Difference between revisions of "Bioretention: Performance"
		
		
		
		
		
		Jump to navigation
		Jump to search
		
				
		
		
	
| Jenny Hill (talk | contribs) | Jenny Hill (talk | contribs)  | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Media depth (cm) | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Media depth (cm) | ||
| !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Internal water storage depth (cm) | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Internal water storage depth (cm) | ||
| − | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|I/P | + | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|I/P ratio | 
| !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Runoff volume reduction (%) | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|Runoff volume reduction (%) | ||
| !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|TSS reduction (%) | !style="background: darkcyan; color: white"|TSS reduction (%) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |90||60||12||98||-||-||- | |90||60||12||98||-||-||- | ||
| − | | | + | |- | 
| − | + | !rowspan="2"|North Carolina<ref>Passeport E, Hunt WF, Line DE, Smith RA, Brown RA. Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2009;135(4):505-510. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006. | |
| − | + | |- | |
| − | + | |rowspan="2"|15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM||60||45||68||-||-||54||63 | |
| − | + | |90||75||68||-||-||54||58 | |
| − | + | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| <em><references /></em> | <em><references /></em> | ||
| − | |||
| <strong>For review</strong> | <strong>For review</strong> | ||
Revision as of 21:04, 14 August 2017
| Location | Filter media composition | Media depth (cm) | Internal water storage depth (cm) | I/P ratio | Runoff volume reduction (%) | TSS reduction (%) | TN reduction (%) | TP reduction (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montréal[2] | 88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM | 180 | 150 | 47 | 97 | 99 | 99 | 99 | ||||||
| Virginia[3] | 88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM | 180 | 150 | 47 | 97 | 99 | 99 | 99 | ||||||
| North Carolina[4] | 96% sand, 4% fines | 110 | 88 | 12 | 89 | 58 | 58 | -10 | ||||||
| 58 | 93 | |||||||||||||
| 96 | 72 | 13 | 98 | |||||||||||
| 42 | 100 | |||||||||||||
| North Carolina[5] | loamy sand, 3% OM | 120 | 60 | 20 | >99 | - | - | - | ||||||
| North Carolina[6] | 98% sand, 2% fines | 90 | 30 | 12 | 90 | - | - | - | ||||||
| 90 | 60 | 12 | 98 | - | - | - | ||||||||
| North Carolina<ref>Passeport E, Hunt WF, Line DE, Smith RA, Brown RA. Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2009;135(4):505-510. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006. | ||||||||||||||
| 15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM | 60 | 45 | 68 | - | - | 54 | 63 | 90 | 75 | 68 | - | - | 54 | 58 References[edit]
 For review 
 |