Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
STARS STARS
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019
2012
Evaluation Of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside Evaluation Of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside
Swales For Stormwater Quality Improvement And Harvesting Swales For Stormwater Quality Improvement And Harvesting
Andrew Charles Hood University of Central Florida
Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons
Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd
University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu
This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
STARS Citation STARS Citation Hood, Andrew Charles, "Evaluation Of Biosorption Activated Media Under Roadside Swales For Stormwater Quality Improvement And Harvesting" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 2138. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/2138
EVALUATION OF BIOSORPTION ACTIVATED MEDIA UNDER ROADSIDE SWALES
FOR STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT & HARVESTING
by
ANDREW CHARLES HOOD, E.I.
A.A. Indian River State College, 2005
B.S. University of Central Florida, 2010
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Masters of Science in Environmental Engineering
in the Department of Civil, Environmental, Construction Engineering
in the College of Engineering & Computer Science
at the University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
Spring Term
2012
Major Professor: Manoj Chopra
ii
©Andrew Charles Hood
iii
ABSTRACT
Stormwater runoff from highways is a source of pollution to surface water bodies and
groundwater. This project develops a bio-detention treatment and harvesting system that is
incorporated into roadside swales. The bio-detention system uses Bold & Gold™, a type of
biosorption activated media (BAM), to remove nutrients from simulated highway runoff and
then store the water in underground vaults for infiltration, controlled discharge, and/or irrigation
and other non-potable applications. In order to design a bio-detention system, media
characteristics and media/water quality relationships are required. Media characteristics
determined through testing include: specific gravity, permeability, infiltration, maximum dry
density, moisture content of maximum dry density, and particle-size distribution.
One of the goals of this experiment is to compare the nitrogen and phosphorous species
concentrations in the effluent of BAM to sandy soil for simulated highway runoff. Field scale
experiments are done on an elevated test bed that simulates a typical roadway with a swale. The
swale portion of the test bed is split into halves using BAM and sandy soil. The simulated
stormwater flows over a concrete section, which simulates a roadway, and then over either sod
covered sandy soil or BAM. One, one and a half, and three inch storms are each simulated three
times with a duration of 30 minutes each. During the simulated storm event, initial samples of
the runoff (influent) are taken. The test bed is allowed to drain for two hours after the rainfall
event and then samples of each of the net effluents are taken.
In addition to the field scale water quality testing, column tests are also preformed on the
sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ without sod present. Sod farms typically use fertilizer to increase
production, thus it is reasonable to assume that the sod will leach nutrients into the soils on the
iv
test bed, especially during the initial test runs. The purpose of the column tests is to obtain a
general idea of what percentage removals of total phosphorus and total nitrogen are obtained by
the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™. It is shown that the Bold & Gold™ media effluent has
significantly lower concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus compared to the effluent
of the sandy soil based on an 80% confidence level. The Bold & Gold™ has a 41% lower
average effluent concentration of total nitrogen than the sandy soil. The Bold & Gold™ media
has a 78% lower average effluent concentration of total phosphorus than the sandy soil. Using
both the column test data in combination with the field scale data, it is determined that the Bold
& Gold™ BAM system has a total phosphorus removal efficiency of 71%. The removal
efficiency is increased when stormwater harvesting is considered. A total phosphorus reduction
of 94% is achieved in the bio-detention & harvesting swale system sample design problem.
v
Dedicated to my friends and loved ones.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Martin Wanielista, Dr. Manoj Chopra, and Dr. Andrew Randall
for serving on my thesis defense committee and their guidance throughout my academic career.
I would also like to thank Mike Hardin, Derek Patrick, Rachel Delaney, Robert Slade,
Marcus Geiger, and all of my colleagues at the UCF Stormwater Management Academy for their
help and support in the completion of this thesis.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xv
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... xx
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................... 1
Objective ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Roadmap ................................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 9
Highway Runoff Pollutants ....................................................................................................................... 9
Bio-Treatment Systems ........................................................................................................................... 11
Treatment Processes ................................................................................................................................ 12
Within-Storm Treatment Processes .................................................................................................... 12
Inert Filtration ................................................................................................................... 13
Straining ........................................................................................................................ 13
Sedimentation ............................................................................................................... 14
Depth Filtration ............................................................................................................. 15
Transport ................................................................................................................... 15
Attachment ................................................................................................................ 17
Reactive Filtration ............................................................................................................. 18
Physical & Chemical Adsorption.................................................................................. 18
Ion Exchange ................................................................................................................ 20
Biosorption ........................................................................................................................ 21
Inter-Storm Treatment Processes ........................................................................................................ 22
Biosorption & Biological Uptake ..................................................................................... 22
Microbial-Mediated Transformations ........................................................................... 23
Aerobic & Anoxic Zones .............................................................................................. 25
Biological Assimilation ................................................................................................ 26
Volatilization..................................................................................................................... 27
Soil Processes.................................................................................................................... 28
viii
Routine Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 28
Bold & Gold™ ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Expanded Clay .................................................................................................................................... 29
Tire Crumb .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Stormwater Harvesting ........................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 35
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Test Bed Construction....................................................................................................... 36
Nuclear Density Meter ...................................................................................................... 40
Test Bed Operation ............................................................................................................................. 41
Simulated Highway Runoff .............................................................................................. 43
Collection of Influent and Effluent ................................................................................... 45
Water Quality Analysis ..................................................................................................... 46
Moisture Content .............................................................................................................. 47
Bench Scale Soil Characterization ...................................................................................................... 47
Specific Gravity ................................................................................................................ 48
Maximum Dry Density & Moisture Content for Maximum Dry Density of Compaction 48
Soil Classification ............................................................................................................. 48
Particle Size Distribution .............................................................................................. 49
Permeability ...................................................................................................................... 49
Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Vertical Unsaturated Infiltration) ........... 51
Column Test ...................................................................................................................... 51
Total Porosity .................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................. 54
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Media Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 54
Dry Density ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Inter-storm, In Situ Moisture Content (Field Capacity) ...................................................................... 55
Particle-Size Distribution & Soil Classification ................................................................................. 57
Particle-Size Distribution .................................................................................................. 57
Soil Classification ............................................................................................................. 60
AASHTO Classification System ...................................................................................... 61
Unified Soil Classification System ................................................................................... 61
Specific Gravity .................................................................................................................................. 62
ix
Maximum Dry Density & Moisture Content for Maximum Dry Density .......................................... 62
Permeability ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Vertical Unsaturated Infiltration) .............................. 65
Total Porosity ...................................................................................................................................... 66
Water Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 66
Influent ................................................................................................................................................ 67
Column Test ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Effluent Comparisons ......................................................................................................................... 70
Nitrogen ............................................................................................................................ 71
Total Nitrogen ............................................................................................................... 72
Total Nitrogen Leaching from Sod ........................................................................... 72
Ammonia....................................................................................................................... 75
Nitrate + Nitrite ............................................................................................................. 75
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen ......................................................................................... 76
Particulate Nitrogen ...................................................................................................... 77
Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................ 78
Total Phosphorus .......................................................................................................... 78
Total Phosphorus Leaching from Sod....................................................................... 79
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ........................................................................................ 81
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus ..................................................................................... 82
Particulate Phosphorus .................................................................................................. 83
Total Suspended Solids ..................................................................................................... 84
Turbidity ........................................................................................................................... 85
Fecal Coliform .................................................................................................................. 86
E. Coli ............................................................................................................................... 87
Alkalinity .......................................................................................................................... 88
pH ...................................................................................................................................... 89
CHAPTER 5: BIO-DETENTION & HARVESTING SWALE SYSTEM DESIGN PROBLEM90
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................. 90
Determine the dimensions of the roadway .............................................................................................. 96
Peak Runoff Rate “QP” ........................................................................................................................... 98
Design Storm Event ............................................................................................................................ 98
Runoff Coefficient of Travel Lanes & Paved Shoulder Regions ...................................................... 102
Runoff Coefficient of Unpaved Shoulder Regions ........................................................................... 102
x
Runoff Coefficient of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System ............................................. 102
Solving for Peak Runoff Rate “QP” & Total Peak Runoff Rate “QP Total” ........................................ 103
Determining the Required Treatment Volume ...................................................................................... 104
Equivalent Storm Event for the Given Treatment Volume ............................................................... 104
Inlet Box Control Structure ................................................................................................................... 106
Dry Detention Basin Dimensions ......................................................................................................... 107
Recovery Time ...................................................................................................................................... 111
Confirm the Assumed Approach Velocity was Valid ........................................................................... 112
Vault ...................................................................................................................................................... 113
Vault Overflow Discharge Structure ................................................................................................. 114
Harvesting Storage Volume .............................................................................................................. 115
Equivalent Impervious Area for the REV Curve ............................................................ 115
Irrigation Rate ................................................................................................................. 117
Use Rate .......................................................................................................................... 117
Determine the Harvesting Efficiency “E” Needed to Achieve the Required Total
Phosphorus Reduction .................................................................................................... 118
Harvesting Storage Volume ............................................................................................ 120
Summation of Bio-Detention & Harvesting Swale System Design ...................................................... 121
Notes for Design Engineer .................................................................................................................... 122
Chapter 6: Conclusions & Recommendations ........................................................................... 124
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 124
Water Quality Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 124
Total Nitrogen & Total Phosphorus .................................................................................................. 125
Nitrate + Nitrite ................................................................................................................................. 126
Particulate Nitrogen .......................................................................................................................... 127
Phosphorus Species ........................................................................................................................... 127
Turbidity & Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................. 128
Alkalinity .......................................................................................................................................... 128
Media Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 128
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 129
Future work ........................................................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX A: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................... 133
Nuclear Density Gauge Testing ............................................................................................................ 134
Particle Size Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 136
xi
Standard Proctor Test ............................................................................................................................ 137
Constant Head Permeability Test .......................................................................................................... 138
APPENDIX B: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ................................................................... 144
Influent .................................................................................................................................................. 145
Total Nitrogen ....................................................................................................................................... 146
Leaching of Total Nitrogen by the Sod ............................................................................................. 147
Ammonia .............................................................................................................................................. 148
Nitrate + Nitrite ..................................................................................................................................... 149
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen ................................................................................................................. 150
Particulate Nitrogen .............................................................................................................................. 151
Total Phosphorus .................................................................................................................................. 152
Leaching of Total Phosphorus by the Sod ........................................................................................ 153
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ................................................................................................................ 154
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus ............................................................................................................. 155
Particulate Phosphorus .......................................................................................................................... 156
Total Suspended Solids ......................................................................................................................... 157
Turbidity ............................................................................................................................................... 158
Fecal Coliform ...................................................................................................................................... 159
E. Coli ................................................................................................................................................... 160
Alkalinity .............................................................................................................................................. 161
pH .......................................................................................................................................................... 162
APPENDIX C: BIO-DETENTION & HARVESTING SWALE SYSTEM EXAMPLE
PROBLEM .................................................................................................................................. 163
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 168
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Capture by straining occurs if the ratio of particle diameter to media grain diameter is
greater than 15% (22).................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2: Particle transport mechanisms in water filtration (25) ................................................. 16
Figure 3: Influence of particle size & density on filtration transport efficiency (diameter of
collector = 0.5 mm, superficial velocity = 5 m/h, Temperature = 25°C) (22) .............................. 17
Figure 4: Cation Exchange: (a) initial condition; (b) final equilibrium condition (34) .............. 21
Figure 5: Nitrogen Cycle in the aquatic & soil environment (41) ............................................... 24
Figure 6: Aerobic & Anoxic Layers of Biofilm........................................................................... 25
Figure 7: Distribution of ammonia and ammonium as a function of pH (41) ............................. 31
Figure 8: Effect of pH on the removal of nitrate by different adsorbents: (♦) activated carbon, (▪)
sepiolite, (▲) sepiolite activated by HCl (54) ............................................................................. 32
Figure 9: Effect of pH on removal of phosphate using ZnCl2-activated carbon: adsorbent dose
of 300 mg/50 mL, agitation time of 3 hours, temperature of 35°C (56) ....................................... 33
Figure 10: Diagram of empty test bed showing the location of impermeable barriers ................ 36
Figure 11: Picture of the fully constructed test bed ..................................................................... 37
Figure 12: Side view of non-inclined position of test bed used for construction ......................... 39
Figure 13: Cross Section AA of the test bed................................................................................ 39
Figure 14: Testing Locations for Nuclear Density Gauge and Moisture Content ....................... 40
Figure 15: Side view of inclined position of test bed used for testing ......................................... 42
Figure 16: Influent delivery system ............................................................................................. 44
Figure 17: PVC Piping System Used to Create Sheet Flow over Simulated Roadway ............... 44
Figure 18: Perforated PVC pipe used for Influent Collection ..................................................... 45
xiii
Figure 19: Effluent Collection ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 20: Column Test Apparatus .............................................................................................. 52
Figure 21: Particle Size Distribution Curve for the sandy soil present in the test bed ................ 58
Figure 22: Particle Size Distribution Curve for Bold & Gold™ ................................................. 59
Figure 23: Compaction Curves for Sandy soil ............................................................................. 63
Figure 24: Compaction Curves for Bold & Gold™ ..................................................................... 64
Figure 25: Average Total Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations ...................................................... 72
Figure 26: Leaching of Total Nitrogen from the Sod in the Sandy Soil System ......................... 74
Figure 27: Leaching of Total Nitrogen from the Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System .................. 74
Figure 28: Average Ammonia Effluent Concentrations .............................................................. 75
Figure 29: Average Nitrate + Nitrite Effluent Concentrations .................................................... 76
Figure 30: Average Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations ................................. 77
Figure 31: Average Particulate Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations .............................................. 78
Figure 32: Average Total Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations .................................................. 79
Figure 33: Leaching of Total Phosphorus from the Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System ............. 81
Figure 34: Average Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations ............................... 82
Figure 35: Average Dissolved Organic Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations ............................. 83
Figure 36: Average Particulate Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations ......................................... 84
Figure 37: Average Total Suspended Solids Effluent Concentrations ........................................ 85
Figure 38: Average Effluent Turbidities ...................................................................................... 86
Figure 39: Average Fecal Coliform Effluent Concentrations ...................................................... 87
Figure 40: Average E. Coli Effluent Concentrations ................................................................... 88
Figure 41: Average Alkalinity of Effluents ................................................................................. 89
xiv
Figure 42: Front & Plan Views of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System .................... 94
Figure 43: Isometric Views of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System .......................... 95
Figure 44: Mass Balance Diagram of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System ............. 119
Figure 45: FDOT Zones for Precipitation IDF Curves (77) ...................................................... 164
Figure 46: IDF Curve for Orange County, FL (77) ................................................................... 165
Figure 47: Designated Meteorological Zones in Florida (10) ................................................... 166
Figure 48: Rate-Efficiency-Volume Curve for Orange County, FL (Zone 2) (76) ................... 167
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Florida Surface Water Quality Criteria (11) .................................................................... 5
Table 2: Average Concentrations of Pollutants in Freeway Runoff from the NSQD (13) and
Florida Highway Runoff (14) ......................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: Dominant filtration mechanism based upon media grain and influent pollutant particle
sizes (20) ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Comparison of physical and chemical adsorption (32) & (30)...................................... 19
Table 5: National Stormwater Quality Database Average Nitrogen and Phosphorous Species
Concentrations for Freeway Runoff (13) ...................................................................................... 43
Table 6: Sample bottles and preparation needed for each water analysis .................................... 47
Table 7: Sandy Soil Moisture Content (Field Capacity) Data ..................................................... 56
Table 8: Bold & Gold™ Moisture Content (Field Capacity) Data .............................................. 56
Table 9: Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Gradation for the sandy soil ....................... 59
Table 10: Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Gradation for Bold & Gold™ .................. 60
Table 11: Grain Type Size Ranges .............................................................................................. 60
Table 12: AASHTO System: Grain type composition of the sandy soil .................................... 61
Table 13: Unified Soil Classification System: Grain type composition of the sandy soil .......... 61
Table 14: Sandy Soil Permeability: Overall Coefficient of Permeability................................... 65
Table 15: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Overall Coefficient of Permeability ................ 65
Table 16: Estimate of Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity based upon empirical
relationship .................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 17: Summary of Freeway Runoff Data from the NSQD (13) ............................................ 67
Table 18: Summary of Simulated Highway Runoff Characteristics ........................................... 68
xvi
Table 19: Column Test Results Sandy Soil ................................................................................. 69
Table 20: Column Test Results for Bold & Gold™ .................................................................... 69
Table 21: In Situ Total Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies of Bold & Gold™ after Leaching has
become Negligible ........................................................................................................................ 81
Table 22: Summary of Effluent pH Results ................................................................................. 89
Table 23: Calculated Drainage Widths ........................................................................................ 97
Table 24: Kerby's Equation Roughness Coefficients .................................................................. 99
Table 25: Overland Flow Component of Total Time of Concentration .................................... 100
Table 26: Swale Flow Component of Total Time of Concentration ......................................... 101
Table 27: Total Time of Concentration of the Watershed ......................................................... 101
Table 28: Intensities for Design Storm Events .......................................................................... 102
Table 29: Peak Runoff Rates for 10-year, 1-hour & 3-year, 1-hour Design Storms ................. 103
Table 30: Comparison of Different Underdrain Treatment Volumes ........................................ 104
Table 31: Intensity of Equivalent Storm Event.......................................................................... 105
Table 32: Probability that Treatment Volume will be Exceeded in a Year ............................... 106
Table 33: Inlet Box Side Lengths & Actual Flow Rate ............................................................. 107
Table 34: Confirming Weir Flow Conditions ............................................................................ 107
Table 35: Width of Water Surface in Dry Detention Basin ....................................................... 108
Table 36: Determining Pcrest Iteratively (Exact Solution) .......................................................... 110
Table 37: Actual Design Dimensions of Swale (aka dry detention basin) ................................ 110
Table 38: Recovery Time Iterations .......................................................................................... 112
Table 39: Comparison of the Assumed and Actual Approach Velocities ................................. 113
Table 40: Vault Structure Discharge Rate ................................................................................. 115
xvii
Table 41: Equivalent Impervious Area “EIA" ........................................................................... 116
Table 42: Irrigation Rate ............................................................................................................ 117
Table 43: Use Rate ..................................................................................................................... 118
Table 44: Harvesting Volume .................................................................................................... 121
Table 45: Design Summary ....................................................................................................... 122
Table 46: Summary of Effluent Parameters............................................................................... 125
Table 47: Moist & dry densities for the sandy soil in the test bed............................................. 134
Table 48: Moist & dry densities for the Bold & Gold™ media in the test bed ......................... 135
Table 49: Sieve Analysis of Sandy Soil ..................................................................................... 136
Table 50: Sieve Analysis of Bold & Gold™• .......................................................................... 136
Table 51: Standard Proctor Test for Sandy soil ......................................................................... 137
Table 52: Standard Proctor Test for Bold & Gold™ ................................................................. 137
Table 53: Sandy Soil Permeability: Test Series #1 ................................................................... 138
Table 54: Sandy Soil Permeability: Test Series #2 ................................................................... 139
Table 55: Sandy soil Permeability: Test Series #3 ................................................................... 140
Table 56: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #1 ................................................ 141
Table 57: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #2 ................................................ 142
Table 58: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #3 ................................................ 143
Table 59: Simulated Highway Runoff Characteristics (Influent) .............................................. 145
Table 60: Influent and Effluent Concentrations of Total Nitrogen............................................ 146
Table 61: ANOVA Analysis of Total Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents 146
Table 62: Leaching of Total Nitrogen by Sod in the Sandy Soil System .................................. 147
Table 63: Leaching of Total Nitrogen by Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System............................. 147
xviii
Table 64: Effluent Concentrations of Ammonia ........................................................................ 148
Table 65: ANOVA Analysis of Ammonia for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents ........ 148
Table 66: Effluent Concentrations of Nitrate + Nitrite .............................................................. 149
Table 67: ANOVA Analysis of Nitrate + Nitrite for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
..................................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 68: Effluent Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen........................................... 150
Table 69: ANOVA Analysis of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™
Effluents ...................................................................................................................................... 150
Table 70: Effluent Concentrations of Particulate Nitrogen ....................................................... 151
Table 71: ANOVA Analysis of Particulate Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™
Effluents ...................................................................................................................................... 151
Table 72: Effluent Concentrations of Total Phosphorus ............................................................ 152
Table 73: ANOVA Analysis of Total Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
..................................................................................................................................................... 152
Table 74: Leaching of Total Phosphorus by Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System ...................... 153
Table 75: Effluent Concentrations of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ......................................... 154
Table 76: ANOVA Analysis of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™
Effluents ...................................................................................................................................... 154
Table 77: Effluent Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Phosphorus ...................................... 155
Table 78: ANOVA Analysis of Dissolved Organic Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold &
Gold™ Effluents ......................................................................................................................... 155
Table 79: Effluent Concentrations of Particulate Phosphorus ................................................... 156
xix
Table 80: ANOVA Analysis of Particulate Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™
Effluents ...................................................................................................................................... 156
Table 81: Effluent Total Suspended Solids ............................................................................... 157
Table 82: ANOVA Analysis of Total Suspended Solids for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™
Effluents ...................................................................................................................................... 157
Table 83: Effluent Turbidity ...................................................................................................... 158
Table 84: ANOVA Analysis of Turbidity for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents ......... 158
Table 85: Effluent Concentrations of Fecal Coliform ............................................................... 159
Table 86: ANOVA Analysis of Fecal Coliform for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents 159
Table 87: Effluent Concentrations of E. Coli ............................................................................ 160
Table 88: ANOVA Analysis of E. Coli for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents ............. 160
Table 89: Effluent Alkalinity ..................................................................................................... 161
Table 90: ANOVA Analysis of Alkalinity for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents ........ 161
Table 91: Effluent pH ................................................................................................................ 162
xx
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials
Abox Area of Inlet Box Opening
ANOVA Analysis of variance
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
Awetted Wetted surface area
B&G™ Bold & Gold™
BAM Biosorption activated media
C Runoff coefficient
Cc Coefficient of gradation
cfu Colony forming units
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO Orifice Coefficient
Cu Uniformity coefficient
Cw Weir Coefficient
D Rainfall Duration
D_W Drainage Width
D_Wpaved shoulders Drainage Width of the paved shoulder regions
D_Wswale Drainage Width of bio-detention swale & harvesting system
D_Wtravel lanes Drainage Width of the paved shoulder regions
D_Wunpaved shoulders Drainage Width of the unpaved shoulder regions
D10 Effective Size: Particle diameter corresponding to 10% finer by mass on the
xxi
particle distribution curve
D30
Particle diameter corresponding to 30% finer by mass on the particle
distribution curve
D60
Particle diameter corresponding to 60% finer by mass on the particle
distribution curve
e Void ratio
E Harvesting efficiency
EIA Equivalent Impervious Area
F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FS Factor of Safety
GS Specific gravity of soils
H Head: Distance from weir crest to water surface
H2PO4- Dihydrogen orthophosphate
H3PO4 Trihydrogen orthophosphate
HAB Harmful algal blooms
HPO42-
Monohydrogen orthophosphate
ht Transition head
iD Average Rainfall Intensity of the design storm
Id Design Infiltration Rate
IDF curve Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve
xxii
k Coefficient of permeability
kJ Kilojoule
Kvu Unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity
L Perimeter of inlet box
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MCLG Maximum contaminant level goal
N Nitrogen
n
Retardance roughness coefficient for Kerby's Equation for time of
concentration
NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference
NH3 Ammonia
NH4+ Ammonium
NO2¯ Nitrite
NO3¯ Nitrate
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSQD National Stormwater Quality Database
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
OP Ortho-Phosphorus
P Phosphorus
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pcrest Distance from bottom of basin to weir crest
PO43-
Orthophosphate
xxiii
QBottom Flow rate through bottom of basin based upon permeability
Qbox Inlet box flow rate
Qdischarged Volumetric flow rate discharged to the surface water body
Qharvested Volumetric flow rate of harvesting stream
Qinfluent
Total volumetric flow rate entering the treatment system. Also known as the
Influent volumetric flow rate.
QP Peak runoff rate from a drainage area
QP Total Total peak runoff rate from a watershed
QP Total 10-year, 1-hour Total peak runoff rate from a watershed for a 10-year, 1-hour design storm
QP Total 3-year, 1-hour Total peak runoff rate from a watershed for a 3-year, 1-hour design storm
Qvault discharge Flow rate of the vault discharge control structure.
REV curve Rate-Efficiency-Volume curve
Rh Hydraulic radius
S Side slope of swale and roadside
SRP Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
tc Time of concentration
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
xxiv
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UCF University of Central Florida
V/H Vertical/Horizontal
V0 Approach Velocity to inlet box control structure
VR Volume of Runoff from a drainage area
y # of time periods
ZnCl2 Zinc dichloride
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Nutrient loadings, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, in stormwater runoff are a major
concern in Florida and loading reductions are research areas for which regulations continue to
change. Stormwater runoff from highways is a source of pollution to surface water bodies and
groundwater; thus, this project develops a treatment/harvesting system to reduce nutrient and
concurrent pollutant loadings from highway runoff. The data and information in this project
compares effluent nutrient concentrations of the soil amendment Bold & Gold™ to sandy soil for
simulated highway runoff. Additionally, preliminary designs for a highway runoff bio-detention
and water harvesting system are discussed. The bio-detention system uses Bold & Gold™ to
remove nutrients from the simulated highway runoff and then store the water in underground
vaults for infiltration, controlled discharge, and/or irrigation and other non-potable applications.
Additionally, due to the biological component of the system, the Bold & Gold™ media’s nutrient
capture capabilities are sustainable.
Problem Statement
Stormwater runoff from roads and highways often has elevated levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus (1). Nitrate, a species of nitrogen, can have harmful health effects when ingested.
Nitrogen and phosphorus species concentrations are also of importance in watersheds because
they are limiting nutrients for plant and algal growth in aquatic systems. Excess nitrogen and
phosphorus in surface waters causes eutrophication which can eliminate the beneficial use of the
water body.
Nitrate contamination of groundwater is of great concern due to the large number of
private drinking water wells that are not monitored or treated. Nitrate is listed by the U.S. EPA
2
as a primary drinking water standard with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) and maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 10 mg/L as nitrogen (2). The current MCL for nitrate was
established to prevent infants from being afflicted with Methemoglobinemia, more commonly
known as blue-baby syndrome (2). Studies have also linked chronic exposure to nitrates at
concentrations below the MCL to cancer, diabetes, spontaneous abortions, and birth defects (3).
