Difference between revisions of "Bioretention: Performance"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) (Created page with " <table class="table-responsive"> <table class="table table-bordered"> <caption><strong>Performance of bioretention with internal water storage<ref>Liu J, Sample D...") |
Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
− | *Impervious/Pervious ratio, i.e. the area of catchment divided by surface area of the cell | + | *Impervious/Pervious ratio, i.e. the area of catchment divided by surface area of the cell |
</table> | </table> | ||
====References==== | ====References==== | ||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
<strong>For review</strong> | <strong>For review</strong> | ||
− | http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 | + | http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants) |
+ | http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation) |
Revision as of 18:20, 1 August 2017
Location | Biomedia 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 | |||||||
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.
- REDIRECT Special:ArticleFeedbackv5
For review http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants) http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)