Difference between revisions of "Bioretention: Performance"

From LID SWM Planning and Design Guide
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{|class="wikitable"
'''STEP are conducting a review of performance for many BMP types throughout 2018. This content will be updated shortly.'''
 
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Performance of bioretention with internal water storage<ref>Liu J, Sample D, Bell C, Guan Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water. 2014;6(4):1069-1099. doi:10.3390/w6041069.</ref>
|+ Performance of bioretention with internal water storage<ref>Liu J, Sample D, Bell C, Guan Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water. 2014;6(4):1069-1099. doi:10.3390/w6041069.</ref>
|-  
|-  
Line 6: Line 8:
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Media depth (cm)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Media depth (cm)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Internal water storage depth (cm)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Internal water storage depth (cm)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|I/P*
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|I/P ratio
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Runoff volume reduction (%)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Runoff volume reduction (%)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|TSS reduction (%)
!style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|TSS reduction (%)
Line 28: Line 30:
|-
|-
!North Carolina<ref>Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng. 2009;14(4):407-415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(407).</ref>
!North Carolina<ref>Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng. 2009;14(4):407-415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(407).</ref>
|loamy sand, 3% OM||120||60||20||99||-||-||-
|-
!rowspan="2"|North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Hunt WF. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. In: Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008:1-10. doi:10.1061/41009(333)95.</ref>
|rowspan="2"|98% sand, 2% fines||90||30||12||90||-||-||-
|-
|-
|loamy sand, 3% OM||120||60||20||>99||-||-||-
|90||60||12||98||-||-||-
|-
|-
! rowspan=2|North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Hunt WF. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. In: Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008:1-10. doi:10.1061/41009(333)95.</ref>
!rowspan="2"|North Carolina<ref>Passeport E, Hunt WF, Line DE, Smith RA, Brown RA. Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2009;135(4):505-510. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006.</ref>
|rowspan="2"|15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM||60||45||68||-||-||54||63
|-
|-
|rowspan=2|98% sand, 2% fines
|90||75||68||-||-||54||58
 
|}
 
        <td class="text-center">90</td>
        <td class="text-center">30</td>
        <td class="text-center">12</td>
        <td class="text-center">90</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        </tr>
<tr><td class="text-center">90</td>
        <td class="text-center">60</td>
        <td class="text-center">12</td>
        <td class="text-center">98</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        </tr>
<tr><td rowspan=2 class="text-center">North Carolina<ref>Passeport E, Hunt WF, Line DE, Smith RA, Brown RA. Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2009;135(4):505-510. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006.</ref></td>
<td rowspan=2 class="text-center">15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM</td>
        <td class="text-center">60</td>
        <td class="text-center">45</td>
        <td class="text-center">68</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">54</td>
        <td class="text-center">63</td>
        </tr>
<tr><td class="text-center">90</td>
        <td class="text-center">75</td>
        <td class="text-center">68</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">-</td>
        <td class="text-center">54</td>
        <td class="text-center">58</td>
        </tr>
    </table>
  *Impervious/Pervious ratio, i.e. the area of catchment divided by surface area of the cell
</table>
 
 
==References==
<em><references /></em>
 


<strong>For review</strong>
===For review===
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)
Line 86: Line 50:
*https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE%20THESIS%20FINAL.pdf (modified biomedia)
*https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE%20THESIS%20FINAL.pdf (modified biomedia)
*http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/1/13/htm (cold climate)
*http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/1/13/htm (cold climate)
----
[[Category: Performance]]

Latest revision as of 01:17, 9 March 2018

STEP are conducting a review of performance for many BMP types throughout 2018. This content will be updated shortly.

Performance of bioretention with internal water storage[1]
Location Filter media composition Media depth (cm) Internal water storage depth (cm) I/P ratio Runoff volume reduction (%) TSS reduction (%) TN reduction (%) TP reduction (%)
Montréal[2] 88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM 180 150 47 97 99 99 99
Virginia[3] 88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM 180 150 47 97 99 99 99
North Carolina[4] 96% sand, 4% fines 110 88 12 89 58 58 -10
58 93
96 72 13 98
42 100
North Carolina[5] loamy sand, 3% OM 120 60 20 99 - - -
North Carolina[6] 98% sand, 2% fines 90 30 12 90 - - -
90 60 12 98 - - -
North Carolina[7] 15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM 60 45 68 - - 54 63
90 75 68 - - 54 58

For review[edit]


  1. Liu J, Sample D, Bell C, Guan Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water. 2014;6(4):1069-1099. doi:10.3390/w6041069.
  2. Géhéniau N, Fuamba M, Mahaut V, Gendron MR, Dugué M. Monitoring of a Rain Garden in Cold Climate: Case Study of a Parking Lot near Montréal. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2015;141(6):4014073. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000836.
  3. DeBusk KM, Wynn TM. Storm-Water Bioretention for Runoff Quality and Quantity Mitigation. J Environ Eng. 2011;137(9):800-808. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000388.
  4. Brown RA, Asce AM, Hunt WF, Asce M. Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads. J Environ Eng. 2011;137(11):1082-1091. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000437.
  5. Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng. 2009;14(4):407-415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(407).
  6. Brown RA, Hunt WF. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. In: Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008:1-10. doi:10.1061/41009(333)95.
  7. Passeport E, Hunt WF, Line DE, Smith RA, Brown RA. Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2009;135(4):505-510. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006.