Typically, the primary limiting nutrient for plant and algal growth in freshwater systems
is phosphorus and in marine ecosystems it is nitrogen (4). An excess of limiting nutrients is a
major factor in eutrophication. Eutrophication is defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as the increase and accumulation of primary producer biomass in
a water body through time (5). According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) the most common single factor causing eutrophication is an increase in
the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus species (6).
A common type of eutrophication is harmful algal blooms (HABs). HABs occur in both
fresh water and marine environments and are caused by several different algal species including
dinoflagellates, diatoms, and cyanobacteria (7). HABs can have devastating effects on
ecosystem integrity, species interactions, aquatic animal health and population growth, human
health, economy, industry, and ecology (8). HABs cause two general types of problems,
production of toxins and depletion of dissolved oxygen.
A well known example of the toxic effects of HABs is red tide. Toxins produced by
HABs are responsible for fish and shellfish kills, cattle illness, and respiratory irritation and
neurocognitive disease in humans. Additionally, the bioaccumulation of these toxins in aquatic
species can lead to diseases such as shellfish poisoning and ciguatera in human consumers (8).
3
Cyanobacteria are known to produce tumor promoting biotoxins which have resulted in diseases
in fish, shellfish, crustaceans, turtles, marine mammals, and other aquatic life (8). An additional
concern is surface water that is a drinking water source. Not all surface water plants are
equipped to treat these toxins and the ones that are may not be able to handle the large spikes in
toxin concentrations due to the HABs (9).
HABs can also result in water bodies becoming depleted in oxygen or hypoxic. This can
occur via several different methods or combination thereof. Thick blankets of algae on the
water’s surface will block the sunlight from reaching underwater plants, thus causing the water
body to become hypoxic (7). Another method is nitrification; excess inorganic nitrogen loads,
either due to stormwater influent or algal die off, cause a population increase in nitrifying
bacteria and as a result a significant amount of oxygen is consumed. Hypoxia can also occur
when the biomass of algae is so great that the amount of oxygen produced during the day via
photosynthesis is less than the nocturnal consumption of oxygen when respiration is greater than
photosynthesis (6).
The practical implementation for stormwater treatment is governed by regulations
requiring net improvement of the receiving water body which implies a reduction of a target
water quality parameter, which in many cases is a nutrient species. Also the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) restrictions generally target the removal of a nutrient. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is currently creating a new Statewide
Stormwater Treatment Rule. The new rule pertains to total nitrogen and total phosphorus and
requires that “all stormwater treatment systems shall provide a minimum level of treatment
sufficient to accomplish the lesser of the following: (i) an 85% reduction of the post-
4
development average annual loading of total nitrogen and total phosphorus from the project; or,
(ii) a reduction such that the post-development average annual loading of total nitrogen and total
phosphorus does not exceed the nutrient loading from the project area’s natural vegetative
community types (10).” Currently, stormwater discharges require treatment to the level such that
the receiving water body meets the standards listed in the FDEP’s Surface Water Quality
Standards (11); an excerpt from these standards is shown in Table 1.
5
Table 1: Florida Surface Water Quality Criteria (11)
Parameter Units Class 1 Waters Class II WatersPredominantly
Fresh Waters
Predominantly
Marine WatersClass IV Waters Class V Waters
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3
Shall not be
depressed below 20
Shall not be
depressed below
20
≤ 600
Turbidity
Nephelometric
Turbidity Units
(NTU)
Nutrients
Ammonia mg/L as NH3 ≤ 0.02 ≤ 0.02
Nitrate mg/L as Nitrogen
≤ 10 or that
concentration that
exceeds the nutrient
criteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Number per 100 ml
(Most Probable
Number (MPN) or
Membrane Filter
(MF))
MPN or MF counts
shall not exceed a
monthly average of
200, nor exceed 400
in 10% of the
samples, nor exceed
800 on any one day.
Monthly averages
shall be expressed as
geometric means
based on a minimum
of 5 samples taken
over a 30 day period.
MPN shall not
exceed a
median value
of 14 with not
more than 10%
of the samples
exceeding 43,
nor exceed 800
on any one
day.
MPN or MF counts
shall not exceed a
monthly average
of 200, nor exceed
400 in 10% of the
samples, nor
exceed 800 on any
one day. Monthly
averages shall be
expressed as
geometric means
based on a
minimum of 10
samples taken
over a 30 day
period.
MPN or MF counts
shall not exceed a
monthly average
of 200, nor exceed
400 in 10% of the
samples, nor
exceed 800 on any
one day. Monthly
averages shall be
expressed as
geometric means
based on a
minimum of 10
samples taken
over a 30 day
period.
pH
(Class I & Class IV Waters Only )Standard Units
pH
(Class II Waters Only)Standard Units
pH
(Class III Waters Only)Standard Units
pH
(Class V Waters Only)Standard Units Not lower than 5.0 nor greater than 9.5 except certain swamp waters which may be as low as 4.5.
≤ 29 above natural background conditions
Class III & Class III Limited Waters
In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to
cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.
Shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background provided that the pH is not lowered to
less than 6 units or raised above 8.5 units. If natural background is less than 6 units, the pH shall not vary
below natural background or vary more than one unit above natural background. If natural background is
higher than 8.5 units, the pH shall not vary above natural background or vary more than one unit below
background.
Shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters as defined in
paragraph 62-302.520(3)(b), F.A.C., or more than two-tenths unit above or below natural background of open
waters as defined in paragraph 62-302.520(3)(f), F.A.C., provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5
units or raised above 8.5 units. If natural background is less than 6.5 units, the pH shall not vary below natural
background or vary more than one unit above natural background for coastal waters or more than two-tenths
unit above natural background for open waters. If natural background is higher than 8.5 units, the pH shall not
vary above natural background or vary more than one unit below natural background of coastal waters or
more than two-tenths unit below natural background of open waters.
Shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of predominantly fresh waters and
coastal waters as defined in paragraph 62-302.520(3)(b), F.A.C. or more than two-tenths unit above or below
natural background of open waters as defined in paragraph 62-302.520(3)(f), F.A.C., provided that the pH is
not lowered to less than 6 units in predominantly fresh waters, or less than 6.5 units in predominantly marine
waters, or raised above 8.5 units. If natural background is less than 6 units, in predominantly fresh waters or
6.5 units in predominantly marine waters, the pH shall not vary below natural background or vary more than
one unit above natural background of predominantly fresh waters and coastal waters, or more than two-
tenths unit above natural background of open waters. If natural background is higher than 8.5 units, the pH
shall not vary above natural background or vary more than one unit below natural background of
predominantly fresh waters and coastal waters, or more than two-tenths unit below natural background of
open waters.
6
Objective
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the effluent nutrient concentrations of bio-
treatment systems utilizing a BAM Bold & Gold™ media compared to sandy soil. Various
phosphorus and nitrogen species will be the nutrients of interest due to their importance in water
quality management including: total nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, dissolved organic nitrogen,
particulate nitrogen, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), dissolved organic
phosphorus, and particulate phosphorus. Turbidity, pH, total suspended solids (TSS), fecal
coliform, and E. coli concentrations are also measured.
Additionally, a bio-detention system design to incorporate a Biosorption Activated Media
(BAM), called Bold & Gold™, with a below grade stormwater storage chamber is presented.
The below grade storage is used to reduce the stormwater discharge rate and/or for non-potable
reuse purposes such as irrigation. The bottom of the vault can be lined with a permeable
geotextile to allow infiltration or with an impermeable liner for the purpose of harvesting the
stormwater for irrigation or other non-potable purposes. The impermeable liner is the style
considered in the design problem.
Hypotheses
Bold & Gold™ media is superior to sandy soil for capture of nitrogen and phosphorus
species.
Bold & Gold™ has a higher infiltration rate and permeability than sandy soil.
7
Bold & Gold™ will have a higher inter-storm moisture content, also known as field
capacity, than sandy soil. This higher moisture provides better living conditions for the
microbes and plants that sustain the pollutant capture mechanisms.
Limitations
The primary limitation of the research is the Florida climate. Since the testing was
completed using UCF’s soil-tilted test bed which is outdoors and exposed to natural weather
conditions there were certain limitations of the research. The time between simulated storm
events is known as the inter-storm period. The moisture content of the soils cannot be
maintained at a constant level during each inter-storm period. Variations in the inter-storm
moisture content will affect the degree of biological activity of both vegetation and microbes in
the soil. Biological activity in the bio-treatment system is responsible for sustaining the pollutant
capture mechanisms of the system. It is impractical to try to have the same soil moisture content
during each inter-storm period; instead soil moisture content is measured and recorded prior to
each test run.
The simulated highway runoff is obtained by spiking stormwater pond water with
ammonium carbonate, potassium nitrate, and potassium phosphate in order to approximately
reach the average highway runoff concentrations for nitrogen and phosphorus species listed in
the National Stormwater Quality Database. However, other constituents of the prepared influent
may not match the average highway concentrations; this may result in competitive adsorption or
other removal mechanisms in the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil.
Average values of the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were obtained for the
stormwater pond from which the highway runoff water was simulated. These values were used
8
to determine the masses of chemical spiking required so that the nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations closely matched the National Stormwater Quality Database. The stormwater
pond nutrient concentrations vary over time however, so the initial concentrations of influent for
each test were not identical, but neither are highway runoff concentrations over time.
The amount of nutrients present in the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil prior to testing is
likely different. This implies that leaching may occur which may lead to difficulty in analyzing
data. Additionally, there are also nutrients present in the sod that is placed on top of the soils.
These nutrients have the potential to leach out of the sod, thus affecting the data collected.
Column tests are performed on the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ without sod to obtain a general
idea of what percent removal of total phosphorus and total nitrogen can be expected once the sod
has ceased leaching.
Roadmap
Examples of detrimental effects resulting from excess nutrient loadings in stormwater are
presented in Chapter one, along with the research problem statement, objective, hypotheses, and
limitations. Chapter two contains background information and includes information on the
sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in highway runoff, bio-treatment systems, adsorption, and
filtration. The methodology and experimental design is presented in Chapter three. Chapter four
presents the experimental results and discussions about the results. Chapter five contains an
example design problem of a bio-detention & harvesting system utilizing Bold & Gold™.
Chapter six contains the conclusions as well as recommendations for further research.
9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Highway Runoff Pollutants
Stormwater runoff from highways is a source of pollution to surface water bodies and
groundwater; pollutants contained in stormwater can lead to environmental problems such as
harmful algal blooms and human health problems such as Methemoglobinemia, more commonly
known as blue-baby syndrome (7; 2) . Pollutants in highway runoff have several sources
including wet and dry deposition, vehicle exhausts, vehicle wear, roadway wear, and accidents
(12). Table 2 shows the average concentrations of some pollutants found in freeway runoff
according to the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD) and Florida highway runoff
according to the Florida Runoff Concentration Database.
Table 2: Average Concentrations of Pollutants in Freeway Runoff from the NSQD (13) and Florida Highway Runoff (14)
Incomplete combustion of fuel results in production of carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, ketones, aldehydes, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), consumption of the
oil in the crankcase contributes to the emission of aromatic hydrocarbons. Furthermore, tires are
NH3 1.07 mg/L as N na
TKN 2.0 mg/L as N na
NO2- + NO3
- 0.28 mg/L as N na
Total Nitrogen 2.28 mg/L as N 1.37 mg/L as N
Filtered Phosphorus 0.20 mg/L as P na
Total Phosphorus 0.25 mg/L as P 0.167 mg/L as P
pH 7.10 na
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 99.0 mg/L na
PollutantNational Freeway
Runoff Concentrations
Florida Highway
Runoff Concentrations
10
a source of zinc and cadmium while brake shoe wear produces lead, chromium, cadmium, and
magnesium (15).
Atmospheric deposition is also a significant pollutant source in highway runoff and
occurs in two forms, dry and wet (12). Wet deposition refers to the process in which pollutants
are removed from the atmosphere via rain, sleet, snow, fog, or other forms of precipitation and
are deposited on the Earth’s surface; dry deposition refers to the falling of small particles and
gases to the Earth’s surface without the involvement of precipitation (16). Atmospheric
deposition accounts for 10-30% of total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS),
total phosphorus, and nitrate/nitrite; 30-50% of copper, chromium, lead, and ortho-phosphorus;
and 70-90% of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia found in highway runoff (17).
The surface of the roadway also contributes to the pollutant loading in highway runoff.
Asphalt is composed of approximately 95% stone materials and 5% bituminous binders. The
stone components contain a variety of different metals while the bituminous binder contains
hydrocarbons and trace metals such as vanadium, iron, nickel, magnesium, and calcium (12).
Nutrient loadings, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, in stormwater runoff are a major
concern in Florida and can result in eutrophication and/or groundwater contamination.
Currently, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Florida Water
Management Districts have under review a new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule that
pertains to total nitrogen and total phosphorus stormwater runoff loadings to receiving bodies
(10). As a result, this research will primarily be focused on the capture and removal of nitrogen
and phosphorus species.
11
Bio-Treatment Systems
Bio-treatment systems are shallow depressions, with vegetation and filter media, into
which stormwater drains and infiltrates. Stormwater entering the bio-treatment system is first
filtered by the vegetation and topsoil before entering the filter media. While in the media, the
stormwater is further filtered and pollutants are captured via depth filtration, adsorption, and ion
exchange. The adsorption capabilities of the media are sustained by the uptake of pollutants by
the vegetation and some microbial degradation. The vegetation also aids in preventing the media
from clogging thus maintaining the system’s infiltration characteristics (18) & (19).
Bio-treatment means that the system is biologically active, as opposed to simply being a
biologically inactive filter or adsorption bed. The distinction between a biologically active and
biologically inactive pollutant capture system is the use of biological processes for retention and
sequestration of the pollutants and regeneration of the contaminant removal capacity and the
hydraulic properties of the media. There are a variety of bio-treatment designs available; some
use conventional bio-treatment media having slow filtration rates and thus require large unit
storage volumes, others use specialized media, such as Bold & Gold™, having higher filtration
rates and thus require small surface storage volumes and small footprints (20).
There are two general types of bio-treatment systems, bio-retention and bio-detention
systems. Retention means a system that does not discharge a designated treatment volume of
stormwater runoff into surface water bodies and all runoff is contained in on-site storage (21).
Removal of water from the on-site storage occurs only through processes such as infiltration,
evaporation, or harvesting. Detention with filtration means a system that temporarily stores a
designated treatment volume prior to gradually discharging the treatment volume to a surface
12
water body (21). Specifically, bio-detention systems are a type of detention with filtration
system. Detention with filtration systems require the stormwater to be collected and percolated
through at least two feet of natural or artificial filter media prior to discharge to a surface water
body (21).
Treatment Processes
There are two general categories of treatment processes that exist in bio-treatment
systems, within-storm treatment processes and inter-storm treatment processes. Within-storm
treatment processes occur during the storm as stormwater enters and flows through the system
and shortly after the storm as the water level in the media is drawn down till the inter-storm
event moisture content is reached, frequently referenced as the media’s field capacity; whereas
inter-storm treatment processes occur during the time periods between storm events. With-in
storm treatment processes are responsible for the removal of pollutants from the water while
inter-storm treatment processes are important for regeneration of the pollution removal processes
(20).
Within-Storm Treatment Processes
Within-storm treatment processes are divided into two general categories, inert filtration
and reactive filtration. Inert filtration is the removal of particulate-bound pollutants via physical
processes. Inert filtration is primarily accomplished via sedimentation, straining, and depth
filtration (20; 22). Reactive filtration captures dissolved and colloidal pollutants through
chemical processes such as adsorption and ion exchange (20). The dominant filtration
mechanism in the filter is based upon media and pollutant particle sizes as shown in Table 3.
13
Table 3: Dominant filtration mechanism based upon media grain and influent pollutant particle sizes (20)
Condition Dominant Removal Mechanisms for Particulates
(D50 media) / (D50 influent) < 10 Straining (Inert Filtration)
10 < (D50 media) / (D50 influent) < 20 Depth filtration (Inert Filtration)
(D50 media) / (D50 influent) > 20 Physical adsorption of colloidal particles
(Reactive Filtration)
D50 media is the media grain diameter corresponding to 50% finer by mass on the particle distribution curve.
D50 influent is the influent particle diameter corresponding to 50% finer by mass on the particle distribution curve.
Inert Filtration
Inert filtration captures particulate-bound pollutants via straining, sedimentation, and
depth filtration. Straining physically filters particles at or near the media bed’s surface, whereas
depth filtration removes particles throughout the entire depth of the filter bed. Sedimentation
mechanisms occur both on top of the bed, as surface sedimentation, and within the bed, as a type
of depth filtration.
Straining
Particles are removed via straining when the particles’ diameters are greater than the pore
spaces of the media. Straining, also known as surface filtration, occurs near the top of a filter
bed, especially if the media is poorly graded. When the media is tightly packed, straining will
occur when the ratio of particle diameter to media grain diameter is in excess of 15%, as shown
in Figure 1 (22). Straining often times results in filter cake formation on the top of the filter bed;
this subsequently leads to cake filtration. Cake filtration occurs when the influent passes through
a cake of previously strained particles. As the cake develops, particles with progressively
smaller diameters than the filter bed media’s pore spaces will be removed via straining (23).
14
Figure 1: Capture by straining occurs if the ratio of particle diameter to media grain diameter is greater than 15% (22).
Cake filtration increases particle removal efficiency by capturing particles with smaller
diameters than the pore spaces of the media, however cake filtration also increases the head loss
across the filter bed. Furthermore, a system that primarily uses straining makes poor use of the
underlying media since most of the particles are captured on the surface of the bed. As a result,
rapid filtration beds are designed to minimize surface filtration and maximize the hydraulic
loading rate. This is accomplished by selecting a media fairly uniform in size with an effective
size (D10) typically no smaller than 0.5 mm (22). The effective size of a media is the diameter at
which 10% of the media particles by mass have equal or smaller diameters (24).
Sedimentation
Sedimentation occurs both at the surface of the filter bed and inside the filter bed as part
of depth filtration. As shown in Figure 2, particles with densities significantly greater than that
of water will deviate from the fluid streamlines due to the combined effects of gravity, buoyancy,
15
and fluid drag (22; 25). Surface sedimentation occurs when particles settle on the surface of the
filter bed during sheet flow or while non-flowing water has pooled. In the case of depth
filtration, sedimentation is a means of transporting the particle to a grain of filter media, termed
the collector. The particle is not removed from the solution however unless attachment occurs;
attachment will be further discussed in the following sections (25).
Depth Filtration
In depth filtration, particles are captured throughout the entire depth of the bed, thus
enabling a high solids retention capacity without quickly clogging as surface filtration would
(22). Depth filtration is composed of a two step process involving the transport of the particles
to or near the media surface followed by the removal of the particles from the fluid via
attachment to the media grain surface. The transport of particles is physical-hydraulic process
where as attachment is a chemical process (26; 27).
Transport
In water filtration, transport to the collector is achieved via interception, diffusion, and
sedimentation as shown in Figure 2. (25; 22). The transport mechanisms that are at work is a
function of the size of the particles (see Figure 3). There exists a critical suspended particle size
at which the total transport efficiency is at a minimum. Above this critical particle size, total
transport efficiency increases due to sedimentation and/or interception; below it, total transport
efficiency increase due to diffusion as shown in Figure 3 (25).
16
Figure 2: Particle transport mechanisms in water filtration (25)
Particles, centered on a streamline, whose streamlines pass within half the particle’s
diameter or less from the collector surface will come into contact with the collector, thus being
intercepted (see Figure 2). As shown in Equation ( 1 ), transport due to interception increases as
the ratio of particle size to collector size increases (25).
( 1 )
Where η = transport efficiency due to interception, dimensionless
dC = diameter of collector, m
dP = diameter of particle, m
17
Figure 3: Influence of particle size & density on filtration transport efficiency (diameter of collector = 0.5 mm, superficial
velocity = 5 m/h, Temperature = 25°C) (22)
Particles in suspension will undergo erratic movement, known as Brownian movement,
due to impaction with other particles in suspension as well as with the molecules of the medium,
causing particles to deviate from the fluid streamline; this process is known as diffusion (see
Figure 2). During rapid filtration, diffusion is most significant for particles less than 1 µm in
diameter (22; 25).
Attachment
After a particle is transported to, and collides with, a collector, the particle will either
attach to the collector or bounce off it. Attachment is achieved via surface interaction forces due
to the electric double layer, London-van der Waals forces, hydration of ions at surfaces, the steric
interactions of adsorbed macromolecules, and the interaction of hydrophobic surfaces (28). The
18
attachment efficiency is influenced by the solution chemistry and by the particle and collector
surface properties (22).
Reactive Filtration
Reactive filtration removes dissolved and colloidal pollutants via the adsorption
processes of physical and chemical adsorption, ion exchange, and biosorption. Adsorption is the
process by which ions or molecules in one phase (adsorbate) accumulate on the surface of
another phase (adsorbent) (29). The dissolved pollutants (adsorbates) are transported, via
diffusion, into the porous adsorbent granule and are then adsorbed onto the adsorbent’s inner
surfaces (30). Although there are differences between these three types of adsorption it is often
difficult to distinguish which, if not all, is at work (29).
Physical & Chemical Adsorption
Physical adsorption occurs due to the principle of electrostatic force and is relatively
nonspecific and generally reversible. Physical adsorption occurs when physical forces that
exclude covalent bonding and coulombic attraction of unlike charges are involved (30). The
electrostatic forces responsible for physical adsorption include dipole-dipole interactions,
dispersion interactions (aka London-van der Waals forces), and hydrogen bonding (31). The
adsorbed molecules are not bound to any specific site and are free to move around on the
adsorbent surface. The adsorbate molecules may be several layers thick on the adsorbent
surface. (29). Physical adsorption is the dominant adsorption mechanism in water treatment
(30).
Chemical adsorption, also referred to as chemisorption, is due to much stronger forces
than physical adsorption; chemisorption resembles the formation of chemical compounds and is
19
rarely reversible (30). In chemisorptions, the tendency for an adsorbate to adsorb depends
strongly on its identity and not solely on the surface charge as in physical adsorption (32). The
dominant cause of chemisorption is specific chemical interactions between the adsorbate and
adsorbent forming covalent or ionic bonds, thus chemisorptions can be species specific (32; 30).
In chemical adsorption, the adsorbate can bind to the adsorbent even when electrostatic
interactions oppose adsorption (32). The adsorbate particles form a monolayer on the adsorbent.
Once the adsorbent surface is completely covered by the monolayer of adsorbate the adsorption
capacity is reached (29; 30).
The division between physical and chemical adsorption is not distinct. Physical
adsorption is less specific for which compounds sorb to which adsorbent surface sites, has
weaker bond energies, long bonding distances, is reversible, and can have multiple layers of
adsorbates on the adsorbent. Chemisorption is rarely reversible; the attraction between adsorbate
and adsorbent approaches that of a covalent or electrostatic chemical bond with shorter bond
length, and higher bond energy. Adsorbates form a monolayer on the adsorbent. The bonds may
be specific to particular functional groups on the adsorbent (29). A summary of the differences
between physical and chemical adsorption is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Comparison of physical and chemical adsorption (32) & (30)
Parameter Physical Adsorption Chemical Adsorption
Use for water treatment Most common type of adsorption mechanism Rare in water treatment
Process speed Limited by mass transfer Variable
Type of bondingNonspecific binding mechanisms:
electrostatic interactions
species specific chemical
interactions: covalent or ionic
Type of reaction Reversible, exothermic Typically nonreversible, exothermic
Heat of adsorption 4-40 kJ/mole > 200 kJ/mole
Layers of adsorbate multiple layers single layer
20
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange occurs when ions of species A on an insoluble exchange material are
exchanged for ions of species B from the solution (26). Ion exchange is classified as an
adsorption process because the exchange occurs at the surface of the adsorbent and the
exchanging ions undergo a phase change. Ion exchange, however, is different from the typical
physical and chemical adsorption. In ion exchange, there is an exchange of mobile ions between
the solid and the solution which is governed by chemical and electrical potentials (33).
The insoluble exchange material is known as an ion exchange resin. The ion exchange
resin has fixed charged functional groups located on its surfaces. Mobile ions of opposite charge
called resin-phase counterions are associated with the charged functional groups via electrostatic
attraction thus maintaining electroneutrality. These resin-phase counterions can be exchanged
for the target aqueous-phase counterions, thus removing the target ion from the solution as
shown in Figure 4 (34). The exchange reactions are controlled by the chemical potentials of the
exchanging ions and to a lesser degree by ion diffusion due to the concentration gradient (33).
21
Figure 4: Cation Exchange: (a) initial condition; (b) final equilibrium condition (34)
Biosorption
Pollutants, such as nutrients, are also captured via the process of biosorption. Biosorption
is the sorption of nutrients onto the cellular surfaces of the biomass or biofilm and is considered
an abiotic process (35; 36). An abiotic process is a physiochemical process that resembles
adsorption or ion exchange (36). A biofilm is a thin biological layer of bacteria, algae, and/or
fungi that attaches itself to the surface of the media or soil (37). Biosorption is a metabolically-
passive process and thus does not require an energy input from the cells. If equilibrium is
reached on the biosorbent, the sorbate, the pollutants, can desorb back into solution (36). To
prevent this from occurring, recharging of the biosorbent via biological processes is necessary.
Regeneration of the biosorption media is achieved via biological uptake. Biological
uptake includes microbial-mediated transformations, such as nitrification and denitrification, and
22
biological assimilation. Biological uptake involves the transport of biosorbed pollutants from the
cellular surfaces of the biomass into the interior of the cell, mainly by energy-consuming active
transport (36).
Both biosorption and biological uptake are continuous processes and occur during both
the within-storm and inter-storm periods. Biosorption shall be considered to be considered both
a within-storm and inter-storm treatment process since it is responsible for both capturing
pollutants in the runoff during the storm event and removing pollutants from the soil water
during the inter-storm periods. Although biological uptake occurs during both periods, it shall be
considered a dominantly inter-storm process. The inter-storm period is much longer than the
within-storm period and thus the majority of biological uptake, which regenerates the media,
occurs during the inter-storm period. Biological uptake is discussed in greater detail in the Inter-
Storm Treatment Processes section.
