The literature seems to show there is a degree of dissatisfaction with Filox. If you wish to remove iron and manganese one option is to optimise your process for manganese removal. Once the filter media has a layer of manganese dioxide covering it, the process becomes autocatalytic and pH control becomes much less critical. The resultant MnO2 media will sorb (more) manganese plus iron and a plethora of heavy metals as well. MnO2 has surface areas up to 300 m2 /g depending on the source of the Mn. 

Filox filters are very common to remove Fe, Mn and H2S from water and various other different sources. Published work already available.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, I found some cases where Filox was used as the media with the life time of 3 years

I am a bit surprised to see a discussion here on a certain "brand" of products. The first point of discussion is to identify what condition the iron and manganese is actually in. If it is not oxidized and there is very little oxygen content in the water it is quite effectively removed with normal cation resin. From a global perspective this still by far the most common solution. The longest running media used is Greensand but even this media can be used either in continuous regeneration mode or intermediate mode.o By far continuous regen is the most effective and efficient.  A dozen other types of methods work extremely well some are brand specific like Iron Curtain by Hellenbrand or simply areation/oxidation systems like using a retention tank and dosing ozone, AOP, chlorine or aeration and a simple sand or multimedia filter after. The right application and size make "the" solution very different but from my experience of over 25 years branded products often leave a lot to be desired and are not the best choice everywhere. With the expansion of solar and DG actually ozone generators and aerators and even H2O2 generators often are excellent choices for the developing world where logistics and importation are challenging.

Thank you David for your comments.

I should clarify that the case I am working on is water treatment for a fish hatchery and due to sensitivity of fish species to chemical, I would rather stay away from any chemical-related treatment methods such as ozonation, chlorine addition,.., even greensand filtration is off the table.

Dear Mehrnaz:

There are several aeration options out there and I would not quickly discard ozone. I have had extensive use using ozone in fish hatcheries and residual ozone is very easily eliminated by a properly sized UV design to destroy ozone. As an added benefit if generated with oxygen you actually can achieve greater density of most species along with eliminate most risk of viral and other infections that are common in hatchery situations.

Hi David,

we have  a UV unit (dosage of 240 mj/cm2 at 85% UVT) down the sand filters, is this dosage enough for ozone residual removal?

what is the suggested ozone dose for this purpose?

Thank you,

Dear Mehrnaz:

The UV dose can be manipulated by controlling the flow and it would be best to verify the destruction with your supplier. I would strongly urge you to use oxygen as the feed gas to keep a stable production and dose with minimal residual over the COD (metals/iron demand). You would need to contact a reputable ozone manufacturer and in these kinds of applications I always used an ORP sensor tied to the generator to make sure if the bulb on the UV fouled or there was another issue that you could shut down automatically.

Hello Mehrnaz,

I know it has been over 4 years since you asked this. However, in case you still wonder if it works, I have been using Filox for over two years on well water in different projects, since we are Watts Water distributor in Egypt. So feel free to message me if you need any help.