8,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + + + Line 6:
Line 8: − + Line 18:
Line 20: − + − + − + − + − <tr><td class="text-center">58</td>+ − <td class="text-center">93</td>+ − </tr>+ − <tr><td rowspan=2 class="text-center">96</td>+ − <td class="text-center">72</td>+ − <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">13</td>+ − <td class="text-center">98</td>+ − </tr>+ − <tr><td class="text-center">42</td>+ − <td class="text-center">100</td>+ − </tr>+ − + − <tr><td class="text-center">North Carolina<ref>Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng. 2009;14(4):407-415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(407).</ref></td>+ − <td class="text-center">loamy sand, 3% OM</td>+ − <td class="text-center">120</td>+ − <td class="text-center">60</td> − <td class="text-center">20</td> − <td class="text-center">>99</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − </tr> − <tr><td rowspan=2 class="text-center">North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Hunt WF. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. In: Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008:1-10. doi:10.1061/41009(333)95.</ref></td> − <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">98% sand, 2% fines</td> − <td class="text-center">90</td> − <td class="text-center">30</td> − <td class="text-center">12</td> − <td class="text-center">90</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − </tr> − <tr><td class="text-center">90</td> − <td class="text-center">60</td> − <td class="text-center">12</td> − <td class="text-center">98</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − </tr> − <tr><td rowspan=2 class="text-center">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.</ref></td> − <td rowspan=2 class="text-center">15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM</td> − <td class="text-center">60</td> − <td class="text-center">45</td> − <td class="text-center">68</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">54</td> − <td class="text-center">63</td> − </tr> − <tr><td class="text-center">90</td> − <td class="text-center">75</td> − <td class="text-center">68</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">-</td> − <td class="text-center">54</td> − <td class="text-center">58</td> − </tr> − </table> − *Impervious/Pervious ratio, i.e. the area of catchment divided by surface area of the cell − </table> − − − ==References== − <em><references /></em> − − <strong>For review</strong>+ Line 99:
Line 50: + +
no edit summary
{|class="wikitable"
'''STEP are conducting a review of performance for many BMP types throughout 2018. This content will be updated shortly.'''
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|+ Performance of bioretention with internal water storage<ref>Liu J, Sample D, Bell C, Guan Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water. 2014;6(4):1069-1099. doi:10.3390/w6041069.</ref>
|+ Performance of bioretention with internal water storage<ref>Liu J, Sample D, Bell C, Guan Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water. 2014;6(4):1069-1099. doi:10.3390/w6041069.</ref>
|-
|-
!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 (%)
|88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM||180||150||47||97||99||99||99
|88% sand, 8% fines, 4% OM||180||150||47||97||99||99||99
|-
|-
!North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Asce AM, Hunt WF, Asce M. Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads. J Environ Eng. 2011;137(11):1082-1091. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000437.</ref>
!rowspan="4"|North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Asce AM, Hunt WF, Asce M. Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads. J Environ Eng. 2011;137(11):1082-1091. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000437.</ref>
|rowspan="4"|96% sand, 4% fines||rowspan="2"|110||88||rowspan="2"|12||89||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|-10
|rowspan="4"|96% sand, 4% fines||rowspan="2"|110||88||rowspan="2"|12||89||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|58||rowspan="4"|-10
|-
|-
|58||93
|58||93
|}
|-
|rowspan="2"|96||72||rowspan="2"|13||98
|-
|42||100
|-
!North Carolina<ref>Li H, Sharkey LJ, Hunt WF, Davis AP. Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J Hydrol Eng. 2009;14(4):407-415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(407).</ref>
|loamy sand, 3% OM||120||60||20||99||-||-||-
|-
!rowspan="2"|North Carolina<ref>Brown RA, Hunt WF. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. In: Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2008:1-10. doi:10.1061/41009(333)95.</ref>
|rowspan="2"|98% sand, 2% fines||90||30||12||90||-||-||-
|-
|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.</ref>
|rowspan="2"|15% sand, 80% fines, 5% OM||60||45||68||-||-||54||63
|-
|90||75||68||-||-||54||58
|}
===For review===
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0000876 (pollutants)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)
*http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413883.003 (maturation)
*https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE%20THESIS%20FINAL.pdf (modified biomedia)
*https://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/STONE%20THESIS%20FINAL.pdf (modified biomedia)
*http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/1/13/htm (cold climate)
*http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/1/13/htm (cold climate)
----
[[Category: Performance]]