Inter-Storm Treatment Processes
Inter-storm treatment processes occur in the biologically active soil zone, which extends
to approximately one meter in depth below the surface (38). These processes are responsible for
the sustainability of the bio-treatment system by enabling long term retention of captured
pollutants, removal of the pollutants from the media, and regeneration of the within-storm
treatment processes. Inter-storm treatment processes include: microbial-mediated
transformations, biological uptake, volatilization, soil processes, and routine maintenance (20).
Biosorption & Biological Uptake
Biological uptake is accomplished via microbial-mediated transformations, such as
nitrification and denitrification, and biological uptake. As mentioned previously, biological
23
uptake involves the transport of biosorbed pollutants from the cellular surfaces of the biomass
into the interior of the cell, mainly by energy-consuming active transport, thus regenerating the
biosorption capabilities of the biomass and biofilm (36). As nutrients are continuously removed
from the biofilm via biological uptake, more nutrients are biosorbed onto the biofilm from the
soil water. Removal of nutrients from the soil water via biosorption by the biomass shifts the
nutrient equilibrium between the soil water and the other sorption materials causing them to
desorb nutrients into the soil water, thus regenerating their sorption sites for the next storm event.
Microbial-Mediated Transformations
Microbial-mediated transformations are chemical transformations that result from the
redox reactions of respiration of bacteria, algae, and fungi. Microbial-mediated transformations
can be used to remove or transform inorganic compounds such as nitrogen species, metals, and
both simple and complex organic compounds (39). The removal or transformation of these
pollutants is necessary for the regeneration of the adsorption capacity of the filter media.
Common examples of microbial-mediated transformations include nitrification and
denitrification (39). Nitrification and denitrification are part of the nitrogen cycle shown in
Figure 5. Nitrification is a two step, energy-yielding reaction that occurs under aerobic
conditions. Nitrification results in the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate. The first step is the
conversion of ammonia to nitrite by nitroso-bacteria. This is followed by the conversion of
nitrite to nitrate by nitro-bacteria (40).
Denitrification occurs under anoxic conditions and involves the oxidation of organic
substrates using nitrate or nitrite as the electron acceptor (40). Denitrification results in the
reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gaseous forms of nitrogen: nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, and
24
dinitrogen gas. Under anoxic conditions the end product is dinitrogen gas; however under
fluctuating oxygen levels nitric oxide and nitrous oxide often form (39).
Microbial-mediated transformations can also involve the oxidation or reduction of metals
during respiration. These transformations can affect the reactivity and solubility of the dissolved
metals (39). Thus, removal of dissolved metals can be achieved via precipitation.
Some microbes, usually heterotrophic bacteria, are able to use xenobiotic compounds as
energy sources. Xenobiotic compounds are complex organic compounds, both naturally
occurring and synthetic, and are usually toxic. Metabolism of these xenobiotic compounds for
energy results in the degradation and transformation into less toxic forms (39).
Figure 5: Nitrogen Cycle in the aquatic & soil environment (41)
25
Aerobic & Anoxic Zones
Which microbial-mediated transformations occur is often dependent upon the availability
of oxygen. Nitrogen removal is an important goal of bio-treatment systems and is accomplished,
partly using nitrification and denitrification. Nitrogen removal is also accomplished via
biological assimilation which will be discussed later. As mentioned previously, nitrification
requires aerobic conditions where as denitrification requires anoxic conditions. The
simultaneous presence of nitrification and denitrification in the bio-treatment system is explained
by three possible mechanisms.
The first mechanism for the simultaneous presence of nitrification and denitrification
processes within the bio-treatment system is due to the biofilm. As the thickness of the biofilm
increases, oxygen is consumed faster than it can diffuse throughout the entire depth of the
biofilm; as a result the biofilm is composed of an inner anoxic layer and an outer aerobic layer.
Nitrification in the outer aerobic layer transforms ammonia into nitrate which then diffuses into
the inner anoxic zone where it undergoes denitrification, as shown in (42; 37).
Figure 6: Aerobic & Anoxic Layers of Biofilm
26
Another mechanism for the simultaneous presence of nitrification and denitrification
processes within the bio-treatment system is the pockets of aerobic and anoxic conditions
throughout the media or soil. Root zones, as well as the variable saturation of the media or soil,
are responsible for creating these pockets of aerobic and anoxic conditions (20).
A third mechanism leading to simultaneous nitrification and denitrification is the low
dissolved oxygen concentration present in the soil water. Since the soil water is not continuously
aerated, the dissolved oxygen concentration will be lower than optimal for nitrification and
above optimal for denitrification. As a result, both processes will occur at the same time at lower
than optimal rates (42). The dissolved oxygen concentration should be higher and the moisture
content should be lower near the surface of the media or soil. With increasing depth, the
dissolved oxygen concentration should decrease and the moisture content should increase. This
means that aerobic conditions will dominant near the surface and anoxic conditions will become
more prevalent with increasing depth.
Biological Assimilation
Biological assimilation is the assimilation conversion of organic and inorganic
constituents removed from the soil and water into the biomass of plants and microbes. Plants,
algae, and microbes assimilate macronutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous as well as
micronutrients and nonessential constituents. Some plants and algae are able to assimilate
nutrients in excess of immediate metabolic and growth needs, this is known as bioaccumulation
(39). Biological assimilation is an important part of regenerating the adsorption capacity of the
media; additionally it provides relatively long term pollutant retention within the biomass (20).
27
The assimilation of nitrogen by plants, bacteria, algae, and fungi is an example of
biological uptake and is part of the nitrogen cycle shown in Figure 5. The form of nitrogen
needed for the production of biomass, amino acids and proteins, is ammonium (43; 44). Plants,
bacteria, algae, and fungi are able to utilize nitrate/nitrite, ammonium, urea, and amino acids as
nitrogen sources, although different species prefer different sources or combinations of sources
of nitrogen; in general, plants prefer a mixture of ammonium and nitrate and will uptake a higher
ratio of ammonium to nitrate (44; 45). Plants, bacteria, algae, and fungi respond to the presence
of nitrate in the soil by altering their metabolic pathways. The presence of nitrate will trigger the
activation of genes that encode transporters to uptake nitrate from the soil and the production of
the enzymes nitrite reductase and nitrate reductase. These enzymes will convert nitrate into
ammonium within the cell (45).
Volatilization
The process by which liquids and solids vaporize and escape into the atmosphere is
known as volatilization. If a substance readily vaporizes at normal atmospheric pressure and
temperature it is known as a volatile compound. Examples of volatile compounds include
volatile organic compounds such as petroleum hydrocarbons and ammonia (20).
The volatilization of ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, shown in Figure 5. A
significant amount of ammonia leaves the soil by volatilization, in some cases 50% of what is
applied. The volatilization of ammonia is controlled mainly by the dissociation constant of
ammonium and the pH of the soil (46).
28
Soil Processes
Soil processes include weathering, plant activity, and animal activity; all of which aid in
maintaining the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Weathering of the soil is caused by
evaporation, expansion and contraction of the media due to moisture content and temperature
changes, and other physical processes. Thus weathering results in the breakup of the cake layer
formed from straining (20).
Plant activity not only aids in maintaining hydraulic conductivity but also prevents
erosion of the filter bed media and increases the amount of organic matter in the soil that
functions as adsorbents. Both the roots and the stems of plants serve to sustain hydraulic
conductivity. As the stalks of the plants move back and forth in the wind they break up the
surface cake layer that has formed. As plant roots grow they create void spaces; additionally,
plant roots will expand and contract depending upon the availability of water, this creates
preferential flow paths for infiltrating water (20).
Animals also help with maintaining hydraulic conductivity and increasing the amount of
organic matter. Worms living in the soil produce castings which as organic matter, serve as an
adsorbent. Additionally, as worms move through the soil they create cavities and void spaces
which serve to increase infiltration (20).
Routine Maintenance
Although bio-treatment systems are largely self sustaining, some maintenance is needed.
The bio-treatment system should be inspected at least annually for erosion. The system should
be inspected twice annually for vegetation health and density; the vegetative cover of the system
should be maintained at a minimum of 85%. Whenever possible, vegetation issues should be
29
corrected without the use of fertilizers and pesticides (19). Periodic removal and replacement of
the top of the bio-treatment system may also be necessary. This will result in the removal of
accumulated sediment and pollutants that have adsorbed to the sediment and the top layer of
media (20).
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ is a Biosorption Activated Media (BAM) developed by the University of
Central Florida Stormwater Management Academy. BAM is designed for four purposes: rapid
infiltration, inert filtration, reactive filtration, and to provide an ideal habitat for microbes. The
Bold & Gold™ used in this research is specified for highway runoff and is composed of an
uncompacted volume ratio of 75% expanded clay and 25% tire crumb.
Expanded Clay
Expanded clays are typically composed of an inert ceramic particle with a porous coating.
Expanded clay is created by a process known as calcination which involves exposing the clay to
temperatures of up to 1200°C inside a rotary kiln. During calcination the organic matter in the
clay expands resulting in a high porosity, low bulk density aggregate. Furthermore, the
expanded clay has a higher hydraulic conductivity (aka permeability) than similarly sized gravels
and sands (47).
The high porosity of expanded clays enables them to maintain a relatively high moisture
content. The combination of consistent high moisture content and large surface area makes the
expanded clay an ideal habitat for microbes and helps to maintain healthy vegetation on top of
the filter bed. A healthy population of microbes and vegetation is essential for rejuvenating the
adsorption and ion exchange capacities of the media.
30
Clay minerals are aluminum silicates composed of silica tetrahedrons and alumina
octahedrons. Clay particles have a net negative charge on the surfaces due to negatively charged
functional groups. This net negative charge is balanced by exchangeable cations such as Ca2+
,
Mg2+
, Na+, and K
+. Additionally, there are some positively charged functional groups located on
the edges of the clay particles (48). These properties make clay an ideal adsorption media.
Furthermore, the sorption capacity of clay is increased even further by the process of calcination
(49).
Expanded clays are a commonly used adsorbent and anion exchange media for the
removal of phosphorus, principally as phosphate (47). Phosphate adsorption to clay generally
occurs by bonding to the positively charged edges and by anion exchange of phosphates for
silicates in the clay (46). The phosphorous sorption capacity for expanded clays has been found
to range between 0.037 to 2.90 g P/kg, depending on the origin of the clay (50).
According to the NSQD, the average pH of freeway runoff is 7.10; this means the
dominant form of aqueous ammonia present is ammonium (NH4+) as shown in Figure 7 (13). As
mentioned previously, clay has a net negative charge and is balanced by exchangeable cations
such as Ca2+
, Mg2+
, Na+, and K
+. As a result, clay is effective at capturing ammonium via cation
exchange (51).
31
Figure 7: Distribution of ammonia and ammonium as a function of pH (41)
Tire Crumb
Automobile tires are generally composed of 27% to 33% carbon black by mass; carbon
black functions similarly to activated carbon (52). Activated carbon has a large surface area to
mass ratio, which makes it ideal for adsorption (53). Activated carbon is very effective in
removing large organic molecules and non-polar compounds. However, it is less effective on
inorganic molecules such as: nitrate, phosphate, chloride, bromide, iodide, lead, nickel, titanium,
vanadium, iron, copper, cadmium, zinc, barium, selenium molybdenum, manganese, tungsten,
and radium (53).
The adsorption of polar adsorbates on nonpolar adsorbents, such as activated carbon,
depends strongly on the pH of the solution. The solution pH affects the charge on the activated
carbon, which tends to be negative at pH 7 and above, neutral from 4 to 5 pH, and positive below
4 pH (30). The removal efficiency for nitrate, as shown in Figure 8, suddenly increases between
a pH of 6 to 7 as the pH of the solution is reduced. This is due to the increasing number of
positively charged sorption sites and the decreasing number of negatively charged sorption sites
32
on the adsorbent. The resulting dominantly positively charged sorption sites on the activated
carbon will favor the adsorption of nitrate ions due to the electrostatic attraction (54).
It is important to note that the average pH of freeway runoff according to the NSQD, see
Table 2, is 7.10. A pH of 7.10 means that activated carbon will have a low removal efficiency
for nitrate in freeway runoff, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Effect of pH on the removal of nitrate by different adsorbents: (♦) activated carbon, (▪) sepiolite, (▲) sepiolite
activated by HCl (54)
pH also has an effect on adsorption via activated carbon by affecting the form of the
adsorbate. In the case of weak conjugated acids, such as phosphoric acid, the maximum
adsorption is exhibited around the pH closest to the pKa of the acid. The more pKa values an
acid has, the longer the pH adsorption plateau will be, thus the greater the pH range of effective
adsorption (55). Phosphate exists as trihydrogen orthophosphate (H3PO4), dihydrogen
orthophosphate (H2PO4-), monohydrogen orthophosphate (HPO4
2-), and orthophosphate (PO4
3-)
with corresponding pKa values of 2.16, 7.21, and 12.32. Figure 9 shows the relationship
between percentage removal of phosphate and pH for zinc dichloride (ZnCl2)-activated carbon.
At a solution pH of two the dominant phosphate species is H3PO4, which, as a protonated
33
species, is only weakly attached to the activated carbon adsorbent. As the solution pH increases
to between 3 and 10 the H2PO4- and HPO4
2- species become dominant and are adsorbed more
readily, this is the plateau region of Figure 9. As the solution pH moves above 11, electrostatic
repulsion occurs between the negatively charged absorbent and the PO43-
(56).
It is important to note that the average pH of freeway runoff according to the NSQD, see
Table 2, is 7.10. A pH of 7.10 means that activated carbon will have a relatively good removal
efficiency for phosphate in freeway runoff, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Effect of pH on removal of phosphate using ZnCl2-activated carbon: adsorbent dose of 300 mg/50 mL,
agitation time of 3 hours, temperature of 35°C (56)
Stormwater Harvesting
Stormwater harvesting, or reuse, is defined as the collection of stormwater runoff for
application in irrigation or industrial uses (57). Stormwater harvesting can be used to reduce the
overall mass loading of pollutants to a surface water body by reducing the volume of water that
is discharged. In addition to pollutant loading reduction, the reduction in discharge volume of
34
discharge to a surface water body can also be advantageous. An example of when discharge
volume reduction is important is the discharging of stormwater into a marine estuary which
causes a reduction in salinity. The use of harvested stormwater for non-potable applications,
such as irrigation, saves money and reduces the withdrawal from the aquifers by reducing the
volume of potable water used for non-potable applications (57).
35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This project compares effluent nutrient concentrations of the soil amendment
Bold & Gold™ to sandy soil for simulated highway runoff. This comparison is preformed using
a field scale test bed split into sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ sides. The Bold & Gold™ used in
this research is specified for highway runoff and is composed of an uncompacted volume ratio of
75% expanded clay and 25% tire crumb.
A nuclear density gauge is used to determine the wet and dry densities of the sandy soil
and Bold & Gold™ in the test bed. A moisture content analysis is also preformed on the test bed
prior to each test run. Additionally, tests are preformed on influent and effluent water for each
test run.
Bench scale tests for specific gravity, permeability, maximum dry density, moisture
content for maximum dry density, and particle-size are performed to determine the soil
characteristics. Additionally, a bench scale column test is preformed on both the sandy soil and
the Bold & Gold™ without the sod present. The total porosities of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy
soil are calculated based upon the density of water, the experimentally determined specific
gravities, and the in situ dry densities in the test bed. An estimate of the vertical unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity is calculated based upon an empirical relationship with the coefficient of
permeability. Testing is done according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards whenever possible.
36
Test Bed Construction
The test bed represents a highway and an adjacent roadside swale. The four inch thick
concrete portion of the test bed represents a single 12 foot wide lane with a 2.0 foot wide inside
shoulder. A diagram of the test bed prior to being filled with Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil is
displayed in Figure 10 in order to show the locations of the impermeable barriers. A 2*4 piece
of wood is placed on the concrete lane and shoulder to approximately split the sheet flow equally
between the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ sides. A picture of the fully constructed test bed is
shown in Figure 11.
Figure 10: Diagram of empty test bed showing the location of impermeable barriers
37
Figure 11: Picture of the fully constructed test bed
The test bed is constructed in a non-inclined position during which the roadside swale
section has a 0.0% slope. In the non-inclined position the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil both
have depths of 2.7 feet, the lane has a slope of 14.67%, and the shoulder has a slope of 11.67%.
The depth of 2.7 feet is used due to the geometric limitations of the test bed. In order to have the
correct lane and shoulder widths the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil needed to be 2.7 feet deep.
The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) requires that detention with
filtration systems have a minimum filter media depth of 2.0 feet, thus the Bold & Gold™ and
sandy soil depth of 2.7 feet is satisfactory.
A side view of the non-inclined position is shown in Figure 12. As shown in Figure 11
and Figure 13, the test bed is split in half with one side being Bold & Gold™ and the other being
sandy soil. The Bold & Gold™ used in this research is specified for highway runoff and is
composed of an uncompacted volume ratio of 75% expanded clay and 25% tire crumb. Both
sides are compacted in five levels using a 6.5 HP Compact Vibrator Plate manufactured by
Central Machinery of Camarillo, CA; the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil are not wetted during
38
compaction. Compaction is preformed without watering since a loose condition is desired to
optimize permeability.
The roadside swale section of the test bed has a vegetative cover of Argentine Bahia.
The Argentine Bahia is placed on the test bed as sod and is allowed two months to establish prior
to the start of testing. During the first month of sod establishment the sod is watered every other
day; during the second month the sod is watered every four days.
39
Figure 12: Side view of non-inclined position of test bed used for construction
Figure 13: Cross Section AA of the test bed
40
Nuclear Density Meter
A nuclear density gauge is used to determine the dry densities of the sandy soil and Bold
and Gold™ present in the test bed according to ASTM D 6938-10. The nuclear density gauge
used is a MC-1 Density and Moisture Gauge manufactured by CPN International Inc. of Raleigh,
NC. Readings are taken at three locations for both the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ at depths
of two and eight inches resulting in six dry density readings for each media. The six dry density
values are then averaged together to obtain an overall average dry density. The locations at
which the nuclear density readings are taken are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Testing Locations for Nuclear Density Gauge and Moisture Content
41
Test Bed Operation
The field scale tests are done on an elevated and tilt-able test bed. The test bed represents
a highway and an adjacent roadside swale. While in the testing position, the test bed is inclined
16.67% or 9.5°. In the testing position the lane has a 2% slope and the shoulder has a 5% slope;
the roadside swale has a slope of 1:6, which is approximately 16.67% (58). In the testing
position, the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil are two feet and nine inches deep (approximately
2.74 feet deep). Figure 15 shows a side view of the test bed in the testing position.
42
Figure 15: Side view of inclined position of test bed used for testing
43
Simulated Highway Runoff
The water used to create simulated highway runoff is collected from stormwater pond
4M, located on the UCF main campus. In order for the pond water to become simulated
highway runoff, the nitrogen and phosphorous species concentrations need to approximate the
NSQD average values for freeways shown in Table 5. To create simulated highway runoff,
ammonium carbonate, potassium nitrate, and potassium phosphate are added to the pond water.
Table 5: National Stormwater Quality Database Average Nitrogen and Phosphorous Species Concentrations for Freeway
Runoff (13)
Storms of one, one and a half, and three inches of rainfall with a duration of 30 minutes
are being simulated; these storm events correspond to 84, 127, and 254 gallons respectively. The
water is pumped up through the PVC piping system, shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17, and then
sheet flows over the simulated roadway.
Units Freeways
1.07
2.0
0.28
2.28
0.20
0.25
NSQD Values for Freeways
Name
Median Values
in mg/L an N or P
NH3
TKN
NO2- + NO3
-
Total Nitrogen
Filtered Phosphorus (aka OP)
Total Phosphorus
44
Figure 16: Influent delivery system
Figure 17: PVC Piping System Used to Create Sheet Flow over Simulated Roadway
45
Collection of Influent and Effluent
A sample of the influent is collected at the start of the 30 minute rainfall event. The
influent is collected using a perforated PVC pipe lying along the interface of the concrete
shoulder and the Argentine Bahia as shown in Figure 18. The influent is collected at this
location, as opposed to from the influent source container, in order to include any changes or
additions to the water chemistry that occur as the simulated runoff flows over the concrete lane
and shoulder.
Figure 18: Perforated PVC pipe used for Influent Collection
Effluent is defined as the water that has infiltrated through the soil in the test bed. The
effluent drains from holes in the bottom of the test bed. The effluent is collected in 55 gallon
barrels located underneath the test bed as shown in Figure 19. The effluent is collected for two
hours after the 30 minute simulated rainfall event has concluded. Water samples for analysis are
taken from the collection barrels at the completion of the two hour collection time. The
collection barrels are scrubbed, rinsed with tap water, and allowed to dry prior to each test.
46
Figure 19: Effluent Collection
Water Quality Analysis
Once the 30 minute simulated storm event the influent sample is analyzed; at the
completion of the two hours, samples are taken from the effluent barrels and analyzed. Turbidity
and pH are determined at the field lab using a 2100P Portable Turbidimeter by HACH® and a
Accumet Research AR50 by Fisher Scientific® respectively.
Alkalinity, TSS, fecal coliform, E. coli, total nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, ammonia,
dissolved organic nitrogen, particulate nitrogen, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus
(SRP), dissolved organic phosphorus, and particulate phosphorus analysis is performed by
Environmental Research & Design, Inc., a NELAC certified laboratory. NELAC stands for
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference. All sample bottles, except the
bacteria sample bottles, are acid washed using hydrochloric acid and rinsed with deionized
47
water. The bacteria sample bottles are pre-sterilized by the manufacturer and will have a small
white pill or white powder that will counteract any chlorine in the water. Five sample bottles
each, from the influent, Bold & Gold™ effluent, and sandy soil effluent are transported to the
certified laboratory for analysis. Table 6 shows the sizes of bottles and what preparations are
needed for each set of samples sent to the certified laboratory. Sulfuric acid is used to lower the
pH to below two when needed for preservation and 0.45 µm syringe filters are used for filtering
the samples when needed. All samples are transported to the certified laboratory inside a cooler
on ice.
Table 6: Sample bottles and preparation needed for each water analysis
Moisture Content
The moisture content of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil in the test bed is determined
using ASTM D 2216-98. Prior to each test run, core samples are taken over a depth range of six
to eight inches at the three locations shown in Figure 14. The moisture contents from the three
locations are averaged together to obtain the average moisture content of the soil.
Bench Scale Soil Characterization
Characterization of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil present in the test bed is
accomplished through a series of bench scale tests. Tests for specific gravity, permeability,
Sample Bottle # Bottle Size Bottle Material Filtered Preserved
1 1 Liter Glass No No
2 60 mL Low Density Polyethylene Yes No
3 60 mL Low Density Polyethylene Yes Yes
4 60 mL Low Density Polyethylene No Yes
5 (Bacterial Sample) 100 mL Low Density Polyethylene No No
48
maximum dry density, moisture content for maximum dry density, and particle-size are
preformed. Additionally, a bench scale column test is preformed on both the sandy soil and the
Bold & Gold™ without the sod present. The total porosity of both the Bold & Gold™ and the
sandy is a function of the dry density of the soil in the test bed and the specific gravity and is
obtained by calculation.
Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of the Bold & Gold™ and the sandy soil is determined using a water
pycnometer according to ASTM D 854-02. Oven dried soil samples are used for the experiment,
thus Method B-Procedure for Oven-Dried Specimens is used.
Maximum Dry Density & Moisture Content for Maximum Dry Density of Compaction
The maximum dry density and the moisture content for maximum dry density of the Bold
& Gold™ and the sandy soil is determined using the standard Proctor test as described in ASTM
D 698-00. The sandy soil is prepared using the Dry Preparation Method and testing is preformed
using Method A. The Bold & Gold™ is prepared using the Moist Preparation Method and
testing is preformed using Method B. A manual rammer is used for compaction
Soil Classification
The sandy soil is classified using the Unified Soil Classification System according to
ASTM D 2487-00 as well as the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) system as specified in AASHTO M 145-91. Classification is based solely upon
particle size characteristics; the liquid limit and plasticity index are not considered. Particle size
characteristics are determined using a sieve analysis as specified by ASTM C 136-01.
49
Particle Size Distribution
The particle size distribution is determined using a sieve analysis as specified in ASTM C
136-01. The sieve test for the sandy soil is conducted with sieve numbers: 35, 45, 60, 70, 100,
and 200. Additional sieves are used for the Bold & Gold™ since it is a composite of tire crumb
and expanded clay and thus there will be a broader distribution of grain sizes. The Bold &
Gold™ sieve test is conducted with sieve numbers: 4, 8, 10, 16, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, 100, and
200.
Permeability
The permeability of the sandy soil and the Bold & Gold™ is determined using the
constant head method. The standard method used is ASTM D 2434-68. A permeability cylinder
having a diameter of three inches is used for permeability testing of both the sandy soil and the
Bold & Gold™ due to their particle size distribution results, as specified in ASTM D 2434-68.
For both the Bold & Gold™ and the sandy soil, there are three series of tests, each time
with a fresh soil sample. Each series includes measurements at three separate head differences.
For each head difference there are three measurements of the volume that is collected after a
duration of 60 seconds. Coefficient of permeability (k) values are calculated for each of the
volumes collected, resulting in three k values for each head difference and thus nine k values for
each series. The k values are then corrected to that for 20°C yielding the coefficient of
permeability at 20°C (k20°C). The average k20°C for each series as well as the overall soil is then
calculated.
There are three differences between the ASTM method and the testing method actually
employed. The differences pertain to the target density of the soil in the permeability cylinder,
50
the method for determining the difference in head, and the heads at which the test is preformed.
Section 6.5.3 of ASTM 2434-68 specifies that the relative density in the permeability cylinder
should approximately match the relative density of the soil in the field. In the actual test, the dry
density was used instead of the relative density. The relative density is based upon the dry
density and thus the use of the dry density instead of relative density will have no effect on the
validity of the permeability results.
