Efficiency of the bank filtration for removing organic priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern: A critical review

With growing concerns regarding the ecological and human risks of organic micropollutants (OMPs) in water, much effort has been devoted worldwide to establishing quality standards and compiling candidate and watch lists. Although bank filtration is recognized as an efficient natural water treatment in the removal of contami-nants such as OMPs, the increase in exploitation requires continuous assessment of removal efficiency. This review aims to provide a critical overview of bank filtration (BF) reports on more than a hundred priority substances (PSs) and compounds of emerging concern (CECs) listed in the relevant European Union regulations. Field-and lab-scale studies analyzing the removal efficiency and its variance of individual OMPs and biological indicators using BF and the main influencing factors and their interactions, shortcomings, and future challenges are discussed in this review. The removal efficiency of EU-relevant contaminants by BF has been comprehen-sively investigated for only a few pollutants listed in the environmental EU regulations: pharmaceutically active compounds, (e.g., the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, some antibiotics (e.g., sulfamethoxazole and trimeth-oprim)), a few pesticides (e.g., atrazine), and faecal indicators such as Escherichia coli. In many cases, the measured concentrations of PSs and CECs have not been published numerically, which hinders comprehensive statistical analysis. Although BF is one of the most cost-effective and efficient water treatments, present field and lab studies have demonstrated the diversity of site-specific factors affecting its efficiency. Even in the case of substances known to be removed by BF, the efficiency rates can vary with environmental and anthropogenic factors (e.g., hydrogeological parameters and the contamination level of infiltrating water) and abstraction well parameters (e.g., the depth, distance, and pumping volume). The published removal rate variations and influ-encing factors often reflect the research design (field or lab-scale), which can lead to ambiguities.