2,121
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 374:
Line 374: + + + + Line 385:
Line 389: − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |China − |style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><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></u>''' − |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> Line 395:
Line 395: + + + + + + + + Line 400:
Line 408: − + − + − + Line 411:
Line 419: − |- − |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;" |Ohio − |style="text-align: center;" |36 to 59% − |style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2016). <ref>Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D. and Hunt, W.F. 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Science of the Total Environment, 553, pp.83-95.</ref> Line 425:
Line 425: − |- − |style="text-align: center;" |Maryland − |style="text-align: center;" |49 to 58% − |style="text-align: center;" |Davis (2008). <ref>Davis, A.P. 2008. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 13(2), pp.90-95. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90)</ref> Line 437:
Line 433: + + + +
→Performance
|-
|-
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|rowspan="4" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention without underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><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></u>'''
|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;" |Connecticut
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |99%
|style="text-align: center;" |70%
|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>
|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="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|rowspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<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.">82%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<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.">82%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |Mahmoud, ''et al.'' (2019)<ref>Mahmoud, A., Alam, T., Rahman, M.Y.A., Sanchez, A., Guerrero, J. and Jones, K.D. 2019. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecological Engineering, 142, p.100007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590290319300070</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Mahmoud, ''et al.'' (2019)<ref>Mahmoud, A., Alam, T., Rahman, M.Y.A., Sanchez, A., Guerrero, J. and Jones, K.D. 2019. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecological Engineering, 142, p.100007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590290319300070</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><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.">35 to 75%*</span></u>'''
|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;" |Ohio
|style="text-align: center;" |36 to 59%
|style="text-align: center;" |Winston ''et al.'' (2016). <ref>Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D. and Hunt, W.F. 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Science of the Total Environment, 553, pp.83-95.</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Virginia
|style="text-align: center;" |Virginia
|style="text-align: center;" |DeBusk and Wynn (2011)<ref>DeBusk, K.M. and Wynn, T.M., 2011. Storm-water bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137(9), pp.800-808. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce431/Articles/DeBusk-ASCE-2011.pdf</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |DeBusk and Wynn (2011)<ref>DeBusk, K.M. and Wynn, T.M., 2011. Storm-water bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137(9), pp.800-808. https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce431/Articles/DeBusk-ASCE-2011.pdf</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |China
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland and North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |'''<u><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.">35 to 75%*</span></u>'''
|style="text-align: center;" |20 to 50%
|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;" |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;" |North Carolina
|style="text-align: center;" |33 to 50%
|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>
|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>
|-
|-
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
|rowspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | Bioretention with underdrain & liner
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 34%
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 34%
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf STEP (2019)]</span> <ref>STEP. 2019. Comparative Performance Assessment of Bioretention in Ontari0. Technical Brief. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf.</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |<span class="plainlinks">[https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf STEP (2019)]</span> <ref>STEP. 2019. Comparative Performance Assessment of Bioretention in Ontari0. Technical Brief. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2019/10/STEP_Bioretention-Synthesis_Tech-Brief-New-Template-2019-Oct-10.-2019.pdf.</ref>
|-
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |Queensland, Australia
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 83%
|style="text-align: center;" |15 to 83%
|style="text-align: center;" |Hatt ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Deletic, A. 2009. Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology, 365(3), 310-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001</ref>
|style="text-align: center;" |Hatt ''et al.'' (2009). <ref>Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Deletic, A. 2009. Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale. Journal of Hydrology, 365(3), 310-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001</ref>
|-
|style="text-align: center;" |Maryland
|style="text-align: center;" |49 to 58%
|style="text-align: center;" |Davis (2008). <ref>Davis, A.P. 2008. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 13(2), pp.90-95. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90)</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;" |'''<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>'''