Abstract:The continued development of urban areas in recent decades has caused multiple issues affecting the sustainability of urban drainage systems. The increase of impervious surface areas in urban regions alters watershed hydrology and water quality. Typical impacts to downstream hydrologic regimes include higher peak flows and runoff volumes, shorter lag times, and reduced infiltration and base flow. Urban runoff increases the transport of pollutants and nutrients and thus degrades water bodies downstream from urban areas. One of the most frequently used practices to mitigate these impacts is bioretention. Despite its widespread use, research on bioretention systems remains active, particularly in terms of mix design and nitrogen treatment. Recent research focusing on bioretention is reviewed herein. The use of mesocosms provides the ability to isolate particular treatment processes and replicate variability. Computational models have been adapted and applied to simulate bioretention, offering potential improvements to their operation, maintenance, and design. Maintenance practices are important for sustained operation and have also been reviewed. Predicting maintenance is essential to assessing lifecycle costs. Within these research areas, gaps are explored, and recommendations made for future work.

Floating treatment wetlands (FTWs) are a relatively new water treatment practice that consists of emergent wetland plants planted on floating mats constructed of buoyant material. This study utilized batch-fed mesocosms, with a seven-day retention time, to investigate the total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) remediation capability of two commercially available FTW technologies using runoff from a combined irrigation holding and stormwater retention pond. Nutrients in the pond water are attributed to runoff from nearby fertilized research plots upgradient. The FTW technologies included Beemats (Beemats LLC, New Smyrna Beach, FL, USA) and BioHaven 1 floating islands (Floating Island International, Inc. Shepard, MT, USA) planted with Juncus effusus (soft rush). Due to an increase in TN and TP in the initial phase of the experiment during the plant establishment phase (weeks 1-8), BioHaven 1 nutrient removal was lower over the entire experimental period than the Beemat treatment. Differences between the two treatments, such as mat material or substrate materials and/or additives may account for this difference. The BioHaven 1 FTW removed 25% and 4%, while the Beemat removed 40% and 48% of the TN and TP, respectively expressed in terms of net removal over the entire study. During the plant growth season (weeks 9-18 of the study), the two technologies showed similar nutrient removal rates: for TN:0.026 AE 0.0032 and 0.025 AE 0.0018, and for TP:0.0074 AE 0.00049 and 0.0076 AE 0.00065 g/m 2 /day for Beemat and Biohaven 1 , respectively. A control treatment, meant to reflect nutrient removal within the pond without the presence of plants, yielded 28% and 31% removal of TN and TP, respectively. Thus, the Beemat mat yielded a significant positive net removal of TN and TP. The BioHaven 1 biomass was significantly greater than the Beemat treatment. Both treatments showed greater biomass accumulation in shoots rather than in roots. Plant nutrient content was similar between the two treatments.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract