Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Temperature of the Piedmont Po Plain (NW Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Innovative Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of Urban Areas against Flood Events: Prognosis of Structural Damage with a New Approach Considering Flow Velocity
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Combined Effects of Substrate Depth and Vegetation of Green Roofs on Runoff and Phytoremediation under Heavy Rain

1
Department of Green Technology Convergence, College of Science & Technology, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, 268 Chungwondaero, Chungju-si 27478, Korea
2
Department of Green Technology Convergence, Graduate School, Konkuk University-Glocal Campus, 268 Chungwondaero, Chungju-si 27478, Korea
3
Division of Food Bioscience, College of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Konkuk University-Glocal Campus, 268 Chungwondaero, Chungju-si 27478, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(18), 2792; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182792
Received: 11 July 2022 / Revised: 4 September 2022 / Accepted: 6 September 2022 / Published: 8 September 2022

Abstract

:
The quantity and quality of runoff from green roofs have so far been studied using an extensive vegetated roof (substrate depth > 150 mm). However, studies on various substrate depths and vegetation for runoff and phytoremediation in temperate and monsoon climates, where heavy rain is concentrated in a specific season, are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate combined effects of substrate depth and vegetation of an unfertilized green roof on runoff reduction and airborne pollutant purification based on rainfall intensity. A total of 21 plots were implemented on a roof top with three substrate depths (100, 200, and 400 mm), two vegetation s (vegetated or non-vegetated), and control (plot with standard frame only). The runoff reduction increased significantly (p < 0.05) with increasing substrate depth. Vegetated plots had a slightly higher runoff reduction than plots without vegetation. Compared to controls, turbidity and pH tended to increase regardless of vegetation or substrate depth, with the exception of electrical conductivity (EC). However, concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mn, and Cd) in the runoff of vegetated plots were all significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those of un-vegetated plots and controls. These results suggest that as the rainfall intensity increases, the depth of the substrate is more important than vegetation for runoff reduction. In addition, the vegetation can be an effective tool to neutralize acid rain to stabilize pH and effectively reduce EC and heavy metals in the runoff by remediating dissolved air pollutants from rainwater.

1. Introduction

Urbanization is a major driver of change as more forests are converted to impervious surfaces, leading to massive increases in stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution [1]. Urban impervious areas such as roads, buildings, and roofs generate significant stormwater runoff in heavy rain conditions that can create flash flooding problems [2]. In particular, roofs generally account for approximately 20~25% of the total urban surface area [3] and 40~50% of total impervious surface area [4]. In urban areas, roof surfaces contribute to excess nutrients and toxic metals in receiving water [5]. Green roofs contribute to flood mitigation in urban areas by reducing surface runoff and allowing delays in peak flow, including decreased loading of contaminants to the wastewater system and surface waters during high intensity hydrologic events [6]. Moreover, green roofs use existing roof space without requiring an extra land, potentially allowing widespread applications [7]. Consequently, green roofs are increasingly becoming important components of low-impact development (LID), sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS), and water-sensitive urban design system (WSUD) [8]. In addition, the use of green roofs is increasingly recognized in many countries as a viable solution to improve environmental quality [9]. Thus, green roofs are emerging as practical strategies to retain stormwater runoff and improve water environment quality of urban cities [8]. For this reason, research on green roofs has grown steadily since 1981, with around 40.9% of articles focusing on service regulation in the context of water, 30.0% on temperature, and 3.5% on air quality [3,10].
Green roof types may vary depending on building structure, climate condition, substrate, and vegetation used [11]. Green roofs are generally divided into intensive and extensive engineering categories based on the depth of the substrate. Extensive green roofs consist of substrate layers with a maximum depth of about 150 mm, whereas intensive green roofs are established with deeper soil layers than extensive ones [12]. This type is thickest and heaviest green roof (usual weight > 300 kg/m2), which requires additional structural support due to increasing roof loads. On the other hand, extensive green roofs (usual weight 50~150 kg/m2) do not required addition support because the soil layer is shallow and light, and can be easily installed during new construction and renovation of buildings. However, an extensive green roof can only accommodate a limited range of plants [10,13]. Thus, the selection of the most suitable system must take into account building characteristics and local climate conditions [14,15].
It has been reported that stormwater performance of a green roof is based on factors such as roof slope, media depth, and roof surface [16]. Green roof’s capacity to retain runoff depends on its physical configuration. It is also greatly influenced by local climatic events including precipitation characteristics [17]. Regional climatic conditions such as seasonality of rainfall can significantly alter the runoff performance of a green roof [10]. In addition to seasonal effects, the frequency and intensity of rainfall can also affect runoff reduction [18]. Moreover, substrate depth has long been considered a factor influencing green roof rainwater retention [19]. Rainwater is initially stored on a green roof (vegetation + substrate). Extra water is carried over to the nearby ground. Excess water then flows into the sewage system, which usually helps reduce the maximum flow and volume compared to conventional roofs [2]. Green roof substrates account for 80~90% of a green roof water storage capacity and 80~90% of total system weight [20]. However, runoff reduction studied so far used extensive green roofs with substrate depth typically less than 150 mm [2,8,21,22].
Green roofs can reduce nutrient and pollutant runoff by absorbing and filtering pollutants because green roofs are typically composed of multiple layers of components including vegetation, substrate, filter fabric, drainage material, root barrier and insulation [8,14,23]. In particular, substrate of green roof is very important because it can help capture rainfall runoff and growth of vegetation with regard to nutrient retention [2]. On the other hand, it has been found that total nitrogen and total phosphorus are leached from the medium composed of 15% compost due to rooftop greening [22]. Liu et al. [8] have also reported that total suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations of a green roof runoff are all significantly higher than those of a conventional roof runoff. Indeed, the behavior of green roof as a sink of pollutants is still a controversial issue among researchers [24]. Unfortunately, studies conducted on green roofs with deeper substrates to improve runoff quality are relatively limited [10]. Moreover, previous studies have focused on runoff quality in terms of fertilizer nutrients in relation to eutrophication in green roofs such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and suspended solids [8,16,22,25].
Thus, the objective of current study was to investigate performances of green roofs depending on substrate depths of greater than 150 mm and effects of vegetation on runoff quantity and quality based on rainfall intensity. We believe that the current study provides useful data to determine rainfall performance of an extensive or intensive green roof in temperate and monsoon climates where heavy rainfall is concentrated in a specific season. Results of this study encourage the adoption of green roof as one of stormwater management solutions, including improving the urban environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

