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 17: |
Line 19: |
| !Virginia<ref>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.</ref> | | !Virginia<ref>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.</ref> |
| |88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM||180||150||47||97||99||99||99 | | |88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM||180||150||47||97||99||99||99 |
− | |} | + | |- |
− | | + | !rowspan="4"|North Carolina<ref>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.</ref> |
− | | + | |rowspan="4"|96% sand, 4% fines||rowspan="2"|110||88||rowspan="2"|12||89||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|-10 |
− | <tr><td rowspan=4 class="text-center">North Carolina<ref>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.</ref></td>
| + | |- |
− | <td rowspan=4 class="text-center">96% sand, 4% fines</td>
| + | |58||93 |
− | <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">110</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">88</td>
| + | |rowspan="2"|96||72||rowspan="2"|13||98 |
− | <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">12</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">89</td>
| + | |42||100 |
− | <td rowspan=4 class="text-center">58</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td rowspan=4 class="text-center">58</td>
| + | !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> |
− | <td rowspan=4 class="text-center">-10</td></tr>
| + | |loamy sand, 3% OM||120||60||20||99||-||-||- |
− | <tr><td class="text-center">58</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">93</td>
| + | !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> |
− | </tr>
| + | |rowspan="2"|98% sand, 2% fines||90||30||12||90||-||-||- |
− | <tr><td rowspan=2 class="text-center">96</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">72</td>
| + | |90||60||12||98||-||-||- |
− | <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">13</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">98</td>
| + | !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> |
− | </tr>
| + | |rowspan="2"|15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM||60||45||68||-||-||54||63 |
− | <tr><td class="text-center">42</td>
| + | |- |
− | <td class="text-center">100</td>
| + | |90||75||68||-||-||54||58 |
− | </tr>
| + | |} |
− | <tr><td class="text-center">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></td>
| |
− | <td class="text-center">loamy sand, 3% OM</td>
| |
− | <td class="text-center">120</td>
| |
− | <td class="text-center">60</td>
| |
− | <td class="text-center">20</td>
| |
− | <td class="text-center">>99</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>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></td>
| |
− | <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">98% sand, 2% fines</td>
| |
− | <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 102: |
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]] |