Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bioretention Cells for Urban Stormwater Management: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Previous Literature Reviews
2. Materials and Methods
- Phase 1: Choosing the research questions. What are the research question(s) and what domain must be investigated?
- Phase 2: Identification. Finding relevant studies.
- Phase 3: Selection. Choosing studies that are pertinent to the question(s) using set inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Phase 4: Data extraction. Arranging the data from the relevant selected studies.
- Phase 5: Collating. Reporting and summarizing the findings.
2.1. Research Question
- Are BRCs an effective practice for implementation in urban catchments with the objective of restoring the natural hydrological processes?
- Are BRCs an effective practice for implementation in urban catchment areas with the purpose of improving the quality of stormwater?
2.2. Identification and Selection of Relevant Studies
2.3. Data Extraction/Chart
- General information: author(s), publication year, and country of origin.
- Watershed features: location, land use category, contribution drainage area (CDA), and percentage of imperviousness.
- Bioretention technical design characteristics: media composition, media depth, ponding zone depth, , and internal water storage (IWS) depth.
- Results from BRC quantity and quality performance.
- Type of modeling, simulation type, hydrology and quality metrics for modeling, and calibration status.
2.4. Collating
3. Results
3.1. Initial Mapping
3.1.1. BRC Overview
3.1.2. Chronological and Geographical Analysis of BRC
3.2. Evaluation of BRC Effectiveness
3.2.1. Quantity Effectiveness of BRC
Reference | Location | CDA (ha) | Imp .Rate (%) | Land Use Category | Media Depth (cm) | Media Compositions | Ponding Zone (cm) | (%) | IWS (cm) | Volume Reduction (%) | Peak Flow Reduction (%) | Capture (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.26 | 90 | Residential | 5.7 | 13 | - | - | ||||||
[66] | Grove (OK) | 0.76 | 36 | Parking lot | 60 | 95% sand , 5% fly-ash | 30 | 2.2 | ** | −200 | - | - |
0.25 | 100 | Parking lot | 2.5 | 73 | - | - | ||||||
[54] | Blacksburg (VA) | 0.16 | N/A | Parking lot | 60 | 88% sand, 8% silty clay, 4% leaf compost | 10 | 2 | 30 | 98 | 91 | - |
84 | 82 | - | ||||||||||
[62] | Burlington (VT) | 0.003–0.012 | N/A | Roadway | 61 | 60% sand, 40% compost | 15.2 | 7.7 | ** | 75 | 91 | 31 |
[85] | Weslaco (TX) | 0.16 | N/A | Parking lot | 76 | Sandy | 15 | 3 | ** | 82 | - | - |
0.0142 | 5 | - | - | 19 | ||||||||
[67] | Hoboken (NJ) | 0.0109 | 100 | Roof | 55.9 | 88% pumice-sand, 12% compost | 42.3 | 6 | ** | - | - | 45 |
0.0054 | 12 | - | - | 56 | ||||||||
0.0098 | 7 | - | - | 24 |
Reference | Location | CDA (ha) | Imp.Rate (%) | Land Use Category | Media Depth (cm) | Media Compositions | Ponding Zone (cm) | (%) | IWS (cm) | Volume Reduction (%) | Peak Flow Reduction (%) | Capture (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[50] | Vaughan | 0.02 | N/A | Parking lot | 40 | 3–99% sand, 1–7% silt, 0–1% clay | N/A | 12 | ** | 98 | - | 84 |
93 | 95 | 51 | ||||||||||
[68] | London, Ontario | 0.13 | 55 | Roadway | 100 | 91% sand, 9% fine soil, 3% organic matter | N/A | 4 | ** | 73 | - | 56 |
86 | 51% sand, 29% silt, 20% clay | 0 | 80 | |||||||||
84.9 | 67% sand, 20% silt, 13% clay | 0 | 39 | |||||||||
[55] | Edmonton | N/A | N/A | Lab. Exp. | 85.8 | 48% sand, 28% silt, 19% clay, 0.5% steel-wool, 5% woodchips | 11.5 | N/A | 20 | - | 82 | - |
86.4 | 64% sand, 19% silt, 12% clay, 0.5% steel-wool, 5% woodchips | 20 | 67.5 |
Reference | Location | CDA (ha) | Imp. Rate (%) | Land Use Category | Media Depth (cm) | Media Compositions | Ponding Zone (cm) | (%) | IWS (cm) | Volume Reduction (%) | Peak Flow Reduction (%) | Capture (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[86] | Xi’an Xianyang China | 0.028 | N/A | Residential | 50 | 80% silt, 11.3% sand, 9% clay | 20 | 8 | ** | 54.08 | - | - |
[87] | São Carlos | 2.3 | N/A | Roadway sidewalk | 320 | sandy | N/A | 0.3 | ** | 100 | 100 | - |
(SP) Brazil | N/A | N/A | Lab. Exp. | 100 | sandy | N/A | N/A | 99.9 | - | - | ||
[73] | Cheonan City S. Korea | 0.047 | 100 | Parkinglot sidewalk | 80 | soil, sand, and ash | N/A | 1.05 | ** | 88 | - | - |
[88] | Gold Coast City Australia | 6.58 | 32 | Residential area | 80 | N/A | 10 | 0.4 | ** | 49.5 | 94.2 | - |
[74] | Guangzhou China | 0.01 | N/A | Lab. Exp | 55 | BSM and different biochar distribution | 20 | 8 | 0 | 11.4–16.2 | 7.4–49.4 | - |
20 | 16.3–29.6 | 8.6–44.6 | - | |||||||||
40 | 38.4–59.8 | 10–50.6 | - | |||||||||
[76] | Shaanxi China | 0.025 | N/A | Lab. Exp | 70 | BSM | 30 | 5 | ** | 12.6–33.9 | 20–88.4 | - |
BSM, 5% biochar | 29.05–70.54 | 74.6–97.1 | - | |||||||||
BSM, 5% WTR | 32.4–61.69 | 46–87.46 | - | |||||||||
[89] | Buštěhrad Czech Republic | 0.0038 | 100 | Roof | 30 | 50% sand, 30% compost, 20% topsoil | 30 | 25 | ** | 13 | 75–97 | - |
0.0038 | N/A | Lab.Exp | N/A | 14 | 13-34 | - |
3.2.2. Quality Effectiveness of BRC
Solids
Nutrients
Metals
Oxygen Demanding Contaminants
Microplastics
3.3. Numerical Modeling of BRC
- Before implementing BRCs, it is essential to model them in order to predict their hydrologic and quality performance under various situations. The use of models makes it possible to simulate BRC performance by varying local conditions such as climate variables (e.g., temperatures and precipitation), vegetation, and other territorial specifics. Researchers employ models on the site scale to overcome the limitations in doing fieldwork and to explore more problems than they could assess by monitoring. In particular, when BRC performance is evaluated in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory, those results can be transferred to the field scale using models.
