Initial impacts of rain gardens’ application on water quality and quantity in combined sewer: field-scale experiment

doi:10.1007/s11783-017-0988-5

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2017, Vol. 11

Issue (4) : 19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0988-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Initial impacts of rain gardens’ application on water quality and quantity in combined sewer: field-scale experiment

Isam Alyaseri^1,²(

), Jianpeng Zhou², Susan M. Morgan^2,³, Andrew Bartlett⁴

¹. Department of Civil Engineering, Al-Muthanna University, Alsamawah, Al-Muthanna 72001, Iraq
². Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026, USA
³. Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026, USA
⁴. Agricultural Statistics Laboratory, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

Download: PDF(553 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Impacts of rain gardens on stormwater were evaluated through field monitoring.

Statistical analysis is vital to evaluate field collected data.

Due to rain gardens, pollutant levels increased initially, but decreasedover time.

E. colilevel decreasedfrom the beginning after rain gardens were installed.

Rain gardens could result in 76% stormwaterreduction in affected combined sewers.

Green infrastructures such as rain gardens can benefit onsite reduction of stormwater runoff, leading to reduced combined sewer overflows. A pilot project was conducted to evaluate the impact of rain gardens on the water quality and volume reduction of storm runoff from urban streets in a combined sewer area. The study took place in a six-block area on South Grand Boulevard in St. Louis, Missouri. The impact was assessed through a comparison between the pre-construction (2011/2012) and the post-construction (2014) phases. Shortly after the rain gardens were installed, the levels of total suspended solids, chloride, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, zinc, and copper increased. The level of mercury was lower than the detection level in both phases. E. coliwas the only parameter that showed statistically significant decrease following the installation of rain gardens. The likely reason for initial increase in monitored water quality parameters is that the post-construction sampling began after the rain gardens were constructed but before planting, resulted from soil erosion and wash-out from the mulch. However, the levels of most of water quality parameters decreased in the following time period during the post-construction phase. The study found 76% volume reduction of stormwater runoff following the installation of rain gardens at one of studied sites. Statistical analysis is essential on collected data because of the encountered high variability of measured flows resulted from low flow conditions in studied sewers.

Keywords Rain gardens Bioretention Combined sewer Stormwater quality and quantity

Corresponding Author(s): Isam Alyaseri,Jianpeng Zhou

Issue Date: 03 August 2017

Cite this article:

Isam Alyaseri,Jianpeng Zhou,Susan M. Morgan, et al. Initial impacts of rain gardens’ application on water quality and quantity in combined sewer: field-scale experiment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 19.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-017-0988-5
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2017/V11/I4/19

Tab.1 Sampling events in the pre and post construction phases from the four sites in the South Grand Blvd

Fig.1 Rain gardens at the study sites on South Grand Blvd. St. Louis (a) top left: Juniata site in November 2013 during construction, (b) top right: Connecticut site in March 2015, winter condition, post-construction, (c) bottom left: Wyoming site in April 2015, and (d) bottom right: Humphrey site in July 2015, summer condition showing grown plants

Fig.2 Total nitrogen and chloride concentrations over time during the pre-installation phase in four sites (Wyoming, Connecticut, Humphrey, and Juniata) starting from November 8th 2011 to May 7th 2012

Tab.2 Water quality results in pre- and post-construction of rain gardens in South Grand Blvd. for the eight water quality parameters with the Cox and Stuart’s Trend Test results at 5% level of significance

Fig.3 Average concentrations from four sites for total suspended solids, nitrate, and total phosphorous in the pre and post construction phases

Fig.4 Nitrate, TKN, total nitrogen, and total phosphorous concentrations in the post-construction phase for the four sites and their averages tested during seven sampling events in the year 2014

Fig.5 Total suspended solids, chloride, zinc, and copper concentrations in the post-construction phase for the four sites and their averages tested during seven sampling events in the year 2014 (the lower detection limit is 0.01 mg/L for zinc and 0.002 mg/L for copper)

Tab.3 Summary of the percentages of increase or decrease in the amount of volume of runoff per one inch of rain at each of the four sites from pre-to post-construction phase

Site	test statistic (Median/Mean)	P-value	Decision
Wyoming	$p r e x ˜ = 185.25, ? p o s t x ˜ = 28.5$ $p r e x ˜ = 284.51, ? p o s t x ˜ = 65.09$	0.0027 0.0221	reject H_o reject H_o
Connecticut	$p r e x ˜ = 36.9, ? p o s t x ˜ = 123.45$ $p r e x ˜ = 96.04, ? p o s t x ˜ = 173.51$	0.8303 0.8682	fail to reject H_o fail to reject H_o
Humphrey	$p r e x ˜ = 174.65, ? p o s t x ˜ = 21.25$ $p r e x ˜ = 297.18, ? p o s t x ˜ = 305.98$	0.2529 0.4959	fail to reject H_o fail to reject H_o
Juniata	$p r e x ˜ = 785, ? p o s t x ˜ = 2721$ $p r e x ˜ = 2177, ? p o s t x ˜ = 3613$	0.9191 0.8296	fail to reject H_o fail to reject H_o

Tab.4 Randomization test results for the water quantity between the pre-and the post-construction phases at 5% level of significance

