The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina
Abstract
Three bioretention field sites in North Carolina were examined for pollutant removal abilities and hydrologic performance. The cells varied by fill media type or drainage configuration. The field studies confirmed high annual total nitrogen mass removal rates at two conventionally drained bioretention cells (40% reduction each). Nitrate-nitrogen mass removal rates varied between 75 and 13%, and calculated annual mass removal of zinc, copper, and lead from one Greensboro cell were 98, 99, and 81%, respectively. All high mass removal rates were due to a substantial decrease in outflow volume. The ratio of volume of water leaving the bioretention cell versus that which entered the cell varied from 0.07 (summer) to 0.54 (winter). There was a significant (p<0.05) change in the ratio of outflow volume to inflow volume when comparing warm seasons to winter. Cells using a fill soil media with a lower phosphorus index (P-index), Chapel Hill cell C1 and Greensboro cell G1, had much higher phosphorus removal than Greensboro cell G2, which used a high P-index fill media. Fill media selection is critical for total phosphorus removal, as fill media with a low P-index and relatively high CEC appear to remove phosphorus much more readily.
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.
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
Urban Stormwater Toxic Pollutants: Assessment, Sources, and Treatability
Pitt, R., Field, R., Lalor, M., & Brown, M. (1995) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143095x131466 · Cited by 372
Cited by
Fletcher, T. D., Andrieu, H., & Hamel, P. (2013) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.09.001 · Cited by 1,015
Liu, Y., Engel, B. A., Flanagan, D. C., Gitau, M. W., McMillan, S. K., & Chaubey, I. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.212 · Cited by 363
Opportunities and challenges for managing nitrogen in urban stormwater: A review and synthesis
Collins, K. A., Lawrence, T. J., Stander, E. K., Jontos, R. J., Kaushal, S. S., Newcomer, T. A., Grimm, N. B., & Cole Ekberg, M. L. (2010) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.03.015 · Cited by 309
Meeting hydrologic and water quality goals through targeted bioretention design
Hunt, W. F., Davis, A. P., & Traver, R. G. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000504 · Cited by 272
Self-citationWater quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention
Li, H., & Davis, A. P. (2009) · Journal of Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000026 · Cited by 238
Metadata
- Authors
- Hunt, W. F., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., & Sharkey, L. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 600-608
- ISSN
- 0733-9437 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-4774
- DOI
- 10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600
- OpenAlex
- W2161336998
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600
- The paper
- Hunt, W. F., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., & Sharkey, L. J. (2006). Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132%3A6(600
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
