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
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.
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
Water Quality Improvement through Bioretention Media: Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal
Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., & Minami, C. (2006) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143005x94376 · Cited by 464
Cited by
Werbowski, L. M., Gilbreath, A. N., Munno, K., Zhu, X., Grbic, J., Wu, T., Sutton, R., Sedlak, M. D., Deshpande, A. D., & Rochman, C. M. (2021) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.1c00017 · Cited by 400
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-citationReview and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater
Liu, J., Sample, D., Bell, C., & Guan, Y. (2014) · Water · doi:10.3390/w6041069 · Cited by 269
Winston, R. J., Dorsey, J. D., & Hunt, W. F. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.081 · Cited by 229
Self-citation
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.