CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate

Mahmoud, Ahmed, Alam, Taufiqul, Yeasir A. Rahman, Md, Sanchez, Augusto, Guerrero, Javier, Jones, Kim D.·2019·Ecological Engineering
DOI 10.1016/j.ecoena.2019.100007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecoena.2019.100007

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Possible mechanisms for the TC increase in bioretention include high infiltration rates minimizing contact time or media staying wet for longer periods allowing bacteria to reproduce prior to sampling.

    “possibly due to high infiltration rates minimizing contact time (Garbrecht et al. 2009; Hathaway et al. 2011) or media staying wet for longer periods, allowing bacteria to reproduce prior to sampling (Mahmoud et al. 2019).”

    From Green Infrastructure in Series to Treat Stormwater Runoff from a Highway Overpass (2024) · cites this paper as Mahmoud et al. 2019

    Section 5.2 says moist media may help bacteria survive longer and that bacterial concentrations may increase in samples collected the following day. This supports the proposed wet-media explanation, but the paper does not specifically say the bacteria reproduced before sampling; it discusses E. coli rather than TC. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The increase in TC concentration in the bioretention system was consistent with other studies where coliforms increased from the inlet to the outlet of a bioretention system.

    “The increase in TC concentration in the bioretention system was consistent with what other studies have found, where coliforms increased from the inlet to the outlet of a bioretention system”

    From Green Infrastructure in Series to Treat Stormwater Runoff from a Highway Overpass (2024) · cites this paper as Mahmoud et al. 2019

    Section 5.2 reports that E. coli concentrations in eight bioretention-cell effluent samples exceeded those from traditional asphalt pavement. That comparison is not an inlet-to-outlet measurement, and the paper does not report total coliform (TC) concentrations. It reports a 49% lower overall E. coli concentration in bioretention effluent, so it supports only the limited observation that some samples had higher bacterial concentrations than the comparator. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Bowman, T., Thompson, J., 2009. Barriers to implementation of low-impact and conservation subdivision design: developer perceptions and resident demand. Landsc. Urban Plan. 92, 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2009.03.002. · DOI
  2. Brown, Robert A., Birgand, F., Hunt, W.F., 2013a. Analysis of consecutive events for nutrient and sediment treatment in field-monitored bioretention cells. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 224, 1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-013-1581-6. · DOI
  3. Brown, R.A., Skaggs, R.W., Hunt, W.F., 2013b. Calibration and validation of DRAINMOD to model bioretention hydrology. J. Hydrol. 486, 430-442. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.017. · DOI
  4. Chandrasena, G.I., Deletic, A., McCarthy, D.T., 2016. Biofiltration for stormwater harvesting: comparison of Campylobacter spp. and Escherichia coli removal under normal and challenging operational conditions. J. Hydrol. 537, 248-259. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.044. · DOI
  5. Chen, X., Peltier, E., Sturm, B.S.M., Young, C.B., 2013. Nitrogen removal and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria quantification in a stormwater bioretention system. Water Res. 47, 1691-1700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.12.033. · DOI
  6. Davis, A.P., 2008. Field performance of bioretention: hydrology impacts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 13, 90-95. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008) 13:2(90). · DOI
  7. Davis, A.P., Hunt, W.F., Traver, R.G., Clar, M., 2009. Bioretention technology: overview of current practice and future needs. J. Environ. Eng. 135, 109-117. https://doi. org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009) 135:3(109). · DOI
  8. Drake, J., Bradford, A., Van Seters, T., 2014. Stormwater quality of spring-summer-fall effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pavement systems and conventional asphalt pavement. J. Environ. Manage. 139, 69-79. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.056. · DOI
  9. Eaton, T.T., 2018. Approach and case-study of green infrastructure screening analysis for urban stormwater control. J. Environ. Manage. 209, 495-504. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.068. · DOI
  10. Eckart, K., McPhee, Z., Bolisetti, T., 2017. Performance and implementation of low impact development -a review. Sci. Total Environ. 607-608, 413-432. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.254. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Garbrecht, K.A., Fox, G.A., Guzman, J., Alexander, D., 2009a. Technical Note: E. coli transport through soil columns: implications for bioretention cell removal efficiency. Trans. ASABE 52, 481.
  12. Garbrecht, K., Fox, G., Guzman, J., Alexander, D., 2009b. Technical Note: E. coli transport through soil columns: implications for bioretention cell removal efficiency. Trans. ASABE 52, 481-486.
  13. Hathaway, J.M., Hunt, W.F., Jadlocki, S., 2009. Indicator bacteria removal in storm- water best management practices in charlotte, North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 135, 1275-1285. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000107. · DOI
  14. Hsieh, C., Davis, A.P., Needelman, B.A., 2007. Nitrogen removal from urban stormwater runoff through layered bioretention columns. Water Environ. Res. 79, 2404-2411. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143007X183844. · DOI
  15. Hurley, S.E., Forman, R.T.T., 2011. Stormwater ponds and biofilters for large urban sites: modeled arrangements that achieve the phosphorus reduction target for Boston's Charles River, USA. Ecol. Eng. 37, 850-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoleng.2011.01.008. · DOI
  16. Jayasooriya, V.M., Ng, A.W.M., 2014. Tools for modeling of stormwater management and economics of green infrastructure practices: a review. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 225, 2055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2055-1. · DOI
  17. Johnson, J.P., Hunt, W.F., 2016. Evaluating the spatial distribution of pollutants and associated maintenance requirements in an 11 year-old bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, {NC}. J. Environ. Manage 184 (Part 2), 363-370. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.009. · DOI
  18. Kim, M.H., Sung, C.Y., Li, M.-H., Chu, K.-H., 2012. Bioretention for stormwater quality improvement in Texas: removal effectiveness of Escherichia coli. Technol. Sustain. Water Environ. 84, 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.04.025. · DOI
  19. Li, C., Peng, C., Chiang, P.-C., Cai, Y., Wang, X., Yang, Z., 2019. Mechanisms and applications of green infrastructure practices for stormwater control: a review. J. Hydrol. 568, 626-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.074. · DOI
  20. Li, H., Davis, A.P., 2009. Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention. J. Environ. Eng. 135, 567-576. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000026. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Li, J., Davis, A.P., 2016. A unified look at phosphorus treatment using bioretention. Water Res. 90, 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.015. · DOI
  22. Liu, J., Sample, J.D., Bell, C., Guan, Y., 2014. Review and research needs of bioretention used for the treatment of urban stormwater. Water 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w6041069. · DOI
  23. Mangangka, I.R., Liu, A., Egodawatta, P., Goonetilleke, A., 2015. Performance characterisation of a stormwater treatment bioretention basin. J. Environ. Manage. 150, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.007. · DOI
  24. Manka, B.N., Hathaway, J.M., Tirpak, R.A., He, Q., Hunt, W.F., 2016. Driving forces of effluent nutrient variability in field scale bioretention. Ecol. Eng. 94, 622-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.024. · DOI
  25. Peng, J., Cao, Y., Rippy, M.A., Afrooz, A.R.M.N., Grant, S.B., 2016. Indicator and pathogen removal by low impact development best management practices. Water 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120600. · DOI
  26. Pitt, R., Voorhees, J., 2002. SLAMM, the Source Loading and Management Model. Management of Wet-Weather Flow in the Watershed. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
  27. Shrestha, P., Hurley, S.E., Wemple, B.C., 2018. Effects of different soil media, vegetation, and hydrologic treatments on nutrient and sediment removal in roadside bioretention systems. Ecol. Eng. 112, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoleng.2017.12.004. · DOI
  28. Stevik, T.K., Aa, K., Ausland, G., Hanssen, J.F., 2004. Retention and removal of pathogenic bacteria in wastewater percolating through porous media: a review. Water Res. 38, 1355-1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.024. · DOI
  29. Wang, C., Wang, F., Qin, H., Zeng, X., Li, X., Yu, S.-L., 2018. Effect of saturated zone on nitrogen removal processes in stormwater bioretention systems. Water 10. https:// doi.org/10.3390/w10020162. · DOI
  30. Zellner, M., Massey, D., Minor, E., Gonzalez-Meler, M., 2016. Exploring the effects of green infrastructure placement on neighborhood-level flooding via spatially explicit simulations. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 59, 116-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.008. · DOI
  31. Zhang, L., Seagren, E.A., Davis, A.P., Karns, J.S., 2010. The capture and destruction of escherichia coli from simulated urban runoff using conventional bioretention media and iron oxide-coated Sand. Water Environ. Res. 82, 701-714. https://doi.org/ 10.2175/106143010X12609736966441. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahmoud, A., Alam, T., Yeasir A. Rahman, M., Sanchez, A., Guerrero, J., & Jones, K. D.
Venue
Ecological Engineering
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019
Volume
142
Pages
100007
ISSN
0925-8574
DOI
10.1016/j.ecoena.2019.100007
Cited by
40
References
1
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (581-14-30049)

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