2,121
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − + + + − + − + − + + − + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − |With underdrain||Maryland||46 - 54 % − |- − |colspan="2"|<strong>Runoff reduction estimate</strong>||<strong>85 %</strong>
no edit summary
While few field studies of the pollutant removal capacity of bioswales are available from cold climate regions like Ontario, it can be assumed that they would perform similar to [[bioretention cells]].
While few field studies of the pollutant removal capacity of bioswales are available from cold climate regions like Ontario, it can be assumed that they would perform similar to [[bioretention cells]].
Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, plant uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. It is important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions.
Bioretention provides effective removal for many pollutants as a result of sedimentation, filtering, plant uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. It is important to note that there is a relationship between the water balance and water quality functions.
If a bioswale infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the flow from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff will continue to occur as it moves through the native soils. </p>
If a bioswale infiltrates and evaporates 100% of the flow from a site, then there is essentially no pollution leaving the site in surface runoff. Furthermore, treatment of infiltrated runoff will continue to occur as it moves through the native soils.
{|class="Orangetable"
{|class="wikitable"
|+Volumetric runoff reduction from bioswales
|-
|-
!Design
!'''LID Practice'''
!Location
!'''Location'''
!Runoff reduction
!'''<u><span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on differences in runoff volume between the practice and a conventional impervious surface over the period of monitoring." >Runoff Reduction*</span></u>'''
!'''Reference'''
|-
|-
|No underdrain||Washington||>98 %
|rowspan="2" style="text-align: center;" | Bioswale without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |Washington
|style="text-align: center;" |98%
|style="text-align: center;" |Horner et al. (2003)<ref>Horner RR, Lim H, Burges SJ. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING OF THE SEATTLE ULTRA-URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS: SUMMARY OF THE 2000-2003 WATER YEARS. Seattle; 2004. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.8665&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed August 11, 2017.</ref>
|-
|-
|No underdrain||United Kingdom||>94 %
|style="text-align: center;" |Scotland
|style="text-align: center;" |94%
|style="text-align: center;" |Jefferies (2005)<ref>Jefferies, C. 2004. Sustainable drainage systems in Scotland: the monitoring programme. Scottish Universities SUDS Monitoring Project. Dundee, Scotland. https://www.climatescan.nl/uploads/projects/8126/files/1277/SNIFFERSR_02_51MainReport.pdf</ref>
|-
|rowspan="1" style="text-align: center;" | Bioswale with Underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |46 to 54%
|style="text-align: center;" |Stagge (2006)<ref>Stagge, J. 2006. Field evaluation of hydrologic and water quality benefits of grass swales for managing highway runoff. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/items/42be6ce6-e4ef-4162-a991-c273607d422d</ref>
|-
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<span title="Note: Runoff reduction estimates are based on SWMM and RECARGA models applied to generate the runoff reduction percentages of a bioretention installation near one of China's and expressway service area.">85 to 100%*</span>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Gao, ''et al.'' (2018)<ref>Gao, J., Pan, J., Hu, N. and Xie, C., 2018. Hydrologic performance of bioretention in an expressway service area. Water Science and Technology, 77(7), pp.1829-1837.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |Dietz and Clausen (2005) <ref>Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen. 2005. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air and Soil Pollution. Vol. 167. No. 2. pp. 201-208. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.365.9417&rep=rep1&type=pdf</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |80%
|style="text-align: center;" |Ermilio (2005)<ref>Ermilio, J.F., 2005. Characterization study of a bio-infiltration stormwater BMP (Doctoral dissertation, Villanova University). https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/engineering/vcase/vusp/Ermilio-Thesis06.pdf</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Pennsylvania
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|style="text-align: center;" |Emerson and Traver (2004)<ref>Emerson, C., Traver, R. 2004. The Villanova Bio-infiltration Traffic Island: Project Overview. Proceedings of 2004 World Water and Environmental Resources Congress (EWRI/ASCE). Salt Lake City, Utah, June 22 – July 1, 2004. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/book/10.1061/9780784407370</ref>
|-
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Ontario
|style="text-align: center;" |64%
|style="text-align: center;" |CVC (2020)<ref> Credit Valley Conservation. 2020. IMAX Low Impact Development Feature Performance Assessment. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2022/03/rpt_IMAXreport_f_20220222.pdf</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland and North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |20 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Li ''et al.'' (2009) <ref>Li, H., Sharkey, L.J., Hunt, W.F., and Davis, A.P. 2009. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. Vol. 14. No. 4. pp. 407-415.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |40 to 60%
|style="text-align: center;" |Smith and Hunt (2007)<ref>Smith, R and W. Hunt. 2007. Pollutant removals in bioretention cells with grass cover. Proceedings 2nd National Low Impact Development Conference. Wilmington, NC. March 13-15, 2007.</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 50%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hunt and Lord (2006) <ref>Hunt, W.F. and Lord, W.G. 2006. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construction, and Maintenance. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Urban Waterways Series. AG-588-5. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.</ref>
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><span title="Note: This estimate is provided only for the purpose of initial screening of LID practices suitable for achieving stormwater management objectives and targets. Performance of individual facilities will vary depending on site specific contexts and facility design parameters and should be estimated as part of the design process and submitted with other documentation for review by the approval authority." >Runoff Reduction Estimate*</span></u>'''
|colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |'''85% without underdrain;'''
'''45% with underdrain'''
|-
|-
|}
|}