| Literature DB >> 25774922 |
Dongya Li1, Jinquan Wan2, Yongwen Ma3, Yan Wang1, Mingzhi Huang1, Yangmei Chen1.
Abstract
Fast urbanization and industrialization in developing countries result in significant stormwater runoff pollution, due to drastic changes in land-use, from rural to urban. A three-year study on the stormwater runoff pollutant loading distributions of industrial, parking lot and mixed commercial and residential catchments was conducted in the Tongsha reservoir watershed of Dongguan city, a typical, rapidly industrialized urban area in China. This study presents the changes in concentration during rainfall events, event mean concentrations (EMCs) and event pollution loads per unit area (EPLs). The first flush criterion, namely the mass first flush ratio (MFFn), was used to identify the first flush effects. The impacts of rainfall and catchment characterization on EMCs and pollutant loads percentage transported by the first 40% of runoff volume (FF40) were evaluated. The results indicated that the pollutant wash-off process of runoff during the rainfall events has significant temporal and spatial variations. The mean rainfall intensity (I), the impervious rate (IMR) and max 5-min intensity (Imax5) are the critical parameters of EMCs, while Imax5, antecedent dry days (ADD) and rainfall depth (RD) are the critical parameters of FF40. Intercepting the first 40% of runoff volume can remove 55% of TSS load, 53% of COD load, 58% of TN load, and 61% of TP load, respectively, according to all the storm events. These results may be helpful in mitigating stormwater runoff pollution for many other urban areas in developing countries.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25774922 PMCID: PMC4361324 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study sites.
Basic characteristics of the monitoring sites.
| watershed | NS | DLS | TS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitor location | Niushan ( | Dalingshan ( | Tongsha ( |
| Drainage area | 6.89 ha | 3.64 ha | 5.12 ha |
| Percentage of impervious area | 74% | 87% | 37% |
| Sewer type | Separated | Separated | Separated |
| Primary land use | Industrial | Commercial | Greening |
| Land slope | 2.80% | 1.10% | 1.50% |
Characteristics of the rainfall events (n = 10).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15/4/2009 | 58.80 | 210 | 16.8 | 1.32 | 64 | 14 |
| 15/9/2009 | 9.75 | 65 | 9 | 0.66 | 4 | 9 |
| 20/10/2009 | 9.36 | 104 | 5.4 | 0.56 | 15 | 10 |
| 2/6/2010 | 33.60 | 210 | 9.6 | 0.58 | 3 | 14 |
| 28/6/2010 | 41.60 | 130 | 19.2 | 0.8 | 16 | 14 |
| 20/10/2010 | 22.50 | 150 | 9.1 | 0.34 | 21 | 14 |
| 16/4/2011 | 88.40 | 260 | 20.4 | 1.56 | 46 | 14 |
| 3/5/2011 | 8.40 | 127 | 4.2 | 0.54 | 15 | 10 |
| 9/8/2011 | 17.69 | 131 | 8.1 | 1.61 | 5 | 11 |
| 21/9/2011 | 15.60 | 52 | 18 | 0.71 | 8 | 10 |
I : Max 5-min intensity,
I: Mean rainfall intensity,
R : Rainfall duration,
R : Rainfall depth,
ADD: Antecedent dry days.
Fig 2Pollutant wash-off process curves in NS, DLS and TS.
Basic statistics of runoff pollution EMCs and EPLs in all storm events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean | 302.81 | 367.19 | 16.69 | 3.17 | 5.52 | 1.56 | 0.33 | ------- |
| Standard deviation | 151.35 | 173.04 | 12.88 | 2.22 | 2.66 | 0.95 | 0.15 | ------- | |
| Maximum | 567.11 | 708.40 | 39.05 | 7.09 | 9.13 | 2.98 | 0.57 | ------- | |
| Minimum | 103.25 | 141.03 | 3.49 | 0.42 | 1.35 | 0.12 | 0.11 | ------- | |
|
| Mean | 221.45 | 298.11 | 8.98 | 2.12 | 4.27 | 4.27 | 3.50 | 0.31 |
| Standard deviation | 126.38 | 168.07 | 4.69 | 1.18 | 2.10 | 1.88 | 1.40 | 0.12 | |
| Maximum | 486.22 | 651.30 | 16.65 | 4.06 | 7.49 | 6.78 | 5.12 | 0.47 | |
| Minimum | 81.93 | 96.93 | 2.46 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 1.23 | 1.57 | 0.11 | |
|
| Mean | 67.94 | 86.72 | 2.33 | 1.02 | 0.85 | 0.37 | ------- | ------- |
| Standard deviation | 32.04 | 30.71 | 1.11 | 1.21 | 0.40 | 0.24 | ------- | ------- | |
| Maximum | 122.21 | 133.09 | 4.34 | 4.05 | 1.36 | 0.85 | ------- | ------- | |
| Minimum | 17.18 | 25.80 | 0.91 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.11 | ------- | ------- | |
|
| Mean | 57.13 | 67.33 | 2.95 | 0.63 | 1.14 | 0.37 | 0.07 | ------- |
| Standard deviation | 52.20 | 61.53 | 2.53 | 0.63 | 1.22 | 0.46 | 0.08 | ------- | |
| Maximum | 132.15 | 196.30 | 7.19 | 1.83 | 3.66 | 1.41 | 0.27 | ------- | |
| Minimum | 8.08 | 10.59 | 0.26 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ------- | |
|
| Mean | 39.04 | 57.47 | 1.82 | 0.44 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.63 | 0.06 |
| Standard deviation | 42.02 | 59.25 | 1.97 | 0.55 | 1.07 | 0.97 | 0.66 | 0.07 | |
| Maximum | 138.30 | 160.40 | 6.26 | 1.73 | 3.55 | 3.22 | 2.27 | 0.22 | |
| Minimum | 7.24 | 10.55 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.01 | |
|
| Mean | 8.18 | 10.97 | 0.26 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.05 | ------- | ------- |
| Standard deviation | 7.98 | 10.14 | 0.24 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.07 | ------- | ------- | |
| Maximum | 24.35 | 30.33 | 0.78 | 0.29 | 0.28 | 0.24 | ------- | ------- | |
| Minimum | 1.09 | 1.16 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ------- | ------- | |
| Natural rainfall |
| 14.62 | ——- | 0.98 | 0.43 | 0.46 | ------- | ——- | ------- |
Fig 3The indicator MFFn used to identify the first flush effect in NS.
Fig 4The indicator MFFn used to identify the first flush effect in DLS and TS.
Statistical summary of FF , FF , FF and FF for TN, TP, COD and TSS.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Mean | 45% | 55% | 75% | 83% | 38% | 53% | 69% | 87% | 34% | 58% | 79% | 89% | 41% | 61% | 64% | 84% |
| Maximum value | 57% | 66% | 80% | 89% | 56% | 69% | 84% | 91% | 52% | 80% | 83% | 94% | 68% | 79% | 84% | 92% |
| Minimum value | 31% | 32% | 62% | 73% | 24% | 37% | 54% | 81% | 21% | 32% | 58% | 76% | 25% | 31% | 53% | 69% |
| Standard deviation | 15% | 9% | 3% | 2% | 12% | 8% | 8% | 7% | 17% | 14% | 8% | 7% | 22% | 13% | 15% | 12% |
Correlations between EMCs, FF , rainfall and catchment characteristics.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.015 | 0.417 | 0.058 | -0.115 | 0.115 | -0.19 | 0.66 |
|
| 0.041 | 0.395 | 0.088 | -0.169 | 0.076 | -0.12 | 0.67 | |
|
| 0.414 | 0.402 | 0.167 | 0.124 | 0.297 | -0.30 | 0.58 | |
|
| 0.271 | 0.466 | 0.101 | -0.067 | 0.157 | -0.22 | 0.48 | |
|
|
| 0.462 | 0.34 | 0.462 | 0.34 | 0.454 | -0.10 | 0.02 |
|
| 0.486 | 0.341 | 0.286 | 0.12 | 0.332 | 0.05 | 0.25 | |
|
| 0.416 | 0.319 | 0.377 | 0.273 | 0.415 | -0.35 | -0.10 | |
|
| 0.394 | 0.237 | 0.24 | 0.223 | 0.351 | -0.16 | 0.20 | |
I : Max 5-min intensity,
I: Mean rainfall intensity,
R : Rainfall duration,
R : Rainfall depth,
ADD: Antecedent dry days,
CA: Catchment area,
IMR: Impervious rate.
**: P values<0.01,
*: P values <0.05.
Fig 5PCA biplots for the FF dataset.
Multiple linear regression results for the storm pollution loads of FF (|FF |) of Tongsha reservoir watershed.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37.430 | 1.032 | 0.254 | 2.292 | 13.081 | 0.359 | 0.593 | 0.051 |
|
| 45.463 | 1.253 | 0.308 | 2.784 | 15.888 | 4.360 | 0.633 | 0.023 |
|
| 2.043 | 0.056 | 0.014 | 0.125 | 0.714 | 0.020 | 0.605 | 0.041 |
|
| 0.513 | 0.014 | 0.003 | 0.031 | 0.179 | 0.005 | 0.623 | 0.029 |
I : Max 5-min intensity,
I: Mean rainfall intensity,
R : Rainfall duration,
R : Rainfall depth,
ADD: Antecedent dry days.
**: P values<0.01,
*: P values <0.05.