Changes

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

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

# 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>

 

----

----