Cited by 98Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsSmart Materials for Construction

Snowmelt pollutant removal in bioretention areas

Muthanna, Tone Merete, Viklander, Maria, Blecken, Godecke, Thorolfsson, Sveinn T.·2007·Water Research

Abstract

Snow accumulating in urban areas and alongside roads can accumulate high pollutant loads and the subsequent snowmelt can produce high pollutant loads in receiving waters. This paper examines the treatment of roadside snowmelt in bioretention with respect to pollutant removal, pollutant pathways, and major sinks. Bioretention was used to treat snowmelt from three types of urban roads in Trondheim, Norway: residential, medium, and roads with high-density traffic. Metal retention in bioretention boxes had a mass reduction in zinc, copper, lead, and cadmium in the range of 89-99%, and a decrease in outflow concentrations in the range 81-99%. Cadmium was only measured in the water samples, while the other three metals were traced through the system to identify the main sinks. The top mulch layer was the largest sink for the retained metals, with up to 74% of the zinc retained in this mulch layer. The plant metal uptakes were only 2-8% of the total metal retention; however, the plants still play an important role with respect to root zone development and regeneration, which fosters infiltration and reduces the outflow load. Dissolved pollutants in snowmelt tend to be removed with the first flush of meltwater, creating an enrichment ratio with respect to the average pollutant concentrations in the snow. The effect of this enrichment ratio was examined through the bioretention system, and found to be less predominant than that typically reported for untreated snowmelt. The enrichment…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.040

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Vegetation contributes to total metal removal in stormwater bioretention systems.

    “The vegetation has been shown to contribute to the total metal removal in stormwater bioretention systems (Muthanna et al., 2007; Sun and Davis, 2007; Read et al., 2008).”
  • Reported removals of dissolved metals are fewer and contradictory, including both efficient removal and significant leaching.

    “However, reported removals of dissolved metals are fewer and contradictory including both efficient removal and significant leaching (e.g. Muthanna et al., 2007; Søberg et al., 2017).”
  • The filter material accounts for the majority of metal removal in stormwater bioretention systems.

    “However, the filter material accounts for the majority of metal removal (Muthanna et al., 2007; Blecken et al., 2009, Blecken et al., 2011) and hence, filter material composition is crucial for achieving effective dissolved metal treatment.”
  • Conflicting results have been observed in previous studies regarding removal of dissolved metals in stormwater bioretention systems: some found efficient retention, while others found substantial leaching.

    “Conflicting results have been observed in previous studies regarding removal of dissolved metals in stormwater bioretention systems. Some have found that dissolved metals are efficiently retained (e.g. Blecken et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2017), while others have found substantial leaching (e.g. Muthanna et al., 2007; Hatt et al., 2008; Søberg et al., 2017).”
  • The bioretention systems examined in the cited studies were relatively young (<2 years) and found metals to be adsorbed in the top 5 cm of the filter material, so these systems were far from saturated with metals.

    “Moreover, the bioretention systems examined in the cited studies (Muthanna et al., 2007; Hatt et al., 2008; Blecken et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2017; Søberg et al., 2017) were relatively young (<2 years) and found metals to be adsorbed in the top 5 cm of the filter material. Hence, these systems were far from saturated with metals.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muthanna, T. M., Viklander, M., Blecken, G., & Thorolfsson, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Luleå University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
Muthanna, Tone Merete
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
41
Issue
18
Pages
4061-4072
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082829822
Cited by
98
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Smart Materials for Construction
Keywords
snowmelt, bioretention, road runoff, urban stormwater, metal retention, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, plant metal uptake, enrichment ratio, first flush, urban streets
MeSH terms
Environmental Pollutants, Snow, Environmental Restoration and Remediation

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