The second difference between the ASTM 2434-68 methods and the actual procedures
concerns the method of measuring the difference in head. ASTM 2434-68 states that the
difference in head shall be determined using manometers located on the permeability cylinder,
however, the UCF Stormwater Management Academy and the UCF Geotechnical Engineering
Lab do not have permeability cylinders with manometers. The difference in head was instead
determined by measuring the distance between the water level in the constant head funnel and
the center of the outlet from the permeability cylinder. The head loss due to the porous disks and
tubing from the funnel to the permeability cylinder is assumed to be negligible.
The heads at which the constant head permeability test should be run are specified in
section 7.2 of ASTM 2434-68. The standard discusses determining the head at which laminar
and turbulent flow occur and at what head intervals testing should be done in each of these
regions. The actual procedure used for determining the heads to be tested differs significantly
from that of ASTM 2434-68. Since the focus of this research is on roadside swales, the chosen
heads shall reflect a common depth range found in such swales. For this test, depth refers to the
distance between the top of the soil in the permeability cylinder and the water level in the funnel,
just as depth in a swale would refer the distance between the water surface and the soil at the
51
bottom of the swale. Depths of approximately 18 inches, 12 inches, and seven inches are used;
smaller depths cannot be analyzed due to limitations of the experimental setup.
Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Vertical Unsaturated Infiltration)
An estimate of the vertical unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is calculated based upon an
empirical relationship with the coefficient of permeability (k) (59), shown in Equation ( 2 ).
( 2 )
Column Test
Column tests are performed on the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil without sod present.
Sod farms typically use fertilizer to increase production thus it is reasonable to assume that the
sod will leach nutrients into the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil on the test bed, especially during
the initial test runs. This presents a problem for analyzing nutrient removal rates since an
unknown amount of nutrients are being added to the simulated highway runoff. As a result the
Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil test bed effluent concentrations are compared, not the percentage
of removal. However, it is still desirable to have a general idea of what percentage removals of
total phosphorus and total nitrogen are obtained by the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™; as a
result, column tests without sod are run on the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil to obtain a percent
removal.
The column test apparatus consists of a 3.5 foot long clear PVC pipe with an inside
diameter of six inches. There are eight inches of limestone rocks at the bottom of the column
and geotextile fabric separating the limestone rocks from the media. The media is 2.74 feet
52
deep. The effluent collection pipe is located within the rock layer. The column test apparatus is
shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Column Test Apparatus
The column test is preformed for both the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ and consists of
running 25 gallons of simulated highway runoff through the apparatus. The first five gallons of
effluent collected are wasted and not included in the cumulative effluent collection. The first
five gallons are wasted because it is considered the first flush through the system and will
contain fines and other constituents that are not representative of normal flow operation of the
system. The remainder of the effluent is collected and a sample is taken for analysis. The
sample is tested for nitrate+nitrite, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. The analysis is
performed by ENCO Laboratories, Inc., a NELAC certified laboratory.
53
Total Porosity
Total porosity is the ratio of the volume of voids to the total volume of the soil. Equation
( 3 ) expresses the total porosity as a function of the density of water, the specific gravity of the
soil, and the dry density of the soil. The dry density of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil in the
test bed is obtained using the nuclear density gauge as well as the experimentally determined
specific gravities are used to calculate the total porosity of the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™
present in the test bed. The density of water is assumed to be one gram per milliliter.
( 3 )
54
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
Introduction
Within this Chapter, effluent nutrient concentrations of the soil amendment Bold &
Gold™ are compared to those from sandy soil for simulated highway runoff with the ultimate
goal of utilizing Bold & Gold™ in the design of a bio-detention system. In order to design a bio-
detention system, media characteristics and media/water quality relationships are needed.
Media Characteristics
The physical characteristics of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil present in the test bed
are determined through tests done in the test bed, bench scale tests, and calculations based upon
experimentally determined values. Bench scale tests for specific gravity, permeability,
maximum dry density, moisture content of maximum dry density, and particle-size distribution
are performed. The dry density of the in situ Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil located in the test
bed is determined using a nuclear density gauge. Prior to each test run core samples are taken
from the test bed to determine the moisture content of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil. The
total porosities of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil present in the test bed are calculated using
the experimentally determined specific gravities and the in situ dry densities of the soils in the
test bed.
Dry Density
Density is a measure of the mass of soil in a specific volume space. The total volume
includes soil solids volume, inter-particle void volume, and internal pore volume. The value
changes with compaction and moisture and is related to the water storage capacity of the media.
Dry density is the mass of just the soil solids per unit of total volume.
55
A nuclear density gauge is used to determine the in situ dry densities of the sandy soil
and Bold and Gold™ present in the test bed according to ASTM D 6938-10. The dry densities
of the soils are required for the subsequent permeability tests and porosity calculations. The dry
density of sandy soil is found to be 85 pounds per cubic foot and the dry density of the Bold &
Gold™ is found to be 39 pounds per cubic foot.
Inter-storm, In Situ Moisture Content (Field Capacity)
Variations in the inter-storm in situ moisture content will affect the degree of biological
activity of both vegetation and microbes present in the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil.
Biological activity in a bio-treatment system is responsible for sustaining the pollutant capture
mechanisms of the system; thus it is important to determine if there is a significant variation in
the inter-storm in situ moisture contents of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil present in the test
bed. If the inter-storm moisture content is shown to be relatively constant then a measure of field
capacity has been determined. Field capacity is defined as the moisture content remaining in a
media that has been wetted with water and allowed to drain freely by gravity until drainage is
negligible; complete gravitational drainage typically occurs after two to three days (60).
The moisture content data after complete gravitational drainage for the sandy soil and
Bold & Gold™ are presented in Table 7and Table 8 respectively. As shown in the Table 7 and
Table 8, the moisture contents of both the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ are relatively constant
for each media. Since the measurements are taken after water has drained from the media, the
overall average moisture contents for all test dates are considered to be the field capacities. The
field capacity of the Bold & Gold™ is 40.15% and the field capacity of the sandy soil is 5.86%.
56
The higher field capacity of the Bold & Gold™ indicates biological activity is more probable
with the Bold & Gold™ than the sandy soil.
Table 7: Sandy Soil Moisture Content (Field Capacity) Data
Table 8: Bold & Gold™ Moisture Content (Field Capacity) Data
Date
Upstream
Moisture
Content
Midpoint
Moisture
Content
Downstream
Moisture
Content
Overall Test Bed
Average Moisture
Content
8/11/2011 n/a n/a n/a n/a
8/17/2011 6.84% 7.95% n/a 7.40%
8/24/2011 6.01% 5.58% 5.82% 5.80%
8/29/2011 6.04% 5.95% 6.25% 6.08%
9/7/2011 4.23% 5.51% 5.34% 5.03%
9/12/2011 5.03% 5.14% 4.82% 5.00%
9/21/2011 6.19% 6.62% 6.69% 6.50%
9/26/2011 5.36% 4.87% 5.70% 5.31%
10/3/2011 6.98% 4.63% 5.63% 5.75%
Average of all
test dates5.83% 5.78% 5.75% 5.86%
Date
Upstream
Moisture
Content
Midpoint
Moisture
Content
Downstream
Moisture
Content
Overall Test Bed
Average Moisture
Content
8/11/2011 n/a n/a n/a n/a
8/17/2011 40.77% 40.27% 40.82% 40.62%
8/24/2011 40.36% 41.40% 42.40% 41.39%
8/29/2011 38.78% 39.34% 37.64% 38.59%
9/7/2011 38.47% 37.36% 38.56% 38.13%
9/12/2011 40.23% 39.20% 39.50% 39.64%
9/21/2011 42.47% 41.26% 40.50% 41.41%
9/26/2011 41.55% 40.98% 41.49% 41.34%
10/3/2011 40.54% n/a 39.67% 40.11%
Average of
all test dates40.40% 39.97% 40.07% 40.15%
57
Particle-Size Distribution & Soil Classification
This is a measure of the relative amounts of particles sorted by size in a media blend. It
is used to relate to other properties of interest such as moisture content and the movement of
water through the media. It is also of benefit in the specification of material blends to maintain
consistency in product procurement.
The particle size distribution curve for the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ is determined
using a sieve analysis as specified in ASTM C 136-01. Based upon the resulting particle size
distribution curves, the sandy soil is classified using the Unified Soil Classification System
according to ASTM D 2487-00 as well as the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) system according to or AASHTO M 145-91. Bold &
Gold™ is not a naturally occurring soil and thus is not classified using these systems.
Particle-Size Distribution
The results of the sieve tests for the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ are shown in Table 49
and Table 50 of Appendix A. The particle distribution curves for the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ are shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 respectively. The formulas for the uniformity
coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of gradation (Cc) are shown in Equation ( 4 ) and Equation
( 5 ) respectively. D10, D30, and D60 are the particle diameters corresponding to 10%, 30%, and
60% finer by mass on the particle distribution curve. The D10, D30, and D60 values as well as the
uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation for the sandy and Bold & Gold™ are
presented in Table 9 and Table 10 respectively.
( 4 )
58
( 5 )
Figure 21: Particle Size Distribution Curve for the sandy soil present in the test bed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.010 0.100 1.000
Pe
rce
nt
Fin
er
(%)
Particle Size (mm)
59
Table 9: Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Gradation for the sandy soil
Figure 22: Particle Size Distribution Curve for Bold & Gold™
0.22 mm
0.1 mm
0.18 mm
2.20 unitless
1.47 unitless
D60
D10
D30
Uniformity Coefficient (Cu)
Coefficient of Gradation (Cc)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Pe
rce
nt
Fin
er
(%)
Particle Size (mm)
60
Table 10: Uniformity Coefficient and Coefficient of Gradation for Bold & Gold™
Soil Classification
Soils are a composite of gravel, sand, silt, and clay; AASHTO and the Unified Soil
Classification System have different grain size ranges for these components as shown in Table
11. The AASHTO system bases soil classification upon particle size distribution as well as the
liquid limit and the plasticity index; the Unified Soil Classification System utilizes the particle
size distribution, liquid limit, and plasticity index just as AASHTO does but also uses the grain
type composition percentages, uniformity coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of gradation (Cc).
Table 11: Grain Type Size Ranges
2.3 mm
0.7 mm
1.5 mm
3.29 unitless
1.40 unitless
D60
D10
D30
Uniformity Coefficient (Cu)
Coefficient of Gradation (Cc)
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
76.2 to 2 2 to 0.075 0.075 to 0.002 < 0.002
Grain Diameter (mm)
Name of Organization
AASHTO
Unified Soil Classification
System76.2 to 4.75 4.75 to 0.075
Fines (silts & clays)
< 0.075
61
AASHTO Classification System
The composition of the sandy soil according to the AASHTO grain type size ranges in
Table 11 is presented in Table 12. Classification of the sandy soil according to the AASHTO
system is based upon the particle distribution curve shown in Figure 21. As shown in Figure 21,
more than 51% of the sandy soil passes the #40 sieve and less than 10% passes the #200 sieve,
thus, the AASHTO classification of the sandy soil is A-3.
Table 12: AASHTO System: Grain type composition of the sandy soil
Unified Soil Classification System
The composition of the sandy soil according to the Unified Soil Classification System
grain type size ranges in Table 11 is presented in Table 13.
Table 13: Unified Soil Classification System: Grain type composition of the sandy soil
Classification of the sandy soil according to the Unified Soil Classification System is based upon
the particle distribution curve in Figure 21, the composition percentages in Table 13, the
uniformity coefficient, and the coefficient of gradation. The D10, D30, and D60 values as well as
the uniformity coefficients and coefficients of gradation for the sandy soil are presented in Table
Gravel 0%
Sand 98.23%
Silt & Clay 1.77%
Gravel 2.00%
Sand 96.23%
Fines 1.77%
62
9. Based upon these parameters, the Unified Soil Classification System designates the sandy soil
in the test bed as “Poorly Graded Sand”.
Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of soils (GS) is defined as the ratio of the dry density of soil solids to
the density of water. Specific gravity is an important parameter in soil mechanics and is used for
calculation of the various weight-volume relationships (61). The dry densities of the soils are
required for the subsequent porosity calculations. At 20°C the specific gravities are found to be
2.69 for the sandy soil and 1.22 for the Bold & Gold™.
Maximum Dry Density & Moisture Content for Maximum Dry Density
In order to better understand the compaction characteristics of the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™, a standard proctor test is preformed on each to obtain the maximum dry density and the
moisture content for maximum dry density. The moisture content for maximum dry density is
the moisture content of the media at which the maximum dry density is achieved. The maximum
dry densities and moisture contents for maximum dry density of the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ are determined using a standard Proctor test as described in ASTM D 698-00. The
results of the standard Proctor tests are shown in Table 51 and Table 52 of Appendix A; the
resulting compaction curves are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24. The compaction curves
include both the standard proctor test curve and the zero-air-void curve. The zero-air-void curve
is determined via calculation and is a function of the specific gravity of the media. The zero-air-
void curve shows the theoretical maximum dry density of the soil which is obtained when no air
is present in the media’s void spaces.
63
The moisture contents for maximum dry density and maximum dry densities of the sandy
soil and Bold & Gold™ are determined by inspecting the standard Proctor test curves shown in
Figure 23 and Figure 24. The sandy soil has a maximum dry density of 103.4 lb/ft3 and a
moisture content for maximum dry density of 13.8%. The Bold & Gold™ has a maximum dry
density of 43.1 lb/ft3 and a moisture content for maximum dry density of 40.2%.
The shape of standard Proctor test compaction curve for the sandy soil is typical,
however the curve obtained for the Bold & Gold™ is atypical. As dictated by ASTM D 698-00,
previously compacted soils are not reused for the compaction tests. Great care is taken to ensure
that the ratio of expanded clay to tire crumb is consistent for each test by only mixing enough for
each compaction at each moisture content level. However it is not possible to ensure that the
same distribution of particle sizes are present in each mixture since the smaller grains of
expanded clay quickly settle to the bottom of the source container.
Figure 23: Compaction Curves for Sandy soil
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10
%
11
%
12
%
13
%
14
%
15
%
16
%
17
%
Dry
De
nsi
ty (
lb/f
t^3
)
Moisture Content
Standard Proctor Test Curve
Zero-Air-Void Curve
64
Figure 24: Compaction Curves for Bold & Gold™
Permeability
The permeability of the soils is determined using the constant head method. The standard
method used is ASTM D 2434-68. For both the Bold & Gold™ and the sandy soil, there are
three series of tests, each time with a fresh soil sample. Each series includes measurements at
three separate head differences. For each head difference there are three measurements of the
volume that is collected after a duration of 60 seconds.
The results of the sandy soil permeability test series are shown in Table 53, Table 54, and
Table 55 of Appendix A. The coefficients of permeability for each sandy soil test series as well
as the overall average coefficient of permeability are presented in Table 14. The results of the
Bold & Gold™ permeability test series are shown in Table 56, Table 57, and Table 58 of
Appendix A. The coefficients of permeability for each Bold & Gold™ test series as well as the
40.000
42.000
44.000
46.000
48.000
50.000
52.000
54.000
20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
Dry
De
nsi
ty (
lb/f
t3)
Moisture Content
Standard Proctor Test Curve
Zero-Air-Void
65
overall average coefficient of permeability are presented in Table 15. The overall coefficients of
permeability at 20°C for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ are 0.0107 cm/second and 0.0409
cm/second or 15.10 in/hr and 57.96 in/hr respectively. Thus the Bold & Gold™ has a coefficient
of permeability 284% greater than that of the sandy soil.
Table 14: Sandy Soil Permeability: Overall Coefficient of Permeability
Table 15: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Overall Coefficient of Permeability
Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Vertical Unsaturated Infiltration)
Unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity is an important drainage design parameter
and is used to determine the vertical unsaturated infiltration rate. An estimate of the vertical
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is calculated based upon an empirical relationship with the
coefficient of permeability (k) (59). The unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kvu) of the
Sandy Soil Test Series #Average k at 20°C
(cm/second)
Average Void Ratio
(unitless)
1 0.010832687 0.809767138
2 0.012090602 0.719130061
3 0.00903978 0.725000282
Overall Average of Series 0.0107 0.751
Bold & Gold™ Test Series #Average k at 20°C
(cm/second)
Average Void Ratio
(unitless)
1 0.072147482 1.02275757
2 0.024054567 0.873764354
3 0.026486628 0.832986572
Overall Average of Series 0.0409 0.910
66
media is used in the modified Green and Ampt infiltration equation to determine the infiltration
rate as a function of time. Additionally, the design infiltration rate (Id) of retention and detention
basins, assuming unsaturated vertical flow, is calculated using the media’s unsaturated vertical
hydraulic conductivity and a factor of safety (FS) as shown in Equation ( 6 ) (59).
Table 16: Estimate of Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity based upon empirical relationship
( 6 )
Total Porosity
Total porosity is the ratio between the soil’s volume of void spaces and total volume.
The total porosities of the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil present in the test bed are functions of
the experimentally determined specific gravities of the soils, the in situ dry densities of the soils
in the test bed, and the density of water. The total porosities of the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ are 43% and 49% respectively.
Water Quality Analysis
Water quality data is used to compare effluent nutrient concentrations of the soil
amendment Bold & Gold™ to sandy soil for simulated highway runoff. This comparison is
preformed using a field scale test bed split into sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ sides. In addition
to the comparison of effluents, influent analyses and column tests are also performed.
cm/second in/hour
Bold & Gold™ 0.02726 38.64
Sandy Soil 0.00710 10.07
67
Influent
To create simulated highway runoff, ammonium carbonate, potassium nitrate, and
potassium phosphate are added to detention pond water to approximate the NSQD average
values for freeways shown in Table 17. The influents for all test dates are presented in Table 59
of Appendix B. The means, medians, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation of the
simulated highway runoff are shown in Table 18.
Table 17: Summary of Freeway Runoff Data from the NSQD (13)
NH3
(µg/L as N)
NO2- + NO3
-
(µg/L as N)
Filtered Phosphorus
(µg/L as P)
Total Phosphorus
(µg/L as P)
Number of Observations 79 25 22 128
Median 1070 280 200 250
Coefficient of Variation 1.3 1.2 2.1 1.8
68
Table 18: Summary of Simulated Highway Runoff Characteristics
Column Test
Sod farms typically use fertilizer to increase production thus it is reasonable to assume
that the sod will leach nutrients into the soils on the test bed, especially during the initial test
Mean Median Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation
Turbidity
(NTU)3.338 3.49 0.9338 0.2798
pH 7.737 7.77 0.1810 0.02340
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)68.27 66.4 10.82 0.1585
TSS
(mg/L)3.644 3.3 1.737 0.4767
Total N
(µg/L as N)1078 999 209.3 0.1942
NO3- + NO2
-
(µg/L as N)306.2 280 74.73 0.2440
NH3
(µg/L as N)475.8 528 150.5 0.3162
Dissolved Organic N
(µg/L as N) 169.3 68 190.8 1.127
Particulate N
(µg/L as N)126.6 60 165.2 1.305
Total P
(µg/L as P)189.2 197 16.78 0.08866
SRP
(µg/L as P)164.3 166 24.48 0.1490
Dissolved Organic P
(µg/L as P)7.444 6 5.940 0.7978
Particulate P
(µg/L as P)17.44 13 15.09 0.8652
Fecal Coliform
(cfu/100 mL)1019 362.5 1220 1.198
E. Coli
(cfu/100 mL)21.60 17 25.63 1.187
69
runs. A column test is performed on the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil without sod present to
determine what removal efficiencies of total phosphorus and total nitrogen are obtained by the
sandy and Bold & Gold™ without the influence of nutrient leaching from the sod. A single
column test is preformed on the sandy soil and Black & Gold™. The water quality testing is
performed ENCO Laboratories, Inc. The results of the column test for sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ are presented in Table 19 and Table 20.
Table 19: Column Test Results Sandy Soil
Table 20: Column Test Results for Bold & Gold™
Neither the Bold & Gold™ or the sandy soil show a removal of total nitrogen, in fact the
total nitrogen concentration of the water increased as it passed through the sandy soil. This
suggests that the sandy soil is actually leaching nitrogen. The lack of removal of total nitrogen
by both the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil suggests that nitrogen species are not readily captured
in the environment of the test conditions. Total phosphorus removal is achieved by both the
Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil; the removal efficiency of the Bold & Gold™ is greater however.
Influent Effluent Removal
Total Nitrogen (mg/L as N) 1.2 1.4 -17%
Total Phosphorus (mg/L as P) 0.21 0.18 14%
Influent Effluent Removal
Total Nitrogen (mg/L as N) 1.7 1.7 0%
Total Phosphorus (mg/L as P) 0.21 0.085 60%
70
The Bold & Gold™ achieves a total phosphorus removal of 60% whereas the sandy soil only
achieves a 14% removal.
Effluent Comparisons
One of the goals of this research is to compare the water quality of the effluents from the
sandy soil to the Bold & Gold™. The nutrient parameters of interest are the phosphorus and
nitrogen species since these are associated with the majority of impaired waters in Florida and
are limiting nutrients. In addition to nutrient concentrations, total suspended solids, turbidity,
fecal coliform, E. coli, and alkalinity are also compared. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is
used to compare the cumulative averages of each parameter to determine if there is a significant
difference between the concentrations in sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ effluents at an 80%
confidence level. If the difference is found to be significant at a confidence level of 80% then
the maximum confidence level of significance is stated. A bar graph shall show a comparison
between the overall cumulative average of the parameter for both the sandy soil and the Bold &
Gold™.
The pH of the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ effluents are also analyzed. Although the
pH of the effluents is not compared, it is an important characteristic since pH affects adsorption
chemistry.
As mentioned earlier, leaching of nutrients from the sod may occur, as a result negative
removal efficiencies could occur when comparing the influent concentrations to the
concentrations present in the effluent that has percolated through the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™. Sod contribution trend plots are constructed to determine if leaching is occurring and if
it is diminishing with time. The plots are made using the total nitrogen and total phosphorus
71
removal values of the media from the column tests and the influent and effluent total nitrogen
and total phosphorus concentrations from the field tests; the nutrient removal values from the
column tests are used to represent the removal values in the test bed. Equation ( 7 ) represents
the nutrient mass balance of the bio-treatment system; it is assumed that all water that enters the
system exits via the effluent, thus the mass balance is preformed using concentrations. Based
upon the mass balance, Equation ( 8 ) is developed and is used to calculate the nutrient loading
leaching from the sod. It is assumed that leaching from the sod on both the sandy soil and Bold
& Gold™ sides of the test bed is approximately equivalent since the same supplier of the sod is
used, however it is recognized that less or more nutrients can be present in some of the sod.
( 7 )
( 8 )
Nitrogen
In addition to knowing the effects on total nitrogen as a whole, it is also useful to know
how sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ affect the various species of nitrogen that compose total
nitrogen. Nitrogen species examined include ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, dissolved organic
nitrogen, and particulate nitrogen.
72
Total Nitrogen
The total nitrogen effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in Table
60 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 61 of Appendix B. At a
confidence level of 89% there is found to be a significant difference in the total nitrogen
concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 41% lower average effluent
concentration of total nitrogen than sandy soil. The average effluent concentrations of total
nitrogen are 3,521 and 2,066 µg/L as nitrogen for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively;
the relative difference between the average total nitrogen effluent concentrations is 52%. A bar
graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Average Total Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations
Total Nitrogen Leaching from Sod
Using the total nitrogen removal values of the media from the column tests and the
influent and effluent total nitrogen concentrations from the field tests, the contribution of total
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
µg/
L as
N
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
73
nitrogen by the sod is approximated. Table 62 and Table 63 of Appendix B show the total
nitrogen contributions by the sod for the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ systems for each trial
respectively. The total nitrogen contributions by the sod with respect to time for the sandy soil
and Bold & Gold™ systems are plotted respectively in Figure 26 and Figure 27. As shown in
both Figures, the total nitrogen contribution by sod is decreasing with time and approaching zero,
thus total nitrogen is being leached by the sod.
Figure 26 is obtained using Equation ( 8 ) and shows that at the end of the trial period
there is a negative total nitrogen contribution by the sod in the sandy soil bio-treatment system.
A result of negative total nitrogen contribution by the sod could be caused by one or a
combination of the following explanations. The negative total nitrogen contribution by the sod
could indicate that the total nitrogen removal value for sandy soil obtained in the column test is
actually less than what occurs in the field scale tests. Another factor contributing to the negative
total nitrogen contribution by the sod could be dilution of the simulated storm event water with
preexisting moisture contained in the media. Treatment processes that occur during the inter-
storm periods, such as biological activity and vaporization, remove nutrients from the moisture
stored in the media thus lowering the concentration of nutrients in the moisture stored in the
media to values below that in the simulated highway runoff. However, the amount of water
retained within media pore spaces is relatively small compared to the volume of water from the
simulated storm event, thus inter-storm treatment processes do not provide a significant
contribution to pollutant removal (20).
The curves for total nitrogen contribution by the sod for the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ bio-treatment systems, shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27, have not yet flattened out to
74
approaching a consistent value by the conclusion of testing. As a result, the true total nitrogen
removal by the sandy soil & Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment systems cannot be determined.
Figure 26: Leaching of Total Nitrogen from the Sod in the Sandy Soil System
Figure 27: Leaching of Total Nitrogen from the Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
µg/
L as
N
Sod Contribution (µg/L as N)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
µg/
L as
N
Sod Contribution (µg/L as N)
75
Ammonia
The ammonia effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in Table 64 of
Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 65 of Appendix B. At a confidence
level of 80% there is found to be no significant difference in the ammonia concentration of the
effluents. The sandy soil has a 15% lower average effluent concentration of ammonia than Bold
& Gold™. The average effluent concentrations of ammonia are 107 and 125.6 µg/L as nitrogen
for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the average
ammonia effluent concentrations is 16%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the average
effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28: Average Ammonia Effluent Concentrations
Nitrate + Nitrite
The nitrate + nitrite effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in Table
66 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 67 of Appendix B. At a
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
µg/
L as
N
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
76
confidence level of 92% there is found to be a significant difference in the nitrate + nitrite
concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 49% lower average effluent
concentration of nitrate + nitrite than sandy soil. The average effluent concentrations of nitrate +
nitrite are 2629 and 1328 µg/L as nitrogen for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the
relative difference between the average nitrate + nitrite effluent concentrations is 66%. A bar
graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 29.
