Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention
Abstract
As an increasingly adopted storm-water best management practice (BMP) to remedy hydrology and water quality impairment from urban development, bioretention facilities need rigorous investigation to quantify performance benefits and to allow design improvements. This study examines water quality improvements [total arsenic, total cadmium, chloride, total chromium, total and dissolved copper, E. coli, fecal coliform, lead, mercury, nitrogen species, oil and grease, phosphorus, total organic carbon (TOC), total suspended solids, and total zinc] via monitoring for a 15-month period at two bioretention cells in Maryland. Both bioretention cells effectively removed suspended solids, lead, and zinc from runoff through concentration reduction. Runoff volume reduction promotes pollutant mass removal and links BMP water quality benefits with hydrologic performance. From a load perspective (kg/ha year) , all but TOC at one cell showed pollutant reduction. Bioretention effluents exhibited good water quality for all significant pollutants except for nitrate, copper, and phosphorus in one cell, the latter two of which may be attributed to media organic matter dissolution. Copper dissolved/particulate analyses showed that significant changes in copper speciation behavior result from transport through the bioretention 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?
Bioretention cells in two Maryland locations removed median 76% copper, 57% lead, and 83% zinc.
“Bioretention cells were fabricated successfully using variations of sand, silt, clay, and organic matter in two Maryland locations to monitor heavy metal removal performance, and median values for effluent percent removals based on combined data sets (both cells) were 76% copper, 57% lead, and 83% zinc [14].”
From Application of Biochar in Stormwater Treatment: Experimental and Modeling Investigation (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 238
- Authors
- Li, H., & Davis, A. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- ORCID
- Davis, Allen P.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Engineering
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 567-576
- ISSN
- 0733-9372 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7870
- OpenAlex
- W2100208208
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 10.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Engineering (publishedVersion)
- 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
- bioretention, stormwater runoff, pollutant load reduction, urban stormwater management, best management practices, heavy metals, copper speciation, phosphorus removal, suspended solids removal, nitrogen removal, oil and grease, fecal coliforms, runoff volume reduction, bioretention media
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