Literature DB >> 26009159

Field monitoring of a LID-BMP treatment train system in China.

Haifeng Jia1, Xiangwen Wang, Chaopu Ti, Yanyun Zhai, Richard Field, Anthony N Tafuri, Huihua Cai, Shaw L Yu.   

Abstract

In order to assess the urban runoff control effectiveness of a low-impact development best management practice (LID-BMP) treatment train system, a field test of selected LID-BMPs was conducted in China. The LID-BMPs selected include three grassed swales, a buffer strip, a bioretention cell, two infiltration pits, and a constructed wetland. The test site is in a campus in southern China. The LID-BMPs, connected in a series, received stormwater runoff from four tennis courts with an area of 2808 m(2) and eight basketball courts with an area of 4864 m(2). Construction of the LID-BMPs was completed in early spring of 2012, and the sampling was conducted during May of 2012 to September of 2013. During the sampling effort, besides the performance evaluations of grassed swales and the bioretention cell in controlling runoff quantity as well as quality, the emphasis was also on determining the performance of the LID-BMP treatment train system. A total of 19 storm events were monitored, with nine producing no runoff and ten producing runoff. Data collected from the ten storm events were analyzed for estimating runoff quantity (peak flow rate and total runoff volume) and quality reduction by the LID-BMPs. The sum of loads (SOL) method was used for calculating the water quality performance of LID-BMPs. Results indicated that, for peak flow rate, a bioretention cell reduction of 50-84 % was obtained, and grassed swale reduction was 17-79 %, with a runoff volume reduction of 47-80 and 9-74 %, respectively. For water quality, the bioretention cell in general showed good removal for zinc (nearly 100 %), copper (69 %), NH3-N (ammonia nitrogen) (51 %), and total nitrogen (TN) (49 %); fair removal for chemical oxygen demand (COD) (18 %); and poor removal for total suspended solids (TSS) (-11 %) and total phosphorus (TP) (-21 %). And its performance effectiveness for pollutant removal increased in the second year after 1 year of stabilizing. When considering the aggregated effect of the LID-BMP treatment train system, it showed excellent removal for NH3-N (73 %), TN (74 %), and TP (95 %) and fair removal for COD (19 %) and TSS (35 %). The assessment results of the LID-BMP treatment train system provide valuable information on how to link the different types of LID-BMP facilities and maximize the integrated effectiveness on urban runoff control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26009159     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-015-4595-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  10 in total

1.  Evaluating performance of stormwater sampling approaches using a dynamic watershed model.

Authors:  Drew Ackerman; Eric D Stein; Kerry J Ritter
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2010-11-27       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Of: Performance assessment of a street-drainage bioretention system, C. Chapman, R. R. Horner, 82, 109-119 (2010).

Authors:  William P Minervini
Journal:  Water Environ Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.946

3.  Upstream to downstream: stormwater quality in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

Authors:  Meagan E Wengrove; Thomas P Ballestero
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-09-17       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  LID-BMPs planning for urban runoff control and the case study in China.

Authors:  Haifeng Jia; Hairong Yao; Ying Tang; Shaw L Yu; Richard Field; Anthony N Tafuri
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 6.789

5.  Performance characterisation of a stormwater treatment bioretention basin.

Authors:  Isri R Mangangka; An Liu; Prasanna Egodawatta; Ashantha Goonetilleke
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 6.789

6.  The magnitude of variability produced by methods used to estimate annual stormwater contaminant loads for highly urbanised catchments.

Authors:  H J Beck; G F Birch
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.513

7.  Effects of a constructed wetland and pond system upon shallow groundwater quality.

Authors:  Ying Ouyang
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 2.513

8.  Development of a multi-criteria index ranking system for urban runoff best management practices (BMPs) selection.

Authors:  Haifeng Jia; Hairong Yao; Ying Tang; Shaw L Yu; Jenny X Zhen; Yuwen Lu
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.513

9.  Storm runoff quality and pollutant loading from commercial, residential, and industrial catchments in the tropic.

Authors:  M F Chow; Z Yusop; S M Shirazi
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 2.513

10.  Nitrogen removal and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria quantification in a stormwater bioretention system.

Authors:  Xiaolu Chen; Edward Peltier; Belinda S M Sturm; C Bryan Young
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 11.236

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Comparison between snowmelt-runoff and rainfall-runoff nonpoint source pollution in a typical urban catchment in Beijing, China.

Authors:  Lei Chen; Xiaosha Zhi; Zhenyao Shen; Ying Dai; Guzhanuer Aini
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Evaluating the Hydrologic Performance of Low Impact Development Scenarios in a Micro Urban Catchment.

Authors:  Chunlin Li; Miao Liu; Yuanman Hu; Rongqing Han; Tuo Shi; Xiuqi Qu; Yilin Wu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Measuring performance of low impact development practices for the surface runoff management.

Authors:  Wenyu Yang; Kurt Brüggemann; Kiwanuka David Seguya; Ehtesham Ahmed; Thomas Kaeseberg; Heng Dai; Pei Hua; Jin Zhang; Peter Krebs
Journal:  Environ Sci Ecotechnol       Date:  2020-01-13
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.