Difference between revisions of "Exfiltration: Performance"
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 48: | Line 47: | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
|+Pollutant removal efficiencies of | |+Pollutant removal efficiencies of exfiltration systems | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Practice | !Practice | ||
| Line 73: | Line 72: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
[[category: performance]] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:28, 23 July 2020
| Water balance benefit | Water quality improvement | Erosion control benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | Partial: depending on soil infiltration rate |
Water balance[edit]
The degree to which water balance objectives are met will depend on the underlying native soil type on which the system is located. Several Ontario studies have assess the performance of exfiltration systems in cold climates.
| Practice | Location | Underlying soil type | Runoff reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grass swale/perforated pipe | Nepean, ON[1] | Silty till | 73 % |
| Grass swale/perforated pipe | Nepean, ON[1] | Sandy silty till | 86 % |
| Perforated pipe | Etobicoke, ON[2] | Clay/clayey silty till over silty sand | 95 % |
| Perforated pipe | North york, ON[2] | Silty sand | 89 % |
Runoff reduction estimate = 85 % on HSG A and B soils.
Runoff reduction estimate = 45 % on HSG C and D soils.
Pollutant removal capacity[edit]
Performance results from a limited number of field studies indicate that subsurface stormwater infiltration practices are effective BMPs for pollutant removal [3]. These types of practices provide effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, and soil adsorption. It is also important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions. If an infiltration practice infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the runoff from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff continues to occur as it leaves the facility and moves through the native soil. The performance of perforated pipe systems would be expected to reduce pollutants in runoff in a manner similar to infiltration trenches.
Several studies of exfiltration systems in Ontario have examined their water quality benefits. Seasonal contaminant load reductions in the order of 80% were observed for most constituents, with the exception of chloride, in the study of the system installed in a low density residential neighbourhood in Etobicoke [4][2]. Perforated pipe systems that incorporate grassed swales as pretreatment have been observed to reduce loads of suspended sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, copper, lead and zinc in runoff flowing from the system between 75 to 90% in comparison to a similar catchment with conventional catchbasins and storm sewers [5]. The Nepean systems were shown to release significantly less pollutants than the conventional sewer system, even after 20 years of operation[1].
| Practice | Location | Lead % | Copper % | Zinc % | Total suspended solids (TSS) % | Total Phosphorus % | Total Nitrogen (TKN) % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soakaway | Valence, France[6] | 98 | - | 54 - 88 | - | - | - |
| Infiltration trench | Various[7] | 70 - 90 | 70 - 90 | 70 - 90 | 70 - 90 | 50 - 70 | 40 - 70 |
| Grass swale/perforated pipe | North York, ON[4] | 75 | 96 | 93 | 24 | 84 | 84 |
| Grass swale/perforated pipe | Nepean, ON[1] | - 99 | 66 | 0 | 81 | 81 | 72 |
| Grass swale/perforated pipe | Nepean, ON[1] | > 99 | > 99 | 90 | 96 | 93 | 93 |
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 J.F. Sabourin and Associates Incorporated. 2008a. 20 Year Performance Evaluation of Grassed Swale and Perforated Pipe Drainage Systems. Project No. 524(02). Prepared for the Infrastructure Management Division of the City of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program. 2005. Synthesis of Monitoring Studies Conducted Under the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program.. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto, Ontario.
- ↑ Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA). 2009. Review of the Science and Practice of Stormwater Infiltration in Cold Climates. Prepared under the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP). Toronto, Ontario.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program. 2002. Performance Assessment of a Swale/Perforated Pipe Stormwater Infiltration System – Toronto, Ontario. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto, Ontario.
- ↑ J.F. Sabourin and Associates Incorporated. 1999. Research Project for the Updated Investigation of the Performance Evaluation of Grass Swales and Perforated Pipe Drainage Systems. Executive Summary. Prepared for the Infrastructure Management Division of the City of Ottawa. Ottawa, Ontario.
- ↑ Barraud, S., Gautier, A., Bardin, J.P., Riou, V. 1999. The Impact of Intentional Stormwater Infiltration on Soil and Groundwater. Water Science and Technology. Vol. 39. No. 2. pp. 185-192.
- ↑ ASCE (2000)Pollutant removal efficiencies are reported as ranges because they are based on a synthesis of several performance monitoring studies that were available as of 2000.