Hydrologic and Water Quality Evaluation of a Permeable Pavement and Biofiltration Device in Series
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Treatment Train Components
2.2. Site Description
2.3. Monitoring and Data Collection
2.4. Data Analysis
2.4.1. Hydrology
2.4.2. Water Quality
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Hydrology
3.2. Water Quality
3.2.1. Total Suspended Solids
3.2.2. Phosphorus
3.2.3. Nitrogen
4. Summary and Conclusions
- (1)
- A high ratio of impervious drainage area to permeable pavement area (2.6:1) coupled with an old, deteriorating asphalt surface course caused extensive clogging of the PICP surface. The authors suggest future practices employ lower run-on ratios or avoid retrofit applications with a dilapidated drainage area. While volume reduction (VR: 57%) and peak flow reduction (QR: 51%) was still appreciable, the large volume of surface runoff (SR: 38%) substantially impaired overall hydrologic performance and pollutant load reduction.
- (2)
- (3)
- Additional water quality improvement provided by the Filterra® was marginal and usually insignificant for most pollutants. Other studies of SCMs in series demonstrate similar results. Two reasons for this are influent (to the downstream SCM) irreducible concentrations and similar removal mechanisms employed by the two SCMs. The greatest benefit observed was for TP, a pollutant targeted by the Filterra® media. The Filterra® reduced TP concentrations by a median 29% and improved the median RE from 41% after treatment by the PICP to 75% overall. Secondary treatment by the Filterra® also significantly reduced TSS concentrations but only contributed an additional 5% improvement; TSS concentrations were already very low leaving the PICP. After treatment by the PICP-FIL system, concentrations were generally the same or lower than a standalone Filterra® monitored at the same parking lot [28]. If a second SCM is to be employed downstream of PICP, perhaps it should employ different pollutant removal mechanisms. In short, the one new pollutant removal mechanism that Filterra® introduced, sorption of phosphorus, was effective.
- (4)
- Performance of the PICP-FIL system was greatly influenced by the highly-permeable underlying soil. Load reduction was primarily provided by the PICP via exfiltration and to a lesser extent, sediment capture on the PICP surface, with the Filterra® providing less than 2% of additional load reduction for each pollutant. Secondary treatment did not substantially reduce loads because (1) exfiltration losses through the PICP and capture of sediment on the PICP surface removed most of the pollutant load; (2) the Filterra® does not incorporate a mechanism for significant volume reduction; and (3) load export was primarily due to untreated surface runoff that bypassed the Filterra®. Nearly all hydrologic mitigation (volume and flow) occurred during primary treatment by the PICP. Were a PICP-FIL system sited over less-infiltrative soils (and thus more outflow discharged to the Filterra®), it is probable that secondary treatment (at least for TSS and TP load) would have been more substantial.
- (5)
- Given that effluent concentrations and load reductions from the PICP-FIL system were comparable to the standalone Filterra® monitored at the same site, the combination of these two devices in series was probably not cost-effective—for this location. Similar water quality benefits could have been achieved by installing PICP or Filterra® as single SCMs, but the hydrologic benefit was greater for the PICP. Coupling these results with evidence from past studies [11,12], placing SCMs in series that employ similar pollutant removal mechanisms (and do not provide additional volume reduction) should probably be avoided.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress; EPA 841-R-08-001; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
- Lee, J.; Bang, K. Characterization of urban stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2000, 34, 1773–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, D.; Hartley, D.; Jackson, R. Forest cover, impervious surface area, and the mitigation of storm-water impacts. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2002, 38, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Line, D.E.; White, N.M.; Osmond, D.L.; Jennings, G.D.; Mojonnier, C.B. Pollutant export from various land uses in the upper neuse river basin. Water Environ. Res. 2002, 74, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Line, D.; White, N. Effects of development on runoff and pollutant export. Water Environ. Res. 2007, 79, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act; No. EPA 841-B-09-001; United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