Figure 29: Average Nitrate + Nitrite Effluent Concentrations
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
The dissolved organic nitrogen effluent concentration results for all test dates are
presented in Table 68 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 69 of
Appendix B. At a confidence level of 80% there is found to be no significant difference in the
dissolved organic nitrogen concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 35% lower
average effluent concentration of dissolved organic nitrogen than sandy soil. The average
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
µg/
L as
N
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
77
effluent concentrations of dissolved organic nitrogen are 613.4 and 397.4 µg/L as nitrogen for
sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the average dissolved
organic nitrogen effluent concentrations is 43%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the
average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30: Average Dissolved Organic Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations
Particulate Nitrogen
The particulate nitrogen effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in
Table 70 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 71 of Appendix B. At a
confidence level of 85% there is found to be a significant difference in the particulate nitrogen
concentration of the effluents. The sandy soil has a 42% lower average effluent concentration of
particulate nitrogen than Bold & Gold™. The average effluent concentrations of particulate
nitrogen are 141.6 and 245.1 µg/L as nitrogen for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively;
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
µg/
L as
N
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
78
the relative difference between the average particulate nitrogen effluent concentrations is 54%.
A bar graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 31.
Figure 31: Average Particulate Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations
Phosphorus
In addition to knowing the effects on total phosphorus as a whole, it is also useful to
know how sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ affect the various species of phosphorus that compose
total phosphorus. Phosphorus species examined include soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP),
dissolved organic phosphorus, and particulate phosphorus.
Total Phosphorus
The total phosphorus effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in
Table 72 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 73 of Appendix B. At a
confidence level of 100% there is found to be a significant difference in the total phosphorus
concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 78% lower average effluent
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
µg/
L as
N
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
79
concentration of total phosphorus than sandy soil. The average effluent concentrations of total
phosphorus are 302.6 and 66.22 µg/L as phosphorus for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™
respectively; the relative difference between the average total phosphorus effluent concentrations
is 128%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in
Figure 32.
Figure 32: Average Total Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations
Total Phosphorus Leaching from Sod
Using the total phosphorus removal value of the Bold & Gold™ from the column test and
the influent and effluent total phosphorus concentrations from the Bold & Gold™ field tests, the
contribution of total phosphorus by the sod is approximated. Table 74 of Appendix B shows the
total phosphorus contributions by the sod for the Bold & Gold™ system for each trial. The total
phosphorus contributions by the sod with respect to time for the Bold & Gold™ system are
302.6
66.22
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
µg/
L as
P
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
80
plotted in Figure 33. As shown in Figure 33, the total phosphorus contribution by sod is
decreasing with time, thus total phosphorus is being leached by the sod.
Figure 33 is obtained using Equation ( 8 ) and shows that there are negative total
phosphorus contributions by the sod for the last six trials in the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment
system. A result of negative total phosphorus contribution by the sod could be caused by one or
a combination of the following explanations. The negative total phosphorus contribution by the
sod could indicate that the total phosphorus removal value for sandy soil obtained in the column
test is actually less than what occurs in the field scale tests. Another factor contributing to the
negative total phosphorus contribution by the sod could be dilution of the simulated storm event
water with preexisting moisture contained in the media. Treatment processes that occur during
the inter-storm periods, such as biological activity, remove nutrients from the moisture stored in
the media thus lowering the concentration of nutrients in the moisture stored in the media to
values below that in the simulated highway runoff. However, the amount of water retained
within media pore spaces is relatively small compared to the volume of water from the simulated
storm event, thus inter-storm treatment processes do not provide a significant contribution to
pollutant removal (20).
Figure 33 also shows that the negative total phosphorus contribution by the sod in the
Bold & Gold™ system is relatively consistent from 8/29/2011 on; this indicates that the sod is no
longer significantly leaching total phosphorus. By using the percent removals of total
phosphorus for these dates the actual in situ total phosphorus removal efficiency for the Bold &
Gold™ bio-treatment system is calculated to be 71% as shown in Table 21.
81
Figure 33: Leaching of Total Phosphorus from the Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System
Table 21: In Situ Total Phosphorus Removal Efficiencies of Bold & Gold™ after Leaching has become Negligible
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
Soluble reactive phosphorus represents phosphorus that is readily available to plants and
algae and is composed of dissolved inorganic and dissolved organic phosphorus species. Soluble
reactive phosphorus is used to approximate ortho-phosphorus (62).
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
µg/
L as
P
Sod Contribution (µg/L as P)
DateInfluent
(µg/L as P)
Effluent
(µg/L as P)
Removal
Efficiency
8/29/2011 184 42 77%
9/7/2011 199 54 73%
9/12/2011 206 71 66%
9/21/2011 197 59 70%
9/26/2011 197 53 73%
10/3/2011 204 65 68%
Average - - 71%
82
The soluble reactive phosphorus effluent concentration results for all test dates are
presented in Table 75 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 76 of
Appendix B. At a confidence level of 100% there is found to be a significant difference in the
soluble reactive phosphorus concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 96% lower
average effluent concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus than sandy soil. The average
effluent concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus are 180 and 7.655 µg/L as phosphorus for
sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the average soluble
reactive phosphorus effluent concentrations is 184%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the
average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 32.
Figure 34: Average Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus
The dissolved organic phosphorus effluent concentration results for all test dates are
presented in Table 77 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 78 of
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
µg/
L as
P
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
83
Appendix B. At a confidence level of 99.86% there is found to be a significant difference in the
dissolved organic phosphorus concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has an 83%
lower average effluent concentration of dissolved organic phosphorus than sandy soil. The
average effluent concentrations of dissolved organic phosphorus are 30.89 and 5.222 µg/L as
phosphorus for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the
average dissolved organic phosphorus effluent concentrations is 142%. A bar graph showing a
comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35: Average Dissolved Organic Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations
Particulate Phosphorus
The particulate phosphorus effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in
Table 77 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 78 of Appendix B. At a
confidence level of 99.10% there is found to be a significant difference in the particulate
phosphorus concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 54% lower average effluent
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
µg/
L as
P
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
84
concentration of particulate phosphorus than sandy soil. The average effluent concentrations of
particulate phosphorus are 117.2 and 53.44 µg/L as phosphorus for sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the average particulate phosphorus effluent
concentrations is 75%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations
is shown in Figure 36.
Figure 36: Average Particulate Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations
Total Suspended Solids
Total suspended solids (TSS) are materials in water that are removed by a 2.0 µm filter
(63). The total suspended solids effluent concentration results for all test dates are presented in
Table 81 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 82 of Appendix B. At a
confidence level of 99.85% there is found to be a significant difference in the total suspended
solids concentration of the effluents. The Bold & Gold™ has a 73% lower average effluent
concentration of total suspended solids than sandy soil. The average effluent concentrations of
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
µg/
L as
P
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
85
total suspended solids are 9.433 and 2.5 mg/L for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively;
the relative difference between the average total suspended solids effluent concentrations is
116%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in
Figure 37.
Figure 37: Average Total Suspended Solids Effluent Concentrations
Turbidity
Turbidity is a measurement of the light-transmitting properties, or clarity, of water.
Turbidity is caused by suspended particles and is measured in nephelometric turbidity units
(NTU) (64). The effluent turbidity results for all test dates are presented in Table 83 of
Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 84 of Appendix B. At a confidence
level of 100% there is found to be a significant difference in the turbidity of the effluents. The
Bold & Gold™ has a 92% lower average effluent turbidity than sandy soil. The average effluent
turbidities are 62.53 and 5.192 NTU for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
mg/
L TS
S
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
86
difference between the average effluent turbidities is 169%. A bar graph showing a comparison
of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 38.
Figure 38: Average Effluent Turbidities
Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform are a group of bacteria whose presence in water is indicative of
mammalian fecal contamination (65). The fecal coliform effluent concentration results for all
test dates are presented in Table 85 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table
86 of Appendix B. At a confidence level of 80% there is found to be no significant difference in
the fecal coliform concentration of the effluents. The sandy soil has a 16% lower average
effluent concentration of fecal coliform than Bold & Gold™. The average effluent
concentrations of fecal coliform are 1165 and 1385 cfu/100 mL for sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ respectively; the relative difference between the average fecal coliform effluent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
NTU
Turbidity
87
concentrations is 17%. A bar graph showing a comparison of the average effluent concentrations
is shown in Figure 39.
Figure 39: Average Fecal Coliform Effluent Concentrations
E. Coli
E. coli is a type of fecal coliform and its presence in water is indicative of mammalian
fecal contamination (65). The E. coli effluent concentration results for all test dates are
presented in Table 87 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 88 of
Appendix B. At a confidence level of 80% there is found to be no significant difference in the E.
coli concentration of the effluents. The sandy soil has a 49% lower average effluent
concentration of E. coli than Bold & Gold™. The average effluent concentrations of E. coli are
6.175 and 12.06 cfu/100 mL for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
cfu
/10
0 m
L
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
88
difference between the average E. coli effluent concentrations is 65%. A bar graph showing a
comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 40.
Figure 40: Average E. Coli Effluent Concentrations
Alkalinity
Alkalinity is a measure of a water’s capacity to neutralize acids; the greater the alkalinity,
the greater the buffer capacity of the water. The effluent alkalinity results for all test dates are
presented in Table 89 of Appendix B. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 90 of
Appendix B. At a confidence level of 98.94% there is found to be a significant difference in the
alkalinity concentration of the effluents. The average effluent alkalinity of the Bold & Gold™ is
26% greater than the sandy soil. The average effluent alkalinities are 144.3 and 182.4 mg/L as
calcium carbonate for sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ respectively; the relative difference
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
cfu
/10
0 m
L
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
89
between the average alkalinity effluent concentrations is 23%. A bar graph showing a
comparison of the average effluent concentrations is shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41: Average Alkalinity of Effluents
pH
pH is an important characteristic since it affects adsorption chemistry. The effluent pH
values for all test dates are presented in Table 89 of Appendix B. Table 22 shows the mean,
median, and standard deviation values for the pH of the sandy soil and Bold & Gold™ effluents
as well as the influent.
Table 22: Summary of Effluent pH Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
mg/
L as
CaC
O3
Sandy Soil
Bold & Gold™
Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™ Influent
Mean 6.89 6.92 7.74
Median 6.92 6.83 7.77
Standard Deviation 0.218 0.253 0.181
90
CHAPTER 5:
BIO-DETENTION & HARVESTING SWALE SYSTEM DESIGN PROBLEM
Problem Statement
Consider 1000 feet of divided freeway, without a median barrier, in Orange County, FL
whose runoff discharges to a Class III receiving water body. The freeway has three lanes in each
direction for a total of six lanes; all runoff will flow to a bio-detention & harvesting swale system
located in the median between the two directions of traffic. The FDOT requires freeways,
without a median barrier present, to have a minimum median width of 60 feet (58). For this
highway location the FDOT requires, for flood control purposes, that roadside and median
ditches and swales be designed for a 10-year storm event (66). The bio-detention & harvesting
swale system is designed as a trapezoidal shaped swale with zero positive flow, meaning that the
swale is not longitudinally sloped. This type of system is defined as detention with filtration
(67). Front and plan views of the design are presented in Figure 42. Isometric views are shown
in Figure 43. Note that these diagrams are actually drawings for the final design with the
determined dimensions filled in, they are shown here to better illustrate the system.
The bio-detention & harvesting swale system is composed of a dry detention basin, Bold
& Gold™ media, and a vault system. The vault system is responsible for storing stormwater for
harvesting purposes as well as discharging water in excess of the harvesting needs. Water
harvested by the bio-detention & harvesting swale system is used to irrigate seven acres of grass
covered land.
91
As a type of detention with filtration system, the bio-detention & harvesting swale system
is subject to the regulations for detention with filtration systems. Detention with filtration
systems are composed of a dry detention basin and a collection system. The treatment volume of
stormwater is required to be detained in the basin, percolate through at least two feet of the
natural or artificial treatment media before entering the collection system, and then is discharged
to a surface water body; the minimum depth of two feet of media in detention with filtration
systems is a requirement of the SJRWMD (67). The dry detention basin must contain the
treatment volume of runoff and have a recovery time less than 72 hours (68). The SJRWMD
requires on-line detention with filtration systems, which discharge to Class III waters, to provide
treatment for the first 1.5 inches of runoff from the total area or the first 3.0 inches from the
impervious surface, whichever is greater (68). Additionally, according to the draft Statewide
Stormwater Treatment Rule, the bio-detention & harvesting swale system is required to reduce
the annual nutrient mass loading by a specific percentages, assume an 85% reduction in total
phosphorus for this location(10).
Design the bio-detention & harvesting system for the roadway.
Assumptions & Givens:
Bold & Gold™ media thickness: 2.7 feet
Note that in this design, the watershed is defined as the travel lanes, shoulders, and the
swale itself.
Trapezoidal shaped swale
o Lies parallel to the roadway
o Modeled as a continuous
92
o Swale Freeboard (66): 0.5 feet
o Side Slopes of Swale are the same as roadside slope: 1:6 (16.67%)
o Maximum Recovery time is 72 hours
Use a Factor of Safety of 2
o Unknowns:
Dimensions of Swale
Dimensions of Vault
Longitudinal Bed Slope of Swale (vertical/horizontal): 0%
o The swale is designed for no positive flow and is a long narrow detention basin.
The following roadway design characteristics are obtained from the Florida Department
of Transportation Plans Preparation Manual (58).
o Travel Lanes:
3 lanes in each direction
Lane width: 12 feet
Cross slope of travel lanes (vertical/horizontal): 2%
o Shoulder (note that only the shoulders adjacent to the median will drain to the bio-
detention system)
No shoulder gutter
Width of paved portion of shoulder: 10 feet
Width of unpaved portion of shoulder: 2 feet
Slope of Shoulder (vertical/horizontal): 5%
o Median:
93
The median width is the horizontal distance between the inside edges of
the travel lanes of each roadway, thus the median includes the shoulders.
The FDOT requires a minimum median width of 60 feet for freeways that
do not have a median barrier with a design speed greater than or equal to
60 mph.
A design condition is that the width of the bottom of the detention basin be
a minimum of 3 feet for maintenance purposes (58).
o Roadside and swale side slope (vertical : horizontal): 1:6 (16.67%)
94
Figure 42: Front & Plan Views of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System
95
Figure 43: Isometric Views of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System
12.25 inches is the height
of the inlet control structure
96
Determine the dimensions of the roadway
The dimensions of the roadway are needed for calculating runoff rates and volumes.
Runoff rates are needed for sizing the both the swale and vault system. Additionally these
dimensions are used to determine how much of the median is taken up by the shoulders and how
much is available for the bio-detention & harvesting swale system. The widths of the lanes and
shoulders are provided in the given information; however these are not the horizontal widths.
The horizontal widths shall be referred to as the drainage widths “D_W”. The product of the
drainage width and length yields the drainage area. The drainage area is the horizontal plane
above the land which precipitation passes through, thus slope must be taken into account when
calculating drainage area and drainage width. The formulas for the drainage widths of the travel
lanes, paved shoulders, unpaved shoulders, and the bio-detention & harvesting swale system are
shown respectively in Equation ( 9 ), Equation ( 10 ), Equation ( 11 ), and Equation ( 12 ). The
calculated drainage widths are shown in Table 23.
( 9 )
( 10 )
97
( 11 )
( 12 )
Table 23: Calculated Drainage Widths
# of travel lanes 6
lane width (ft) 12
Cross slope of lanes 0.02
# shoulders adjacent to median 2
Width of paved portion of shoulder (ft) 10
Width of unpaved portion of shoulder (ft) 2
Slope of Shoulder 0.05
Median Width (ft) 60
Roadside Slope & Swale Wall Slope 0.167
Drainage RegionsWidth
(feet)
Travel Lanes "D_Wtravel lanes" 71.986
Paved Shoulders "D_Wpaved shoulders " 19.975
Unpaved Shoulders "D_Wunpaved shoulders" 3.995
Bio-detention swale & harvesting System
"D_Wbio-detention swale"36.030
Givens
98
Peak Runoff Rate “QP”
The peak runoff rate from a drainage area “QP” is the product of the drainage area, the
runoff coefficient of the drainage area “C”, and the average rainfall intensity of the design storm
“iD”, see Equation ( 13 ). The total peak runoff rate of a watershed “QP total” is the summation of
the various runoff rates of the various drainage areas that compose the watershed, see Equation
( 14 ). In this design, the drainage areas contributing to the total peak runoff rate and runoff
volume includes only the travel lanes, shoulders, and the swale itself. The drainage area is the
horizontal plane above the land which precipitation passes through, thus slope must be taken into
account when calculating drainage area and drainage width. Drainage area is the product of the
drainage width and the length of the roadway.
( 13 )
( 14 )
Design Storm Event
For detention with filtration systems with online detention that discharge to Class III
waters, the SJRWMD requires that treatment be provided for the first 1.5 inches of runoff from
the total area or 3.0 inches from the impervious area, whichever is greater (68). The FDOT
requires, for flood control purposes, that roadside and median ditches and swales be designed to
convey a 10-year storm event (66). The duration of the design storm is equal to time of
concentration “tc” of the watershed.
99
The time of concentration is the summation of the longest combination of overland and
channelized flow times required to reach the discharge point of the watershed (69). The overland
flow times are determined using Kerby’s Equation, see Equation ( 15 ). The roughness
coefficients for Kerby’s Equation are presented in Table 24. The overland flow component of
the total time of concentration is presented in Table 25.
( 15 )
Where: n = Kerby’s Equation roughness coefficient
tc = time of concentration (minutes)
length of flow (ft)
Table 24: Kerby's Equation Roughness Coefficients
Smooth pavements 0.02
Poor grass, bare sod 0.3
Average grass 0.4
Dense grass 0.8
Retardance roughness coefficient
"n"Surface Type
100
Table 25: Overland Flow Component of Total Time of Concentration
The channelized flow time component of the total time of concentration is calculated
using Equation ( 16 ). Note that the length of swale segment is divided by two; this is because
the inlet box control structure is located in the center of the 1000 ft swale segment. The
approach velocity to weirs should be less than 0.5 ft/sec (70). Assume an approach velocity less
than 0.5 ft/sec and solve for the time of concentration of the swale. At the completion of basin
sizing, the actual approach velocity must be calculated and compared to the assumed approach
velocity. If the answers are close then the assumption was acceptable, if not then a new
approach velocity must be assumed and the calculations must all be redone. The assumed
approach velocity and the resulting time of concentration of the swale are shown in Table 26.
The total time of concentration of the watershed is 1.35 hours and is shown in Table 27.
# Travel Lanes in each Direction 3
Width of Travel Lane (ft) 12
Cross slope of lanes 0.02
Width of paved portion of shoulder (ft) 10
Width of unpaved portion of shoulder (ft) 2
Slope of Shoulder 0.05
Freeboard (ft) 0.5
Roadside Slope & Swale Wall Slope 0.167
Length of Flow "L"
(feet)
Slope "S"
(vertical/horizontal)
Retardance
roughness
coefficient "n"
time of
concentration "tc"
(minutes)
Travel lanes 36 0.02 0.02 1.775
Paved portion of Shoulder 10 0.05 0.02 0.788
Non-paved portion of Shoulder 2 0.05 0.4 1.505
Side Slope of Swale from edge of shoulder
to water surface3.041 0.167 0.4 1.382
5.450
Knowns
Calculations
Total time of concentration due to Overland Flow (minutes) =
101
( 16 )
Table 26: Swale Flow Component of Total Time of Concentration
Table 27: Total Time of Concentration of the Watershed
The rainfall intensity for a 10-year, 1.35-hour storm in Orange County, FL is determined
using the Florida Department of Transportation Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curve for
Zone 7. The rainfall intensity for the design storm event is shown in Table 28. A map of Florida
IDF Curve zones and the IDF Curve for Zone 7 are presented respectively in Figure 45 and
Figure 46 of Appendix C (71).
Length of Swale Segment (ft) 1000
Assumed Approach Velocity in
typical range "V0" (ft/sec)0.11
Knowns
Time of Concentration due to
Travel in the swale (minutes)75.76
Calculated
Time of Concentration due to
Overland Flow (minutes)5.45
Time of Concentration due to
Travel in the swale (minutes)75.76
Total Time of Concentration
(hours)1.35
102
Table 28: Intensities for Design Storm Events
Runoff Coefficient of Travel Lanes & Paved Shoulder Regions
The travel lanes are composed of pavement, thus the runoff coefficient of the travel lanes
“Ctravel lanes” is 0.95 (71). A portion of the road shoulders are paved. The runoff coefficient of
the paved shoulder regions “Cpaved shoulder” is 0.95 (71).
Runoff Coefficient of Unpaved Shoulder Regions
The road shoulders have a slope of 5% and a portion of these shoulders are unpaved.
Runoff coefficient values for grass on sandy soil with a slope of 2-7% range from 0.20 to 0.25.
The runoff coefficient of the unpaved shoulder regions “Cunpaved shoulder” is assumed to be 0.23
(71).
Runoff Coefficient of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System
The bio-detention swale & harvesting system is composed of Argentine Bahia grass on
Bold & Gold™. Runoff coefficients for Bold & Gold™ are not available; however runoff
coefficients for grass on sandy soil are readily available. Since Bold & Gold™ is more pervious
than sandy soil, using runoff coefficients for grass on sandy soil yields a conservative peak
runoff rate by over estimating the rate of runoff.
The bottom of the swale has no slope as opposed to the 16.67% side slopes of the swale;
technically this means that the swale bottom has a lower runoff coefficient than the sides of the
Design StormDesign Intensity "iD"
(inches/hour)
10-year, 1.35 hour 2.6
103
swale. However for ease of calculation, the entire bio-detention & harvesting swale system will
be considered to have the same runoff coefficient as that of the side slopes and swale; this will
over estimate the volume of runoff and lead to a more conservative design of the swale if the
treatment volume is dictated by the total runoff.
The runoff coefficient values for grass on sandy soil with a slope >7% range from 0.25 to
0.35. The runoff coefficient of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system “Cbio-detention swale” is
assumed to be 0.25 (71).
Solving for Peak Runoff Rate “QP” & Total Peak Runoff Rate “QP Total”
Using Equation ( 13 ), peak runoff rates for all the drainage areas are calculated and
presented in Table 29. The total peak runoff rate for the 10-year, 1.35-hour storm “QP Total 10-year,
1.35-hour” is calculated using Equation ( 14 ) and is presented in Table 29.
Table 29: Peak Runoff Rates for 10-year, 1-hour & 3-year, 1-hour Design Storms
D_Wtravel lanes (ft) 71.986
D_Wpaved shoulders (ft) 19.975
D_Wunpaved shoulders (ft) 3.995
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft) 36.030 Travel Lanes
iD 10-year, 1.35-hour (in/hr) 2.6 Paved Shoulders
Ctravel lanes 0.95 Unpaved Shoulders
Cpaved shoulder 0.95 Pervious Part of Swale
Cunpaved shoulder 0.23 Total Peak Runoff Rate
Cbio-detention swale 0.25
Length of Roadway (ft) 1000
5.855
4.116
1.142
0.055
Knows
Peak Runoff Rate for
10-year, 1.35-hour
storm (ft3/sec)
Drainage Area
Calculated
0.542
104
Determining the Required Treatment Volume
As mentioned previously, the SJRWMD requires that treatment be provided for the first
1.5 inches of runoff from the total area or 3.0 inches from the impervious area, whichever is
greater (68). As shown in Table 30, the greatest treatment volume is that for the first 3.0 inches
from the impervious area, thus this is the volume used for the bio-detention swale & harvesting
design.
Table 30: Comparison of Different Underdrain Treatment Volumes
Equivalent Storm Event for the Given Treatment Volume
As noted above, the treatment volume is based upon capturing the first 3.0 inches of
impervious runoff. An alternative and useful way to view this treatment volume is to determine
the storm event whose runoff from the entire watershed would equal the above stated treatment
volume. The duration of the equivalent storm event is 1.35 hours, based upon the time of
concentration of the watershed, see Table 27. The intensity of the equivalent storm event is
determined using Equation ( 17 ). The IDF curve, Figure 46 of Appendix C, is then used to
determine the frequency, or return period, of the equivalent storm event based upon the
calculated intensity and the known duration. The resulting equivalent storm event is a 3-year,
D_Wtravel lanes (ft) 71.986
D_Wpaved shoulders (ft) 19.975
D_Wunpaved shoulders (ft) 3.995
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft) 36.030
Length of Roadway (ft) 1000
CalculatedKnows
1.5 inches of
total runoff
3.0 inches of
impervious runoff
Treatment
Volume (ft3)16498.201 22990.163
105
1.35-hour storm. The intensity of the equivalent storm is 2.10 in/hour, see Equation ( 17 ) and
Table 31.
( 17 )
Table 31: Intensity of Equivalent Storm Event
The chance that one storm event will exceed the treatment volume created by a 3-year,
1.35-hour storm is determined using Equation ( 18 ) (72). There is a 67% chance each year that
one storm will occur that exceeds the 3-year storm event volume, Table 32.
( 18 )
D_Wtravel lanes (ft) 71.986 97.289
D_Wpaved shoulders (ft) 19.975
D_Wunpaved shoulders (ft) 3.995
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft) 36.030
iD 10-year, 1.35-hour (in/hr) 2.6
Ctravel lanes 0.95
Cpaved shoulder 0.95
Cunpaved shoulder 0.23
Cbio-detention swale 0.25
Length of Roadway (ft) 1000
Duration (hours) 1.35
Treatment Volume (ft3) 22990.163
CalculatedKnowns
Ʃ(C*D_W)
intensity of equivalent storm
event (feet/hour)
intensity of equivalent storm
event (inches/hour)
0.17
2.10
106
Table 32: Probability that Treatment Volume will be Exceeded in a Year
Inlet Box Control Structure
In addition to detaining the specified treatment volume, the bio-detention & harvesting
swale system must have an overflow structure to convey the total peak runoff rate of a 10-year,
1-hour storm event for flood control purposes; this is accomplished using an inlet box control
structure. The inlet box is sharp-crested and has equal length sides. Equation ( 19 ) is used to
determine the flow rate of a sharp-crested inlet box (73). At a certain transition head “ht” the
flow into the inlet box will change from weir behavior to orifice behavior; this transition head is
defined by Equation ( 20 ). The inlet box behaves as a weir as long as H is less than ht (74). The
height of the control box “Pcrest” is equal to the depth of the treatment water in the basin.
