Trickling Filter and Trickling Filter‐Suspended Growth Process Design and Operation: A State‐of‐the‐Art Review

The modern trickling filter typically includes the following major components: (1) rotary distributors with speed control; (2) modular plastic media (typically cross-flow media unless the bioreactor is treating high-strength wastewater, which warrants the use of vertical-flow media); (3) a mechanical aeration system (that consists of air distribution piping and low-pressure fans); (4) influent/recirculation pump station; and (5) covers that aid in the uniform distribution of air and foul air containment (for odor control). Covers may be equipped with sprinklers that can spray in-plant washwater to cool the media during emergency shut down periods. Trickling filter mechanics are poorly understood. Consequently, there is a general lack of mechanistic mathematical models and design approaches, and the design and operation of trickling filter and trickling filter/suspended growth (TF/SG) processes is empirical. Some empirical trickling filter design criteria are described in this paper. Benefits inherent to the trickling filter process (when compared with activated sludge processes) include operational simplicity, resistance to toxic and shock loads, and low energy requirements. However, trickling filters are susceptible to nuisance conditions that are primarily caused by macro fauna. Process mechanical components dedicated to minimizing the accumulation of macro fauna such as filter flies, worms, and snail (shells) are now standard. Unfortunately, information on the selection and design of these process components is fragmented and has been poorly documented. The trickling filter/solids contact process is the most common TF/SG process. This paper summarizes state-of-the art design and operational practice for the modern trickling filter. Water Environ.

[1]  T. Asano,et al.  Characterization of the size distribution of contaminants in wastewater: treatment and reuse implications , 1985 .

[2]  T. Asano,et al.  Size distributions of particulate contaminants in wastewater and their impact on treatability , 1991 .

[3]  J. Harrison,et al.  A comparison of trickling filter media , 1987 .

[4]  D. Parker,et al.  Nitrification in trickling filters , 1986 .

[5]  D. Parker,et al.  Enhancing reaction rates in nitrifying trickling filters through biofilm control , 1989 .

[6]  Fair Gm,et al.  SEWAGE treatment at military installations. , 1946, Sewage works journal.

[7]  J E Germain,et al.  Economical treatment of domestic waste by plastic-medium trickling filters. , 1966, Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation.

[8]  D. S. Parker,et al.  REVIEW OF TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE WITH TF/SC PROCESS , 2001 .

[9]  J. G. Kuenen,et al.  Oxygen Microprofiles of Trickling Filter Biofilms , 1986 .

[10]  G. Daigger,et al.  Process and kinetic analysis of nitrification in coupled trickling filter/activated sludge processes , 1993 .

[11]  Orris E. Albertson Excess biofilm control by distributor-speed modulation , 1995 .

[12]  Denny S. Parker Trickling filter mythology , 1999 .

[13]  J. Boltz,et al.  The Role of Bioflocculation on Suspended Solids and Particulate COD Removal in the Trickling Filter Process , 2006 .

[14]  M. Crine,et al.  Evaluation of the Performances of Random Plastic Media in Aerobic Trickling Filters , 1990 .

[15]  B. Logan,et al.  A fundamental model for trickling filter process design , 1987 .

[16]  D. S. Parker,et al.  Effect of plastic media configuration on trickling filter performance , 1984 .

[17]  J. Boltz,et al.  Kinetics of Particulate Organic Matter Removal as a Response to Bioflocculation in Aerobic Biofilm Reactors , 2007, Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation.

[18]  Bruce E. Logan,et al.  Engineering implications of a new trickling filter model , 1987 .