Difference between revisions of "Bioretention: Performance"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) |
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|96||72||13||98 | |96||72||13||98 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |42||100 | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | + | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
<tr><td class="text-center">42</td> | <tr><td class="text-center">42</td> | ||
<td class="text-center">100</td> | <td class="text-center">100</td> |
Revision as of 00:53, 15 August 2017
Location | Filter media composition | Media depth (cm) | Internal water storage depth (cm) | I/P* | 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 |
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
*Impervious/Pervious ratio, i.e. the area of catchment divided by surface area of the cell
References[edit]
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
For review
- http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants)
- http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)
- https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/engineering/vcase/sym-presentations/2011/40_2ayers.pdf (maturation)
- https://www.chijournal.org/C417 (undersized)
- 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)