Field experiments were conducted on a rooftop−platform of Konkuk University Complex Practice Building in Chungju, Chungcheongbuk-do (latitude 35°49′ N; and longitude 127°08′ E) located in the central part of South Korea. Korea generally has a humid continental climate (hot-humid summers, cool−dry winters) with an annual precipitation of 1100~1360 mm (of which 50% is concentrated in summer from June to August) and a rather dry climate in spring, autumn, and winter from September to May [2]. Although the antecedent dry weather period (ADWP) is also considered a major factor influencing the rainfall performance of a green roof, summer (June ~ August) was chosen as the study period to facilitate runoff sample collection [9]. Indeed, outside of this period, low temperatures and dry winds often severely limit viable vegetation in South Korea. During this study period, 40 rainfall events were recorded with a total precipitation of 440.2 mm. Monthly rainfall intensities in June, July, and August were approximately 63.3, 92.6, and 284.3 mm/h, respectively (rainfall events of 9, 14, and 17, respectively).

2.2. Experimental Setup and Sampling

Green roofs experiments were usually conducted on roof surfaces or on green roof platforms. In this study, a green roof platform simulated a roof surface. Unlike the existing roof surface, the bottom of green roofs surface is open to the atmosphere. Thus, a full−scale vegetation roof with the same assembly is possible [5,26]. The design of experimental green roofs was based on a plot that considered two factors. The first factor was substrate depth, for which depths of 100, 200, and 400 mm were used to represent extensive and intensive green roofs profiles [27]. The second factor was vegetation (either vegetated or non−vegetated). Therefore, a total of 21 plots were implemented on the rooftop, each with 3 controls (plots with standard frame only for rainfall sampling), 9 vegetated, and 9 non−vegetated plots. Plots were constructed by platforms with wood laminate, which consisted of waterproof layer with internal dimensions of 50 cm length × 50 cm width × 50 cm height on top of a 2 mm thick steel frame. The plot consisted of a drainage layer, a filter fabric, a growing substrate, and a vegetation from the bottom up [28]. Weight−loading of green roofs is one of the biggest barriers to widespread absorption. It can and reduce the possibility of retrofitting existing buildings. Increasing the substrate depth can increase the weight of the green roof, reducing its applicability to low load-bearing buildings [20]. Thus, a light−weight material was selected as a growth material in consideration of its bearing capacity. The volume ratio of perlite:peatmoss:vermiculite was set to be 1:1:1. The vegetation was planted with Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), which is highly resistant to drought stress conditions and widely used in green roofs [29]. An acrylic V−flume water channel, which could facilitate the collection of stormwater runoff, was installed at the bottom of the drainage layer and connected to a plastic sampling container with a volume of 20 L (Figure 1). Immediately after collection, all samples were transported back to the laboratory for analysis and prepared for testing water quality, which was carried out within a week of collection in all cases.

