Line 28: |
Line 28: |
| |- | | |- |
| ! | | ! |
− | |This mixture may be assumed to have a porosity of [[Bioretention media storage|0.4 unless demonstrated otherwise]] | + | |This mixture may be assumed to have available water storage of [[Bioretention media storage|'''0.4''' unless demonstrated otherwise]] |
− | |This mixture may be assumed to have a porosity of 0.35 unless demonstrated otherwise | + | |This mixture may be assumed to have available water storage of '''0.35''' unless demonstrated otherwise |
| |} | | |} |
| | | |
Line 95: |
Line 95: |
| | | |
| ===Wood derivatives=== | | ===Wood derivatives=== |
− | https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/default/files/media/unhsc_bsm_spec_2-28-17_0.pdf | + | The 2017 guidance from New Hampshire specifically rules against the inclusion of compost in their bioretention media.<ref>UNHSC Bioretention Soil Specification. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/default/files/media/unhsc_bsm_spec_2-28-17_0.pdf</ref> Instead they recommend sphagnum peat or ''"Shredded wood, wood chips, ground bark, or wood waste; of uniform texture and free of stones, sticks"''. The use of wood chip has been common in New Hampshire for some time, in this 2006 thesis 20 % wood chips (not characterized) were incorporated into all of the test cases to match current practices at the time. <ref>Stone, R. M. (2013). Evaluation and Optimization of Bioretention Design for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved from https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE THESIS FINAL.pdf</ref> |
− | https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE%20THESIS%20FINAL.pdf | + | |
− | https://jbioleng.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13036-017-0057-4 (focus on denitrification)
| + | Shredded paper has been tested as an additional source of carbon and as an electron-donor to promote denitrification in a number of successful laboratory and field studies. |
| + | <ref> |
| | | |
| ==Additives== | | ==Additives== |