IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1945-d219154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Retrospective Comparison of Water Quality Treatment in a Bioretention Cell 16 Years Following Initial Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey P. Johnson

    (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • William F. Hunt

    (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

Abstract

One of the most popular stormwater practices in (sub-)urban North Carolina is bioretention. While bioretention has been researched intensively to determine the most efficient designs, few long-term studies have attempted to assess the performance of older bioretention. However, previous research and design guidance for bioretention has predicted long-term water quality treatment. This study compared discharged concentrations and loads of nitrogen and phosphorus from a bioretention cell (1) post-construction and (2) following 17 years of treatment. A conventionally-drained bioretention cell with lateral underdrains in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, was first monitored post-construction for 10-months from 2002–2003 and, again following continuous use, for 14 months from 2017–2018. Estimated mass load reductions during the initial monitoring period were 40% for total nitrogen (TN) and 65% for total phosphorus (TP). Mass load reductions were increased 17 years after construction, with reductions of 72% and 79% for TN and TP, respectively. Plant growth, death, and decay over the 17-year life of the bioretention cell are hypothesized to have contributed additional nitrogen assimilation and carbon to the fill media, serving as a catalyst for nitrogen treatment. Phosphorus removal remained relatively unchanged between the two monitoring periods. Filter media samples indicated the top 20 cm of filter media were nearing phosphorus saturation, but with 1.2 m of filter media, lower depths would most likely continue to provide treatment. If designed, built, and maintained correctly, bioretention appears to provide sustained treatment of stormwater runoff for nitrogen and phosphorus for nearly two decades, and likely longer.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey P. Johnson & William F. Hunt, 2019. "A Retrospective Comparison of Water Quality Treatment in a Bioretention Cell 16 Years Following Initial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1945-:d:219154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1945/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1945/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Isabel Abellán García & Juan C. Santamarta, 2022. "Scientific Evidence behind the Ecosystem Services Provided by Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, July.
    2. Cara Poor & Troy Membrere & Jared Miyasato, 2021. "Impact of Green Stormwater Infrastructure Age and Type on Water Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Manal Osman & Khamaruzaman Wan Yusof & Husna Takaijudin & Hui Weng Goh & Marlinda Abdul Malek & Nor Ariza Azizan & Aminuddin Ab. Ghani & Abdurrasheed Sa’id Abdurrasheed, 2019. "A Review of Nitrogen Removal for Urban Stormwater Runoff in Bioretention System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1945-:d:219154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.