View Show abstract

Show more

Recommendations
Discover more publications, questions and projects in Iron
See all ›Project See all › See all ›

EU-MEDINA (Membrane Based Desalination: An Integrated Approach, fp6)
Sergio G. Salinas-Rodriguez · Gary Amy · Maria D Kennedy · [...] · Jan Cornelis Schippers
Duration: 2006-2010 EU research fp6 project involving 13 European and international partners from industry and academia. The project aimed to develop advanced
analytical methods for sea water char…" [more]
View project
Project
Vacuum multi-stage membrane distillation

Sergio G. Salinas-Rodriguez · Maria D Kennedy · Jan Cornelis Schippers
Duration: 2012-2013 Funds: AQUAVER "Vacuum multi-stage membrane distillation (vMsMD) – Controlling scaling and organic/biological fouling during operation with
North Sea water".
View project
See all ›Project See all › See all ›

Industrial water production from treated domestic wastewater
Sergio G. Salinas-Rodriguez · Maria D Kennedy · Jan Cornelis Schippers
Duration: 2012-2014 Funds: NieuWater Description: Synthetic organic polymer fouling of reverse osmosis membrane
View project
Project
Membrane technology applications for freshwater treatment

Sergio G. Salinas-Rodriguez · Rinnert Schurer · Maria D Kennedy
Duration: 2013-2017 Partner: EVIDES Description: Membrane technology applications for freshwater treatment at Berenplaat treatment plant
View project
See all ›Article See all › available See all ›

Full-text
Effect of groundwater quality on adsorptive iron removal
July 2002 · Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA
Adsorptive iron removal from groundwater involves the adsorption of iron(II) onto the surface of the lter media and the subsequent oxidation of adsorbed iron(II) in the
presence of oxygen to regenerate the adsorption site for the continuation of the process. Different ions and compounds present in groundwater might in uence iron(II)
adsorption onto lter media. Laboratory scale batch... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Decision support system for optimisation of iron removal from groundwater

December 2002 · Water Science & Technology Water Supply
Floc ltration and adsorptive ltration are the two main physicochemical mechanisms of iron removal in lters. Under the commonly applied treatment conditions in iron
removal plants, the oc ltration is commonly believed to be the dominant mechanism and the adsorptive ltration complimentary. Iron removal lters with iron oxide
coated sand are expected to perform better in terms of... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
See all ›Article See all › available See all ›

Full-text
Prediction of iron(II) breakthrough in adsorptive lters under anoxic condition
December 2003 · Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA
Physical, chemical and biological mechanisms may contribute to the removal of iron in lters. This paper focuses on the physical-chemical mechanisms namely
adsorptive ltration and oe ltration. Iron removal lters operating in physical-chemical mode are expected to perform better in terms of ltrate quality, run time and
costs by changing the governing mode of operation from oe... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Characterisation of coated sand from iron removal plant

April 2002 · Water Science & Technology Water Supply
Water treatment plants removing iron from groundwater are commonly expected to operate in oxidation- oc formation mode. However, there are indications that
adsorptive iron removal plays a role as well. Adsorptive iron removal has several potential advantages over oxidation- oc formation iron removal. Therefore, the physical
and surface chemical characteristics of coated sand from twelve... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Discover more

Last Updated: 18 May 18
About Support Business solutions
News Help center Recruiting

Company FAQ Advertising
Careers
© ResearchGate 2018. All rights reserved. Imprint · Terms · Privacy

(PDF) Biological Iron Removal From Groundwater - A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF) Biological Iron Removal From Groundwater - A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03/11/2018 (PDF) Biological iron removal from groundwater: A review

See all › See all › Search forSee all › or Discover by subject

Biological iron removal from groundwater: A review

Article (PDF Available) in Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology

Export this citation

Saroj Sharma Branislav Petrusevski

Jan Cornelis Schippers

Discover the world's research

Join for free

Figures - uploaded by Jan Cornelis Schippers Author content

See all › See all › See all ›

Content uploaded by Jan Cornelis Schippers Author content

Download full-text PDF

See all › See all › See all ›

Biological iron removal from groundwater: a review

See all › See all › See all ›

† Adsorption–oxidation (adsorptive ﬁltration), which the biological iron removal mechanism.

Figure 1 | Physicochemical iron removal mechanisms

See all › See all › See all ›

bl l ) i h d (ii) extracellular oxidation by the catalytic action

4Fe2þ þ O 2 þ 10H2 O ! 4FeðOHÞ3 þ 8Hþ þ energy

It is believed that the energy that is released by this reac

See all › See all › See all ›

iron have to be oxidised to satisfy the energy requirements Iron(III) Negligible

See all › See all › See all ›

bacteria in the ﬁlter dramatically improved the ﬁ

See all › See all › See all ›

See all › See all › See all ›

Table 1 | Summary of biological iron removal treatment plants

Grove, Nottingham, 0.16 7.7 13.3 30 6700 Sand 8/16

Grindsted, Denmark 3 7.3 2 60 8 7200 – 9600 Quartz

Dalstrops Waterworks, 0.05 0.42 8

Saint Hill Water 2.5 – 4.0 6.7 – 6.8 11 26 6500

Lome, Togo 0.8 – 1.1 6.1 – 6.5 30 – 31 44000 Sand, effect

South France 3.8 6.5 – 7.0 290 30 1000 Effective siz

First received 16 August 2004; accepted in revised form 22 March 2005

See all › See all › See all ›

Adsorption properties of kaolinite-based nanocomposites for Fe and Mn pollutants from

Aug 2017 · Environ Sci Pollut Res

View Show abstract

REPORT WATER PROJECT IN EGYPT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AN ELEVATED CONTENT

View Show abstract

View Show abstract

View Show abstract

Emerson & de Vet |

View Show abstract

Is biological treatment a viable alternative for micropollutant removal in drinking water

View Show abstract

Sphaerotilus natans, a Neutrophilic Iron-Related Sheath-Forming Bacterium: Perspectives for

Jun 2013 · Geomicrobiol J

View Show abstract

Fe and Mn retention in natural water by adsorption-oxidation on clinoptilolite

View Show abstract

Effects of solution chemistry on the removal reaction between calcium carbonate-based

View Show abstract

UTILIZATION OF BENTONITE AS AN ADSPRPENT MATERIAL IN THE REMOVAL OF IRON (III)

View Show abstract

See all › See all › See all ›

See all ›Project See all › See all ›

Vacuum multi-stage membrane distillation

See all ›Project See all › See all ›

Membrane technology applications for freshwater treatment

See all ›Article See all › available See all ›