2.3. Runoff Reduction and Quality Analyses

Although evapotranspiration is a key parameter influening stormwater retention capacity [27], runoff reduction is generally defined as the percentage of total rainfall control associated with retention and evapotranspiration effect of substrate and vegetation [2]. In other words, the retained water in green roof is equivalent to evapotranspirtation over several wet/dry cycles [10]. Therefore, evapotranspiration was not independently considered in this study. As a result, the runoff reduction was calculated using the following equation [5,30]:
Runoff   reduction   ( % ) = Rainfall   per   plot   ( mL )     Runoff   per   plot   ( mL ) Rainfall   per   plot   ( mL ) × 100
Water quality parameters of plots runoff were focused on pH, EC (electric conductivity), turbidity, and heavy metals (copper, zinc, manganese, and cadmium) in this study. A portion of each runoff sample was analyzed for pH (AZ−86505, Bench, China), electric conductivity (Control−510, EUTECH, Singapore), and turbidity (2100AN, HACH, USA), respectively. Heavy metal concentrations in runoff samples were measured using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (ICP, Optima 5300DV, Perkin Elmer, Hopkinton, MA, USA).

2.4. Statistics

Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with SPSS 19.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Significance was indicated by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at the 5% level. Multiple linear regressions analyses were performed to evaluate potential combined effect of substrate depth and vegetation on runoff quantity and quality. All figures were carried out using SigmaPlot 15.0 (Systat. Software, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Runoff Reduction

All green roofs were more effective in precipitation retention than the control (hard roofs). However, there was a difference in the amount of runoff among June, July, and August (24~78, 23~80, and 24~48%, respectively). The amount of runoff reduction decreased with increasing rain intensity. There were significant differences in runoff reduction according to vegetation and substrate depth. All green roof systems in this experiment were reduced approximately 23~80% more than controls. Moreover, results showed 39% and 50% rainfall reduction in runoff from non−vegetated and vegetated green roof system, respectively. Runoff reduction was the lowest for substrate with depth 100 mm + non−vegetated (23%). It was the greatest for substrate depth with 400 mm + vegetated (80%). At the same substrate depth, the vegetated system performed better in reducing runoff than the non−vegetated system (Table 1).
Results of regression analysis indicated that runoff had a negative relationship with substrate depth, while reduction increased significantly with an increase in substrate depth (p < 0.05). Vegetated green roofs showed slightly higher runoff reduction than non−vegetated ones. The reduction in runoff from green roofs was found to decreased by approximately 0.03% with an increase of 1 mm in substrate depth (Figure 2).

3.2. Runoff Quality

Runoff from green roofs generally had a higher pH than controls. The control had an average pH of 5.6, while the measured pH value from runoff averaged 6.9. In addition, vegetated plots had slightly higher pH than non−vegetated plots. The difference in pH between the two was statistically significant (p < 0.05) except for that in June. The pH values of runoff from vegetated plots with different substrate depths were similar. However, the pH of runoff from vegetated plots increased statistically with increasing substrate depth. Mean electronic conductivity (EC) concentrations in control runoff in June, July, and August were 0.05, 0.09, and 0.04 dS·m−1, respectively. EC concentrations were higher in runoffs from non−vegetated plots than in those from vegetated plots (0.17 ~ 0.47 vs. 0.12 ~ 1.34 dS·m−1). Runoffs from plots with various substrate depths showed statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in EC, with higher values recorded for deeper substrate depths. Runoff turbidity values were highly dependent on rainfall intensity rather than on vegetation or substrate depth. They were increased in August. The washing process of rainfall strongly affected particulate matter. In August, the non−vegetated + 100 mm substrate depth treatment showed the highest turbidity (4.66 NTU), whereas the control had the lowest turbidity (1.43 NTU) (Table 2).
Overall, runoff pH, EC, and turbidity showed positive relationships with substrate depth. However, non−vegetated or vegetated green roofs had no significant effect on the relationship between substrate depth and pH or turbidity except for EC. The EC of the non−vegetated runoff was higher than that of the vegetated runoff. In addition, EC value increased 2 dSm−1 when the substrate depth increased by 1 mm (Figure 3).
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mg, and Cd) in runoff from vegetated green roofs were all significantly (p < 0.05) lower than those in runoff from non−vegetated plots and controls. The highest concentrations of heavy metals were recorded for control, which was expected to release almost all incoming precipitation as runoff. Meanwhile, heavy metals in runoff decreased significantly (p < 0.05) with increasing substrate depth. In both vegetated or non−vegetated plots, green roofs with substrate depth > 200 mm performed better in reducing heavy metals than those with substrate depth < 200 mm (Table 3).
There was a negative relationship between substrate depth and heavy metal concentration in runoff. Substrate depth showed significantly negative relationships with Cu and Zn concentrations (R2 = 0.6~0.8, p < 0.05), while Mn and Cd concentrations were significantly different between vegetated and non−vegetated plots. Overall, vegetation with higher substrate depth was associated with lower concentrations of heavy metals (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Runoff Reduction