- To date, almost all studies of BRC efficacy have been undertaken on the site scale (including laboratory experiments), while the impacts of BRCs on the catchment scale have received relatively less attention. Indeed, the effects of implementing several BRCs in a catchment, as well as the optimum placements for these BRCs, can be determined with the use of BRC modeling.
- Modeling allows researchers to comprehend the complex internal dynamic mechanisms associated with the movement of water and the fate, transport, and retention of pollutants within a BRC [141].
Reference | Location | Spatial Scale | Program | Calibration | Simulation | Hydrologic Variables | Highlights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[149,150] | Cleveland (OH, USA) | Site scale (3600 m) | DRAINMOD-Urban SWMM | Y | Individual events (1-min time step) | Outflow, overflow, drainage | DRAINMOD-Urban calibration improves both volumes and hydrographs; the percolation is predicted with a physically based equation considering the unsaturated flow. The SWMM calibration optimizes one single variable. The IWS representation should be improved. |
[159] | Melborne (Australia) | Site scale (1800 m ) | R Algorithm | Y | Individual events (6-min time step) | Outflow, overflow, infiltration, drainage, water level | The model is based on storage in series, accounting for the water balances in storage and water fluxes exchanges between storage. The model is not able to reproduce empty initial conditions. |
[160] | Singapore | Site scale (280 m) | RECHARGE | Y | Individual events (1-min time step) Continuous (0.5-year long) | Surface and subsurface outlets, soil moisture, ponding depth | Simulation results support the definition of configurations that improve performance efficiency. |
[85] | McAllen (TX, USA) | Site scale (1618 m) | WinSLAMM | Y | Individual events | Runoff | The calibrated model suitably reproduces the outflow runoff volume. A cost analysis is available. |
[148] | Istanbul (Turkey) | Laboratory scale (40 m) | HM-RWB | Y | Individual events | Runoff, infiltration, drainage | The model accuracy is better with respect to SWMM simulations, the accuracy is also evaluated for drainage flow. |
[153] | Cleveland (OH, USA) | Laboratory scale (48 m) | HYDRUS 2D/3D | Y | Continuous (500 days long) | Drainage, ponding depth, water table depth, soil water content | The model is able to describe the ground water dynamics that occurred at the site. The model sensitivity to key parameters, including the saturated hydraulic conductivity for soil layers within and around the BRC, is examined. |
Reference | Location | Spatial Scale | Program | Calibration | Simulation | Hydrologic Variables | Highlights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[142] | Oslo (Norway) | Site scale (100 m) Sub-catchment scale (50 ha) | MIKE Urban (MU) | Y N | Individual events (1-min time step) Continuous (1-year long) | Outflow FDC | A sensitivity analysis of RG parameters was carried out. The simulations for FDC do not account for evapotranspiration. The model predicts the efficiency of different degrees of implementation of NBS (seven scenarios). |
[161] | Guangzhou (China) | Sub-catchment scale (5000 m ) | SWMM | N | Individual events | Outflow | Model results, including a cost analysis support, the definition of the optimum extent (aerial coverage) of BRCs in the catchment based on a single objective (i.e., outflow volume or peak flow reduction) or multiple objectives. |
[162] | Beijing (China) | Catchment scale (651 km) | SWMM | N | Individual events | Runoff, flood volume | Model results have been paired with an LCA cost analysis to evaluate an integrated LID strategy to mitigate urban flooding. |
Reference | Location | Spatial Scale | Program | Calibration | Simulation | Hydrologic Variables | Quality Variables | Highlights |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[151] | Punggol (Singapore) | Site scale (480 m) | MUSIC | Y | Individual events (5-min time step) | Outflow rate and volume | TSS, TN, TP | The quantity module was not able to predict different inflow in dry/wet conditions. The treatment modules were able to simulate outflows and effluent pollutant concentrations. |
[146,147] | Cincinnati (USA) | Site scale | GIFMod | Y | Continuous (3 years long) | Inflow, outflow, drainage | TP, DRP , TN, NO, NH, TOC, DOC, TSS, VSS | GIFmod allows for the incorporation of nonlinear biogeochemical reactions and the associated physical processes affecting them. |
[158] | Xi’an (China) | Site scale | HYDRUS-1D | Y | Individual events (15-min time step) | Inflow, outflow, drainage, soil moisture | COD, NO-N, NH-N, TN, TP, Cu, Zn, Cd | The model can simulate 1D vertical water and solute transport ignoring lateral transport. Model results support the optimization of BRC facilities. |
[157] | Woodbridge, (ON, Canada) | Site scale (297 m) | SWMM | Y | Continuous (4 months long) | Inflow, outflow | TSS | The SWMM add-in tool is able to suitably predict the TSS reduction. |
[28] | Hong Kong (China) | Site scale (5000 m) | SWMM | N | Continuous (9 years long) | Inflow, outflow | First flush | Model results define an optimization problem (single and multi objective). |
[144] | Cul-de-sac (Sint Maarten, Caribbean) | Sub-catchment scale (2.4 km) | SWMM | N | Individual events Continuous (20 days long) | Outflow | TSS, TN, TP | Different combinations of NBS are modeled. Continuous simulation is essential to define operation conditions. |
4. Research Needs
5. Conclusions and Recommendation
- The IWS design has several advantages; however, IWS installation requires careful consideration. First, the top of the IWS should not be closer than 30 cm to the medium’s surface and should not be lower than 30 cm above the cell bottom [77,163]. In addition, for sandy sites, it is recommended that the IWS outlet be 30 cm from the surface of the medium, whereas for clay sites, this value might vary between 47 and 60 cm. The reason for the suggested distance could be the plants’ ability to survive [155]. The plants in a BRC can be damaged by a long duration of saturated soil conditions. A vadose zone (free draining depth) of at least 30 cm is necessary at the top of the cell to enable appropriate root growth. Additionally, if the IWS takes up too much of the soil medium layer, there is a chance that organic matter or nutrients might leak out through the underdrain [77,155,163].
