Field Testing of Ultra-Urban BMPs

Yu, Shaw L.; Xiao, Zhang; Earles, Andrew; Sievers, Mark

doi:10.1061/40430(1999)122

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bioretention cells remove, on average, 84% of TSS from runoff (Figure 2(a)). This result is slightly higher than the removal rate of 75% found by Géhéniau et al (2014) and 60% found by Hunt et al (2008), but similar to that of the projects of Yu et al (1999) and the MRC-Brome-Missisquoi (2015), having obtained an average removal of 86 and 87%, respectively, and lower than that obtained by Khan et al (2012). The differences in the removal efficiencies between studies relate directly to the differences in influent concentration between the studies.…”

Section: Individual Green Infrastructuressupporting

confidence: 75%

Seasonal hydrological and water quality performance of individual and in-series stormwater infrastructures as treatment trains in cold climate

Brodeur-Doucet

Pineau

Corrivault-Gascon

et al. 2021

Water Quality Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of stormwater treatment trains and of their individual green infrastructures was evaluated near Montreal, Canada. Three treatment trains were studied: Train 1 – five bioretention cells in series with a wet retention pond; Train 2 – an infiltration trench in series with a dry detention pond; and Train 3 – Train 2 in series with a wet retention pond. A total of 47 rain events were monitored to quantity the hydrological performance, while water quality samples were taken during 24 rainfall events. During the summer, the bioretention cells led to a reduction in runoff volumes varying from 8 to 100%. Overall, the three studied treatment trains and all of the individual infrastructures, except for the dry pond, provided reductions in the mean concentrations of total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen and total phosphorous. Results also showed that the use of a train of stormwater infrastructures can be more effective to reach Quebec's legislated targets than single infrastructures, but only if the infrastructures are sequenced properly. Indeed, the addition of a dry basin at the end of Train 2 affected negatively the removal efficiency of the four studied contaminants.

show abstract

Section: Individual Green Infrastructuressupporting

confidence: 75%

Seasonal hydrological and water quality performance of individual and in-series stormwater infrastructures as treatment trains in cold climate

Brodeur-Doucet

Pineau

Corrivault-Gascon

et al. 2021

Water Quality Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Field studies at the University of Virginia have indicated 86% removal for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), 97% for Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and 67% for Oil and Grease. Yu et al (1999) conducted study in laboratory media columns at the University of Maryland has demonstrated potential bioretention cell removal efficiencies greater than 98% for total suspended solids and oil/grease (Hsieh and Davis, 2002).…”

Section: Bioretention Soil and Its Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic design model of underground bioretention system: a source control measure for wet weather urban stormwater management

Uddin¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional practices of urbanization, land use strategies and stormwater management are considerably increasing the risk of wet weather flooding, downstream erosion and water pollution. To minimize the water pollution problem associated with the urban development various concepts of low impact development are being implemented. The city of Toronto has installed an underground bioretention system at Queensway Avenue. The hydraulic design criteria and specification of the underground bioretention system are not yet well developed. Hydraulic design model is developed using five mass balance equations of the five components of bioretention system. All design water depth variables of the bioretention system are solved simultaneously using Matlab program. An application of the model in Toronto is included to illustrate the design of the underground bioretention system.

show abstract

“…The Prince George's County Maryland Low-Impact Design Manual [21], published in 1993, is the first known guidance document that describes a bioretention system. The first known academic research on bioretention was presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers' Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference in 1999 [22]. As shown in Figure 3 The literature has been dominated by academics in engineering, with 82% percent of authors (263 out of 320) having their discipline in civil, environmental, chemical, or biological engineering.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Need for Standardized Reporting: A Scoping Review of Bioretention Research 2000–2019

Spraakman

Rodgers

Monri-Fung

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioretention cells are a type of low-impact development technology that, over the past two decades, have become a critical component of urban stormwater management. Research into bioretention has since proliferated, with disparate aims, intents and metrics used to assess the “performance” of bioretention cells. We conducted a comprehensive, systematic scoping review to answer the question of “How is the field performance of bioretention assessed in the literature?”, with the aim of understanding (1) how is the performance of bioretention defined in the literature? (2) what metrics are used to assess actual and theoretical performance? A review of 320 studies (mostly peer reviewed articles) found that performance was defined in terms of hydrologic controls, while investigations into water quality pathways and mechanisms of contaminant transport and fate and the role of vegetation were lacking; additionally, long term field and continuous modelling studies were limited. Bioretention field research was primarily conducted by a small number of institutions (26 institutions were responsible for 50% of the research) located mainly in high income countries, particularly Australia and the United States. We recommend that the research community (I) provide all original data when reporting results, (II) prioritize investigating the processes that determine bioretention performance and (III) standardize the collection, analysis and reporting of results. This dissemination of information will ensure that gaps in bioretention knowledge can be found and allow for improvements to the performance of bioretention cells around the world.

show abstract

Field Testing of Ultra-Urban BMPs

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Seasonal hydrological and water quality performance of individual and in-series stormwater infrastructures as treatment trains in cold climate

Seasonal hydrological and water quality performance of individual and in-series stormwater infrastructures as treatment trains in cold climate

Hydraulic design model of underground bioretention system: a source control measure for wet weather urban stormwater management

A Need for Standardized Reporting: A Scoping Review of Bioretention Research 2000–2019

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About