{"title":"Bioretention performance: a review of field studies","authors":"A. Hoban, C. Gambirazio","doi":"10.1080/13241583.2021.1984190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the past decade, there have been multiple studies into how bioretention systems perform in field, rather than laboratory, conditions, and into the quality of stormwater coming off urban catchments, yet in Australia standards, guidelines and software models have remained relatively static. A review of 15 field studies of bioretention systems, collectively covering 513 storm events, found a weighted average volumetric loss of 51% despite many of the systems having impermeable liners or were on clayey soils. The loss of water is about 17 times higher than is predicted by MUSIC when configured in accordance with standard guidelines. Some of the studies found increased pollutant concentrations in the effluent, with volumetric loss being the primary mechanism for pollutant load reduction. This research shows that bioretention systems perform more like sponges than filters and can have a potentially large impact on urban hydrology by reducing the volume and frequency of runoff, and helping attenuate minor flood events. Ultimately, this could lead to a better integration of the quality and quantity aspects of urban stormwater management.","PeriodicalId":51870,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Water Resources","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2021.1984190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
ABSTRACT Over the past decade, there have been multiple studies into how bioretention systems perform in field, rather than laboratory, conditions, and into the quality of stormwater coming off urban catchments, yet in Australia standards, guidelines and software models have remained relatively static. A review of 15 field studies of bioretention systems, collectively covering 513 storm events, found a weighted average volumetric loss of 51% despite many of the systems having impermeable liners or were on clayey soils. The loss of water is about 17 times higher than is predicted by MUSIC when configured in accordance with standard guidelines. Some of the studies found increased pollutant concentrations in the effluent, with volumetric loss being the primary mechanism for pollutant load reduction. This research shows that bioretention systems perform more like sponges than filters and can have a potentially large impact on urban hydrology by reducing the volume and frequency of runoff, and helping attenuate minor flood events. Ultimately, this could lead to a better integration of the quality and quantity aspects of urban stormwater management.
期刊介绍:
The Australasian Journal of Water Resources ( AJWR) is a multi-disciplinary regional journal dedicated to scholarship, professional practice and discussion on water resources planning, management and policy. Its primary geographic focus is on Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Papers from outside this region will also be welcomed if they contribute to an understanding of water resources issues in the region. Such contributions could be due to innovations applicable to the Australasian water community, or where clear linkages between studies in other parts of the world are linked to important issues or water planning, management, development and policy challenges in Australasia. These could include papers on global issues where Australasian impacts are clearly identified.