1	USEPA. Nutrient Control Design Manual. 2010, EPA/600/R-10/100, August 2010, .
2	St Metropolitan. Louis Sewer District (MSD). Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan Update Report. Exhibit MSD 47A, 2011.
3	USEPA. Keeping Raw Sewage & Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public’s water. 2011, Sewer Report 3, USEPA Region 2, New York.
4	USEPA. Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff. Washington, D.C., EPA 841-F-03–003, 2003.
5	R Christianson, G Brown, B Barfield, J Hayes. Bioretention and Infiltration Devices for Stormwater Control. Advances in Hydro-Science and–Engineering, volume 6, 2004
6	A Roy-Poirier, P Champagne, Y Filion. Review of bioretention system research and design: past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2010, 136(9): 878–889 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000227
7	A P Davis. Field performance of bioretention: water quality. Environmental Engineering Science, 2007, 24(8): 1048–1064 https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2006.0190
8	A P Davis, W F Hunt, R G Traver, M Clar. Bioretention technology: overview of current practice and future needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2009, 135(3): 109–117 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)
9	R A Brown, W F HuntIII. Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydrologic performance of undersized bioretention cells. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 2011, 137(3): 132–143 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000167
10	H Li, A P Davis. Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2009, 135(8): 567–576 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000026
11	A P Davis, M Shokouhian, H Sharma, C Minami. Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management. Water Environment Research, 2001, 73(1): 5–14 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143001X138624 pmid: 11558302
12	A P Davis, M Shokouhian, H Sharma, C Minami, D Winogradoff. Water quality improvement through bioretention: lead, copper, and zinc removal.Water Environment Research, 2003, 75(1): 73–82 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143003X140854 pmid: 12683466
13	W F Hunt, A R Jarrett, J T Smith, L J Sharkey. Evaluating bio-retention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 2006, 132(6): 600–608 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2006)132:6(600)
14	W F Hunt, J T Smith, S J Jadlocki, J M Hathaway, P R Eubanks. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban charlotte, NC. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2008, 134(5): 403–408 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:5(403)
15	E Passeport, W F Hunt, D E Line, R A Smith, R A Brown. Field study of the ability of two grassed bioretention cells to reduce storm-water runoff pollution. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 2009, 135(4): 505–510 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000006
16	R Wang, M J Eckelman, J B Zimmerman. Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(19): 11189–11198 https://doi.org/10.1021/es4026547 pmid: 23957532
17	R Heijungs, M Huijbregts. A Review of Approaches to Treat Uncertainty in LCA. 2004.
18	M Montague, P Slovacek, D Reed. Field Test Procedures. St. Louis: The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Division of Environmental Compliance, 2009
19	American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environmental Federation (WEF). Standard Methods of the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Ed. Washington, D.C.: American Public Health Association, 1998
20	USEPA. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. USEPA/600/4–79/020. 1983.(July 14, 2017)
21	C N Sawyer, P L McCarty, G F Parkin. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science. 5th ed. New York. McGraw-Hill, 2003, ISBN 0–07–248066–1
22	I Alyaseri, J Zhou. Comparative evaluation of different types of permeable pavement for stormwater reduction- St. Louis green alley pilot study. In: The International Low Impact Development (LID) Conference Proceeding, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), January 19–21, 2015. Houston, Texas: ASCE Library, 2015, 274–284 https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479025.028
23	J C De-Winter, D Dodou. Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2010, 15(11): 1–12
24	W J Conover. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999 , ISBN-13: 978–0471160687
25	D W Zimmerman. A warning about the large-sample Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Understanding Statistics, 2003, 2(4): 267–280 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0204_03
26	J Ludbrook, H Dudley. Why permutation tests are superior to t and F tests in biomedical research. American Statistician, 1998, 52(2): 127–132
27	A P Davis, M Shokouhian, H Sharma, C Minami. Water quality improvement through bioretention media: nitrogen and phosphorus removal.Water Environment Research, 2006, 78(3): 284–293 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143005X94376 pmid: 16629269
28	C H Hsieh, A P Davis. Evaluation and optimization of bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2005, 131(11): 1521–1531 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:11(1521)
29	C H Hsieh, A P Davis. Multiple-event study of bioretention for treatment of urban storm water runoff.Water Science and Technology, 2005, 51(3 – 4): 177–181 pmid: 15850188
30	M E Dietz. Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2007, 186(1 – 4): 351–363 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z
31	S R Corsi, L A De Cicco, M A Lutz, R M Hirsch. River chloride trends in snow-affected urban watersheds: increasing concentrations outpace urban growth rate and are common among all seasons.The Science of the Total Environment, 2015, 508(1): 488–497 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.012 pmid: 25514764
32	Water Environmental Federation (WEF). Stormwater Report: Solving Slick Roads and Salty Streams.
33	USEPA. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride-1988. EPA 440/5–88–001. National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA,1988.

[1]

FSE-17085-OF-AI_suppl_1

Download

[1]	Jun Xia, Hongping Wang, Richard L. Stanford, Guoyan Pan, Shaw L. Yu. Hydrologic and water quality performance of a laboratory scale bioretention unit[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 14-.
[2]	Jinsong Tao, Zijian Li, Xinlai Peng, Gaoxiang Ying. Quantitative analysis of impact of green stormwater infrastructures on combined sewer overflow control and urban flooding control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 11-.
[3]	Ruifen Liu, Elizabeth Fassman-Beck. Hydrologic experiments and modeling of two laboratory bioretention systems under different boundary conditions[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 10-.
[4]	Hannah Kratky, Zhan Li, Yijun Chen, Chengjin Wang, Xiangfei Li, Tong Yu. A critical literature review of bioretention research for stormwater management in cold climate and future research recommendations[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 16-.
[5]	Hyunju Jeong, Osvaldo A. Broesicke, Bob Drew, Duo Li, John C. Crittenden. Life cycle assessment of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(6): 1-.
[6]	Liqing LI, Baoqing SHAN, Chenqing YIN. Stormwater runoff pollution loads from an urban catchment with rainy climate in China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(5): 672-677.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed