Cited by 81Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsFire effects on ecosystemsToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

Stormwater contaminant loading following southern California wildfires

Stein, Eric D., Brown, Jeffrey S., Hogue, Terri S., Burke, Megan P., Kinoshita, Alicia·2012·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

Contaminant loading associated with stormwater runoff from recently burned areas is poorly understood, despite the fact that it has the potential to affect downstream water quality. The goal of the present study is to assess regional patterns of runoff and contaminant loading from wildfires in urban fringe areas of southern California. Postfire stormwater runoff was sampled from five wildfires that each burned between 115 and 658 km2 of natural open space between 2003 and 2009. Between two and five storm events were sampled per site over the first one to two years following the fires for basic constituents, metals, nutrients, total suspended solids, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Results were compared to data from 16 unburned natural areas and six developed sites. Mean copper, lead, and zinc flux (kg/km2) were between 112- and 736-fold higher from burned catchments and total phosphorus was up to 921-fold higher compared to unburned natural areas. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon flux was four times greater from burned areas than from adjacent urban areas. Ash fallout on nearby unburned watersheds also resulted in a threefold increase in metals and PAHs. Attenuation of elevated concentration and flux values appears to be driven mainly by rainfall magnitude. Contaminant loading from burned landscapes has the potential to be a substantial contribution to the total annual load to downstream areas in the first several years following fires. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012; 31: 2625–2638. © 2012 SETAC

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/etc.1994

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stein, E. D., Brown, J. S., Hogue, T. S., Burke, M. P., & Kinoshita, A.
Affiliations
  • Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Stein, Eric D.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2012-08-24
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
2625-2638
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2093629387
Cited by
81
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
forest fires, pollutant load, urban periphery, metals, copper, lead, zinc, phosphorus, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, ash fallout, rain attenuation, water quality, Southern California
MeSH terms
California, Disasters, Environmental Monitoring, Fires, Metals, Phosphorus, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Water Movements, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review