The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Field Performance of Bioretention: Water Quality
Abstract
Two bioretention facilities with different designs were installed on the University of Maryland campus and were monitored from Summer 2003 through Fall 2004 to quantify water quality improvements to parking lot stormwater runoff. One cell was a standard design and the other had an anoxic sump. Twelve inflow/outflow water quality data sets were successfully collected and analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus, and zinc. Nine sets were collected for copper and lead, and three for nitrate. In two of the events, all of the runoff flow was attenuated by the bioretention media and no flow exited the cells, resulting in zero pollutant discharge. In all cases, the median pollutant output is lower than the input, indicating successful water-quality improvement through the bioretention media. Statistically insignificant differences were noted between the two cells for all pollutants examined. Median values for effluent event mean concentrations and percent removals based on combined data sets (both cells) were TSS, 17 mg/L and, 47% total phosphorus, 0.18 mg/L and 76%, copper, 0.004 mg/L and 57%, lead, 0.004 mg/L and 83%, zinc, 0.053 mg/L and 62%, and 0.02 mg-N/L and 83% removal of nitrate (based on limited data). Mass removals were higher than those based on concentrations due to flow attenuation. These values are in reasonable agreement with those previously published from bioretention field and laboratory studies.
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
Unbiased plotting positions — A review
Cunnane, C. (1978) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(78)90017-3 · Cited by 664
Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina
Hunt, W. F., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., & Sharkey, L. J. (2006) · Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600 · Cited by 571
Laboratory Study of Biological Retention for Urban Stormwater Management
Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., & Minami, C. (2001) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143001x138624 · Cited by 487
Self-citationWater 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
Self-citationEvaluation and Optimization of Bioretention Media for Treatment of Urban Storm Water Runoff
Hsieh, C.-H., & Davis, A. P. (2005) · Journal of Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2005)131:11(1521 · Cited by 447
Self-citationField Performance of Bioretention: Hydrology Impacts
Davis, A. P. (2008) · Journal of Hydrologic Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2008)13:2(90 · Cited by 430
Self-citationA Field Evaluation of Rain Garden Flow and Pollutant Treatment
Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2005) · Water, Air, and Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-005-8266-8 · Cited by 402
Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff
Kim, H., Seagren, E. A., & Davis, A. P. (2003) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143003x141169 · Cited by 370
Self-citationWater Quality Improvement through Bioretention: Lead, Copper, and Zinc Removal
Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., Minami, C., & Winogradoff, D. (2003) · Water Environment Research · doi:10.2175/106143003x140854 · Cited by 364
Self-citationDetermining Urban Storm Water BMP Effectiveness
Strecker, E. W., Quigley, M. M., Urbonas, B. R., Jones, J. E., & Clary, J. K. (2001) · Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2001)127:3(144 · Cited by 262
Cited by
Wang, T., Lin, J., Chen, Z., Megharaj, M., & Naidu, R. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.006 · Cited by 503
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
Water 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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, A. P.
- Venue
- Environmental Engineering Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1048-1064
- ISSN
- 1092-8758 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9018
- OpenAlex
- W2032260435
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 16.07
- 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 Performance of Bioretention: Water Quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/ees.2006.0190
- The paper
- Davis, A. P. (2007). Field Performance of Bioretention: Water Quality. Environmental Engineering Science. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2006.0190
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.