All green roof systems in this study contributed to a reduction in runoff by 23~80% compared to the control (plots with standard frame only) under heavy rain. In addition, thicker substrate was associated with better runoff reduction capacity. The difference might be due to water retention capacity of the substrate, which increases with growing media depth [12]. The retention effect of the substrate was found to be 1.6~3.6 times greater than that of the drainage layer/protection mat [31]. Studies have shown quantitative benefits associated with green roofs, including a decrease of runoff peak discharge [32], a delay in runoff occurrence [31], and a reduction in runoff volume [33]. These results indicate that green roofs can reduce runoff compared to common roofs [28]. Green roofs with 200 mm and 150 mm growing media depth are 42.8~60.8% and 13.8~34.4% effective in reducing runoff for, respectively [9]. VanWoert et al. [33] have concluded that an extensive (shallow) green roof could retain 96% of total light < 0.2 cm, 83% of total medium 0.2~0.6 cm, and 52% of total heavy precipitation > 0.6 cm. Mentens et al. [34] have analyzed 18 studies and demonstrated a clear correlation between media depth and precipitation retention. Previous analyses have shown that retention capabilities on an annual basis may range from 45% for extensive green roofs (substrate depth: 10 cm) to 75% for intensive green roofs (substrate depth: 15 cm), while traditional and gravel roofs can only have retention capabilities of 15% and 25%, respectively [35].
Interestingly, in the current study, runoff retention rate decreased with increasing rainfall intensity for the same adsorption substrate depth. As the maximum rainfall intensity increased, the retention decreased much more rapidly in the green roof system without vegetation. Carpenter et al. [36] have reported that a high−intensity rain event can promote saturation of the roof substrate, which can decrease its retention capacity from 98% to 88%. Therefore, increasing growing media depth alone could not substantially increase water retention [35]. Moreover, the effect of reducing runoff of vegetated green roofs was 1.5 times higher than that of non−vegetated plots. These results indicate that green roofs vegetation can also make a positive contribution to runoff reduction. Greater retention was observed, especially in vegetation plots with thicker substrates, consistent with a previous report [29], although vegetation played a less important role in aiding water retention than the media in extensive green roofs [33]. Data presented in the literature showed that the retention capacity of green roofs typically fell within the range of 40~80% [37] or 30~86% [38]. Peak runoff volume can be decreased by 22~93% or 60~80% [28]. These three studies have also demonstrated that vegetated systems could retain more stormwater than their non−vegetated counterparts. In addition, green roof vegetation plays a more important role in enhancing the evaporation rate, which can reduce rainfall runoff by up to 50% [4]. Differences in evapotranspiration rates can also lead to decreased runoff reduction [36]. In this study, the decrease of runoff was significantly related to the substrate depth, with vegetation showing slightly higher decrease in runoff than no vegetation. These results suggest that vegetation has a better effect than non−vegetation on runoff retention during heavy rains when the substrate depth is the same.