- Fletcher, T.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.; Semandeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.; et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more—The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushton, B.T. Low-impact parking lot design reduces runoff and pollutant loads. J. Water Ressour. Plan. Manag. 2001, 127, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.; Line, D.; Hunt, W. LID treatment train: Pervious concrete with subsurface storage in series with bioretention and care with seasonal high water tables. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 138, 689–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doan, L.; Davis, A. Bioretention-cistern-irrigation treatment train to minimize stormwater runoff. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2017, 3, 04017003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hathaway, J.; Hunt, W. Evaluation of storm-water wetlands in series in piedmont North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 2010, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winston, R.; Hunt, W.; Kennedy, S.; Wright, J.; Lauffer, M. Field evaluation of storm-water control measures for highway runoff treatment. J. Environ. Eng. 2012, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strecker, E.W.; Quigley, M.M.; Urbonas, B.R.; Jones, J.E.; Clary, J.K. Determining urban storm water BMP effectiveness. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2001, 127, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bean, E.; Hunt, W.; Bidelspach, A. Evaluation of four permeable pavement sites in eastern North Carolina for runoff reduction and water quality impacts. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2007, 133, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, K.; Hunt, W.; Hathaway, J. Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in Eastern North Carolina. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2008, 13, 1146–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drake, J.; Bradford, A.; Van Seters, T. Stormwater quality of spring-summer-fall effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pavement systems and conventional asphalt pavement. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 139, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dreelin, E.; Fowler, L.; Carroll, C. A test of porous pavement effectiveness on clay soils during natural storm events. Water Res. 2006, 40, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collins, K.; Hunt, W.; Hathaway, J. Side-by-side comparison of nitrogen species removal for four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassman, E.; Blackbourn, S. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable pavement system over impermeable soils. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wardynski, B.; Winston, R.; Hunt, W. Internal water storage enhances exfiltration and thermal load reduction from permeable pavement in the North Carolina mountains. J. Environ. Eng. 2012, 139, 18–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drake, J.; Bradford, A.; Van Seters, T. Hydrologic performance of three partial-infiltration permeable pavements in a cold climate over low permeability soil. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2014, 19, 04014016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roseen, R.; Ballestero, T.; Houle, J.; Avelleneda, P.; Wildey, R.; Briggs, J. Storm water low-impact development, conventional structural, and manufactured treatment strategies for parking lot runoff: Performance evaluations under varied mass loading conditions. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006, 1984, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenth, J.; Dugopolski, R.; Quigley, M.; Poresky, A.; Leisenring, M. Filterra Bioretention Systems: Technical Basis for High Flow Rate Treatment and Evaluation of Stormwater Quality Performance; Herrera Environmental Consultants: Seattle, WA, USA; Geosyntec Consultants: Brookline, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Hamdan, A.; Nnadi, F.; Romah, M. Performance reconnaissance of stormwater proprietary best management practices. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2007, 42, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kostarelos, K.; Khan, E.; Callipo, N.; Velasquez, J.; Graves, D. Field study of catch basin inserts for the removal of pollutants from urban runoff. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 1205–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.L.; Stanford, R.L. Field evaluation of a stormwater bioretention filtration system. J. Environ. Eng. Manag. 2007, 17, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
- Contech Engineered Solutions. Filterra® Bioretention System Solutions Guide. Filterra Brochure 5M 2/15. Available online: http://www.conteches.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2739&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=144 (accessed on 29 November 2015).
- Smolek, A.P.; Anderson, A.R.; Hunt, W.F. Hydrologic and water quality evaluation of a rapid-flow biofiltration device. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 144, 05017010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withers and Ravenel. Engineering Analysis for Filterra; Proprietary BMP Report; Withers and Ravenel: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hunt, W.; Davis, A.; Traver, R. Meeting hydrologic and water quality goals through targeted bioretention design. J. Environ. Eng. 2012, 138, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Annual Climatological Summary, Fayetteville, NC COOP: 313017. Available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets (accessed on 24 April 2015).
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Weather Service, JetStream—Online School for Weather. Available online: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/climate_max.htm (accessed on 23 February 2016).