- The composition of the medium plays a crucial role in both hydrological and water quality effectiveness. The exact ratio of these components will vary depending on local conditions, but a typical mix may consist of 40–60% silty loam, 30–50% sand, and 10–30% organic matter. In some cases, other admixtures can be added to the mix to improve water holding capacity, increase retained moisture, and promote plant growth. In addition, adding suitable additives can enhance the water quality performance of BRCs. For instance, adding a carbon source can be an effective method for enhancing the performance of bioretention systems, but the source and amount of carbon added should be considered carefully.
- The filter medium depth is a critical design variable. According to studies, 20–50% of the runoff entering BRCs was lost owing to exfiltration and ET [77]. In a field study, researchers found that a deeper fill medium allowed for more exfiltration and less outflow [77]. The results of another study [50] suggest that dead volumes occurred because the entire BRC was not used for storage. To decrease dead volumes and increase interaction inside the BRC, increasing the medium depth is one strategy. A deeper medium, on the other hand, may increase excavation expenses and affect groundwater levels, causing a BRC to fail. Therefore, the medium depth should be carefully designed by considering factors such as the minimum distance between the bottom of the BRC and groundwater level, the project’s cost-effectiveness, and the medium’s composition.
- The issue of clogging, which is the limiting factor in BRC long-term performance, has to be considered. Clogging can be classified as either happening at the surface or within the medium. When stormwater runoff has a high concentration of fine and silt particles, surface infiltration can be hindered, which can have an adverse effect on the hydrologic performance of BRCs and cause them to be undersized. In addition, the physical, chemical, and biological processes inside the filter medium may be constrained, resulting in a decrease in the hydrologic and quality performance of the BRCs [77,152]. Using appropriate additives, clogging of the filter medium can be limited. To prevent clogging and deterioration of bioretention performance, ref. [164] recommends replacing BRC media every 5 to 10 years, without taking into consideration the function of plant roots.
- Vegetation for BRCs is usually chosen for its resilience in the face of adversity, its esthetic appeal, and its local availability. In most cases, plants are not evaluated based on strict performance criteria for their ability to remove specific contaminants and deal with hydrological processes. In order to select the vegetation for a BRC, it is essential to consider the following criteria: the plant should be native, have a high phytoremediation ability, have significant above-ground biomass, have thick and widespread roots, require minimal care or fertilizer, be able to resist dry conditions, and offer a habitat for a variety of microorganisms.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN (United Nations). Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100. 2017. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- UN (United Nations). Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. 2018. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan, R.P. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 706–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, A.H.; Wenger, S.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Shuster, W.D.; Thurston, H.W.; Brown, R.R. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walsh, C.J.; Booth, D.B.; Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Hale, R.L.; Hoang, L.N.; Livingston, G.; Rippy, M.A.; Roy, A.H.; Scoggins, M.; et al. Principles for urban stormwater management to protect stream ecosystems. Freshw. Sci. 2016, 35, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arora, A.S.; Reddy, A.S. Multivariate analysis for assessing the quality of stormwater from different Urban surfaces of the Patiala city, Punjab (India). Urban Water J. 2013, 10, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatt, B.E.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Taylor, S.L. The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ. Manag. 2004, 34, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stocker, T. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, H.; Lawrence, D.; Lang, M.; Martinkova, M.; Kjeldsen, T. Review of trend analysis and climate change projections of extreme precipitation and floods in Europe. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 3634–3650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chocat, B.; Ashley, R.; Marsalek, J.; Matos, M.; Rauch, W.; Schilling, W.; Urbonas, B. Toward the sustainable management of urban storm-water. Indoor Built Environ. 2007, 16, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, T.A.; Gujer, W. The concept of sustainable urban water management. Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grand-Clement, M. Challenges in Planning for Sustainable Stormwater Management in French Cities—A Case Study of the Grand Lyon. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bennion, H.; Battarbee, R. The European Union water framework directive: Opportunities for palaeolimnology. J. Paleolimnol. 2007, 38, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahre, P. Sustainability in Urban Storm Drainage: Planning and Examples; Svenskt Vatten: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Oral, H.V.; Radinja, M.; Rizzo, A.; Kearney, K.; Andersen, T.R.; Krzeminski, P.; Buttiglieri, G.; Ayral-Cinar, D.; Comas, J.; Gajewska, M.; et al. Management of urban waters with nature-based solutions in circular cities—Exemplified through seven urban circularity challenges. Water 2021, 13, 3334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffman, L.S. Low-impact development: An alternative stormwater management technology. In Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design; Lewis Publishers Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 97–123. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, M.S.; Coffman, L.S.; Clar, M.L. Low-impact development hydrologic analysis. In Urban Drainage Modeling, Proceedings of the Specialty Symposium of the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress, Orlando, FL, USA, 20–24 May 2001; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2001; pp. 659–681. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, H.; Yao, H.; Yu, S.L. Advances in LID BMPs research and practice for urban runoff control in China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2013, 7, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.; Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L.; 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]
- Palla, A.; Gnecco, I.; La Barbera, P. Assessing the hydrologic performance of a green roof retrofitting scenario for a small urban catchment. Water 2018, 10, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, C.; Peng, C.; Chiang, P.C.; Cai, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, Z. Mechanisms and applications of green infrastructure practices for stormwater control: A review. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 626–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayaraghavan, K. Green roofs: A critical review on the role of components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 740–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winston, R.; Dorsey, J.; Hunt, W. Monitoring the Performance of Bioretention and Permeable Pavement Stormwater Controls in Northern Ohio: Hydrology, Water Quality, and Maintenance Needs. Chagrin River Watershed Partners. Inc. under NOAA award No. NA09NOS4190153. 2015. Available online: https://crwp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OH_StormwaterControls_MonitoringReport2015.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Bioretention Manual; Environmental Services Division, Department of Environmental Resources: Prince George’s County, MD, USA, 2007; 206p, Available online: https://www.aacounty.org/departments/public-works/highways/forms-and-publications/RG_Bioretention_PG%20CO.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Dagenais, D.; Brisson, J.; Fletcher, T.D. The role of plants in bioretention systems; does the science underpin current guidance? Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy-Poirier, A.; Champagne, P.; Filion, Y. Review of bioretention system research and design: Past, present, and future. J. Environ. Eng. 2010, 136, 878–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Davis, A.P. A unified look at phosphorus treatment using bioretention. Water Res. 2016, 90, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Chui, T.F.M. Optimizing surface and contributing areas of bioretention cells for stormwater runoff quality and quantity management. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 1090–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, J.B. Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK urban catchment planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazemi, F.; Beecham, S.; Gibbs, J.; Clay, R. Factors affecting terrestrial invertebrate diversity in bioretention basins in an Australian urban environment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livesley, S.; McPherson, E.G.; Calfapietra, C. The urban forest and ecosystem services: Impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liu, J.; Sample, D.J.; Bell, C.; Guan, Y. Review and research needs of bioretention used for the treatment of urban stormwater. Water 2014, 6, 1069–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muerdter, C.P.; Smith, D.J.; Davis, A.P. Impact of vegetation selection on nitrogen and phosphorus processing in bioretention containers. Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cosgrove, J.F., Jr.; Bergstrom, J.D. Design and construction of biofiltration basins: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the World Water & Environmental Resources Congress, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 23–26 June 2003; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Chua, L.H.; Shanahan, P. Evaluation of pollutant removal efficiency of a bioretention basin and implications for stormwater management in tropical cities. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2017, 3, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muerdter, C.P.; Wong, C.K.; LeFevre, G.H. Emerging investigator series: The role of vegetation in bioretention for stormwater treatment in the built environment: Pollutant removal, hydrologic function, and ancillary benefits. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 592–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spraakman, S.; Rodgers, T.F.; Monri-Fung, H.; Nowicki, A.; Diamond, M.L.; Passeport, E.; Thuna, M.; Drake, J. A need for standardized reporting: A scoping review of bioretention research 2000–2019. Water 2020, 12, 3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswal, B.K.; Vijayaraghavan, K.; Tsen-Tieng, D.L.; Balasubramanian, R. Biochar-based bioretention systems for removal of chemical and microbial pollutants from stormwater: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 422, 126886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skorobogatov, A.; He, J.; Chu, A.; Valeo, C.; van Duin, B. The impact of media, plants and their interactions on bioretention performance: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, M.; Wan Yusof, K.; Takaijudin, H.; Goh, H.W.; Abdul Malek, M.; Azizan, N.A.; Ab. Ghani, A.; Sa’id Abdurrasheed, A. A review of nitrogen removal for urban stormwater runoff in bioretention system. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baas, J.; Schotten, M.; Plume, A.; Côté, G.; Karimi, R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003, 96, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bramer, W.M.; Giustini, D.; de Jonge, G.B.; Holland, L.; Bekhuis, T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J. Med Libr. Assoc. JMLA 2016, 104, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badger, D.; Nursten, J.; Williams, P.; Woodward, M. Should all literature reviews be systematic? Eval. Res. Educ. 2000, 14, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, H. Urban Stormwater Quality: A Statistical Overview; CRC for Catchment Hydrology Victoria: Clayton, VIC, Australia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Goh, H.; Zakaria, N.; Lau, T.; Foo, K.; Chang, C.; Leow, C. Mesocosm study of enhanced bioretention media in treating nutrient rich stormwater for mixed development area. Urban Water J. 2017, 14, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macedo, M.B.d.; Lago, C.A.F.d.; Mendiondo, E.M.; Giacomoni, M.H. Bioretention performance under different rainfall regimes in subtropical conditions: A case study in São Carlos, Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248. [Google Scholar]
- Spraakman, S.; Van Seters, T.; Drake, J.; Passeport, E. How has it changed? A comparative field evaluation of bioretention infiltration and treatment performance post-construction and at maturity. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 158, 106036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketabchy, M.; Sample, D.J.; Wynn-Thompson, T.; Yazdi, M.N. Simulation of watershed-scale practices for mitigating stream thermal pollution due to urbanization. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y. An improved approach to design bioretention system media. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 136, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppmann, R.A.; Rao, V.V.; Poston, M.B.; Howe, D.B.; Hunt, P.S.; Fowler, S.D.; Paulman, L.E.; Wells, J.R.; Richeson, N.A.; Catalana, P.V.; et al. An integrated ultrasound curriculum (iUSC) for medical students: 4-year experience. Crit. Ultrasound J. 2011, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Willard, L.; Wynn-Thompson, T.; Krometis, L.; Neher, T.; Badgley, B. Does it pay to be mature? Evaluation of bioretention cell performance seven years postconstruction. J. Environ. Eng. 2017, 143, 04017041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Kratky, H.; Yu, T.; Li, X.; Jia, H. Study on bioretention for stormwater management in cold climate, part I: Hydraulics. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2021, 38, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Wang, F.; Qin, H.; Zeng, X.; Li, X.; Yu, S.L. Effect of saturated zone on nitrogen removal processes in stormwater bioretention systems. Water 2018, 10, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Passeport, E.; Hunt, W.F.; Line, D.E.; Smith, R.A.; Brown, R.A. Field study of the ability of two grassed bioretention cells to reduce storm-water runoff pollution. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2009, 135, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y. Experiment and simulation of layered bioretention system for hydrological performance. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 2019, 9, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coffman, L.S.; Siviter, T. Filterra by Americast: An advanced sustainable stormwater treatment system. In Low Impact Development: New and Continuing Applications; ASCE: Reston, VI, USA, 2009; pp. 171–181. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, A.P. Field performance of bioretention: Water quality. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2007, 24, 1048–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Programs, and Planning Division. Low-Impact Development: An Integrated Design Approach; Environmental Services Division, Department of Environmental Resources: Prince George’s County, MD, USA, 1999. Available online: https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/86/Low-Impact-Development-Design-Strategies-PDF (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Shrestha, P.; Hurley, S.E.; Wemple, B.C. Effects of different soil media, vegetation, and hydrologic treatments on nutrient and sediment removal in roadside bioretention systems. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 112, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, A.P.; Traver, R.G.; Hunt, W.F.; Lee, R.; Brown, R.A.; Olszewski, J.M. Hydrologic performance of bioretention storm-water control measures. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012, 17, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clary, J.; Quigley, M.; Poresky, A.; Earles, A.; Strecker, E.; Leisenring, M.; Jones, J. Integration of low-impact development into the international stormwater BMP database. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, J.; Ni, R.; Zheng, L. Influence of In-situ Soil and Groundwater Level on Hydrological Effect of Bioretention. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2022, 31, 3745–3753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandel, S.; Vogel, J.; Penn, C.; Brown, G. Phosphorus retention by fly ash amended filter media in aged bioretention cells. Water 2017, 9, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nissen, K.A.; Borst, M.; Fassman-Beck, E. Bioretention planter performance measured by lag and capture. Hydrol. Process. 2020, 34, 5176–5184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goor, J.; Cantelon, J.; Smart, C.C.; Robinson, C.E. Seasonal performance of field bioretention systems in retaining phosphorus in a cold climate: Influence of prolonged road salt application. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cording, A.; Hurley, S.; Adair, C. Influence of critical bioretention design factors and projected increases in precipitation due to climate change on roadside bioretention performance. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Sharkey, L.J.; Hunt, W.F.; Davis, A.P. Mitigation of impervious surface hydrology using bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunt, W.; Jarrett, A.; Smith, J.; Sharkey, L. Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2006, 132, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanty, S.K.; Valenca, R.; Berger, A.W.; Iris, K.; Xiong, X.; Saunders, T.M.; Tsang, D.C. Plenty of room for carbon on the ground: Potential applications of biochar for stormwater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 1644–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, M.; Guerra, H.B.; Choi, H.; Kwon, D.; Kim, H.; Kim, L.H. Stormwater Runoff Treatment Using Rain Garden: Performance Monitoring and Development of Deep Learning-Based Water Quality Prediction Models. Water 2021, 13, 3488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mai, Y.; Huang, G. Hydrology and rainfall runoff pollutant removal performance of biochar-amended bioretention facilities based on field-scale experiments in lateritic red soil regions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joseph, S.; Cowie, A.L.; Van Zwieten, L.; Bolan, N.; Budai, A.; Buss, W.; Cayuela, M.L.; Graber, E.R.; Ippolito, J.A.; Kuzyakov, Y.; et al. How biochar works, and when it does not: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy 2021, 13, 1731–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, N.; Liu, F.; Li, Y. Development and Optimization of Bioretention Systems with Modified Fillers of Corn Straw Biochar. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.A.; Hunt III, W.F. Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydrologic performance of undersized bioretention cells. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- STEP. Performance Comparison of Surface and Underground Stormwater Infiltration Practices. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program. 2015. Available online: https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2016/08/BioVSTrench_TechBrief__July2015.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Credit Valley Conservation. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. 2010. Available online: https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/LID-SWM-Guide-v1.0_2010_1_no-appendices.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Post-Construction. Best Management Practices Manual; State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, D.B. Plants for Stormwater Design: Species Selection for the Upper Midwest; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2003; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Nasrollahpour, R.; Skorobogatov, A.; He, J.; Valeo, C.; Chu, A.; van Duin, B. The impact of vegetation and media on evapotranspiration in bioretention systems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 74, 127680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clar, M.; Laramore, E.; Ryan, H. Rethinking bioretention design concepts. In Low Impact Development: New and Continuing Applications; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 119–127. [Google Scholar]
- McLemore, A.J.; Vogel, J.R.; Taghvaeian, S. Bioretention Cell Design Guidance for Oklahoma; Technical Report; Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service: Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmoud, A.; Alam, T.; Rahman, M.Y.A.; Sanchez, A.; Guerrero, J.; Jones, K.D. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 142, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, L. Field performance of bioretention systems for runoff quantity regulation and pollutant removal. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macedo, M.B.d.; Lago, C.A.F.d.; Mendiondo, E.M.; Souza, V.C.B.d. Performance of bioretention experimental devices: Contrasting laboratory and field scales through controlled experiments. RBRH 2018, 23, 16. Available online: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbrh/a/9WS4WkRnxMZWf3jdCHFgScH/?format=html&lang=en&stop=previous (accessed on 1 February 2023). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, A.; Egodawatta, P.; Goonetilleke, A. Ranking three Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) practices based on hydraulic and water quality treatment performance: Implications for effective stormwater treatment design. Water 2022, 14, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hečková, P.; Bareš, V.; Stránskỳ, D.; Sněhota, M. Performance of experimental bioretention cells during the first year of operation. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2022, 70, 42–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, F.Y.; Neo, T.H.; Guo, H.; Goh, S.Z.; Ong, S.L.; Hu, J.; Lee, B.C.Y.; Ong, G.S.; Liou, C.X. Pilot and field studies of modular bioretention tree system with talipariti tiliaceum and engineered soil filter media in the tropics. Water 2021, 13, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Q.; Feng, M.; Lin, Z.; Shi, Q. Experimental Study on the Pollutant Removal Performance and Cleaning Characteristics of Six Sand-Based Bioretention Systems. J. Environ. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Q.; Lin, Z.; Dong, P.; Tang, W. Decontamination performance of a bioretention system using a simple sand-based filler proportioning method. Environ. Technol. 2022, 43, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbreath, A.; McKee, L.; Shimabuku, I.; Lin, D.; Werbowski, L.M.; Zhu, X.; Grbic, J.; Rochman, C. Multiyear water quality performance and mass accumulation of PCBs, mercury, methylmercury, copper, and microplastics in a bioretention rain garden. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2019, 5, 04019004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, H.; Wang, X.; Ti, C.; Zhai, Y.; Field, R.; Tafuri, A.N.; Cai, H.; Yu, S.L. Field monitoring of a LID-BMP treatment train system in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kratky, H.; Li, Z.; Yu, T.; Li, X.; Jia, H. Study on bioretention for stormwater management in cold climate, part II: Water quality. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2021, 12, 3582–3601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Søberg, L.C.; Al-Rubaei, A.M.; Viklander, M.; Blecken, G.T. Phosphorus and TSS removal by stormwater bioretention: Effects of temperature, salt, and a submerged zone and their interactions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.H.; Swapp, M.; Kim, M.H.; Chu, K.H.; Sung, C.Y. Comparing bioretention designs with and without an internal water storage layer for treating highway runoff. Water Environ. Res. 2014, 86, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fairbairn, D.J.; Elliott, S.M.; Kiesling, R.L.; Schoenfuss, H.L.; Ferrey, M.L.; Westerhoff, B.M. Contaminants of emerging concern in urban stormwater: Spatiotemporal patterns and removal by iron-enhanced sand filters (IESFs). Water Res. 2018, 145, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conley, D.J.; Paerl, H.W.; Howarth, R.W.; Boesch, D.F.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Havens, K.E.; Lancelot, C.; Likens, G.E. Controlling eutrophication: Nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 2009, 323, 1014–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brett, M.T.; Arhonditsis, G.B.; Mueller, S.E.; Hartley, D.M.; Frodge, J.D.; Funke, D.E. Non-point-source impacts on stream nutrient concentrations along a forest to urban gradient. Environ. Manag. 2005, 35, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goldberg, S. Equations and models describing adsorption processes in soils. Chem. Process. Soils 2005, 8, 489–517. [Google Scholar]
- Schachtman, D.P.; Reid, R.J.; Ayling, S.M. Phosphorus uptake by plants: From soil to cell. Plant Physiol. 1998, 116, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barber, S.A. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995; 414p. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Shao, Z.; Kong, Z.; Gu, L.; Fang, J.; Chai, H. Study of pyrite based autotrophic denitrification system for low-carbon source stormwater treatment. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 37, 101414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, J.; Ren, S.; He, Y.; Wang, X.C.; Bai, X.; Wang, J.; Dzakpasu, M. Bioretention cell incorporating Fe-biochar and saturated zones for enhanced stormwater runoff treatment. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, C.h.; Davis, A.P. Evaluation and optimization of bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff. J. Environ. Eng. 2005, 131, 1521–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Le, T.T.H.; Fettig, J.; Meon, G. Kinetics and simulation of nitrification at various pH values of a polluted river in the tropics. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2019, 19, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenstrom, M.K.; Poduska, R.A. The effect of dissolved oxygen concentration on nitrification. Water Res. 1980, 14, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt III, W.F. Pollutant Removal Evaluation and Hydraulic Characterization for Bioretention Stormwater Treatment Devices; The Pennsylvania State University: State College, PA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Iqbal, H.; Garcia-Perez, M.; Flury, M. Effect of biochar on leaching of organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus from compost in bioretention systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 521, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez-Ponnada, E.V.; Lynn, T.J.; Ergas, S.J.; Mihelcic, J.R. Long-term field performance of a conventional and modified bioretention system for removing dissolved nitrogen species in stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2020, 170, 115336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Lin, X.; Yu, H.; Wang, Z.; Xia, H.; An, J.; Fan, G. Nitrogen removal from urban stormwater runoff by stepped bioretention systems. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaister, B.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Cook, P.L.; Hatt, B.E. Interactions between design, plant growth and the treatment performance of stormwater biofilters. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.P.; Hunt, W.F. A retrospective comparison of water quality treatment in a bioretention cell 16 years following initial analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Read, J.; Wevill, T.; Fletcher, T.; Deletic, A. Variation among plant species in pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Water Res. 2008, 42, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, A.; Österlund, H.; Marsalek, J.; Viklander, M. The pollution conveyed by urban runoff: A review of sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 136125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadella, S.R.; Fitzpatrick, J.L.; Franklin, N.; Bucking, C.; Smith, S.; Wood, C.M. Toxicity of dissolved Cu, Zn, Ni and Cd to developing embryos of the blue mussel (Mytilus trossolus) and the protective effect of dissolved organic carbon. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 149, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, P.; Singh, B.; Angove, M. Competitive adsorption behavior of heavy metals on kaolinite. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 290, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakson, G.; Brzezinska, A.; Zawilski, M. Emission of heavy metals from an urban catchment into receiving water and possibility of its limitation on the example of Lodz city. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sansalone, J.J.; Buchberger, S.G. Partitioning and first flush of metals in urban roadway storm water. J. Environ. Eng. 1997, 123, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnecco, I.; Palla, A.; Sansalone, J. Partitioning of zinc, copper and lead in urban drainage from paved source area catchments. J. Hydrol. 2019, 578, 124128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Q.; Zhu, L.X.; Shen, Y.F.; Li, S.Q. Sensitivity of soil water retention and availability to biochar addition in rainfed semi-arid farmland during a three-year field experiment. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 196, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costello, D.M.; Hartung, E.W.; Stoll, J.T.; Jefferson, A.J. Bioretention cell age and construction style influence stormwater pollutant dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 135597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, J.; Li, G.; Zhu, J.; Li, J.; Yang, Y.; An, S.; Liu, C. Removal characteristics of heavy metal ions in rainwater runoff by bioretention cell modified with biochar. Environ. Technol. 2021, 43, 4515–4527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russo, A.; Speak, A.; Dadea, C.; Fini, A.; Borruso, L.; Ferrini, F.; Zerbe, S. Influence of different ornamental shrubs on the removal of heavy metals in a stormwater bioretention system. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 33, 605–612. [Google Scholar]
- Dickenson, J.; Sansalone, J.J. Overall Rate Kinetics Model for Chlorine Demand of Urban Rainfall Runoff. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2022, 8, 04021020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhonson, P.; Goh, H.W.; Chan, D.J.C.; Juiani, S.F.; Zakaria, N.A. Potential of bioretention plants in treating urban runoff polluted with greywater under tropical climate. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 24562–24574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takaijudin, H.; Osman, M.; Yusof, K.W.; Ghani, A.A.; Weng, G.H. The effectiveness of cascaded bioretention system in treating urban stormwater runoff. In ICCOEE2020, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 39–46. [Google Scholar]
- Galfi, H.; Österlund, H.; Marsalek, J.; Viklander, M. Indicator bacteria and associated water quality constituents in stormwater and snowmelt from four urban catchments. J. Hydrol. 2016, 539, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paule-Mercado, M.; Ventura, J.; Memon, S.; Jahng, D.; Kang, J.H.; Lee, C.H. Monitoring and predicting the fecal indicator bacteria concentrations from agricultural, mixed land use and urban stormwater runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 550, 1171–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, A.P.; 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]
- Van der Hoven, C.; Ubomba-Jaswa, E.; Van der Merwe, B.; Loubser, M.; Abia, A.L.K. The impact of various land uses on the microbial and physicochemical quality of surface water bodies in developing countries: Prioritisation of water resources management areas. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2017, 8, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kershaw, P.; Rochman, C. Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Part 2 of a Global Assessment. Reports and Studies-IMO/FAO/Unesco-IOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) Eng No. 93. 2015. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2017002714 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Hale, R.C.; Seeley, M.E.; La Guardia, M.J.; Mai, L.; Zeng, E.Y. A global perspective on microplastics. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2018JC014719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, K.; Drake, J.; Li, Y.; Rochman, C.; Van Seters, T.; Passeport, E. Bioretention cells remove microplastics from urban stormwater. Water Res. 2021, 191, 116785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lange, K.; Magnusson, K.; Viklander, M.; Blecken, G.T. Removal of rubber, bitumen and other microplastic particles from stormwater by a gross pollutant trap-bioretention treatment train. Water Res. 2021, 202, 117457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Werbowski, L.M.; Gilbreath, A.N.; Munno, K.; Zhu, X.; Grbic, J.; Wu, T.; Sutton, R.; Sedlak, M.D.; Deshpande, A.D.; Rochman, C.M. Urban stormwater runoff: A major pathway for anthropogenic particles, black rubbery fragments, and other types of microplastics to urban receiving waters. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1, 1420–1428. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; An, C.; Chen, X.; Lee, K.; Zhang, B.; Feng, Q. Disposable masks release microplastics to the aqueous environment with exacerbation by natural weathering. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadare, O.O.; Okoffo, E.D. COVID-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 140279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, K.; Österlund, H.; Viklander, M.; Blecken, G.T. Occurrence and concentration of 20–100 μm sized microplastic in highway runoff and its removal in a gross pollutant trap–Bioretention and sand filter stormwater treatment train. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 809, 151151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Lam, K.M. Statistical evaluation of bioretention system for hydrologic performance. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 1742–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernes, R.R.; Gragne, A.S.; Abdalla, E.M.; Braskerud, B.C.; Alfredsen, K.; Muthanna, T.M. Assessing the effects of four SUDS scenarios on combined sewer overflows in Oslo, Norway: Evaluating the low-impact development module of the Mike Urban model. Hydrol. Res. 2020, 51, 1437–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smolek, A.; Winston, R.; Dorsey, J.; Hunt, W. Modeling the Hydrologic Performance of Bioretention and Permeable Pavement Stormwater Controls in Northern Ohio Using DRAINMOD: Calibration, Validation, Sensitivity Analysis, and Future Climate Scenarios. Fulfillment of NOAA Award Number NA09NOS4190153. 2015. Available online: https://crwp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DRAINMOD_OH_ModelingReport2015.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Dutta, A.; Torres, A.S.; Vojinovic, Z. Evaluation of pollutant removal efficiency by small-scale nature-based solutions focusing on bio-retention cells, vegetative swale and porous pavement. Water 2021, 13, 2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baffaut, C.; Dabney, S.M.; Smolen, M.D.; Youssef, M.A.; Bonta, J.V.; Chu, M.L.; Guzman, J.A.; Shedekar, V.S.; Jha, M.K.; Arnold, J.G. Hydrologic and water quality modeling: Spatial and temporal considerations. Trans. ASABE 2015, 58, 1661–1680. [Google Scholar]
- Alikhani, J.; Nietch, C.; Jacobs, S.; Shuster, B.; Massoudieh, A. Modeling and design scenario analysis of long-term monitored bioretention system for rainfall-runoff reduction to combined sewer in Cincinnati, OH. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2020, 6, 04019016-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Massoudieh, A.; Maghrebi, M.; Kamrani, B.; Nietch, C.; Tryby, M.; Aflaki, S.; Panguluri, S. A flexible modeling framework for hydraulic and water quality performance assessment of stormwater green infrastructure. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 92, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gülbaz, S.; Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, C.M. An evaluation of hydrologic modeling performance of EPA SWMM for bioretention. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 3035–3043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lisenbee, W.; Hathaway, J.; Negm, L.; Youssef, M.; Winston, R. Enhanced bioretention cell modeling with DRAINMOD-Urban: Moving from water balances to hydrograph production. J. Hydrol. 2020, 582, 124491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisenbee, W.; Hathaway, J.; Winston, R. Modeling bioretention hydrology: Quantifying the performance of DRAINMOD-Urban and the SWMM LID module. J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 128179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowdar, H.S.; Neo, T.H.; Ong, S.L.; Hu, J.; McCarthy, D.T. Performance analysis of a stormwater green infrastructure model for flow and water quality predictions. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 316, 115259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandra, H.; McCarthy, D.; Deletic, A. Assessment of the impact of stormwater characteristics on clogging in stormwater filters. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 1031–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, R.D.; Lee, J.G.; Shuster, W.D.; Darner, R.A. Modelling hydrological response to a fully-monitored urban bioretention cell. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 4626–4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gülbaz, S.; Kazezyılmaz-Alhan, C.M. Experimental investigation on hydrologic performance of LID with rainfall-watershed-bioretention system. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2017, 22, D4016003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschman, D.J.; Seipp, B.; Schueler, T.; Network, C.S. Performance Enhancing Devices for Stormwater Best Management Practices. Center for Watershed Protection. 2017; 38p. Available online: chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/7714-1.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Heasom, W.; Traver, R.G.; Welker, A. Hydrologic modeling of a bioinfiltration best management practice 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1329–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiveron, T.; Gholamreza-Kashi, S.; Joksimovic, D. A USEPA SWMM integrated tool for determining the suspended solids reduction performance of bioretention cells. J. Water Manag. Model. 2018, 26, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, J.; Zhao, R.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Simulation and optimization of layered bioretention facilities by HYDRUS-1D model and response surface methodology. J. Hydrol. 2020, 586, 124813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneau, J.; Kouyi, G.L.; Lassabatere, L.; Fletcher, T.D. Field validation of a physically-based model for bioretention systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Chua, L.H.; Shanahan, P. Hydrological modeling and field validation of a bioretention basin. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 240, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Zhang, D.; Cheng, Y.; Tan, S.K. Assessing performance of porous pavements and bioretention cells for stormwater management in response to probable climatic changes. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, C.; Liu, J.; Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Ding, X.; Shao, W. Integrated assessments of green infrastructure for flood mitigation to support robust decision-making for sponge city construction in an urbanized watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 1394–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.; Hunt, W. Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137, 1082–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USEPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Low Impact Development (LID): A literature Review; EPA-841-B-00-005; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Indicator | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Definition of BRC | Definition of a BRC as it is mentioned (see Section 3.1.1). | Any stormwater management approach without full BRC defining elements and proprieties |
Type of inflow in BRC | The runoff entered into BRCs must be generated by stormwater in urban catchments or the properties of the urban runoff must be included | Any type of wastewater other than urban stormwater runoff |
Type of study | Studies that evaluate the quantity and quality effectiveness of BRCs in field, laboratory, and numerical modeling settings | Studies that evaluated economic, LCA, or other indicators but did not include quality and hydrology metrics |
Type of publication | Peer reviews, conference proceedings, and book chapters | Review articles and theses |
Language | English | Other languages |
Chronological order | Studies between 2017 and September 2022 | Other studies outside of 2017–September 2022 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nazarpour, S.; Gnecco, I.; Palla, A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bioretention Cells for Urban Stormwater Management: A Systematic Review. Water 2023, 15, 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050913
Nazarpour S, Gnecco I, Palla A. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bioretention Cells for Urban Stormwater Management: A Systematic Review. Water. 2023; 15(5):913. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050913
Chicago/Turabian StyleNazarpour, Shaahin, Ilaria Gnecco, and Anna Palla. 2023. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bioretention Cells for Urban Stormwater Management: A Systematic Review" Water 15, no. 5: 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050913
APA StyleNazarpour, S., Gnecco, I., & Palla, A. (2023). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Bioretention Cells for Urban Stormwater Management: A Systematic Review. Water, 15(5), 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050913