4.2. Runoff Quality (pH, EC, Turbidity, and Heavy Metals)

The pH, EC, and turbidity of runoff from vegetated or non-vegetated plots were significantly higher than those observed for the control. In particular, changes in pH suggested that green roofs had the potential to neutralize acidic properties of runoff. Neutralization is an important environmental benefit that contributes to lowering the degree of acidification of natural water [12]. Green roof structure, as a filter layer, reduces acid rain damage by raising the pH levels [39], which meet the standard V (pH 6~9) of Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water [22]. This is consistent with the findings of earlier research studies [12,23,27,40,41,42]. Acid rain pollution is caused by the release of numerous precursors such as acid anions (SO42− and NO3) from road traffic and industrial emissions [43]. Depending on their shape and size, plant species can sequester air pollutants and consume carbon dioxide to develop their vital function [15]. In general, improved nutrient availability, due to acid rain in the soil promotes mineralization of nutrients (such as Mg2+, K+, and Ca2+) and expands available pool in the soil. While these mechanisms improve soil neutralization efficiency and plant physiology, acid rain in direct contact with leaves can negatively affect leaf performance and chemical composition [44].
Interestingly, vegetated−green roofs with lower substrates were found to be the least sources of dissolved ions based on EC. Beeham and Razzaghmanesh [27] have also observed that EC values in vegetated beds are less than in non−vegetated systems, with intensive systems producing higher EC values than extensive system. This result indicates that vegetation tends to utilize nutrients for growth and uptake other non-essential ions [26]. Meanwhile, Morgan et al. [45] have reported that growing media have greater effect on turbidity than plants. Because the growing medium used for green roofs might release more quickly than what the media can store or the plant can uptake, increased turbidity in the runoff might have resulted from non-vegetated plots [46].
Gong et al. [22] have found that vegetation can reduce turbidity by 27~71% in the first watering. On the other hand, there were no significant statistical differences between outflow turbidities of all non-vegetated roofs and vegetated extensive beds from vegetated groups [27]. Vijayaraghavan et al. [23] have observed that concentrations of most chemical compounds in runoff from green roofs are the highest at the beginning of rain events, showing gradually decreases over time. Concentrations of chemical compounds in green roof runoff strongly depend on the substrate material used in the green roof and the rainfall [47]. In addition, substrate with less organic matter shows better water quality performance [22].
In this study, a significant negative relationship was found between heavy metal concentration and substrate depth. Concentrations of heavy metals in green roof are generally lower than concentrations of heavy metals in urban runoff from hard surfaces [12]. Vijayaraghavan and Raja [26] have indicated that high sorption capacity of green roofs substrate exhibits high removal efficiencies (greater than 97%) for heavy metals ions. Particularly, Mn and Cd in the runoff were affected by vegetation. These results indicate that green roofs with vegetation could effectively reduce various heavy metal concentrations from runoff. The substrate on green roofs can filter out heavy metals, which can then be taken up by plants, thus improving water quality [48]. Liu et al. [25] have reported that the effect of plant uptake on runoff pollutants from green roof is plant species dependent. In this study, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) vegetated plots had significantly lower heavy metal concentrations in runoff than non−vegetated plots and controls, similar to those reported by Vijayaraghavan and Joshi [14]. Previous studies have found that green roofs can increase nutrient concentration, but reduce concentrations of other common runoff pollutants including metals [41]. Metal-spiked artificial rain events have revealed that green roofs can act as a sink for various metal ions and generate better runoff [26]. These changes might be due to the removal or fixation of contaminants in soil and water through absorption, volatile decomposition, and stabilization by plants to purify the environment [49].
Rainwater is generally considered as non-polluted, although it might be acidic. It contains other pollutants depending on local pollution sources and prevailing winds [12]. They usually exist in the atmosphere as aerosols, which can be deposited into soil and water by rainfall [49]. Thus, dissolved various chemicals in runoff can provide valuable information about air pollutants and short-term environmental changes [50]. In particularly, dissolved metals can be more toxic to aquatic life [5]. Plants need mineral nutrients to grown. After plant uptake, the substrate binding site becomes empty, allowing the substrate to adsorb additional elements from the incoming contaminated water [26]. From the standpoint of runoff quality, green roofs have potential to control air quality of pollutants by filtration and adsorption through vegetation and substrates [39]. In particular, vegetation has shown the potential to continuously absorb and immobilize various contaminants [7]. Green roofs also contribute to the quality of runoff by reducing the amount of dust, pollutants and nutrients that would be sent to the sewage systems and waterways [15]. If the substrate of green roofs is saturated and the atmospheric humidity rises, it can become a source of pollution [10,12,46,47]. However, the extent of loss is closely controlled by the runoff reduction [36]. In other words, high water retention capacity, green roofs limit pollution exports for most storm events [10]. Therefore, vegetated−green roofs have the potential to be used as pollutant sinks related to phytoremediation in urban environments.