( 19 )
Where: Qbox = Inlet box flow rate (ft3/sec)
L = Perimeter of inlet box (ft)
H = Head: Distance from weir crest to water surface (ft)
Pcrest = Distance from basin bottom to weir crest (ft)
CW = Weir Coefficient = 0.62 for H/P < 0.4
( 20 )
Where: CO = Orifice Coefficient = 3 typically
Abox = Area of Inlet Box Opening (ft2)
CW = Weir Coefficient = 0.62 for H/P < 0.4
L = Perimeter of inlet box (ft)
y (years) 1
return period (years) 3
Knowns
Probablilty that event will
not be exceeded in 1 year67%
Calculated
107
Designating H as 2 inches, rounding the length of the sides up to the nearest inch, and
applying Equation ( 19 ) yields an inlet box with sides equal to 6.5 feet in length as shown in
Table 33. Solving Equation ( 20 ) confirms that the inlet box does behave as a weir, as shown in
Table 34. Confirmation that H/P < 0.4 will be done after the depth of the water in the basin is
determined.
Table 33: Inlet Box Side Lengths & Actual Flow Rate
Table 34: Confirming Weir Flow Conditions
Dry Detention Basin Dimensions
With the exception of the width of the water surface, all of the dimensions of the dry
detention basin are functions of the design depth of the water in the basin. The width of the
water surface is a function of the drainage width of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system
"D_Wbio-detention swale”, the freeboard, the head above the crest of the inlet box “H”, and the
5.855 0.167 3.32 26 5.873 6.500
Actual Inlet Box
Flow Rate
(ft3/sec)
Perimeter of
inlet box "L"
(ft)
Peak Runoff Rate for
10-year, 1.35-hour
storm (ft3/sec)
Known or Assumed
Length of each
side of inlet box
(ft)
Calculated
Assumed Weir
Coefficient
"CW"
Head "H"
(ft)
H (ft) 0.167
Cw 3.32
Co 0.6
L (ft) 26
Abox (ft2) 42.250
ht 0.294
H<ht so weir equation applies
108
roadside slope “S”, as shown in Equation ( 21 ). The width of the water surface is shown in
Table 35.
( 21 )
Table 35: Width of Water Surface in Dry Detention Basin
The remaining dimensions are all dependent upon the design depth of water in the basin
(aka swale), also referred to as the distance from basin bottom to weir crest “Pcrest”. It should
also be noted that the required volume of the dry detention basin is equal to the required
treatment volume plus the volume displaced by the inlet box control structure. The various dry
detention basin dimensions are expressed in the following equations.
( 22 )
( 23 )
( 24 )
36.030
0.5
0.167
0.167
29.030
Roadside slope "S"
freeboard (ft)
Head above crest of inlet box "H" (ft)
Width of Water Surface (ft)
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft)
109
( 25 )
The design depth “Pcrest” is calculated using an iterative estimation and check method as
shown in Table 36. For construction purposes, the design depth is rounded up to the nearest
quarter inch, resulting in the dimensions shown in Table 37. As shown in Table 37, the width of
the basin bottom is 16.780 ft, thus satisfying the design requirement of a minimum base width of
three feet.
110
Table 36: Determining Pcrest Iteratively (Exact Solution)
Table 37: Actual Design Dimensions of Swale (aka dry detention basin)
29.030
19.975
22990.163
1000
42.250
0.997 11.964 17.066 22.979 22978.800 23032.286 -53.486
0.999 11.982 17.048 23.004 23004.385 23032.349 -27.964
1.000 12.000 17.030 23.030 23029.944 23032.413 -2.469
1.002 12.018 17.012 23.055 23055.475 23032.476 22.999
1.003 12.036 16.994 23.081 23080.980 23032.540 48.440
1.005 12.054 16.976 23.106 23106.457 23032.603 73.854
1.006 12.072 16.958 23.132 23131.908 23032.666 99.241
Actual minus
Required
Volume
Design Depth
"Pcrest"
(inches)
Design Depth
"Pcrest" (ft)
Basin base
width (ft)
Cross Sectional Area
of Basin (ft2)
Actual
Volume (ft3)
Required
Basin Volume
(ft3)
Length of swale section "L" (ft)
Treatment Volume Required (ft3)
Width of Water Surface (ft)
Roadside slope "S"
Area of Inlet Box Opening Abox (ft2)
Calculated
Knowns
29.030
19.975
22990.163
1000
42.250
1.021 12.250 16.780 23.382 23382.130 23033.29298 348.837
Calculated
Knowns
Width of Water Surface (ft)
Roadside slope "S"
Treatment Volume Required (ft3)
Length of swale section "L" (ft)
Area of Inlet Box Opening Abox (ft2)
Actual minus
Required
Volume
Design Depth
"Pcrest" (ft)
Design Depth
"Pcrest"
(inches)
Basin base
width (ft)
Cross Sectional Area
of Basin (ft2)
Actual
Volume
(ft3)
Required
Basin Volume
(ft3)
111
Recovery Time
The bio-detention & harvesting swale system is required to be fully recovered within 72
hours. Fully recovered is defined as no standing water remaining in the swale. When a factor of
safety of two is considered, the required recovery time is 36 hours. The percolation of water
through the media is modeled using permeability. For ease of calculation only flow through the
swale base is considered; this is very conservative since water is also traveling through the
sidewalls of the swale, see Equation ( 26 ). If the bio-detention & harvesting swale system does
not meet the required 36 hour recovery when only considering movement through the basin
bottom, then the draw down time shall be recalculated with the contribution of the sidewalls
accounted for. The coefficient of permeability for Bold & Gold™ is 57.96 in/hr and the media
thickness is 2.7 feet. The water height in the basin is dependent upon the changing water
volume; the relationship is shown in Equation ( 27 ). An iterative approach using Equations
( 26 ) and ( 27 ) is used to determine the recovery time of the bio-detention & harvesting swale
system as shown in Table 38. When only considering water movement through the basin
bottom, the recovery time of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system is approximately 15
minutes, which is acceptable.
( 26 )
Where: QBottom =Flow rate through bottom of basin due to permeability (ft3/sec)
Awetted = Wetted surface area (ft2) = Bottom width * Length
k = coefficient of permeability (ft/sec)
Water height = current depth of water in the basin (ft)
112
( 27 )
Table 38: Recovery Time Iterations
Confirm the Assumed Approach Velocity was Valid
As mentioned earlier, an approach velocity for the swale was assumed in order to
calculate the swale component of the total time of concentration. Now that all the bio-detention
swale & harvesting dimensions have been determined, the actual approach velocity can be
permeabiliy (in/hr) 57.963
permeability (in/sec) 0.0161
permeability (ft/sec) 0.001342
Length of basin(ft) 1000.00
Initial Top Width (ft) 16.98
Base Width (ft) 16.78
Starting Volume (ft3) 23382.130
Initial Basin Depth (ft) 1.021
Media Thickness (ft) 2.700
Side Slope of Cross Section 0.167
starting water volume (ft3)water height
(ft)
wetted
surface
area (ft2)
Flow Rate
through basin
bottom
(ft3/sec)
time at this depth
(seconds)
ending water
volume (ft3)
Total Time elapased
(minutes)
23382.130 1.021 16779.944 31.027 1 23351.104 0.017
23351.104 1.020 16779.944 31.018 1 23320.086 0.033
23320.086 1.019 16779.944 31.009 1 23289.077 0.050
23289.077 1.018 16779.944 31.000 1 23258.077 0.067
23258.077 1.017 16779.944 30.991 1 23227.086 0.083
23227.086 1.015 16779.944 30.982 1 23196.104 0.100
71.503 0.004 16779.944 22.550 1 48.953 14.433
48.953 0.003 16779.944 22.539 1 26.415 14.450
26.415 0.002 16779.944 22.527 1 3.887 14.467
3.887 0.000 16779.944 22.516 1 -18.629 14.483
-18.629 -0.001 16779.944 22.505 1 -41.134 14.500
Knowns
Iterations
Iterations Continued
113
calculated. Table 39 shows the assumed and actual approach velocities. The two approach
velocities are close together so the assumption is acceptable. Note that the cross sectional area
used in this calculation is that of the swale under 10-year storm conditions; in other words there
is an additional two inches of depth due to the head on the inlet box.
Table 39: Comparison of the Assumed and Actual Approach Velocities
Vault
The vault system receives all water that infiltrates during the storm event as well as the
treatment volume of runoff water that is detained in the dry detention basin and infiltrates after
the storm event. The vault system is responsible for storing harvested water for non-potable
uses, as well as discharging water that exceeds the harvesting volume requirements. The exact
design configuration of the vault is left up to the design engineer due to the numerous
commercially available and custom designs possible. It should be noted that although the bottom
36.030
0.5
0.167
5.855
0.167
1.021
16.780
30.030 27.793 0.105 0.110
Knowns
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft)
Side slopePeak Runoff Rate for 10-year, 1-hour
storm (ft3/sec)
Previously
Assumed Approach
Velocity (ft/sec)
Width of
Water Surface
(ft)
Cross
Sectional
Area (ft2)
Actual Approach
Velocity (ft/sec)
Design Depth "Pcrest" (ft)
Depth of Water during
10-year, 1-hour Storm (ft)
1.188
freeboard (ft)
Head above crest of inlet box "H" (ft)
Base Width (ft)
Calculated
114
of the swale of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system does not have a longitudinal slope,
the vault must have one. The vault requires a longitudinal slope to facilitate the flow to and
pooling of water at the location of the harvesting uptake pump or inlet structure. The design
requirements of the vault are discussed in the following sections.
Vault Overflow Discharge Structure
As shown in Table 38 the recovery time based upon the flow through the media is well
below the required 36 hour design recovery time; as a result, the operating recovery time of the
bio-detention & harvesting swale system is limited by the flow rate of the vault discharge
structure. In order to prevent standing water in the swale, the flow rate of the vault discharge
structure must be capable of discharging the combined treatment volume and infiltrate volume
from a 10-year frequency storm within a 36 hour period as shown in Equation ( 28 ). The vault
discharge rate “Qvault discharge” is shown in Table 40. This discharge rate is designed to allow the
system to recover within 36 hours without relying on the harvesting volume or harvesting rate; in
other words, if harvesting of the stormwater was discontinued or the vault’s storage for
harvesting is already at capacity, the dry detention basin would still recover within 36 hours.
( 28 )
115
Table 40: Vault Structure Discharge Rate
Harvesting Storage Volume
A water budget is used to determine the use rate and harvesting efficiency. The
harvesting storage volume is found using the rate-efficiency-volume “REV” curve, the harvesting
efficiency, and the use rate. The water budget is based upon the irrigation needs of 7 acres of
land and the additional total phosphorus removal needed to reduce the annual total phosphorus
mass loading by 85%. The harvesting storage volume is a necessary parameter for the design of
the vault.
Equivalent Impervious Area for the REV Curve
The EIA is the equivalent impervious area that translates rain into runoff thus creating
potential water to be harvested for a storm event. Normally the potential water to be harvested
consists only of runoff from the contributing watershed, thus the term EIA. In the case of the
bio-detention & harvesting swale system, the potential water to be harvested is created from
runoff from the paved lanes, paved shoulder, and unpaved shoulder as well as approximately all
Actual Swale (aka basin)
Treatment Volume (ft3)23382.130
Duration (hours) 1.35
iD 10-year, 1.35-hour (in/hr) 2.6
Cbio-detention swale 0.25
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft) 36.030
Length of Roadway (ft) 1000
Vault Discharge Rate "Qvault
discharge" (ft3/sec)
0.506
116
the precipitation that falls on the bio-detention swale, thus all these regions shall be considered
part of the EIA. This is because all the precipitation that falls on the bio-detention swale,
neglecting the small amount that is stored in the media and that evaporates, either initially
infiltrates into the media and then travels through the media until entering the vault or becomes
runoff and is percolated through the media and into the vault as the treatment volume. Note that
if a storm event exceeds the treatment volume then the excess runoff is discharged via the swale
inlet box. For the purposes of the harvesting design, the runoff exceeding the treatment volume
is not considered since the first 3.0 inches of impervious runoff from a storm event is the
treatment volume. The EIA of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system is calculated using
Equation ( 29 ) and the resulting value is shown in Table 41.
( 29 )
Table 41: Equivalent Impervious Area “EIA"
D_Wtravel lanes (ft) 71.986
D_Wpaved shoulders (ft) 19.975
D_Wunpaved shoulders (ft) 3.995
D_Wbio-detention swale (ft) 36.030
Ctravel lanes 0.95
Cpaved shoulder 0.95
Cunpaved shoulder 0.23
Length of Roadway (ft) 1000
Equivalent Impervious Area "EIA" (ft2) 124311.415
117
Irrigation Rate
A seven acre area requires irrigation and the average irrigation demand for turf grass
irrigation for this region is specified as one inch per week (75). The irrigation rate is calculated
using Equation ( 30 ) and is 3630.00 ft3/day, see Table 42.
( 30 )
Table 42: Irrigation Rate
Use Rate
The use rate is the volumetric rate at which the harvested stormwater is used. On the
rate-efficiency-volume “REV” curve, see Figure 48 of Appendix C, the use rate is expressed as
inches per day over the equivalent impervious area “EIA”. The use rate is equal to the irrigation
rate, assuming that the irrigation rate meets or exceeds the use rate needed to obtain the
harvesting efficiency “E” needed for the required pollutant mass loading reduction. As
mentioned previously, the use rate on the REV curve is expressed in units of inches per day over
the EIA, thus the REV curve use rate is equal to the irrigation rate divided by the EIA, see
Equation ( 31 ). The required use rate is 0.35 in/day from the EIA as shown in Table 43.
irrigation demand
(inch/week)1
Irrigation Rate
(ft3/day)3630.00
Area to be irrigated
(acres)7
CalculatedKnowns
118
( 31 )
Table 43: Use Rate
Determine the Harvesting Efficiency “E” Needed to Achieve the Required Total Phosphorus
Reduction
The bio-detention & harvesting swale system is required to reduce the annual total
phosphorus mass loading by 85%, thus only 15% of the original mass of total phosphorus may
be discharged (10). The Bold & Gold™, however, is expected to remove 71% of the total
phosphorus from the stormwater entering the system. A mass balance is performed to determine
the minimum harvesting efficiency “E” needed to achieve the required reduction in total
phosphorus loading to the surface water body. The harvesting efficiency is percentage of
stormwater that is harvested and not discharged. The mass balance to obtain the minimum
harvesting efficiency is shown in Figure 44 and is preformed using Equations ( 32 ), ( 33 ), and
( 34 ). The minimum harvesting efficiency “E” required to meet the pollutant removal
requirement is found to be 49%. It should be noted that this is the minimum harvesting
efficiency required to meet the pollutant removal criteria, a greater harvesting efficiency will be
Irrigation Rate
(ft3/day)3630.00
Use Rate
(in/day on area equal to EIA)0.35
Knowns Calculated
Equivalent
Impervious Area
"EIA" (ft2)
124311.415
Use Rate
(ft/day on area equal to EIA)0.029
119
needed for a high demand for harvested water. In this design, the 1000 foot segment of bio-
detention swale & treatment system is being used to irrigate seven acres of a grass covered land.
Upon inspection of the REV curve, see Figure 48 of Appendix C, it is determined that a
harvesting efficiency of 80% at a use rate of 0.35 in/day is possible for a minimum vault volume
of 0.5 in./EIA. . 80% is greater than 49%, thus the bio-detention and vault system will perform
to achieve greater than 85% mass removal.
Figure 44: Mass Balance Diagram of the Bio-detention & Harvesting Swale System
a) ( 32 )
120
b)
a)
b)
c)
( 33 )
a)
b)
( 34 )
Harvesting Storage Volume
The harvesting storage volume is the volume of water stored in the vault for harvesting
purposes. On the REV curve, the harvesting storage volume is given in units of inches over the
equivalent impervious area. The harvesting storage volume is found using the REV curve, the
harvesting efficiency, and the use rate. In the previous section it was determined that a 0.5
in./EIA harvesting storage volume will be used. This is considered to be the lowest storage
volume and thus will lower the cost of treatment. A lower volume may be possible and should
121
be checked with the reviewing agency. The storage volume is about 5180 cubic feet or is a 30
foot wide by 3 foot deep and about 60 foot long rectangular vault or other commercially
available systems The required harvesting volume in units of cubic feet is shown in Table 44.
Table 44: Harvesting Volume
Summation of Bio-Detention & Harvesting Swale System Design
The Bold & Gold™ of the bio-detention & harvesting swale system is expected to
remove 71% of the total phosphorus from the stormwater entering the system. Harvesting of the
stormwater provides additional total phosphorus removal. Using a harvesting efficiency of 80%,
the bio-detention swale & treatment system achieves an annual total phosphorus mass loading
reduction of 94%, well above the required 85% mass loading reduction. A summary of
important design dimensions and values are presented in Table 45. Front and plan views of the
design were presented previously in Figure 42. Isometric views were shown previously in
Figure 43.
Harvesting Efficiency 80%
Harvesting Storage Volume (ft3) 5179.642
Use Rate
(in/day on area equal to EIA)0.350
Harvesting Volume
(inches on area equal to EIA)0.5
Equivalent Impervious Area "EIA"
(ft2)124311.4146
122
Table 45: Design Summary
Notes for Design Engineer
Sediment build up over time is likely to occur in the vault, thus maintenance will be
required periodically to remove the sediment. Access to the vault for maintenance should be
considered when designing the bio-detention and harvesting swale system. The FDEP requires
that access to the vault be provided every 400 feet or at every bend of 45° or more (76).
Inlet Box height
sides of box
design head
Inlet Box Flow Rate
basin base width
Roadside and Swale Side Slope
Freeboard
Media thickness
Length of Swale Segment
# of travel lanes
lane width
Cross slope of lanes
# shoulders adjacent to median
Width of paved portion of
shoulder
Width of unpaved portion of
shoulder
Slope of Shoulder
Median Width
Harvesting Storage Volume
Vault Discharge Rate
5179.642 ft3
0.506 ft3/sec
60 feet
12.25 inches
6 feet & 6 inches
2 inches
1 V : 6 H
6 inches
2.7 feet
5.873 ft3/sec
12 feet
0.02
2
10 feet
2 feet
6
16 feet & 9.34 inches
Vertical distance from shoulder to
bottom of basin 20.25 inches
0.05
1000 feet
Bio-detention swale & harvesting
System "D_Wbio-detention swale"36 feet & 0.36 inches
123
Tractors used for mowing and maintenance of the bio-detention & harvesting swale
system should be as light as possible, Tractors with fluid filled tires should not be used in order
to prevent compaction of the BAM; compaction of the BAM will result in a reduction in
permeability and infiltration rates. Additionally, the weight of the tractors must also be
considered since the vault will have to support their weight. Furthermore, tractors used in bio-
treatment systems should be equipped with turf tires in order to prevent damage to the
vegetation.
124
Chapter 6: Conclusions & Recommendations
Introduction
The overall goal of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of Bold & Gold™, a type
of biosorption activated media (BAM), in a bio-detention system. The primary focus of this
experiment is to compare the nitrogen and phosphorous species concentrations in the effluent of
BAM to sandy soil for simulated highway runoff. Field scale experiments are done on a test bed
that simulates a typical roadway with a swale. The swale portion of the test bed is split into
halves of BAM and sandy soil. The simulated stormwater flows over a simulated roadway, and
then over either sod covered sandy soil or BAM. One, one and a half, and three inch storms are
each simulated three times with a duration of 30 minutes each. During the simulated storm
event, initial samples of the runoff (influent) are taken. The test bed is allowed to drain for two
hours after the rainfall event and then samples of each of the cumulative effluent are taken.
Bench scale column tests are preformed on the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil without
sod to obtain an estimate of the total nitrogen and total phosphorus removal efficiencies that may
be achieved in the test bed without leaching of nutrients from the sod occurring. In addition to
water quality analysis, experiments are also performed to determine media characteristics which
are needed for the design of a bio-detention & harvesting swale system. Media characteristics of
particular interest are permeability, infiltration, and field capacity.
Water Quality Analysis
Due to leaching from the sod, the effluents characteristics of the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ bio-treatment systems, rather than removal efficiencies, are compared. Table 46 shows
125
which parameters differ significantly between the Bold & Gold™ and sandy soil effluents based
on an 80% confidence level as well as which effluent has the lower parameter value.
Table 46: Summary of Effluent Parameters
Total Nitrogen & Total Phosphorus
Currently the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Water
Management Districts are considering new permit requirements and there is a draft Statewide
Stormwater Treatment Rule that specifically pertains to total nitrogen and total phosphorus
reductions. As shown in Table 46, the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system preformed
superiorly compared to the sandy soil bio-treatment system by having a 41% lower total nitrogen
and 78% lower total phosphorus effluent concentrations than the sandy soil bio-treatment
system.
Effluent Parameter
Are the means significantly
different based upon a 80%
confidence interval?
If Significant,
which effluent is
lower?
How much lower
compared to the
higer effluent's
parameter?
Total Nitrogen YES Bold & Gold™ 41%
Nitrate + Nitrite YES Bold & Gold™ 49%
Ammonia no N/A N/A
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen no N/A N/A
Particulate Nitrogen YES Sandy Soil 42%
Total Phosphorus YES Bold & Gold™ 78%
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus YES Bold & Gold™ 96%
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus YES Bold & Gold™ 83%
Particulate Phosphorus YES Bold & Gold™ 54%
Turbidity YES Bold & Gold™ 92%
Total Suspended Solids YES Bold & Gold™ 73%
Fecal Coliform no N/A N/A
E. Coli no N/A N/A
126
The column tests indicated that Bold & Gold™ is capable of a 60% removal efficiency
for total phosphorus and a minimal or 0% removal efficiency for total nitrogen. Field scale tests
show that the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system achieves a total phosphorus removal
efficiency of 71%. The difference between the total phosphorus removal efficiencies of the
column test and field scale test is likely due to biosorption. The column test was conducted with
fresh Bold & Gold™ that likely had very little biofilm present, where as the Bold & Gold™ in
field scale test had been establishing for months and likely had large amounts of biofilm present.
The total nitrogen removal efficiency achieved by the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment
system was not able to be determined due to continual leaching by the sod. It should be noted
that the total nitrogen concentration of the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system’s effluent is
substantially lower than the sandy soil system’s effluent, thus indicating that the Bold & Gold™
bio-treatment system does remove total nitrogen from the stormwater.
Nitrate + Nitrite
Nitrate level in Class I surface waters is a parameter currently regulated by the FDEP
under the Surface Water Quality Standards (11). Nitrate can have harmful health effects when
ingested and is listed by the U.S. EPA as a primary drinking water standard. Additionally,
nitrogen is a limiting nutrient for plant and algal growth and nitrate is a form of nitrogen that can
be readily used by plants and algae.
As shown in Table 46, the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system preformed superiorly
compared to the sandy soil bio-treatment system by having a 49% lower nitrate + nitrite effluent
concentration than the sandy soil bio-treatment system. The sandy soil effluent and Bold &
Gold™ effluent had pH values of 6.89 and 6.92 respectively. Nitrate is very mobile in water and
127
is not efficiently captured by activated carbon in the pH range of the sandy soil and Bold &
Gold™ bio-treatment systems effluents, see Figure 8. The difference in the nitrate effluent
concentrations is likely due to nitrate capture via biosorption occurring on the biofilm present in
the Bold & Gold™. Some anion exchange with the expanded clay may also be occurring.
Particulate Nitrogen
As shown Table 46, the sandy soil bio-treatment system has a 42% lower particulate
nitrogen effluent concentration than the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system. This indicates
that particulate nitrogen is removed primarily by straining. The Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment
system can have enhanced particulate nitrogen removal by adding a six inch layer of sand on top;
however this may decrease the permeability.
Phosphorus Species
The Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system has lower effluent concentrations for all
phosphorus species compared to the sandy soil bio-treatment system, see Table 46. Of particular
interest is soluble reactive phosphorus. Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient for plant and algal
growth and soluble reactive phosphorus is the form of phosphorus that is readily used by plants
and algae. Table 46 shows that the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system has a 96% lower
effluent concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus than the sandy soil bio-treatment system.
Clay is known to effectively capture phosphorus via anion exchange. Additionally the
average pH of the effluent from the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment system tests is 6.92, which
puts it in the effective pH range for phosphate adsorption by activated carbon according to
Figure 9.
128
Turbidity & Total Suspended Solids
Turbidity is a parameter currently regulated for all classes of surface waters by the FDEP
under the Surface Water Quality Standards (11). Turbidity is a measurement of the light-
transmitting properties, or clarity, of water and is caused by suspended particles (64). Turbidity
is an important characteristic of surface waters because light must be transmitted through the
water in order for aquatic plants to grow on the bottom. Table 46 shows that the Bold & Gold™
bio-treatment system’s effluent has a turbidity 92% lower than the sandy soil bio-treatment
system.
Total suspended solids (TSS) are materials in water that are removed by a 2.0 µm filter
(63). In addition to affecting turbidity, the capturing of TSS is also important because nutrients
and other pollutants can be bound to particulates. As shown in Table 46, the Bold & Gold™ bio-
treatment system’s effluent has a 73% lower TSS concentration than the sandy soil bio-treatment
system’s effluent.
Alkalinity
Alkalinity is a measure of a water’s capacity to neutralize acids; the greater the alkalinity,
the greater the buffer capacity of the water. Alkalinity is a parameter currently regulated for
Class I, Class III-fresh, and Class IV surface waters by the FDEP under the Surface Water
Quality Standards (11). The average effluent alkalinity of the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment
system is 26% greater than the sandy soil bio-treatment system’s effluent.
