Next Article in Journal
Optimal Control Approaches to the Aggregate Production Planning Problem
Next Article in Special Issue
Management of Stakeholders in Urban Regeneration Projects. Case Study: Baia-Mare, Transylvania
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Agro-Economic Factors on GHG Emissions: Evidence from European Developing and Advanced Economies
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Method for Gauging Landscape Change as a Prelude to Urban Watershed Regeneration: The Case of the Carioca River, Rio de Janeiro
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2015, 7(12), 16311-16323; doi:10.3390/su71215817

Field and Evaluation Methods Used to Test the Performance of a Stormceptor® Class 1 Stormwater Treatment Device in Australia

1,†,* , 1,†
and
2,†
1
Stormwater Research Group, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs QLD 4556, Australia
2
Drapper Environmental Consultants, 12 Treetops Ave, Springfield Lakes QLD 4300, Australia
These authors contributed equally to this work.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Ken Tamminga
Received: 22 October 2015 / Revised: 29 November 2015 / Accepted: 3 December 2015 / Published: 8 December 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Regeneration and Sustainability)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [2151 KB, uploaded 8 December 2015]   |  

Abstract

Field testing of a proprietary stormwater treatment device was undertaken over 14 months at a site located in Nambour, South East Queensland. Testing was undertaken to evaluate the pollution removal performance of a Stormceptor® treatment train for removing total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) from stormwater runoff. Water quality sampling was undertaken using natural rainfall events complying with an a priori sampling protocol. More than 59 rain events were monitored, of which 18 were found to comply with the accepted sampling protocol. The efficiency ratios (ER) observed for the treatment device were found to be 83% for TSS, 11% for TP and 23% for TN. Although adequately removing TSS, additional system components, such as engineered filters, would be required to satisfy minimum local pollution removal regulations. The results of dry weather sampling tests did not conclusively demonstrate that pollutants were exported between storm events or that pollution concentrations increased significantly over time. View Full-Text
Keywords: stormwater pollution; testing protocols; nitrogen; phosphorus; suspended solids stormwater pollution; testing protocols; nitrogen; phosphorus; suspended solids
Figures

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Nichols, P.; Lucke, T.; Drapper, D. Field and Evaluation Methods Used to Test the Performance of a Stormceptor® Class 1 Stormwater Treatment Device in Australia. Sustainability 2015, 7, 16311-16323.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top