5. Conclusions

Efficient green roofs in urban areas that experience heavy rainfall during certain periods of time can help mitigate pollutants. In this study, combined effects of green roof vegetation and substrate depths (100, 200, and 400 mm) according to rainfall intensity on runoff reduction and air pollutant purification were investigated. The runoff had a negative relationship with the substrate depth, while runoff reduction increased significantly with increasing substrate depth. For the same substrate depth, vegetated green roofs exhibited slightly higher runoff reduction than non−vegetated green roofs. The pH, electronic conductivity (EC), and turbidity of the runoff were positively related to substrate depth. The pH, EC, and turbidity of runoff from vegetated or non−vegetated plots were significantly higher than those observed for the control. However, vegetation had no significant effect on the pH or turbidity, except for EC. On the other hand, heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mg, and Cd) in runoff from vegetated plots were all significantly lower than those in non−vegetated plots or controls. These results underscore the importance of substrate depth in improving runoff retention over vegetation. Additionally, our research showed that vegetated green roofs can neutralize acid rain to stabilize pH and effectively reduce heavy metals in runoff. In particular, vegetated green roofs with heavy metal removal capabilities can be implemented as pollutant sinks in cities with a temperate and monsoon climate, where heavy rainfall is concentrated during certain seasons. Nevertheless, these results might not be sufficient to explain the dynamic quantitative behavior of green roof systems in different climatic conditions or hydrological applications of green roofs. Therefore, further investigation and long−term monitoring field experiments are needed to determine substrate moisture dynamics, evapotranspiration, and runoff processes of green roofs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-H.J. and S.-Y.P.; methodology, J.-H.J.; software, D.-K.O.; data curation and validation, S.-Y.L.; formal analysis, D.-K.O.; investigation, S.-Y.P.; resources, Y.-H.Y.; data curation, D.-K.O.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-H.J.; writing—review and editing, S.-Y.P. and K.-J.Y.; visualization, S.-Y.L.; supervision, K.-J.Y.; project administration, Y.-H.Y.; funding acquisition, J.-H.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was supported by Konkuk University in 2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Eksi, M.A. Field study to evaluate the runoff quantity and stormwater retention of a typical extensive green roof in Bakekoy, Istanbul. Environ. Protect. Eng. 2013, 39, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.H.; Kwon, K.H. Green roofs for stormwater management in higly urbanized area: The case of Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, H.Q.; Kong, F.H.; Yin, H.W.; Middel, A.; Zheng, X.D.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.R.; Wang, D.; Wen, Z.H. Impacts of green roofs on water, temperature, and air quality: A bibliometric review. Build. Environ. 2021, 196, 107794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Villarreal, E.L.; Bengtsson, L. Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual rain events. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gregoire, B.G.; Clausen, J.C. Effect of a modular extensive green roof on stormwater runoff and water quality. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ercolani, G.; Chiaradia, E.A.; Gandolfi, C.; Castelli, F.; Masseroni, D. Evaluating performances of green roofs for stormwater runoff mitigation in a high flood risk urban catchment. J. Hydrol. 2018, 566, 830–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Raja, F.D. Design and development of green roof substrate to improve runoff water quality: Plant growth experiments and adsorption. Water Res. 2014, 63, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, W.; Wei, W.; Chen, W.P.; Deo, R.C.; Si, J.H.; Xi, H.Y.; Li, B.F.; Feng, Q. The impacts of substrate and vegetation on stormwater runoff quality from extensive green roofs. J. Hydrol. 2019, 576, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, J.Y.; Lee, M.J.; Han, M. A pilot study to evaluate runoff quantity from green roofs. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 152, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alim, M.A.; Rahman, A.; Tao, Z.; Garner, B.; Griffith, R.; Liebman, M. Green roof as an effective tool for sustainable urban development: An Australian perspective in relation to stormwater and building energy management. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Paco, T.; de Carvalho, R.C.; Arsenio, P.; Martins, D. Green roof design techniques to improve water use under mediterranean conditions. Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berndtsson, J.C. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Motlagh, S.H.B.; Pons, O.; Hosseini, S.M.A. Sustainability moel to assess the suitability of green roof alternative for urban air pollution reduction applied in Tehran. Build Environ. 2021, 194, 107683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Joshi, U.M. Can green roof act as a sink for contaminants? A methodological study to evaluate runoff quality from green roofs. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 194, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carpenter, D.D.; Kaluvakolanu, P. Effect of roof surface type on storm-water runoff from full-scale roofs in a temperate climate. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stovin, V.; Poe, S.; Berretta, C. A modelling study of long term green roof retention performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zheng, X.Z.; Zou, Y.C.; Lounsbury, A.W.; Wang, C.; Wang, R.R. Green roofs for stormwater runoff retention: A global quantitative synthesis of the performance. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wong, G.K.L.; Jim, C.Y. Quantitative hydrologic performance of extensive green roof under humid-tropical rainfall regime. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 70, 366–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Werdin, J.; Conn, R.; Fletcher, T.D.; Rayner, J.P.; Williams, N.S.G.; Farrell, C. Biochar particle size and amendment rate are more important for water retention and weight of green substrates than differences in feedstock type. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 171, 106391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, W.; Engel, B.A.; Feng, Q.; Li, R. Simulation annual runoff retention performance of extensive green roofs: A comparison of four climatic regions in China. J. Hydrol. 2022, 610, 127871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gong, K.; Wu, Q.; Peng, S.; Zhao, X.H.; Wang, X.C. Research on the characteristics of the water quality of rainwater runoff from green roofs. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 1205–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Joshi, U.M.; Kamala-Kannan, S. An attempt to develop seaweed-based treatment technology for the remediation of complex metal-bearing laboratory wastewaters. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gnecco, I.; Palla, A.; Lanza, L.G.; La Barbera, P. A green roof experimental site in the Mediterranean climate: The storm water quality issue. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 1419–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, W.; Engel, B.A.; Chen, W.; Wei, W.; Wang, Y.; Feng, Q. Quantifying the contributions of structural factors on runoff water quality from green roofs and optimizing assembled combinations using Taguchi method. J. Hydrol. 2019, 593, 125864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Raja, F.D. Pilot-scale evaluation of green roofs with Sargassum biomass as an additive to improve runoff quality. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 75, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Beecham, S.; Razzaghmanesh, M. Water quality and quantity investigation of green roofs in a dry climate. Water Res. 2015, 70, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Getter, K.L.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A. Quantifying the effect of slope on extensive green roof stormwater retention. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 31, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rosatto, H.G.; Laureda, D.; Perez, D.; Barrera, D.; Meyer, M.; Gamboa, P.; Villalba, G.; Friedrich, M.; Bargiela, M.; Plaza, L.R.; et al. Water retention efficiency of green roof systems. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. 2010, 42, 213–219. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, X.X.; Cao, J.J.; Xu, P.X.; Fei, L.; Dong, Q.; Wang, Z.L. Green roofs: Effects of plant species used on runoff. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 3628–3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vesuviano, G.; Sonnenwald, F.; Stovin, V. A two-stage storage routing model for green roof runoff detention. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 1191–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Carter, T.L.; Rasmussen, T.C. Hydrologic behavior of vegetated roofs. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1261–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. VanWoert, N.D.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Rugh, C.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Xiao, L. Green roof stormwater retention: Effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mentens, J.; Raes, D.; Hermy, M. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Graceson, A.; Hare, M.; Monaghan, J.; Hall, N. The water retention capabilities of growing media for green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carpenter, C.M.C.; Todorov, D.; Driscoll, C.T.; Montesdeoca, M. Water quantity and quality response of a green roof to storm events: Experimental and monitoring observations. Enivron. Pollut. 2016, 218, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Burszta-Adamiak, E.; Mrowiec, M. Modelling of green roofs’ hydrologic performance using EPA’s SWMM. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, Y.L.; Babcock, R.W. Green roofs against pollution and climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, G.; He, B.J. Towards green roof implementation: Drivers, motivations, barriers and recommendations. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Razzaghmanesh, M.; Beecham, S. The hydrological behaviour of extensive and intensive green roofs in a dry climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 499, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Teemusk, A.; Mander, U. Rainwater runoff quantity and quality performance from a greenroof: The effects of short-term events. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Berndtsson, J.C.; Bengtsson, L.; Jinno, K. Runoff water quality from intensive and extensive vegetated roofs. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Du, E.; Dong, D.; Zeng, X.; Sun, Z.; Jiang, X.; de Vries, W. Direct effect of acid rain on leaf chlorophyll content of terrestrial plants in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605, 764–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhang, Y.; Tian, C.; Yu, T.; Dayananda, B.; Fu, B.; Senaratne, S.L.; Wu, C.; Li, J. Differential effects of acid rain on photosynthetic performance and pigment composition of the critically endangered Acer amplum subsp. catalpifolium. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 30, e01773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Morgan, S.; Alyaseri, I.; Retzlaff, W. Suspended solids in and turbidity of runoff from green roofs. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2011, 13, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Emilsson, T. Vegetation development on extensive vegetated green roofs: Influence of substrate composition, establishment method and species mix. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hathaway, A.M.; Hunt, W.F.; Jennings, G.D. A field study of green roof hydrologic and water quality performance. Trans. ASABE 2008, 51, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, C.F.; Kang, S.F. Effects of substrates and plant species on water quality of extensive green roofs. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 2016, 14, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shen, X.; Dai, M.; Yang, J.; Sun, L.; Tan, X.; Peng, C.; Ali, I.; Naz, I. A critical review on the phtoremediation of heavy metals from environment: Performance and challenges. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 132979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cheng, M.C.; You, C.F.; Lin, F.J.; Huang, K.F.; Chung, C.H. Sources of Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb in rainwater at a subtropical islet offshore northern Taiwan. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 1919–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Sketch of the structure of platforms, and (b) photo of the field experiment of runoff plots of green roofs.
Figure 1. (a) Sketch of the structure of platforms, and (b) photo of the field experiment of runoff plots of green roofs.
Water 14 02792 g001
Figure 2. Relationship between substrate depth and runoff reduction from vegetated or non−vegetated plots.
Figure 2. Relationship between substrate depth and runoff reduction from vegetated or non−vegetated plots.
Water 14 02792 g002
Figure 3. Relationship between substrate depth and pH (a), EC (b), and turbidity (c) from vegetated or non-vegetated plots.
Figure 3. Relationship between substrate depth and pH (a), EC (b), and turbidity (c) from vegetated or non-vegetated plots.
Water 14 02792 g003aWater 14 02792 g003b
Figure 4. Relationship between substrate depth and heavy metals (Cu (a), Zn (b), Mn (c), and Cd (d)) in runoff from vegetated or non-vegetated plots.
Figure 4. Relationship between substrate depth and heavy metals (Cu (a), Zn (b), Mn (c), and Cd (d)) in runoff from vegetated or non-vegetated plots.
Water 14 02792 g004
Table 1. Runoff reduction from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
Table 1. Runoff reduction from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
TreatmentsJuneJulyAugust
Runoff
(mL)
Reduction
(%)
Runoff
(mL)
Reduction
(%)
Runoff
(mL)
Reduction
(%)
Cont. z14,567 a y-14,233 a-38,980 a-
NV10011,137 b24 f11,010 b23 d29,563 b24 d
NV2008770 d40 d8657 c39 c25,993 c33 c
NV4003907 f73 b6600 d54 b23,450 d40 b
V1009950 c32 e9080 c36 c26,697 c32 c
V2006910 e53 c6003 d58 b24,463 d37 b
V4003170 g78 a2820 e80 a20,463 e48 a
Note: z Cont., Plots with standard frame only; NV100, Non−vegetated + substrate depth 100 mm; NV200, Non−vegetated + substrate depth 200 mm; NV400, Non−vegetated + substrate depth 400 mm; V100, Vegetated + substrate depth 100 mm; V200, Vegetated + substrate depth 200 mm; V400, Vegetated + substrate depth 400 mm. y Different letters in the same row indicate a significant difference as determined by Duncan’s test (p < 0.05).
Table 2. pH, EC, and turbidity in runoff from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
Table 2. pH, EC, and turbidity in runoff from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
TreatmentsJuneJulyAugust
pHEC
(dSm−1)
Turbidity
(NTU)
pHEC
(dSm−1)
Turbidity
(NTU)
pHEC
(dSm−1)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Cont. z5.8 e y0.05 d1.25 c5.3 c0.09 d1.88 c5.8 e0.04 f1.43 b
NV1006.8 cd0.20 c1.78 bc6.3 c0.22 cd3.25 ab6.7 d0.12 e4.66 a
NV2007.0 ab0.36 b1.95 b7.0 a0.47 b3.15 ab6.8 c0.28 c2.96 ab
NV4007.1 a1.34 a1.92 b7.2 a1.14 a2.47 bc7.0 ab0.64 a3.85 a
V1006.9 bc0.31 bc3.21 a7.1 a0.36 bc3.89 a6.8 c0.17 d4.28 a
V2006.9 bc0.25 bc2.07 a7.3 a0.37 bc3.46 ab6.9 b0.32 c3.90 a
V4006.8 d0.34 b2.73 a7.2 a0.17 d3.36 ab7.0 a0.47 b3.63 a
Note: z, y See Table 1.
Table 3. Four heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mn, and Cd) in runoff from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
Table 3. Four heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Mn, and Cd) in runoff from different substrate depths and vegetation plots based on rainfall intensity.
PlotsJuneJulyAugust
CuZnMnCdCuZnMnCdCuZnMnCd
Cont. z0.027 a y0.969 a0.093 a0.015 a0.028 a0.967 a0.091 a0.016 a0.027 a0.976 a0.092 a0.015 a
NV1000.021 b0.717 b0.085 ab0.014 b0.021 b0.718 b0.083 b0.014 bce0.021 b0.719 b0.087 ab0.014 a
NV2000.019 c0.691 c0.083 bc0.014 b0.019 c0.688 c0.081 b0.014 bc0.019 c0.687 c0.082 bc0.014 a
NV4000.015 e0.612 e0.083 bc0.014 b0.015 d0.610 e0.081 b0.013 cde0.015 de0.613 e0.085 bc0.014 a
V1000.018 d0.641 d0.077 d0.014 b0.018 c0.647 d0.074 c0.015 ab0.018 c0.642 d0.080 c0.014 a
V2000.016 de0.619 e0.073 d0.012 c0.016 d0.613 e0.070 c0.012 e0.016 d0.611 e0.069 d0.013 b
V4000.013 f0.581 f0.073 d0.012 c0.014 e0.580 f0.073 c0.013 de0.013 e0.582 f0.074 d0.012 b
Note: z, y See Table 1.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Park, S.-Y.; Oh, D.-K.; Lee, S.-Y.; Yeum, K.-J.; Yoon, Y.-H.; Ju, J.-H. Combined Effects of Substrate Depth and Vegetation of Green Roofs on Runoff and Phytoremediation under Heavy Rain. Water 2022, 14, 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182792

AMA Style

Park S-Y, Oh D-K, Lee S-Y, Yeum K-J, Yoon Y-H, Ju J-H. Combined Effects of Substrate Depth and Vegetation of Green Roofs on Runoff and Phytoremediation under Heavy Rain. Water. 2022; 14(18):2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182792

Chicago/Turabian Style

Park, Sun-Young, Deuk-Kyun Oh, Sun-Yeong Lee, Kyung-Jin Yeum, Yong-Han Yoon, and Jin-Hee Ju. 2022. "Combined Effects of Substrate Depth and Vegetation of Green Roofs on Runoff and Phytoremediation under Heavy Rain" Water 14, no. 18: 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182792

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop