The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio
Open accessAbstract
Green infrastructure aims to restore watershed hydrologic function by more closely mimicking pre-development groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration (ET). Bioretention has become a popular stormwater control due to its ability to reduce runoff volume through these pathways. Three bioretention cells constructed in low permeability soils in northeast Ohio were monitored for non-winter quantification of inflow, drainage, ET, and exfiltration. The inclusion of an internal water storage (IWS) zone allowed the three cells to reduce runoff by 59%, 42%, and 36% over the monitoring period, in spite of the tight underlying soils. The exfiltration rate and the IWS zone thickness were the primary determinants of volume reduction performance. Post-construction measured drawdown rates were higher than pre-construction soil vertical hydraulic conductivity tests in all cases, due to lateral exfiltration from the IWS zones and ET, which are not typically accounted for in pre-construction soil testing. The minimum rainfall depths required to produce outflow for the three cells were 5.5, 7.4, and 13.8mm. During events with 1-year design rainfall intensities, peak flow reduction varied from 24 to 96%, with the best mitigation during events where peak rainfall rate occurred before the centroid of the rainfall volume, when adequate bowl storage was available to limit overflow.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The common bioretention media has a top layer of mulch (2-3 inches) followed by a homogenous mixture that is more than 80% sand, 8-12% fines, and 3-5% organic matter [15].”
From Application of Biochar in Stormwater Treatment: Experimental and Modeling Investigation (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
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.
Citations
Cites
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods
de Rooij, G. H. (2004) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.2136/vzj2004.0722 · Cited by 2,373
Water Retention: Laboratory Methods
Klute, A. (1986) · Soil Science Society of America book series · doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c26 · Cited by 2,361
Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish Across Multiple Spatial Scales
Wang, L., LYONS, J. D., Kanehl, P. D., & Bannerman, R. T. (2001) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s0026702409 · Cited by 673
Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina
Hunt, W., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., & Sharkey, L. J. (2006) · Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600 · Cited by 556
Self-citationNutrient and sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: A large-scale design optimisation study
Bratières, K., Fletcher, T. D., Deletić, A., & Zinger, Y. (2008) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2008.06.009 · Cited by 536
Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of stormwater biofiltration systems at the field scale
Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., & Deletić, A. (2008) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.12.001 · Cited by 523
Hydrologic shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform
Burns, M. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., & Hatt, B. E. (2012) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.012 · Cited by 454
Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization
Hammer, T. R. (1972) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/wr008i006p01530 · Cited by 452
Field Performance of Bioretention: Hydrology Impacts
Davis, A. P. (2008) · Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90 · Cited by 430
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering
Frevert, R. K., Schwab, G. O., Edminster, T. W., & Barnes, K. K. (1955) · Soil Science · doi:10.1097/00010694-195507000-00025 · Cited by 416
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Winston, 2016, Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for permeable pavements in clay soils in northern Ohio, J. Hydrol. Eng.
- Winston, 2016, Modeling the hydrologic performance of bioretention stormwater controls in northern Ohio using DRAINMOD: calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis, J. Hydrol.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mechanisms and applications of green infrastructure practices for stormwater control: A review
Li, C., Peng, C., Chiang, P., Cai, Y., Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2018) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.074 · Cited by 281
Urban Flooding Mitigation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Future Studies
Qin, Y. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12123579 · Cited by 154
Asif, Z., Chen, Z., Sadiq, R., & Zhu, Y. (2023) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-023-03474-4 · Cited by 140
Evapotranspiration in green stormwater infrastructure systems
Ebrahimian, A., Wadzuk, B., & Traver, R. G. (2019) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.256 · Cited by 129
Kavehei, E., Jenkins, G. A., Adame, M. F., & Lemckert, C. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.002 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Winston, R. J., Dorsey, J. D., & Hunt, W. F.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Ohio Department of Natural Resources (US)
- Corresponding author
- Winston, Ryan J.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 553
- Pages
- 83-95
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2281688632
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 15.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- University of New Hampshire
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Heat Island Mitigation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
- Keywords
- bioretention, stormwater management, clay soil, low-permeability soils, runoff volume reduction, exfiltration, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, drawdown rate, rainfall depth, green infrastructure, Northeast Ohio
- MeSH terms
- Clay, Aluminum Silicates, Ohio, Soil, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Movements, Water Supply, Hydrology
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