A critical review of contaminant removal by conventional and emerging media for urban stormwater treatment in the United States
Abstract
Stormwater is a major component of the urban water cycle contributing to street flooding and high runoff volumes in urban areas, and elevated contaminant concentrations in receiving waters from contact with impervious surfaces. Engineers and city planners are investing in best management practices to reduce runoff volume and to potentially capture and use urban stormwater. However, these current approaches result in moderate to low contaminant removal efficiencies for certain classes of contaminants (e.g., particles, nutrients, and some metals). This review describes options and opportunities to augment existing stormwater infrastructure with conventional and emerging reactive media to improve contaminant removal. This critical analysis characterizes media physicochemical properties and mechanisms contributing to contaminant removal, describes possible candidates for new engineered media, highlights lab and field studies investigating stormwater media contaminant removal, and identifies possible limitations and knowledge gaps in media implementation. Following this analysis, information is provided regarding factors that may contribute to or adversely impact urban stormwater treatment by media. The review closes with insights into additional research directions and important information necessary for safe and effective urban stormwater treatment using media.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A majority of stormwater studies use synthetic stormwater, which may not represent the complexity of actual stormwater.
“Additionally, a majority of stormwater studies use synthetic stormwater, which may not represent the complexity of actual stormwater.13”
From Evaluation of sorbents and matrix effects for treating heavy metals and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as co-contaminants in stormwater (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 206 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Okaikue-Woodi, F. E. K., Cherukumilli, K., & Ray, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ray, Jessica R.
- Venue
- Water Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 187
- Pages
- 116434
- ISSN
- 0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3087285353
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 206
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Water Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Washington
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
- Keywords
- urban stormwater treatment, reactive media, pollutant removal, stormwater infrastructure, best management practices, impervious surfaces, nutrient removal, heavy metal removal, particle removal, stormwater runoff
- MeSH terms
- Cities, Metals, Rain, United States, Water Supply, Water Purification
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