8,255
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + + + Line 28:
Line 30: − + Line 35:
Line 37: − + + − |rowspan="2"|15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM||60||45||68||-||-||54||63 − + − ==References== − <em><references /></em> − <strong>For review</strong>+ Line 50:
Line 50: + +
no edit summary
{|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>
|-
|-
|-
|-
!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||-||-||-
|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"|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>
|90||60||12||98||-||-||-
|90||60||12||98||-||-||-
|-
|-
!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.
!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
|-
|-
|90||75||68||-||-||54||58
|90||75||68||-||-||54||58
|}
===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)
*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]]