Changes

Bioretention filter media may be assumed to have a storage capacity of 0.4.

Bioretention filter media may be assumed to have a storage capacity of 0.4.

This has been calculated as the difference between the media porosity and field capacity.  

This has been calculated as the difference between the media porosity and field capacity from a number of studies.  

# Marine sand: 0.51 - 0.06 = 0.45 <ref name=Liu>Liu, Ruifen, and Elizabeth Fassman-Beck. “Pore Structure and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Engineered Media for Living Roofs and Bioretention Based on Water Retention Data.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 23, no. 3 (March 2018): 04017065. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001621</ref>

 

# Marine sand with 10 % compost: 0.51 - 0.11 = 0.40 <ref name=Liu/>

# Marine sand: 0.51 - 0.06 = 0.45 <ref name= Liu> Liu, Ruifen, and Elizabeth Fassman-Beck. “Pore Structure and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Engineered Media for Living Roofs and Bioretention Based on Water Retention Data.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 23, no. 3 (March 2018): 04017065. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001621</ref>

# Marine sand with 20 % compost: 0.53 - 0.12 = 0.41 <rev name=Liu/>

# Marine sand with 10 % compost: 0.51 - 0.11 = 0.40 <ref name= Liu/>

# Marine sand with 20 % compost & 20 % topsoil: 0.52 - 0.16 = 0.36 <ref name=Liu/>

# Marine sand with 20 % compost: 0.53 - 0.12 = 0.41 <ref name= Liu/>

# Sand: 0.46 - 0.1 = 0.36 <ref>Saxton, K E, and W J Rawls. “Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions.” Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2006. doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0117. </ref>

# Marine sand with 20 % compost & 20 % topsoil: 0.52 - 0.16 = 0.36 <ref name= Liu/>

# NC sandy bioretention mix: 47.7 - 7.0 = 40.7 <ref>Davis, Allen P., Robert G. Traver, William F. Hunt, Ryan Lee, Robert A. Brown, and Jennifer M. Olszewski. “Hydrologic Performance of Bioretention Storm-Water Control Measures.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 17, no. 5 (May 2012): 604–14. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000467.</ref>

# Sand: 0.46 - 0.1 = 0.36 <ref> Saxton, K E, and W J Rawls. “Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions.” Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2006. doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0117. </ref>

# Bioretention soil I: 0.71 - 0.1 = 0.61 <ref name=Li>Li, Houng, and Allen P. Davis. “Urban Particle Capture in Bioretention Media. I: Laboratory and Field Studies.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 134, no. 6 (June 2008): 409–18. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:6(409).</ref>

# NC sandy bioretention mix: 0.47 - 0.07 = 0.40 <ref> Davis, Allen P., Robert G. Traver, William F. Hunt, Ryan Lee, Robert A. Brown, and Jennifer M. Olszewski. “Hydrologic Performance of Bioretention Storm-Water Control Measures.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 17, no. 5 (May 2012): 604–14. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000467.</ref>

# Bioretention soil I: 0.71 - 0.1 = 0.61 <ref name= Li> Li, Houng, and Allen P. Davis. “Urban Particle Capture in Bioretention Media. I: Laboratory and Field Studies.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 134, no. 6 (June 2008): 409–18. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:6(409).</ref>

# Bioretention soil II: 0.52 - 0.1 = 0.42 <ref name= Li/>

# Bioretention soil II: 0.52 - 0.1 = 0.42 <ref name= Li/>

# M minus mean θ_ini: 0.76 - 0.32 = 0.44 <ref>Roy-Poirier, A., Y. Filion, and P. Champagne. “An Event-Based Hydrologic Simulation Model for Bioretention Systems.” Water Science and Technology 72, no. 9 (November 11, 2015): 1524–33. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.368.</ref>

# M minus mean θ_ini: 0.76 - 0.32 = 0.44 <ref> Roy-Poirier, A., Y. Filion, and P. Champagne. “An Event-Based Hydrologic Simulation Model for Bioretention Systems.” Water Science and Technology 72, no. 9 (November 11, 2015): 1524–33. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.368.</ref>:

 

----

----