Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads

Brown, R. A., Hunt, W. F.·2011·Journal of Environmental Engineering

Abstract

The bioretention drainage configuration of raising the outlet to create an internal water storage (IWS) layer in the media was originally intended to promote denitrifying conditions. The goal was to reduce nitrate and total nitrogen concentrations in nutrient-sensitive watersheds. Two field studies in the Piedmont region of North Carolina, where the in situ soils typically have high clay content, showed this design feature had potential to enhance exfiltration and reduce drainage from bioretention. Two bioretention cells in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, were monitored for two year-long periods to measure the impact of varying IWS zone depths over sandier underlying soils. Nearly 99% of runoff entering the bioretention cell with sand underlying soil (sand cell) was never directly discharged to the storm water network. However, the hydraulic retention time (contact time) of runoff in the media was less than 3 h, and except for total suspended solids (TSS), minimal pollutant removal was achieved. The other bioretention cell had a sandy clay loam underlying soil (SCL cell); the percentage of runoff leaving via exfiltration and evapotranspiration from this cell was 87% during the monitoring period with a 1.03-m IWS zone depth and 75% when the IWS zone depth was 0.73 m. The underlying soil of the SCL cell had a lower hydraulic conductivity, so water would remain in the IWS zone for up to 7 days. The increased hydraulic retention time in the media resulted in lower outflow concentrations. For events monitored with drainage from the SCL cell, efficiency ratios of all the nitrogen species and TSS exceeded 0.5. As an additional metric of performance, the parking lot runoff and treated runoff from both the SCL and sand cells were compared to concentrations consistent with “good” and “fair” benthic macroinvertebrate health in streams. Using this metric, the parking lot runoff only met the “fair” standard for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP), and treated runoff from the SCL cell achieved the “good” standard for both TN and TP. However, because of the short hydraulic retention time of runoff in the media for the sand cell, this cell only maintained the “fair” standard for TN and did not achieve the “fair” standard for TP.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000437

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Brown, R. A., & Hunt, W. F.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Published
2011-11
Volume
137
Issue
11
Pages
1082-1091
ISSN
  • 0733-9372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7870
OpenAlex
W2117755085
Cited by
171
References
0
FWCI
8.17
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: Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000437
The paper
Brown, R. A., & Hunt, W. F. (2011). Underdrain Configuration to Enhance Bioretention Exfiltration to Reduce Pollutant Loads. Journal of Environmental Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000437

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.