Difference between revisions of "Bioswales: Performance"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (10 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
While few field studies of the pollutant removal capacity of bioswales are available from cold climate regions like Ontario, it can be assumed that they would perform similar to [[bioretention cells]]. | While few field studies of the pollutant removal capacity of bioswales are available from cold climate regions like Ontario, it can be assumed that they would perform similar to [[bioretention cells]]. | ||
Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, plant uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. It is important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions. | Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, plant uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. It is important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions. | ||
If a bioswale infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the flow from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff will continue to occur as it moves through the native soils. | If a bioswale infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the flow from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff will continue to occur as it moves through the native soils. | ||
{| class=" | {|class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
!Design | !Design | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
!Runoff reduction | !Runoff reduction | ||
|- | |- | ||
|No underdrain||Washington||>98 % | |No underdrain||Washington<ref>Horner RR, Lim H, Burges SJ. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING OF THE SEATTLE ULTRA-URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS: SUMMARY OF THE 2000-2003 WATER YEARS. Seattle; 2004. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.8665&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.</ref>||>98 % | ||
|- | |- | ||
|No underdrain||United Kingdom||>94 % | |No underdrain||United Kingdom||>94 % | ||
|- | |- | ||
|With underdrain||Maryland||46 - 54 % | |With underdrain||Maryland<ref>https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen3-14g.pdf</ref>||46 - 54 % | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2"|<strong>Runoff reduction estimate</strong>||<strong>85 %</strong> | |colspan="2"|<strong>Runoff reduction estimate</strong>||<strong>85 %</strong> | ||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:25, 23 July 2020
While few field studies of the pollutant removal capacity of bioswales are available from cold climate regions like Ontario, it can be assumed that they would perform similar to bioretention cells. Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, plant uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. It is important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions. If a bioswale infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the flow from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff will continue to occur as it moves through the native soils.
| Design | Location | Runoff reduction |
|---|---|---|
| No underdrain | Washington[1] | >98 % |
| No underdrain | United Kingdom | >94 % |
| With underdrain | Maryland[2] | 46 - 54 % |
| Runoff reduction estimate | 85 % | |
- ↑ Horner RR, Lim H, Burges SJ. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING OF THE SEATTLE ULTRA-URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS: SUMMARY OF THE 2000-2003 WATER YEARS. Seattle; 2004. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.8665&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.
- ↑ https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen3-14g.pdf