Cited by 30Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsWastewater Treatment and Reuse

Use of pilot-scale geomedia-amended biofiltration system for removal of polar trace organic and inorganic contaminants from stormwater runoff

Open access
Teixidó, Marc, Charbonnet, Joseph A., LeFevre, Gregory H., Luthy, Richard G., Sedlak, David L.·2022·Water Research

Abstract

Stormwater runoff capture and groundwater recharge can provide a sustainable means of augmenting the local water resources in water-stressed cities while simultaneously mitigating flood risk, provided that these processes do not compromise groundwater quality. We developed and tested for one year an innovative pilot-scale stormwater treatment train that employs cost-effective engineered geomedia in a continuous-flow unit-process system to remove contaminants from urban runoff during aquifer recharge. The system consisted of an iron-enhanced sand filter for phosphate removal, a woodchip bioreactor for nitrate removal coupled to an aeration step, and columns packed with different configurations of biochar- and manganese oxide-containing sand to remove trace metals and persistent, mobile, and toxic trace organic contaminants. During conditioning with authentic stormwater runoff over an extended period (8 months), the woodchip bioreactor removed 98% of the influent nitrate (9 g-N m−3 d−1), while phosphate broke through the iron-enhanced sand filter. During the challenge test (4 months), geomedia removed more than 80% of the mass of metals and trace organic compounds. Column hydraulic performance was stable during the entire study, and the weathered biochar and manganese oxide were effective at removing trace organic contaminants and metals, respectively. Under conditions likely encountered in the field, sustained nutrient removal is probable, but polar organic compounds such as 2,4-D could breakthrough after about a decade for conditions at the study site.

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.watres.2022.119246

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Complex synthetic stormwater, which includes additional salts and is similar to commonly used synthetic stormwaters, showed no significant differences in sorbent performance at retaining either heavy metals or PFAS.

    “The complex synthetic stormwater, which includes additional salts and is similar to synthetic stormwaters that are commonly used,36–38 demonstrated no significant differences in sorbent performance at retaining either heavy metals or PFAS.”

    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 [36]

    Section 2.3 (page unavailable) describes synthetic stormwater enriched with nitrate and says its matrix represented typical stormwater conditions. It does not compare a complex formulation with commonly used synthetic stormwaters. Nor does it report no significant difference in sorbent retention of heavy metals or PFAS; the contaminants listed for the challenge test do not include PFAS. (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

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Erickson, A.J., Weiss, P.T., Gulliver, J.S., 2013. Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: a Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-337. ISBN 978-1-4614-4624-8.
  2. Martire, J.L., 2018. Stormwater reuse for parks and whole cities. ReNew: Technology for a Sustainable Future, pp. 72-75.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teixidó, M., Charbonnet, J. A., LeFevre, G. H., Luthy, R. G., & Sedlak, D. L.
Affiliations
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Sedlak, David L.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-11
Volume
226
Pages
119246
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4306150197
Cited by
30
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Water Research Foundation (4567)
  • National Science Foundation (1844720, ERC 1028968)
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 › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Keywords
stormwater treatment, groundwater recharge, biofiltration, trace organic contaminants, trace metals, nitrate removal, phosphate removal, woodchip bioreactors, biochar, manganese oxide, 2,4-D, urban runoff, groundwater quality
MeSH terms
Charcoal, Iron, Metals, Nitrates, Organic Chemicals, Oxides, Phosphates, Organophosphates, Rain, Water Supply, Manganese Compounds, 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