Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  
[[File:Bioretention storage.png|thumb|box plot of nine documented bioretention media]]
 
[[File:Bioretention storage.png|thumb|box plot of nine documented bioretention media]]
Bioretention filter media may be assumed to have a storage capacity of 0.4.
+
Bioretention filter media may be assumed to have a [[Bioretention: Filter media|filter media porosity]] of '''0.4'''.
    
This has been calculated as the difference between the media porosity and field capacity from a number of studies.  
 
This has been calculated as the difference between the media porosity and field capacity from a number of studies.  
   −
# Marine sand: 0.51 - 0.06 = 0.45  
+
# Marine sand: 0.51 - 0.06 = 0.45 <ref name= Liu> Liu, Ruifen, and Elizabeth Fassman-Beck. “Pore Structure and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Engineered Media for Living Roofs and Bioretention Based on Water Retention Data.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 23, no. 3 (March 2018): 04017065. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001621</ref>
<ref name= Liu> Liu, Ruifen, and Elizabeth Fassman-Beck. “Pore Structure and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Engineered Media for Living Roofs and Bioretention Based on Water Retention Data.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 23, no. 3 (March 2018): 04017065. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001621</ref>
   
# Marine sand with 10 % compost: 0.51 - 0.11 = 0.40 <ref name= Liu/>
 
# Marine sand with 10 % compost: 0.51 - 0.11 = 0.40 <ref name= Liu/>
 
# Marine sand with 20 % compost: 0.53 - 0.12 = 0.41 <ref name= Liu/>
 
# Marine sand with 20 % compost: 0.53 - 0.12 = 0.41 <ref name= Liu/>
Line 13: Line 12:  
# Bioretention soil I: 0.71 - 0.1 = 0.61 <ref name= Li> Li, Houng, and Allen P. Davis. “Urban Particle Capture in Bioretention Media. I: Laboratory and Field Studies.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 134, no. 6 (June 2008): 409–18. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:6(409).</ref>
 
# Bioretention soil I: 0.71 - 0.1 = 0.61 <ref name= Li> Li, Houng, and Allen P. Davis. “Urban Particle Capture in Bioretention Media. I: Laboratory and Field Studies.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 134, no. 6 (June 2008): 409–18. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:6(409).</ref>
 
# Bioretention soil II: 0.52 - 0.1 = 0.42 <ref name= Li/>
 
# Bioretention soil II: 0.52 - 0.1 = 0.42 <ref name= Li/>
# M minus mean θ<sub>ini</sub>: 0.76 - 0.32 = 0.44 <ref> Roy-Poirier, A., Y. Filion, and P. Champagne. “An Event-Based Hydrologic Simulation Model for Bioretention Systems.” Water Science and Technology 72, no. 9 (November 11, 2015): 1524–33. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.368.</ref>
+
# M minus mean θ<sub>ini</sub>: 0.76 - 0.32 = 0.44 <ref> Roy-Poirier, A., Y. Filion, and P. Champagne. “An Event-Based Hydrologic Simulation Model for Bioretention Systems.” Water Science and Technology 72, no. 9 (November 11, 2015): 1524–33. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.368.</ref>:
   −
----
+
==References==
 +
 
 +
:

Navigation menu