Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs

Davis, Allen P.; Hunt, William F.; Traver, Robert G.; Clar, Michael

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)

Cited by 705 publications

(419 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

364

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bioretention cells, also referred to as bioinfiltration systems and rain gardens, generally consist of a sand/soil/organic media substrate overlain with a mulch layer and various forms of vegetation and possess the ability to reduce runoff volumes/peak flows and pollutant (TSS, nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals) discharges through removal mechanisms such as filtration, adsorption, sedimentation and biological activity/uptake (Davis et al, 2009). Hunt et al (2008) have monitored a 229 m 2 bioretention cell receiving runoff from a 3,700 m 2 asphalt parking area and observed that peak inflows were reduced by over 96.5% for storms with less than 42 mm of rainfall.…”

Section: Storage Facilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sources, impact and management of car park runoff pollution: A review

Revitt

Lundy

Coulon

et al. 2014

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traffic emissions contribute significantly to the build-up of diffuse pollution loads on urban surfaces with their subsequent mobilisation and direct discharge posing problems for receiving water quality. This review focuses on the impact and mitigation of solids, metals, nutrients and organic pollutants in the runoff deriving from car parks. Variabilities in the discharged pollutant levels and in the potentials for pollutant mitigation complicate an impact assessment of car park runoff. The different available stormwater best management practices and proprietary devices are reported to be capable of reductions of between 20% and almost 100% for both suspended solids and a range of metals. This review contributes to prioritising the treatment options which can achieve the appropriate pollutant reductions whilst conforming to the site requirements of a typical car park. By applying different treatment scenarios to the runoff from a hypothetical car park, it is shown that optimal performance, in terms of ecological benefits for the receiving water, can be achieved using a treatment train incorporating permeable paving and bioretention systems. The review identifies existing research gaps and emphasises the pertinent management practices as well as design issues which are relevant to the mitigation of car park pollution.

show abstract

Section: Storage Facilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sources, impact and management of car park runoff pollution: A review

Revitt

Lundy

Coulon

et al. 2014

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A natural soil infiltration (water percolation) rate greater than 6 mm hr -1 is desirable and otherwise, engineered soils by mixing on-site soil, sand, and compost are needed to construct the 90-150 cm thick bioretention layer. The water ponding depth should limit to 15-30 cm such that all runoff water is able to infiltrate into the ground within 48 hours after a storm [11]. An overflow pipe connecting to an existing drainage network or a reinforced overflow area is necessary for a bioretention structure, especially for those with disturbed soils.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to filter media composition and configuration, other design parameters including maximum pooling depth, minimum filter media thickness, under drain configuration, and vegetation selection have to be optimized in bioretention practices [11]. Optimization of a bioretention design for desirable infiltration or nutrient removal requires intensive knowledge of the local climate, hydrology, and soil type, as well as financial status.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Delaware is using a formula of 1/3 sand, 1/3 peat moss, and 1/3 double-shredded mulch. The filter media specification in North Carolina is 85-88% sand, 8-12% silt and clay, and 3-5% organic material [11]. The performance of a bioretention structure in removing , and Zn 2+ and more than 90% of the suspended particulates, oil/grease, and bacteria in storm water (Table 1) would be removed [3,17,18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although bioretention is not suitable for treatinga large drainage area (e.g., >1 ha) and the treatment structure takes space [3,11], this low impact development (LID) technique has become a most popular stormwater best management practice in the U.S. and is rapidly being adopted by other countries [11].The effectiveness of a bioretention system is, however, influenced by its location, size, water ponding depth, bioretention media composition and thickness, and vegetation. Commonly, a bioretention structure is installed in areas with a slope gradient less than 20% and the high seasonable water table deeper than 1.8 m [3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolving Bioretentiontechniques for Urban Storm water Treatment

2013

Hydrol Current Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban recharge beneath low impact development and effects of climate variability and change

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding low impact development (LID) planning and best management practices (BMPs) effects on recharge is important because of the increasing use of LID BMPs to reduce storm water runoff and improve surface-water quality. LID BMPs are microscale, decentralized management techniques such as vegetated systems, pervious pavement, and infiltration trenches to capture, reduce, filter, and slow storm water runoff. Some BMPs may enhance recharge, which has often been considered a secondary management benefit. Here we report results of a field and HYDRUS-2D modeling study in San Francisco, California, USA to quantify urban recharge rates, volumes, and efficiency beneath a LID BMP infiltration trench and irrigated lawn considering historical El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability and future climate change using simulated precipitation from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) A1F1 climate scenario. We find that in situ and modeling methods are complementary, particularly for simulating historical and future recharge scenarios, and the in situ data are critical for accurately estimating recharge under current conditions. Observed (2011)(2012) and future (2099-2100) recharge rates beneath the infiltration trench (1750-3710 mm yr 21 ) were an order of magnitude greater than beneath the irrigated lawn (130-730 mm yr 21 ). Beneath the infiltration trench, recharge rates ranged from 1390 to 5840 mm yr 21 and averaged 3410 mm yr 21 for El Niño years and from 1540 to 3330 mm yr 21 and averaged 2430 mm yr 21 for La Niña years. We demonstrate a clear benefit for recharge and local groundwater resources using LID BMPs.

show abstract

Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs

Cited by 705 publications

References 32 publications

The sources, impact and management of car park runoff pollution: A review

The sources, impact and management of car park runoff pollution: A review

Evolving Bioretentiontechniques for Urban Storm water Treatment

Urban recharge beneath low impact development and effects of climate variability and change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About