Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution

Passeport, Elodie, Hunt, William F., Line, Daniel E., Smith, Ryan A., Brown, Robert A.·2009·Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering

Abstract

Two grassed bioretention cells including internal storage zones (ISZs) were monitored for 16months in central North Carolina. Each cell had a surface area of 106m2 and fill media depths were 0.75 and 1.05m for the north (North) and the south (South) cells, respectively. Asphalt parking lot inflow and outflows were analyzed for nitrogen and phosphorus forms and fecal coliform (FC). Outflow volumes and peak flows for individual storms were generally less than those of inflow. Overall, except for NO2,3–N , effluent nitrogen species event mean concentrations (EMCs) and loads were significantly (α=0.05) lower than those of the inflow, and nitrogen species load reductions ranged from 47 to 88%. Apart from fall and winter, during which a longer hydraulic contact time seemed to be needed, the ISZs appeared to improve denitrification. Total phosphorus (TP) and OPO4-P EMCs were significantly lower than those of the inlet. Reductions were 58% (South) and 63% (North) for TP and 78% (North) and 74% (South) for OPO4–P . There was no significant difference in TP and OPO4–P loads between the inlet and the two outlets. Moreover, effluent concentrations for both phosphorus species were low, relative to other studies. The best nutrient EMC and load reductions occurred during the warm and humid seasons. When considering effluent concentrations in addition to removal rates, the grassed cells showed promising results for FC and nutrient pollution abatement when compared to conventionally vegetated bioretention (trees, shrubs, and mulch) previously studied in North Carolina.

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)ir.1943-4774.0000006

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 210

Metadata

Authors
Passeport, E., Hunt, W. F., Line, D. E., Smith, R. A., & Brown, R. A.
Venue
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Published
2009-08
Volume
135
Issue
4
Pages
505-510
ISSN
  • 0733-9437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-4774
OpenAlex
W1963957124
Cited by
210
References
1
FWCI
13.87
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: Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)ir.1943-4774.0000006
The paper
Passeport, E., Hunt, W. F., Line, D. E., Smith, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2009). Field Study of the Ability of Two Grassed Bioretention Cells to Reduce Storm-Water Runoff Pollution. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ir.1943-4774.0000006

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.