Media Characteristics
Infiltration and permeability are important design parameters in bio-detention treatment
& harvesting systems. The higher infiltration rate of Bold & Gold™ will lead to a higher
129
volume capture efficiency of stormwater for harvesting purposes and a lower surface runoff
volume compared to sandy soil. The potential harvesting volume includes stormwater that
infiltrates into the bio-detention & treatment system during the storm event as well as the runoff
treatment volume. The lower the runoff volume, the smaller the dry detention basin treatment
volume needs to be. Additionally, the time required for recovery of a dry detention basin is
inversely related to the infiltration rate and permeability of the media used. The permeability
and unsaturated vertical design infiltration rate of the Bold & Gold™ are both 284% greater than
that of sandy soil.
Biological activity in a bio-treatment system, such as plant and microbial growth, are
responsible for sustaining the pollutant capture mechanisms of the system. The degree of
biological activity in a media is typically related to the media’s field capacity, or inter-storm
moisture content; the greater the field capacity of a media, the greater the biological activity.
The field capacity of Bold & Gold™ media in the bio-treatment system is 40.15%, which is
586% greater than the field capacity of the sandy soil.
Recommendations
The use of BAM, such as Bold & Gold™, in bio-treatment systems for stormwater
treatment is encouraged where there is a need for nutrient reduction, especially when the
discharge location is a freshwater body. Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for freshwater
ecosystems and Bold & Gold™ is very effective against phosphorus species, achieving a 71%
total phosphorus capture efficiency.
Additional nutrient removal is achieved via the harvesting component of the system; a
total phosphorus removal efficiency of 71% is achieved by the Bold & Gold™ alone, however a
130
94% total phosphorus removal efficiency was obtained in the bio-detention & harvesting swale
system design problem due to stormwater harvesting. Harvesting of stormwater reduces the
volume discharged to the surface water body and thus also decreases the pollutant mass
discharged to the surface water body. If the combined nutrient removal, particularly nitrogen,
resulting from percolation through the Bold & Gold™ and harvesting are inadequate, the vault
can be designed to have a permanent pool volume thus creating a wet detention system in the
vault. The permanent pool in the vault will enable persistent microbial activity in the vault thus
leading to further nutrient removal. The nutrient removal rate in the vault wet detention system
will likely be less than surface wet detention ponds since sun light is not available but it will
occur, similar to the mechanisms in a septic system. Since no sunlight is available for
photosynthesis to occur, the water in the permanent pool may become anoxic which would allow
nitrogen to be removed via denitrification.
Bold and Gold™ is a good choice as a media for harvesting designs, such as in the bio-
detention & harvesting system shown in the sample design, and for use as a soil amendment
under roadside swales with no harvesting system. In both applications the higher infiltration rate
and permeability of Bold & Gold™ compared to sandy soil creates a lower runoff rate and
higher percolation volume.
Specific operating and maintenance procedures are recommended for bio-detention &
harvesting swale systems. Tractors used for mowing and maintenance of the bio-treatment swale
& harvesting system should be as light as possible, don’t use tractors with fluid filled tires for
example, in order to prevent compaction of the BAM. Compaction of the BAM will result in a
reduction in permeability and infiltration rates. Pressure from the tractors on the vault material
131
must also be considered. Furthermore, tractors used in bio-treatment systems should be
equipped with turf tires to prevent damage to the vegetation. The vegetation of the bio-detention
system is imperative for the sustainability of the pollutant capture mechanisms. The vault
system of bio-detention & harvesting systems will require maintenance, such as the periodic
removal of sediment. The vault system should be designed in such a way to allow access for
maintenance personnel and equipment. The FDEP requires that access to the vault be provided
every 400 feet or at every bend of 45° or more.
Future work
Runoff coefficients should be developed for Bold & Gold™ with grass. The use of
runoff coefficients for sandy soil with grass is likely overly conservative, the runoff rate is being
overestimated, due to the much higher infiltration rate of Bold & Gold™ compared to sandy soil.
As a result both the swale channel flow capacity and treatment volume of the dry detention
system are being overestimated, thus leading to excess costs.
Side slope stability testing should be done to determine what side slopes are acceptable.
Side slopes of 1V:6H are used in the field scale test and are found to be stable, however steeper
slopes maybe desirable in other designs.
As noted previously, the total nitrogen removal efficiency of the Bold & Gold™ bio-
treatment system was unable to be determined in the field scale tests due to leaching from the
sod. In the future, the field scale bio-treatment system should be allowed to establish for a
longer time and/or the establishing system should be watered more frequently to flush the
leachable nutrients out of the sod.
132
Future bench scale and field scale tests could also be done to evaluate different
configurations of the Bold & Gold™ bio-treatment & harvesting system. Different ratios of tire
crumb to expanded clay and different tire crumb and expanded clay particle sizes could be
analyzed and compared. Additionally, different depths of Bold & Gold™, i.e. contact times,
could be evaluated. If it is determined that less contact time is needed to achieve the same
performance then less media will be needed in the design of the detention basin and construction
costs can be reduced.
133
APPENDIX A:
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
134
Nuclear Density Gauge Testing
Table 47: Moist & dry densities for the sandy soil in the test bed
Company:
Project:
Tested by:
Date: Time:
Location:
Trials Density Variation Moisture Variation
#1 2496 -12.80 3778 -0.80
#2 2484 -24.80 3770 -8.80
#3 2557 48.20 3773 -5.80
#4 2465 -43.80 3774 -4.80
#5 2542 33.20 3799 20.20
Average 2508.8 C.V. 3778.8 C.V.
Std. Dev. 39.12 0.0156 11.65 0.0031
2 inches
Density Moisture Density Moisture Moist, γ m Dry, γ d
Density, M
(pcf)MC, %
1 6998 582 2.789 0.154 85.7 81.1 4.6 5.4
2 6704 571 2.672 0.151 88.4 83.9 4.5 5.1
3 6406 705 2.553 0.187 91.3 85.2 6.1 6.7
88.5 83.4 5.1 5.7
8 inches
Density Moisture Density Moisture Moist, γ m Dry, γ d
Density, M
(pcf)MC, %
1 3096 594 1.234 0.157 91.39 86.63 4.76 5.21
2 3138 566 1.251 0.150 90.82 86.41 4.41 4.85
3 2998 698 1.195 0.185 92.76 86.70 6.05 6.53
91.66 86.58 5.07 5.53
90.06
84.99
Overall average moist density (pcf)
Overall average dry density (pcf)
Soil Density Testing by Nuclear Gauge (Data Sheet)Stormwater Management Academy and Reseach Testing Laboratory
Evaluation of Soil Amendments Under Roadside Swales for Stormwater Quality Improvement &
Harvesting
Ikiensinma Gogo-Abite
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9.23 am
Test Duration: 60 seconds "West" Rainfall Bed
Standard Count
sandy soil
Transmission at
Test Point
Location
Gauge Reading Ratio, R Density (pcf) Water
Average values =
Average values =
Test Point
Location
Gauge Reading
Material Type:
Ratio, R Density (pcf) Water
Transmission at
135
Table 48: Moist & dry densities for the Bold & Gold™ media in the test bed
Company:
Project:
Tested by:
Date: Time:
Location:
Trials Density Variation Moisture Variation
#1 2496 -12.80 3778 -0.80
#2 2484 -24.80 3770 -8.80
#3 2557 48.20 3773 -5.80
#4 2465 -43.80 3774 -4.80
#5 2542 33.20 3799 20.20
Average 2508.8 C.V. 3778.8 C.V.
Std. Dev. 39.12 0.0156 11.65 0.0031
2 inches
Density Moisture Density Moisture Moist, γ m Dry, γ d
Density, M
(pcf)MC, %
1 11351 1677 4.524 0.444 55.5 37.2 18.3 32.9
2 10967 1665 4.371 0.441 57.6 39.5 18.1 31.5
3 11109 1982 4.428 0.525 56.8 34.7 22.1 38.9
56.6 37.1 19.5 34.4
8 inches
Density Moisture Density Moisture Moist, γ m Dry, γ d
Density, M
(pcf)MC, %
1 6552 1651 2.611 0.437 59.72 41.78 17.94 30.03
2 6648 1789 2.650 0.473 59.11 39.45 19.66 33.26
3 6320 1974 2.519 0.522 61.24 39.27 21.96 35.87
60.02 40.17 19.85 33.05
58.31
38.64
Evaluation of Soil Amendments Under Roadside Swales for Stormwater Quality Improvement &
Harvesting
Overall average moist density (pcf)
Overall average dry density (pcf)
Material Type:
Soil Density Testing by Nuclear Gauge (Data Sheet)
Stormwater Management Academy and Reseach Testing Laboratory
Ikiensinma Gogo-Abite
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9.23 am
Test Duration: 60 seconds "West" Rainfall Bed
Standard Count
Bold & Gold™
Density (pcf) Water
Transmission at
Average values =
Test Point
Location
Gauge Reading Ratio, R
Density (pcf) Water
Test Point
Location
Gauge Reading
Transmission at
Average values =
Ratio, R
136
Particle Size Distribution
Table 49: Sieve Analysis of Sandy Soil
Table 50: Sieve Analysis of Bold & Gold™•
Sieve # Sieve OpeningMass of
sieves
Mass of
sieve
and soil
Mass
retainedRetained
Cumulative
Percent
Retained
Percent
Finer
(mm) (g) (g) (g) (%) (%) (%)
35 0.500 580.4 593.1 12.7 1.07% 1.07% 98.93%
45 0.355 544.3 593.7 49.4 4.15% 5.22% 94.78%
60 0.250 541.3 792.4 251.1 21.11% 26.33% 73.67%
70 0.212 531.8 729.4 197.6 16.61% 42.94% 57.06%
100 0.150 346.8 744.4 397.6 33.43% 76.37% 23.63%
200 0.075 333.1 593.1 260 21.86% 98.23% 1.77%
Pan 369.7 390.8 21.1 1.77% 100.00% 0.00%
Total = 1,190
Sieve # Sieve OpeningMass of
sieves
Mass of
sieve
and soil
Mass
retainedRetained
Cumulative
retained
Percent
Finer
(mm) (g) (g) (g) (%) (%) (%)
9.5 776.8 776.8 0 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
4 4.75 518.8 811.2 292.4 29.28% 29.28% 70.72%
8 2.36 490.6 726.3 235.7 23.60% 52.88% 47.12%
10 2 487.2 542.2 55 5.51% 58.39% 41.61%
16 1.18 435 667.3 232.3 23.26% 81.65% 18.35%
35 0.500 580.2 721.1 140.9 14.11% 95.76% 4.24%
40 0.425 375.5 384.2 8.7 0.87% 96.64% 3.36%
45 0.355 542.9 549.2 6.3 0.63% 96.39% 2.73%
50 0.300 360.7 366.5 5.8 0.58% 97.22% 2.15%
60 0.250 540.9 544.7 3.8 0.38% 96.78% 1.77%
70 0.212 531 534.1 3.1 0.31% 97.09% 1.46%
100 0.150 346.7 350.5 3.8 0.38% 97.47% 1.08%
200 0.075 333.1 338.5 5.4 0.54% 98.01% 0.54%
Pan 0.000 373.3 378.7 5.4 0.54% 98.55% 0.00%
Total = 999
137
Standard Proctor Test
Table 51: Standard Proctor Test for Sandy soil
Table 52: Standard Proctor Test for Bold & Gold™
4218
944
1 50.25 126.12 5.4% 1.6225 101.2890
2 50.86 133.04 7.0% 1.6255 101.4752
3 50.43 157.47 8.8% 1.6190 101.0721
4 50.38 111.28 10.9% 1.6243 101.4007
5 50.31 117.77 12.6% 1.6344 102.0344
6 50.3 114.57 13.7% 1.6560 103.3784
7 50.38 110.21 14.2% 1.6439 102.6224
8 49.6 130.94 15.1% 1.6294 101.7206
Mass of Mold (g)
Volume of Mold (cm3)
Moisture
Content
Dry Density
(g/cm3)
Dry Density
(lb/ft3)Test #
Mass of
Mold+Compacted Soil
(g)
Mass of
Compacted Soil
(g)
Moist Density
(g/cm3)
Moisture Content
Can #
Mass of
Can+Moist Soil
(g)
Mass of
Can+Dry Soil
(g)
19%
7% 5860 1642
9%
11%
13%
15%
17%
1770
5881
5918
5956
5996
5990
5988
5% 5832 1614
Calculated theoritical
Moisture Content
Mass of Can
(g)
1663
1700
1738
1778
1772 1.87712
1.87500
20
17
A2 3
A4 1
A1 1
B3 4
A3 1
A2 4
1.70975
1.73941
1.76165
1.80085
1.84110
1.88347
118.7
143.2
130.2
138.8
166.9
117.9
126.3
123.4
4218
944
1 50.02 107.38 28.5% 0.6545 40.8611
2 50.31 110.47 39.8% 0.6441 40.2104
3 50.18 108.03 42.1% 0.6543 40.8484
4 39.41 110.22 41.4% 0.6640 41.4519
5 50.22 110.42 40.2% 0.6905 43.1078
6 41.48 115.74 42.5% 0.6856 42.8005
7 49.61 119.89 44.9% 0.6742 42.0859
Moisture
Content
Dry Density
(g/cm3)
Dry Density
(lb/ft3)
Moist Density
(g/cm3)Test #
Calculated theoritical
Moisture Content
Mass of
Mold+Compacted Soil
(g)
Mass of Compacted
Soil (g)
Mass of Mold (g)
Volume of Mold (cm3)
base 5012 794 0.841102 18 123.73
Moisture Content
Can #
Mass of Can
(g)
Mass of
Can+Moist Soil
(g)
Mass of
Can+Dry Soil
(g)
132.41
plus 8% 5068 850 0.900424 101 134.41
plus 10% 5096 878 0.930085 103
922 0.976695 7
139.5
plus 14% 5132 914 0.968220 1 134.63
plus 12% 5104 886 0.938559 15
151.43
147.27
fully saturated 5140 922 0.976695 D13
plus 16% 5140
138
Constant Head Permeability Test
Table 53: Sandy Soil Permeability: Test Series #1
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 122.95 122.12 124.38 97.56 101.34 104 84.47 85.17 86.87
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.9 19.9 19.9 20 20.1 20
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.009481 0.009417 0.009591 0.010289 0.010687 0.010968 0.012094 0.012194 0.012438
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 1.0125 1.0100 1.0075 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025 1.0000 0.9976 1.0000
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.009599 0.009511 0.009663 0.010314 0.010714 0.010995 0.012094 0.012165 0.012438
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1231
mass of soil + container (g) 2101.7
mass of soil (g) 870.7
Initial length of soil (mm) 133.98
Volume of specimen (cm3) 610.998
Dry Density (g/cm3) 1.425046
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 88.96269
84.98806 lb/ft3
88.96269 lb/ft3
76.20 76.20
1
60 60 60
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Test #
0.010832687
2 3
128.46128.67127.84
45.60 45.60 45.60
60.59 44.59 32.79
76.20
0.80 0.81 0.81
Percent Difference
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density Comparision
5%
139
Table 54: Sandy Soil Permeability: Test Series #2
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 161.45 159.51 164.15 122.81 124.04 126.47 97 98.06 96.97
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 19.8 19.8 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 20.3 20.2 20.1
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.011317 0.011181 0.011506 0.011901 0.01202 0.012255 0.012818 0.012958 0.012814
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 1.005 1.005 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025 0.9928 0.9952 0.9976
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.011374 0.011237 0.011535 0.01193 0.01205 0.012286 0.012725 0.012895 0.012783
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1236.4
mass of soil + container (g) 2078.6
mass of soil (g) 842.2
Initial length of soil (mm) 126.24
Volume of specimen (cm3) 575.7008
Dry Density (g/cm3) 1.462913
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 91.32666
84.98806 lb/ft3
91.32666 lb/ft3
Percent Difference 7%
116.21 118.23 119.28
45.60 45.60 45.60
0.012090602
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Dry Density Comparision
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
0.69 0.72 0.74
60.59 44.59 32.99
76.20 76.20 76.20
60 60 60
Test #1 2 3
140
Table 55: Sandy soil Permeability: Test Series #3
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 111.95 112.94 113.48 92.84 94.14 96.09 67.18 68.19 68.69
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 20.1 20 20.1 20 20 20 20.4 20.4 20.4
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.008301 0.008375 0.008415 0.009334 0.009465 0.009661 0.009257 0.009396 0.009465
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 0.9976 1.0000 0.9976 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9904 0.9904 0.9904
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.008281 0.008375 0.008394 0.009334 0.009465 0.009661 0.009168 0.009306 0.009374
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1232
mass of soil + container (g) 2109.3
mass of soil (g) 877.3
Initial length of soil (mm) 131.01
Volume of specimen (cm3) 597.4537
Dry Density (g/cm3) 1.468398
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 91.66911
84.98806 lb/ft3
91.66911 lb/ft3
60 60 60
Test #1 2 3
60.19 44.79 32.99
76.20 76.20 76.20
Percent Difference 8%
122.12 123.22 124.38
45.60 45.60 45.60
0.00903978
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Dry Density Comparision
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
0.71 0.72 0.74
141
Table 56: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #1
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 862.08 867.02 860.6 694.7 692.1 696.06 575.64 572.65 576.3
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.6
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio "e" (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.065146 0.065519 0.065034 0.072189 0.071919 0.072331 0.081601 0.081177 0.081694
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 0.9904 0.9904 0.9904 0.9904 0.9904 0.9904 0.988 0.9856 0.9856
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.06452 0.06489 0.064409 0.071496 0.071229 0.071636 0.080621 0.080008 0.080518
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1444.9
mass of soil + container (g) 1793.5
mass of soil (g) 348.6
Initial length of soil (mm) 119.67
Volume of specimen (cm3) 545.7392
Dry Density (g/cm3) 0.638767
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 39.8769
38.64466 lb/ft3
39.8769 lb/ft3
60 60 60
0.99 1.03 1.05
76.20 76.20
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Test #
0.072147482
2 3
128.93127.58124.91
45.60 45.60 45.60
60.41 44.87 33.24
76.20
1
Percent Difference
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density Comparision
3%
142
Table 57: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #2
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 347.53 345.46 342.72 260.51 259.37 258.41 198.67 198.13 201.98
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 20.5 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.4 20.3
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio "e" (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.023074 0.022936 0.022754 0.025034 0.024925 0.024833 0.024855 0.024788 0.025269
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 0.988 0.9904 0.9928 0.9928 0.9928 0.9904 0.988 0.9904 0.9928
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.022797 0.022716 0.02259 0.024854 0.024745 0.024594 0.024557 0.02455 0.025088
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1445.5
mass of soil + container (g) 1779.7
mass of soil (g) 334.2
Initial length of soil (mm) 117.45
Volume of specimen (cm3) 535.6151
Dry Density (g/cm3) 0.623955
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 38.95227
38.64466 lb/ft3
38.95227 lb/ft3
Percent Difference 1%
109.89 114.88 113.96
45.60 45.60 45.60
0.024054567
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Dry Density Comparision
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
0.82 0.91 0.89
60.49 43.69 33.29
76.20 76.20 76.20
60 60 60
Test #1 2 3
143
Table 58: Bold & Gold™ Media Permeability: Test Series #3
1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C
Volume Collected (cm^3) 410.75 407.25 392.41 285.26 288.3 281.24 213.48 212.51 211.44
Time of Collection (seconds)
Temperature of Water (°C) 21.9 21.8 21.6 21.6 21.7 21.7 21.6 21.9 21.9
Head difference "h" (cm)
Diameter of Speicmen "D" (mm)
Length of Specimen "L" (mm)
Area of Specimen "A" (cm2)
Void Ratio "e" (unitless)
k (cm/second) 0.02796 0.027722 0.026712 0.027367 0.027658 0.026981 0.028203 0.028074 0.027933
ηTemperature of water °C / η20°C 0.9553 0.9576 0.9622 0.9622 0.9599 0.9599 0.9622 0.9553 0.9553
k at 20°C (cm/second) 0.02671 0.026546 0.025702 0.026332 0.026549 0.025899 0.027137 0.02682 0.026684
Series Average of k at 20°C (cm/second)
Mass of empty container (g) 1441.1
mass of soil + container (g) 1790.4
mass of soil (g) 349.3
Initial length of soil (mm) 117.24
Volume of specimen (cm3) 534.6575
Dry Density (g/cm3) 0.653315
Dry Density (lb/ft3) 40.78515
38.64466 lb/ft3
40.78515 lb/ft3
60 60 60
Test #1 2 3
61.19 44.19 32.19
76.20 76.20 76.20
Percent Difference 5%
113.97 116 116.36
45.60 45.60 45.60
0.026486628
Permeability Cylinder Dry Density Calculations
Dry Density Comparision
Dry density in test bed (target dry density)
Dry Density in Permeability Cylinder
0.81 0.84 0.85
144
APPENDIX B:
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
145
Influent
Table 59: Simulated Highway Runoff Characteristics (Influent)
8/11/2011 8/17/2011 8/24/2011 8/29/2011 9/7/2011 9/12/2011 9/21/2011 9/26/2011 10/3/2011 Mean MedianStandard
Deviation
Coefficient of
Variation
Turbidity
(NTU)4.58 3.49 4 4.1 2.5 3.22 3.8 2.79 1.56 3.338 3.49 0.9338 0.280
pH 7.88 7.67 7.77 8.00 7.81 7.83 7.37 7.69 7.61 7.737 7.77 0.1810 0.023
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)54.0 76.0 70.2 66.4 83.6 83.2 61 57 63 68.27 66.4 10.82 0.158
TSS
(mg/L)6.7 2.2 5.0 3.3 1.9 2.0 5.4 4 2.3 3.644 3.3 1.737 0.477
Total N
(µg/L as N)1442 1033 1236 954 1343 934 999 872 888 1078 999 209.3 0.194
NO3- + NO2
-
(µg/L as N)260 315 280 497 281 271 318 279 255 306.2 280 74.73 0.244
NH3
(µg/L as N)569 617 477 301 604 578 528 175 433 475.8 528 150.5 0.316
Dissolved Organic N
(µg/L as N) 68 51 469 75 432 28 16 358 27 169.3 68 190.8 1.127
Particulate N
(µg/L as N)545 50 10 81 26 57 137 60 173 126.6 60 165.2 1.305
Total P
(µg/L as P)159 192 165 184 199 206 197 197 204 189.2 197 16.78 0.089
SRP
(µg/L as P)150 166 109 160 181 183 172 165 193 164.3 166 24.48 0.149
Dissolved Organic P
(µg/L as P)5 7 1 8 6 2 15 19 4 7.444 6 5.940 0.798
Particulate P
(µg/L as P)4 19 55 16 12 21 10 13 7 17.44 13 15.09 0.865
Fecal Coliform
(cfu/100 mL)na 2833 483 200 58 1150 3000 183 242 1019 362.5 1220 1.198
E. Coli
(cfu/100 mL)na 19 17 0.9 0.9 1 42 17 75 21.60 17 25.63 1.187
Note that the lower detection limit is 1 cfu/100 mL.
If the result is less than 1 cfu/100 mL this is represented as 0.9 cfu/100 mL in the above table.
146
Total Nitrogen
Table 60: Influent and Effluent Concentrations of Total Nitrogen
Table 61: ANOVA Analysis of Total Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 7083 3712
8/17/2011 1 2 6194 2084
8/24/2011 1 3 6192 2886
8/29/2011 1.5 1 1727 2004
9/7/2011 1.5 2 3853 2472
9/12/2011 1.5 3 3213 1609
9/21/2011 3 1 1517 1476
9/26/2011 3 2 1029 1440
10/3/2011 3 3 878 908
Units of µg/L as N
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 31686 3520.666667 5950258.25
Bold & Gold™ 9 18591 2065.666667 730063.5
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 9526612.5 1 9526612.5 2.852141815 0.110642221 4.493998418
Within Groups 53442574 16 3340160.875
Total 62969186.5 17
Not Significant at 95% Confidence Interval
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 52%
Bold & Gold™ has 41% lower Total N than sandy soil
Confidence Interval at which difference is significant 89%
Which has a lower average effluent concentration: Bold & Gold™
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
147
Leaching of Total Nitrogen by the Sod
Table 62: Leaching of Total Nitrogen by Sod in the Sandy Soil System
Table 63: Leaching of Total Nitrogen by Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System
0
DateInfluent
(µg/L as N)
Effluent
(µg/L as N)
Sod Contribution
(µg/L as N)
8/11/2011 1442 3712 2270
8/17/2011 1033 2084 1051
8/24/2011 1236 2886 1650
8/29/2011 954 2004 1050
9/7/2011 1343 2472 1129
9/12/2011 934 1609 675
9/21/2011 999 1476 477
9/26/2011 872 1440 568
10/3/2011 888 908 20
Total Nitrogen removal based on column test (µg/L as N)
148
Ammonia
Table 64: Effluent Concentrations of Ammonia
Table 65: ANOVA Analysis of Ammonia for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 97 130
8/17/2011 1 2 158 122
8/24/2011 1 3 77 128
8/29/2011 1.5 1 118 122
9/7/2011 1.5 2 171 120
9/12/2011 1.5 3 103 132
9/21/2011 3 1 55 283
9/26/2011 3 2 71 56
10/3/2011 3 3 113 37
Units of µg/L as N
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 963 107 1483.75
Bold & Gold™ 9 1130 125.5555556 4699.027778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 1549.388889 1 1549.388889 0.501195076 0.489161 4.493998
Within Groups 49462.22222 16 3091.388889
Total 51011.61111 17
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 16%
Sandy Soil
Sandy Soil has 15% lower NH3 than Bold & Gold™
51%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
149
Nitrate + Nitrite
Table 66: Effluent Concentrations of Nitrate + Nitrite
Table 67: ANOVA Analysis of Nitrate + Nitrite for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 5413 2177
8/17/2011 1 2 4816 1317
8/24/2011 1 3 4805 2081
8/29/2011 1.5 1 1373 1615
9/7/2011 1.5 2 2931 1391
9/12/2011 1.5 3 2610 957
9/21/2011 3 1 810 851
9/26/2011 3 2 250 877
10/3/2011 3 3 650 682
Units of µg/L as N
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 23658 2628.666667 3977818
Bold & Gold™ 9 11948 1327.555556 295019.2778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 7618005.556 1 7618005.556 3.565783137 0.077251 4.493998
Within Groups 34182698.22 16 2136418.639
Total 41800703.78 17
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 66%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 49% lower NO3¯+NO2¯ than sandy soil
Confidence Interval at which difference is significant 92%
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
150
Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
Table 68: Effluent Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen
Table 69: ANOVA Analysis of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 1476 1020
8/17/2011 1 2 1111 439
8/24/2011 1 3 896 521
8/29/2011 1.5 1 201 93
9/7/2011 1.5 2 593 619
9/12/2011 1.5 3 415 274
9/21/2011 3 1 97 57
9/26/2011 3 2 628 437
10/3/2011 3 3 104 117
Units of µg/L as N
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 5521 613.4444444 225971.2778
Bold & Gold™ 9 3577 397.4444444 94712.02778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 209952 1 209952 1.309403991 0.269333 4.493998
Within Groups 2565466.444 16 160341.6528
Total 2775418.444 17
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 43%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ removes 35% more Dissolved Organic N than sandy soil
73%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
151
Particulate Nitrogen
Table 70: Effluent Concentrations of Particulate Nitrogen
Table 71: ANOVA Analysis of Particulate Nitrogen for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 97 385
8/17/2011 1 2 109 206
8/24/2011 1 3 414 156
8/29/2011 1.5 1 35 174
9/7/2011 1.5 2 158 342
9/12/2011 1.5 3 85 246
9/21/2011 3 1 285 555
9/26/2011 3 2 80 70
10/3/2011 3 3 11 72
Units of µg/L as N
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 1274 141.5555556 16688.02778
Bold & Gold™ 9 2206 245.1111111 25018.36111
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 48256.88889 1 48256.88889 2.314124535 0.147719 4.493998
Within Groups 333651.1111 16 20853.19444
Total 381908 17
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 54%
Sandy Soil
Sandy Soil has 42% lower Particulate N than Bold & Gold™
85%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
152
Total Phosphorus
Table 72: Effluent Concentrations of Total Phosphorus
Table 73: ANOVA Analysis of Total Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 105 87
8/17/2011 1 2 458 73
8/24/2011 1 3 195 92
8/29/2011 1.5 1 339 42
9/7/2011 1.5 2 229 54
9/12/2011 1.5 3 282 71
9/21/2011 3 1 351 59
9/26/2011 3 2 436 53
10/3/2011 3 3 328 65
Units of µg/L as P
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy soil 9 2723 302.5555556 12840.27778
Bold & Gold™ 9 596 66.22222222 266.1944444
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 251340.5 1 251340.5 38.35364631 1.29E-05 4.493998
Within Groups 104851.7778 16 6553.236111
Total 356192.2778 17
Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 128%
Bold & Gold™ has 78% lower Total P than sandy soil
100.00%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration: Bold & Gold™
at 95% Confidence Interval
153
Leaching of Total Phosphorus by the Sod
Table 74: Leaching of Total Phosphorus by Sod in the Bold & Gold™ System
125
DateInfluent
(µg/L as P)
Effluent
(µg/L as P)
Sod Contribution
(µg/L as P)
8/11/2011 159 87 53
8/17/2011 192 73 6
8/24/2011 165 92 52
8/29/2011 184 42 -17
9/7/2011 199 54 -20
9/12/2011 206 71 -10
9/21/2011 197 59 -13
9/26/2011 197 53 -19
10/3/2011 204 65 -14
Total Phosphorus removal based on column test (µg/L as P)
154
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
Table 75: Effluent Concentrations of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
Table 76: ANOVA Analysis of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 177 8
8/17/2011 1 2 228 16
8/24/2011 1 3 139 6
8/29/2011 1.5 1 188 7
9/7/2011 1.5 2 156 8
9/12/2011 1.5 3 172 6
9/21/2011 3 1 169 8
9/26/2011 3 2 200 9
10/3/2011 3 3 191 0.9
Units of µg/L as P
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 1620 180.0 667.5
Bold & Gold™ 9 68.9 7.655555556 15.41777778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 133661.7339 1 133661.7339 391.4431231 1.13E-12 4.493998
Within Groups 5463.342222 16 341.4588889
Total 139125.0761 17
Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 184%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 96% lower SRP than sandy soil
100.00%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
155
Dissolved Organic Phosphorus
Table 77: Effluent Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Phosphorus
Table 78: ANOVA Analysis of Dissolved Organic Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 53 3
8/17/2011 1 2 40 8
8/24/2011 1 3 41 9
8/29/2011 1.5 1 62 2
9/7/2011 1.5 2 14 7
9/12/2011 1.5 3 7 7
9/21/2011 3 1 13 7
9/26/2011 3 2 34 1
10/3/2011 3 3 14 3
Units of µg/L as P
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 278 30.88888889 389.1111111
Bold & Gold™ 9 47 5.222222222 8.694444444
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 2964.5 1 2964.5 14.90426646 0.001384 4.493998
Within Groups 3182.444444 16 198.9027778
Total 6146.944444 17
Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 142%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 83% lower Dissolved Organic P than sandy soil
99.86%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
156
Particulate Phosphorus
Table 79: Effluent Concentrations of Particulate Phosphorus
Table 80: ANOVA Analysis of Particulate Phosphorus for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 105 87
8/17/2011 1 2 190 49
8/24/2011 1 3 15 77
8/29/2011 1.5 1 89 33
9/7/2011 1.5 2 59 29
9/12/2011 1.5 3 103 58
9/21/2011 3 1 169 44
9/26/2011 3 2 202 43
10/3/2011 3 3 123 61
Units of µg/L as P
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 1055 117.2222222 3773.194444
Bold & Gold™ 9 481 53.44444444 374.0277778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 18304.22222 1 18304.22222 8.827220362 0.009007 4.493998
Within Groups 33177.77778 16 2073.611111
Total 51482 17
Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 75%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 54% lower Particulate P than sandy soil
99.10%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
157
Total Suspended Solids
Table 81: Effluent Total Suspended Solids
Table 82: ANOVA Analysis of Total Suspended Solids for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 6.7 5
8/17/2011 1 2 20.5 1.8
8/24/2011 1 3 1.1 3.2
8/29/2011 1.5 1 12.7 2.2
9/7/2011 1.5 2 5.9 3.1
9/12/2011 1.5 3 8.1 2.2
9/21/2011 3 1 9.7 1.3
9/26/2011 3 2 9.6 1.7
10/3/2011 3 3 10.6 2
Units of mg/L
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 84.9 9.433333333 28.2225
Bold & Gold™ 9 22.5 2.5 1.2625
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 216.32 1 216.32 14.67322367 0.001475 4.49399842
Within Groups 235.88 16 14.7425
Total 452.2 17
Significant at 95% Confidence Interval
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 116%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 73% lower TSS than sandy soil
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
158
Turbidity
Table 83: Effluent Turbidity
Table 84: ANOVA Analysis of Turbidity for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 51.8 6.92
8/17/2011 1 2 92.9 4.6
8/24/2011 1 3 30.8 5.8
8/29/2011 1.5 1 80.6 4.6
9/7/2011 1.5 2 28.1 5.41
9/12/2011 1.5 3 44 5.23
9/21/2011 3 1 73.7 4.39
9/26/2011 3 2 98.4 3.94
10/3/2011 3 3 62.5 5.84
Units of NTU
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 562.8 62.53333333 663.875
Bold & Gold™ 9 46.73 5.192222222 0.8420194
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 14796.01361 1 14796.01361 44.518233 5.36E-06 4.493998
Within Groups 5317.736156 16 332.3585097
Total 20113.74976 17
Significant at 95% Confidence Interval
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 169%
Bold & Gold™
Bold & Gold™ has 92% lower Turbidity than sandy soil
100.00%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
159
Fecal Coliform
Table 85: Effluent Concentrations of Fecal Coliform
Table 86: ANOVA Analysis of Fecal Coliform for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 NA NA
8/17/2011 1 2 3850 5100
8/24/2011 1 3 720 500
8/29/2011 1.5 1 590 2200
9/7/2011 1.5 2 1050 658
9/12/2011 1.5 3 2075 1000
9/21/2011 3 1 607 1117
9/26/2011 3 2 114 108
10/3/2011 3 3 310 400
Note that the lower detection limit is 1 cfu/100 mL.
If the result is less than 1 this is represented as 0.9 in the above table.
Units of cfu/100 mL
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 8 9316 1164.5 1532312.571
Bold & Gold™ 8 11083 1385.375 2656886.554
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 195143.0625 1 195143.0625 0.093164854 0.764682 4.60011
Within Groups 29324393.88 14 2094599.563
Total 29519536.94 15
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 17%
Sandy Soil
Sandy Soil has 16% lower Fecal Coliform than Bold & Gold™
24%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
160
E. Coli
Table 87: Effluent Concentrations of E. Coli
Table 88: ANOVA Analysis of E. Coli for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 NA NA
8/17/2011 1 2 0.9 0.9
8/24/2011 1 3 43 67
8/29/2011 1.5 1 1 0.9
9/7/2011 1.5 2 0.9 0.9
9/12/2011 1.5 3 0.9 0.9
9/21/2011 3 1 0.9 8
9/26/2011 3 2 0.9 17
10/3/2011 3 3 0.9 0.9
Note that the lower detection limit is 1 cfu/100 mL.
If the result is less than 1 cfu/100 mL this is represented as 0.9 cfu/100 mL in the above table.
Units of cfu/100 mL
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 8 49.4 6.175 221.4021429
Bold & Gold™ 8 96.5 12.0625 526.0026786
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 138.650625 1 138.650625 0.371018813 0.552206 4.60011
Within Groups 5231.83375 14 373.7024107
Total 5370.484375 15
Not Significant
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 65%
Sandy Soil
Sandy Soil has 49% lower E. Coli than Bold & Gold™
45%Confidence Interval at which difference is significant
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
at 95% Confidence Interval
161
Alkalinity
Table 89: Effluent Alkalinity
Table 90: ANOVA Analysis of Alkalinity for Sandy Soil and Bold & Gold™ Effluents
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 164 222
8/17/2011 1 2 143 219
8/24/2011 1 3 174 218
8/29/2011 1.5 1 128 177
9/7/2011 1.5 2 145 177
9/12/2011 1.5 3 152 175
9/21/2011 3 1 174 158
9/26/2011 3 2 103 159
10/3/2011 3 3 116 137
Units of mg/L as CaCO3
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Sandy Soil 9 1299 144.3333333 623.25
Bold & Gold™ 9 1642 182.4444444 936.5277778
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 6536.055556 1 6536.055556 8.380752244 0.010551 4.493998
Within Groups 12478.22222 16 779.8888889
Total 19014.27778 17
Significant at 95% Confidence Interval
Relative Percent Difference between the averages: 23%
Sandy Soil
26% greater than sandy soil.The average effluent alkalinity of Bold & Gold™ is
Since F>=Fcrit, the difference is
Which has a lower average effluent concentration:
162
pH
Table 91: Effluent pH
Date Rainfall (inches) Test # Sandy Soil Bold & Gold™
8/11/2011 1 1 7.09 7.31
8/17/2011 1 2 7.09 7.12
8/24/2011 1 3 7.06 7.20
8/29/2011 1.5 1 7.05 7.05
9/7/2011 1.5 2 6.70 6.83
9/12/2011 1.5 3 6.77 6.63
9/21/2011 3 1 6.92 6.72
9/26/2011 3 2 6.45 6.68
10/3/2011 3 3 6.86 6.73
Mean - - 6.89 6.92
Median - - 6.92 6.83
Standard Deviation - - 0.218 0.253
163
APPENDIX C:
BIO-DETENTION & HARVESTING SWALE SYSTEM EXAMPLE PROBLEM
164
Figure 45: FDOT Zones for Precipitation IDF Curves (77)
165
Figure 46: IDF Curve for Orange County, FL (77)
166
Figure 47: Designated Meteorological Zones in Florida (10)
167
The REV curve required for Orange County, FL is required for the design problem.
Based on Figure 47, the REV curve for Zone 2 is needed. The REV for Zone 2 is shown below in
Figure 48.
Figure 48: Rate-Efficiency-Volume Curve for Orange County, FL (Zone 2) (76)
168
REFERENCES
1. Stormwater Irrigation for Saint Augustine Grass: Summer ET and Nitrogen Data on the UCF
Campus. Wanielista, Marty and Hulstein, Ewoud. Orlando, FL : University of Central Florida
Stormwater Management Academy, 2004. 1st Annual Stormwater Management Research
Symposium Proceedings. p. 3.
2. U.S. EPA. Drinking Water Contaminants. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
[Online] September 30, 2011. [Cited: October 2, 2011.]
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List.
3. Workgroup Report: Drinking-Water Nitrate and Health-Recent Findings and Research Needs.
Ward, Mary H., et al. 11, November 2005, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, pp.
1607-1614.
4. Serial particle size fractionation and characterisation of an aquacultural effluent. Cripps,
Simon J. 3-4, s.l. : Elsevier, June 15, 1995, Aquaculture, Vol. 133, pp. 323-339.
5. U.S. EPA. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution: Glossary. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] September 29, 2011. [Cited: October 2, 2011.]
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/glossary.cfm.
6. Wenner, E., et al. Characterization of the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin, South Carolina.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Online] 2010. [Cited: October 2, 2011.]
http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Doc/SiteProfile/ACEBasin/html/modules/watqual/wmeutro.htm.
7. U.S. EPA. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution: Hypoxia, Anoxia, &
Harmful Algal Blooms. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] September 29,
2011. [Cited: October 2, 2011.]
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/habs.cfm.
8. Harmful Algal Blooms and Their Effects on Marine and Estuarine Animals. Landsberg, Jan
H. and Shumway, Sandra S. Baltimore, Maryland : s.n., 1998. Third International Symposium
on Aquatic Animal Health.
9. U.S. EPA. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution: Effects of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Pollution. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] September
29, 2011. [Cited: October 2, 2011.]
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/effects.cfm.
10. FDEP & Water Management Districts. Stormwater Quality Permitting Requirements.
(Draft) Environmental Resouce Permit: Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook: Design
169
Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida. Tallahassee, FL : Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, 2010, 3, pp. 6-19.
11. FDEP. Surface Water Quality Criteria. Surface Water Quality Standards. Tallahassee :
Florida Department of State, 2010, 62-302.530, F.A.C., pp. 29-46.
12. Evaluation of the Pollutant Content in Road Runoff First Flush Waters. Mangani,
Giovanna, et al. 1, 2005 1-January, Water, Air, Soil Pollution, Vol. 160, pp. 213-228.
13. Pitt, Robert, Maestre, Alex and Morquecho, Renee. The National Stormwater Quality
Database (NSQD, version 1.1). Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Alabama. Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama, 2004.
14. New Updates to the Florida Runoff Concentration (emc) Database. Harper, Harvey H.
Tampa : s.n., 2011. Florida Stormwater Association.
15. Levels of Pollutants in Runoff Water from Roads with High Traffic Intensity in the City of
Gdansk, Poland. Polkowska, Z., et al. 5, 2001, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol.
10, pp. 351-363.
16. U.S. EPA. Acid Rain: Glossary. [Online] August 14, 2008. [Cited: January 10, 2012.]
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/glossary.html.
17. Characterization and Pollutant Loading Estimation for Highway Runoff. Wu, Jy S., et al. 7,
1998 July, Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124, pp. 594-592.
18. U.S. EPA. Bioretention (Raingardens). United States Environmental Protection Agency.
[Online] May 24, 2006. [Cited: December 13, 2011.]
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results&view=
specific&bmp=72.
19. NJDEP. Bioretention Systems. New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
s.l. : New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2009, 9.1, pp. 9.1:1 - 9.1:10.
20. Lenth, John, et al. Filterra Bioretention Systems: Technical Basis for High Flow Rate
Treatment and Evaluation of Stormwater Quality Performance. Ashland, Virginia : Americast,
Inc., 2010. White Paper.
21. SJRWMD. Definitions. Applicant's Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management
Systems: Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. Palatka : St. Johns River Water Management District, 2006, 2,
pp. 2.1-2.5.
22. Crittenden, John C., et al. Granular Filtration. Water Treatment: Principles and Design.
2nd. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2005, 11, pp. 867-954.
170
23. Tobiason, John E., et al. Granular Media Filtration. [ed.] James K. Edzwald. Water Quality
& Treatment: A Handbook on Drinking Water. 6th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2011, pp. 10.1-
10.107.
24. Das, Braja M. Particle-Size Distribution Curve. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering.
6th. Stamford : Cengage Learning, 2006, 2.2, pp. 37-43.
25. Water and Waste Water Filtration: Concepts and Applications. Yao, Kuan-Mu, Habibian,
Mohammad T. and O'Melia, Charles R. 11, 1971 November, Environmental Science &
Technology, Vol. 5, pp. 1105-1112.
26. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Reuse. 4th. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 1035-1212.
27. Theory of Water Filtration. O'Melia, Charles R. and Stumm, Werner. 11, 1967, Journal
American Water Works Association, Vol. 59.
28. Physicochemical Aspects of Particle Removal in Depth Filtration. Tobiason, John E. and
O'Melia, Charles R. 12, 1988 December, Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 80,
pp. 54-64.
29. Sawyer, Clair N., McCarty, Perry L. and Parkin, Gene F. Adsorption. Chemistry for
Environmental Engineering and Science, 5th ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 3, pp. 97-105.
30. Crittenden, John C., et al. Adsorption. Water Treatment Principles and Design. 2nd.
Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2005, 15, pp. 1245-1357.
31. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. Adsorption. Water Treatment
Principles and Design. 1st. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1985, pp. 174-194.
32. Benjamin, Mark M. Adsorption Reactions. Water Chemistry. 1st. New York : McGraw-
Hill, 2002, 10, pp. 550-632.
33. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ion Exchange and Demineralization.
Water Treatment Principles and Design. 1st. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1985, 10, pp. 198-
236.
34. Crittenden, John C., et al. Ion Exchange. Water Treatment Principles and Design. 2nd.
Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2005, 16, pp. 1359-1428.
35. Making a Progress to Speed up the Nitrification and Denitrification Processes in Novel
Biosorption Activated Media: Can Archaea be in Concert with Anammox? Chang, Ni-Bin. 2,
s.l. : OMICS Publishing Group, 2011, Bioprocessing & Biotechniques, Vol. 1.
171
36. Biosorption and bioaccumulation – the prospects for practical applications. Chojnacka,
Katarzyna. 3, s.l. : Elsevier, April 2010, Environment International, Vol. 36, pp. 299-307.
37. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Attached Growth and Combined Biological Treatment Processes.
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 9, pp.
887-981.
38. A Reservoir of Nitrate Beneath Desert Soils. Walvoord, Michelle A., et al. 5647, 2003 7-
November, Science, Vol. 302, pp. 1021-1024.
39. Strecker, Eric, et al. Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection
Issues. Alexandria : Water Environment Research Foundation, 2005.
40. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Fundamentals of Biological Treatment. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Reuse. 4th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 7, pp. 545-657.
41. —. Constituents in Wastewater. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th. New
York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 2, pp. 27-151.
42. —. Processes for Biological Nitrogen Removal. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Reuse. 4th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 8.5, pp. 749-798.
43. Larson, Richard A., et al. Nitrate Uptake by Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants. Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Urbana : s.n.
44. Eweis, Juana B., et al. Metabolism and Energy Production. Bioremediation Principles. New
York : McGraw-Hill, 1998, 5, pp. 112-113.
45. Molecular and physiological aspects of nitrate uptake in plants. Crawford, Nigel M. and
Glass, Anthony D.M. 10, October 1998, Trends in Plant Science, Vol. 3, pp. 389-395.
46. Evangelou, V. P. Organic Matter, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Synthetic Organics.
Environmental Soil and Water Chemistry: Principles and Applications. New York, NY : John
Wiley & Sons, 1998, 8, pp. 323-363.
47. Douglas, G. B., et al. A review of solid phase adsorbents for the removal of phosphorus
from natural and waste waters. [ed.] Eugenia Valsami-Jones. Phosphorus in Environmental
Engineering Technology: Principles and Applications. London : IWA Publishing, 2004, 13, pp.
291-311.
48. Das, Braja M. Clay Minerals. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6th. Stamford :
Cengage Learning, 2006, 2.3, pp. 22-30.
172
49. Clay minerals as selective and shape-selective sorbents. Barrer, R. M. 11, London :
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, 1989, Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 61,
pp. 1903-1912.
50. Studies on the phosphorus sorption capacity of substrates used in constructed wetland
systems. Xu, Defu, et al. 2, 2006 April, Chemosphere, Vol. 63, pp. 344-352.
51. Lekang, Odd-Ivar. Chemical Removal of Ammonia. Aquaculture Engineering. Ames :
Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 9.8, pp. 129-130.
52. Wanielista, Marty, et al. Feasibility Study of Waste Tire Use in Pollution Control for
Stormwater Management, Drainfields and Water Conservation in Florida. Orlando, FL :
University of Central Florida Storm Water Management Academy, 2008.
53. Inglezakis, V.J. and Poulopoulos, S.G. Basic Principles of Adsorption and Ion Exchange.
Adsorption, Ion Exchange and Catalysis - Design of Operations and Environmental
Applications. Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2006, 4, pp. 243-252.
54. Ozturk, Nese and Bektas, T. Ennil. Nitrate removal from aqueous solution by adsorption
onto various materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2004 9-August, pp. 155-162.
55. Evangelou, V. P. Sorption and Exchange Reactions. Environmental Soil and Water
Chemistry: Principles and Applications. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1998, 4, pp. 167-227.
56. Equilibrium and kinetic studies of adsorption of phosphate onto ZnCl2 activated coir pith
carbon. Namasivayam, C. and Sangeetha, D. 2, s.l. : Elsevier, 2004 December, Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 280, pp. 359-365.
57. SJRWMD. Design Criteria and Guidelines for Stormwater Reuse Systems. Applicant's
Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems: Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. Palatka :
St. Johns River Water Management District, 2006, 20, pp. 20.1-20.6.
58. FDOT. Design Geometrics and Criteria. Plans Preparation Manual. Tallahssee : Florida
Department of Transportation, 2011, Vol. 1, 2.
59. SJRWMD. Methodology and Design Examples for Retention Systems. Applicant's
Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems: Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. Palatka :
St. Johns River Water Management District, 2006, 26, pp. 26.1-26.30.
60. U.S. EPA Region 6 South Central Response and Prevention Branch. Aerobic
Biodegradation of Oily Wastes. 2003.
61. Das, Braja M. Specific Gravity. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6. Stamford :
Cengage Learning, 2006, 2.4, pp. 29-30.
173
62. Ji, Zhen-Gang. Phosphorus. Hydrodynamics and water quality: modeling rivers, lakes, and
estuaries. Hoboken : John Wiley & Gons, 2008, 5.4, pp. 299-302.
63. Sawyer, Clair N., McCarty, Perry L. and Parkin, Gene F. Solids. Chemistry for
Environmental Engineering and Science. 5th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003, 26, p. 649.
64. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Characteristics of Residual Suspended Particulate Matter From
Secondary Treatment Processes. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. New
York : McGraw-Hill, 2007, 8.1, pp. 375-388.
65. —. Indicator Organisms. Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. New York :
McGraw-Hill, 2007, 3.4, pp. 92-94.
66. FDOT. Open Channel Design. Drainage Handbook: Open Channel. Tallahassee : Florida
Department of Transportation, 2009, 3, pp. 37-58.
67. SJRWMD. Definitions. Environmental Resource Permits: Regulation of Stormwater
Management Systems. Tallahassee : Florida Department of State, 1995, 40C-42.021, F.A.C.
68. —. Filtration Design and Performance Criteria. Applicant's Handbook: Regulation of
Stormwater Management Systems: Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. Palatka : St. Johns River Water
Management District, 2006, 23, pp. 23.1-23.9.
69. Roberson, John A., Cassidy, John J. and Chaudhry, M. Hanif. Surface Runoff. Hydraulic
Engineering. 2nd. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1998, 2.6, pp. 59-75.
70. United States Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation. Inspection of Water
Measurement Systems. Water Measurement Manual. Washington : U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2001, 5.
71. SJRWMD. Methodology and Design Example for the Modified Rational Hydrograph
Method. Applicant's Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems: Chapter 40C-
42, F.A.C. Palatka : St. Johns Water Management District, 2006, 24, pp. 24.2-24.9.
72. Wanielista, Martin, Kersten, Robert and Eaglin, Ron. Hydrology: Water Quantity and
Quality Control. 2nd. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 1997, 2, pp. 21-67.
73. Finnemore, E. John and Franzini, Joseph B. Thin-Plate Weirs. Fluid Mechanics with
Engineering Applications. 10th. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2002, 11.11, p. 527533.
74. Iowa State University: Institute for Transportation. Detention Basin Outlet Structures.
Iowa Stormwater Management Manual. 3rd. Ames : Iowa State Universtiy, 2009, 2C-12.
174
75. SJRWMD. Methodology and Design Examples for Stormwater Reuse Systems. Applicant's
Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems: Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. Palatka :
St. Johns River Water Management District, 2006, 31, pp. 31.1-31.16.
76. FDEP & Water Management Districts. Stormwater Harvesting Design Criteria. (Draft)
Environmental Resource Permit: Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook: Design
Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida. Tallahassee : Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, 2010, 15, pp. 128-136.
77. FDOT. IDF Curves, Precipitation Data, Rainfall Distributions. Drainage Manual.
Tallahassee : Florida Department of Transportation, 2010, p. 57.
78. ASTM. D 854-02: Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer. West Conshohocken : ASTM International, 2002.
79. —. D 2216-68: Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. West Conshohocken : ASTM International, 1998.
80. —. D 6938-10: Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). West Conshohocken : ASTM
International, 2010.
81. —. D 698-00: Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characterisitcs of Soil
Using Standard Effort. West Conshohocken : ASTM International, 2000.
82. —. D 2487-00: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken : ASTM International, 2000.
83. —. C 136-01: Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. West
Conshohocken : ASTM International, 2001.
84. —. D 2434-68: Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head).
West Conshohocken : ASTM International, 2000.
85. AASHTO. M 145-91: Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway
Construction Purposes. Washington : American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2004.
![Pomelo Peel: Agricultural Waste for Biosorption of …€¦ · · 2017-05-05controlling parameter in the biosorption process [19]. Most research conducted on heavy metal biosorption](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5b06dd247f8b9a79538d0e79/pomelo-peel-agricultural-waste-for-biosorption-of-parameter-in-the-biosorption.jpg)