- Soil Survey. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed on 24 April 2015).
- North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Permeable Pavement. In Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Classification for Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction; ASTM standard D448; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberg, B.E.; Lindow, K.C.; Smith, D.R. Permeable Pavements, 1st ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, S.E.; Siu, C.Y.; Pitt, R.; Roenning, C.D.; Treese, D.P. Peristaltic Pump Autosamplers for Solids Measurement in Stormwater Runoff. Water Environ. Res. 2009, 81, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eaton, A.D.; Clesceri, L.S.; Greenberg, A.R. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Methods for Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples; Report EPA 600-R-93-100; Office of Research and Development, USEPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
- Barrett, M.; Lantin, A.; Austrheim-Smith, S. Stormwater pollutant removal in roadside vegetated buffer strips. Transp. Res. Rec. 2004, 1890, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNett, J.K.; Hunt, W.F.; Osborne, J.A. Establishing storm-water BMP evaluation metrics based upon ambient water quality associated with benthic macroinvertebrate populations. J. Environ. Eng. 2010, 136, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Method for Surface Infiltration Rate of Permeable Unit Pavement Systems; ASTM standard C1781; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Winston, R.; Al-Rubaei, A.; Blecken, G.; Hunt, W. A simple infiltration test for determination of permeable pavement maintenance needs. J. Environ. Eng. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driscoll, E. Analysis of Storm Event Characteristics for Selected Rainfall Gages Throughout the United States: Draft; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
- Davis, A.P. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2008, 13, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, 2nd ed.; Technical Release 55 (TR-55); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
- Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall. In Hydrology: National Engineering Handbook; Chapter 10, Part 360; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kuichling, E. The relation between rainfall and the discharge in sewers in populous districts. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1889, 20, 1–56. [Google Scholar]
- Chin, D.A. Water Resources Engineering, 2nd ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Teledyne ISCO, Inc. Flowlink Version 5.10.206 (Software); Teledyne ISCO, Inc.: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Clausen, J.; Spooner, J. Paired Watershed Study Design; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 841-F-93-009, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
- Bolks, A.; DeWire, A.; Harcum, J. Baseline Assessment of Left-Censored Environmental Data Using R; Tetra Tech Inc.: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, L. NADA: Nondetects and Data Analysis for Environment Data, R Package Version 1.5-6. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=NADA (accessed on 2 September 2015).
- Helsel, D. Nondectects and Data Analysis: Statistics for Censored Environmental Data, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Skoulikidis, N.; Gritzalis, K.C.; Kouvarda, T.; Buffagni, A. The development of an ecological quality assessment and classification system for Greek running waters based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 2004, 516, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gresens, S.E.; Belt, K.T.; Tang, J.A.; Gwinn, D.C.; Banks, P.A. Temporal and spatial responses of chironomidae (diptera) and other benthic invertebrates to urban stormwater runoff. Hydrobiologia 2007, 575, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, N.F.; Delaney, E. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate indices for the assessment of the impact of acid mine drainage on an Irish river below an abandoned Cu–S mine. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 155, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R Core Team (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 20 January 2015).
- Legret, M.; Colandini, V. Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on runoff water: Water quality and fate of heavy metals. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
- Brattebo, B.; Booth, D. Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems. Water Res. 2003, 37, 4369–4376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassman, E.; Blackbourn, S. Road runoff water-quality mitigation by permeable modular concrete pavers. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, A.; Hunt, W.F.; Traver, R.G.; Clar, M. Bioretention technology: Overview of current practice and future needs. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 135, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Bioretention. In NCDEQ Stormwater BMP Manual; NCDEQ, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Passeport, E.; Hunt, W. Asphalt parking lot runoff nutrient characterization for eight sites in North Carolina, USA. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passeport, E.; Hunt, W.; Line, D.; Smith, R.; Brown, R. Field study of the ability of two grassed bioretention basins to reduce storm-water runoff pollution. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2009, 135, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, W.; Smith, J.; Jadlocki, S.; Hathaway, J.; Eubanks, P. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban charlotte, N.C. J. Environ. Eng. 2008, 135, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.; Borst, M. Nutrient infiltrate concentrations from three permeable pavement types. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 164, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roseen, R.; Ballestero, T.; Houle, J.; Briggs, J.; Houle, K. Water quality and hydrologic performance of a porous asphalt pavement as a storm-water treatment strategy in a cold climate. J. Environ. Eng. 2012, 138, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furhmann, J.J. Transformation of nitrogen. In Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bratieres, K.; Fletcher, T.; Deletic, A.; Zinger, Y. Nutrient and sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: A large-scale design optimisation study. Water Res. 2008, 42, 3930–3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lucas, W.; Greenway, M. Nutrient retention in vegetated and nonvegetated bioretention mesocosms. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2008, 137, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.A.; Hunt, W.F. Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention infiltration and pollutant load reduction. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137, 1082–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristic | PICP-FIL |
---|---|
Drainage area (m2) | 560 |
PICP area (m2) | 220 |
Filterra® area (m2) | 1.4 |
Filterra® media volume (m3) | 0.38 |
Filterra® media infiltration rate (mm/min) | 60 |
Watershed land use | Commercial (asphalt parking lot) |
Drainage area: PICP area | 2.6:1 |
Drainage area: Filterra area | 557:1 |
Total treated area (m2) | 780 |
Underlying soil classification | Sandy loam a |
Location | Flow Measuring Device | Flow Measuring Equipment/Technique | Sampling Equipment |
---|---|---|---|
Runoff from parking lot (ASPH) a | Rain-paced | Curve Number Method and Rational Method | ISCO® 6712 Full-Size Portable Sampler |
PICP underdrain discharge/Filterra® inflow (PICP) | 30° sharp-crested v-notch weir | ISCO® 730 Bubbler Module | ISCO® 6712 Full-Size Portable Sampler |
Filterra® underdrain discharge (FIL) | Cipoletti weir b | ISCO® 730 Bubbler Module | ISCO® 6712 Full-Size Portable Sampler |
Analyte | Test Method | Method Detection Limit (mg/L) | Effluent Concentration Target (mg/L) |
---|---|---|---|
TSS | SM 2540D a | 1.0 | 25 c |
TP | EPA 365.4 b | 0.025 | 0.11 d |
TDP | EPA 365.4 b | 0.025 | - |
TKN | EPA 351.2 b | 0.26 | 0.40 d |
NO2,3–N | EPA 353.2 b | 0.025 | 0.59 d |
TAN | EPA 350.1 b | 0.045 | 0.04 d |
TN | TN = TKN + NO2,3–N | N/A | 0.99 d |
Date | Average Measured Infiltration Rate (mm/h) | Overall Average Infiltration Rate (mm/h) | Lowest Measured Infiltration Rate (mm/h) c | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location 1 | Location 2 | Location 3 | |||
2/13/2013 a | 3421 | 4018 | 2929 | 3457 | 2837 |
8/1/2013 a | 947 | 163 | 97 | 287 | 30 |
1/21/2014 b | 726 | 460 | 81 | 422 | 30 |
Comparison | IN | OUT |
---|---|---|
PICP (primary) | Inflow volume (INFLOW) | Permeable pavement effluent (PICP) + surface runoff (SR) |
Filterra® (secondary) | Permeable pavement effluent (PICP) + surface runoff (SR) | Filterra® effluent (FIL) + surface runoff (SR) |
PICP-FIL (overall) | Inflow volume (INFLOW) | Filterra® effluent (FIL) + surface runoff (SR) |
Parameter | Depth (mm) | Average Intensity (mm/h) | 5-min Peak Intensity (mm/h) | Catchment Peak Flow (L/s) | Antecedent Dry Period (Days) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range | 2.5–125.5 | 0.2–55.9 | 3.0–143.3 | 0.1–38.1 | 0.3–31.3 |
Median | 10.2 | 1.8 | 25.9 | 5.7 | 2.6 |
Mean | 16.3 | 4.5 | 35.8 | 8.9 | 4.5 |
Total | 2036 | - | - | - | - |
Average a | 2167 | - | - | - | - |
Parameter | Inflow | Drainage | Surface Runoff | Exfiltration |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total Volume (m3) | 1294 | 73 | 489 | 732 |
Percent of Inflow (%) | - | 6 | 38 | 56 |
Comparison | Including Surface Runoff | Excluding Surface Runoff | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IN (m3) | OUT (m3) | VR a (%) | IN (m3) | OUT (m3) | VR a (%) | |
PICP (primary) | 1294 | 566 | 56.3 | 805 | 77 | 90.5 |
Filterra® (secondary) | 566 | 562 | 0.7 | 77 | 73 | 5.2 |
PICP-FIL (overall) | 1294 | 562 | 56.6 | 805 | 73 | 91.0 |
Parameter | Including Surface Runoff | Excluding Surface Runoff | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PICP | Filterra® | PICP-FIL | PICP | Filterra® | PICP-FIL | |
QR a (%) | 50.1 b | 14.2 c | 50.9 b | 96.0 b | 23.9 b | 96.5 b |
Rpeak a | 0.48 | 0.89 | 0.47 | 0.04 | 0.73 | 0.04 |
Lag to Peak (h) | n/a c | n/a c | n/a c | 0.85 b | 0.07 | 0.90 b |
Parameter | Total Suspended Solids (TSS) | Total Phosphorus and Nitrogen Species | Dissolved Phosphorus | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASPH | PICP | FIL | ASPH | PICP | FIL | ASPH | PICP | FIL | |
Range (mm) | 9.7–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 9.7–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 | 8.1–74.4 |
Median (mm) | 19.8 | 18.3 | 19.1 | 20.2 | 18.0 | 18.0 | 19.8 | 17.7 | 18.0 |
Mean (mm) | 26.5 | 26.2 | 25.1 | 24.2 | 23.5 | 22.7 | 25.4 | 24.5 | 22.7 |
Total (mm) | 450.9 | 445.8 | 350.8 | 483.6 | 447.0 | 294.9 | 330.5 | 293.9 | 294.9 |
n | 17 | 17 | 14 | 20 | 19 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 13 |
Pollutant | System | <MDL a (%) | Statistical Parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Range | SD | |||||
TSS | ASPH | 0 | 17 | 4.8–600 | 61.0 | 97.4 | 135.4 |
PICP | 0 | 17 | 2.8–34 | 8.0 | 11.7 | 9.1 | |
FIL | 0 | 14 | 1.2–12 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 2.7 | |
TP | ASPH b | 20 | 20 | <MDL–1.000 | 0.077 | 0.200 | 0.278 |
PICP b | 21 | 19 | <MDL–0.073 | 0.039 | 0.043 | 0.015 | |
FIL b | 39 | 13 | <MDL–0.052 | 0.026 | 0.027 | 0.012 | |
TDP | ASPH b | 76 | 13 | <MDL–0.970 | 0.0004 | 0.095 | 0.269 |
PICP c | 92 | 12 | <MDL–0.054 | - | - | - | |
FIL c | 84 | 13 | <MDL–0.030 | - | - | - | |
TN d | ASPH | - | 20 | 0.36–5.63 | 0.90 | 1.52 | 1.49 |
PICP | - | 19 | 0.14–2.91 | 0.68 | 0.96 | 0.81 | |
FIL | - | 13 | 0.32–1.90 | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.47 | |
TAN | ASPH b | 30 | 20 | <MDL–0.79 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.19 |
PICP b | 68 | 19 | <MDL–1.50 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 0.37 | |
FIL c | 100 | 13 | <MDL | - | - | - | |
TKN | ASPH | 0 | 20 | 0.27–5.60 | 0.81 | 1.39 | 1.5 |
PICP b | 26 | 19 | <MDL–2.60 | 0.36 | 0.60 | 0.67 | |
FIL b | 15 | 13 | <MDL–0.53 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.08 | |
NO2,3–N | ASPH b | 10 | 20 | <MDL–0.36 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.10 |
PICP b | 16 | 19 | <MDL–1.50 | 0.22 | 0.37 | 0.35 | |
FIL b | 23 | 13 | <MDL–1.40 | 0.19 | 0.32 | 0.41 |
Pollutant | PICP (Primary) | Filterra® (Secondary) | PICP-FIL (Overall) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | (%) | p-Value | n | (%) | p-Value | n | (%) | p-Value | |
TSS | 14 | 91 | 0.0002 a | 11 | 47 | 0.0027 a | 11 | 96 | <0.0001 a |
TP | 17 | 41 | 0.0117 b | 10 | 29 | 0.0264 b | 11 | 75 | 0.0016 b |
TDP | - | - | n/a c | - | - | n/a c | - | - | n/a c |
TN | 17 | 27 | 0.0267 d | 10 | - | 0.1309 d | 11 | 42 | 0.0420 d |
TKN | 17 | 50 | 0.0049 b | 10 | - | 0.6770 b | 11 | 51 | 0.0002 b |
TAN | 17 | - | 0.2750 b | - | - | n/a e | - | - | n/a e |
NO2,3–N | 17 | −226 | 0.0030 b | 10 | - | 0.5420 b | 11 | - | 0.2910 b |
Pollutant | Comparison | Including Surface Runoff | Excluding Surface Runoff | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PICP (Primary) | Filterra® (Secondary) | PICP-FIL (Overall) | PICP (Primary) | Filterra® (Secondary) | PICP-FIL (Overall) | ||||||||
Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | Cumulative Load (g) | SOL a (%) | ||
TSS | IN | 14,195.2 | 69.7 | 4300.4 | 0.4 | 14,195.2 | 69.8 | 9936.7 | 99.6 | 43.6 | 44.5 | 9936.7 | 99.8 |
OUT | 4300.4 | 4282.7 | 4282.7 | 43.6 | 24.2 | 24.2 | |||||||
TP | IN | 36.0 | 66.9 | 11.9 | 1.3 | 36.0 | 67.3 | 24.3 | 99.1 | 0.2 | 64.7 | 24.3 | 99.7 |
OUT | 11.9 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |||||||
TN b | IN | 187.2 | 40.8 | 110.7 | 3.6 | 187.2 | 43.0 | 83.0 | 92.7 | 6.0 | 58.0 | 83.0 | 96.9 |
OUT | 110.7 | 106.7 | 106.7 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |||||||
TKN | IN | 170.0 | 42.0 | 98.6 | 1.6 | 170.0 | 42.9 | 74.3 | 96.3 | 2.8 | 48.8 | 74.3 | 98.1 |
OUT | 98.6 | 97.0 | 97.0 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | |||||||
TAN | IN | 22.9 | 49.9 | 11.5 | 1.2 | 22.9 | 50.5 | 11.6 | 98.0 | 0.2 | 54.0 | 11.6 | 99.1 |
OUT | 11.5 | 11.3 | 11.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |||||||
NO2,3–N | IN | 17.2 | 29.4 | 12.1 | 21.3 | 17.2 | 44.4 | 8.6 | 62.1 | 3.3 | 69.5 | 8.6 | 88.4 |
OUT | 12.1 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Braswell, A.S.; Anderson, A.R.; Hunt, W.F. Hydrologic and Water Quality Evaluation of a Permeable Pavement and Biofiltration Device in Series. Water 2018, 10, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010033
Braswell AS, Anderson AR, Hunt WF. Hydrologic and Water Quality Evaluation of a Permeable Pavement and Biofiltration Device in Series. Water. 2018; 10(1):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010033
Chicago/Turabian StyleBraswell, Alessandra S., Andrew R. Anderson, and William F. Hunt. 2018. "Hydrologic and Water Quality Evaluation of a Permeable Pavement and Biofiltration Device in Series" Water 10, no. 1: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010033