Difference between revisions of "Bioswales: Performance"
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) m |
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{:lit review}} | |||
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. | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 9 March 2018
|
Starting after TRIECA (end March) members of STEP will be undertaking a literature review on the performance of our most popular BMPs. The results will be combined with the information we have to date from the development of the Treatment Train Tool and agreed performance metrics established. Until then, please feel free to continue to ask questions via email or the feedback box below. |
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