Water Quality Improvement and Pollutant Removal by Two Regional Detention Facilities with Constructed Wetlands in South Texas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Sampling, Monitoring, and Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Water-Quality Sampling and Analysis
3.2. Pollutant Mass Load Reduction
4. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Alam, T.; Mahmoud, A.; Jones, D.K.; Bezares-Cruz, C.J.; Guerrero, J. A Comparison of Three Types of Permeable Pavements for Urban Runoff Mitigation in the Semi-Arid South Texas, U.S.A. Water 2019, 11, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahmoud, A.; Alam, T.; Sanchez, A.; Guerrero, J.; Oraby, T.; Ibrahim, E.; Jones, K.D. Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity from Permeable and Traditional Pavements in Semiarid South Texas. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146, 05020001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, T.; Mahmoud, A.; Jones, K.D.; Bezares-Cruz, J.C.; Guerrero, J. WinSLAMM Simulation of Hydrologic Performance of Permeable Pavements—A Case Study in the Semi-Arid Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, United States. Water 2019, 11, 1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eckart, K.; McPhee, Z.; Bolisetti, T. Performance and implementation of low impact development—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607–608, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoud, A.; Alam, T.; Yeasir, A.; Rahman, M.; Sanchez, A.; Guerrero, J.; Jones, K.D. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecol. Eng. X 2019, 1, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenhart, H.A.; Hunt, W.F. Evaluating Four Storm-Water Performance Metrics with a North Carolina Coastal Plain Storm-Water Wetland. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Engel, B.A.; Flanagan, D.C.; Gitau, M.W.; McMillan, S.K.; Chaubey, I. A review on effectiveness of best management practices in improving hydrology and water quality: Needs and opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601–602, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, R.; Goodrich, J.A.; Hall, J.S. Evaluation of Stormwater Detention Basins to Improve Water Quality and Enable Emergency Response During Wide-Area Contamination Incidents; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- Lee, J.S.; Li, M.-H. The impact of detention basin design on residential property value: Case studies using GIS in the hedonic price modeling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 89, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caroline, F.; Owen, M.; Randy, C. The Effectiveness of Dry and Wet Stormwater Detention Basins As Sediment and Nutrient Processors. In Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts; ASCE: Reston, VT, USA, 2005; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Middleton, J.R.; Barrett, M.E. Water Quality Performance of a Batch-Type Stormwater Detention Basin. Water Environ. Res. 2008, 80, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, T.; Weammert, S. Developing Best Management Practices Definitions and Effectivness Estimates for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. 2009, Final Report. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/chesbay_chap03.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2020).
- Weiss, J.D.; Hondzo, M.; Semmens, M. Storm Water Detention Ponds: Modeling Heavy Metal Removal by Plant Species and Sediments. J. Environ. Eng. 2006, 132, 1034–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, F.; Adams, B.J.; Guo, Y. Detention time selection for stormwater quality control ponds. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 1999, 26, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaborit, E.; Muschalla, D.; Vallet, B.; Vanrolleghem, P.A.; Anctil, F. Improving the performance of stormwater detention basins by real-time control using rainfall forecasts. Urban Water J. 2013, 10, 230–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vergeynst, L.; Vallet, B.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Modelling pathogen fate in stormwaters by a particle--pathogen interaction model using population balances. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 65, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blick, S.A.; Kelly, F.; Skupien, J.J. New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. 2004. Available online: https://www.njstormwater.org/bmp_manual2.htm (accessed on 3 April 2020).
- Wang, M.; Zhang, D.Q.; Dong, J.W.; Tan, S.K. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate—A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 57, 293–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dorman, T.; Frey, M.; Wright, J.; Wardynski, B.; Smith, J.; Tucker, B.; Riverson, J.; Teague, A.; Bishop, K. Bishop San Antonio River Basin Low Impact Development Technical Design Guidance Manual; v1; San Antonio River Authority: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2013.
- Vymazal, J.; Březinová, T. The use of constructed wetlands for removal of pesticides from agricultural runoff and drainage: A review. Environ. Int. 2015, 75, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingrao, C.; Failla, S.; Arcidiacono, C. A comprehensive review of environmental and operational issues of constructed wetland systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 13, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vymazal, J.; Kröpfelová, L. Is Concentration of Dissolved Oxygen a Good Indicator of Processes in Filtration Beds of Horizontal-Flow Constructed Wetlands? In Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and Management in Constructed and Natural Wetlands; Vymazal, J., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 311–317. ISBN 978-1-4020-8235-1. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, G.F.; Matthai, C.; Fazeli, M.S.; Suh, J.Y. Efficiency of a constructed wetland in removing contaminants from stormwater. Wetlands 2004, 24, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hathaway, J.M.; Hunt, W.F. Evaluation of Storm-Water Wetlands in Series in Piedmont North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 2010, 136, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopardo, C.R.; Zhang, L.; Mitsch, W.J.; Urakawa, H. Comparison of nutrient retention efficiency between vertical-flow and floating treatment wetland mesocosms with and without biodegradable plastic. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 131, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vymazal, J. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Water 2010, 2, 530–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kabenge, I.; Ouma, G.; Aboagye, D.; Banadda, N. Performance of a constructed wetland as an upstream intervention for stormwater runoff quality management. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 36765–36774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gill, L.W.; Ring, P.; Casey, B.; Higgins, N.M.P.; Johnston, P.M. Long term heavy metal removal by a constructed wetland treating rainfall runoff from a motorway. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601–602, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangangka, I.R.; Egodawatta, P.; Parker, N.; Gardner, T.; Goonetilleke, A. Performance characterisation of a constructed wetland. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 2195–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Humphrey, C.; Chaplinski, N.; O’Driscoll, M.; Kelley, T.; Richards, S. Nutrient and Escherichia coli Attentuation in a Constructed Stormwater Wetland in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 2014, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Land, M.; Granéli, W.; Grimvall, A.; Hoffmann, C.C.; Mitsch, W.J.; Tonderski, K.S.; Verhoeven, J.T.A. How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2016, 5, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vymazal, J. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 380, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, H.; Wang, X.; Chu, L.; Wang, G.; Sun, G.; Sun, M.; Wang, J.; Jiang, M. Is There Any Correlation Between Landscape Characteristics and Total Nitrogen in Wetlands Receiving Agricultural Drainages? Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 712–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, C.-G.; Fletcher, T.D.; Sun, G. Nitrogen removal in constructed wetland systems. Eng. Life Sci. 2009, 9, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lodhi, A.R.; Acharya, K. Detention basins as best management practices for water quality control in an arid region. Water Sci. Eng. 2014, 7, 155–167. [Google Scholar]
- Mockus, V. Hydrologic Soil Groups. In Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook; Hoeft, C.C., Ed.; The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 2007; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
- Hosseini, S.M.; Coonrod, J. Coupling Numerical and Physical Modeling for Analysis of Flow in a Diversion Structure with Coanda-effect Screens. Water 2011, 3, 764–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernandes, P.; Pedersen, L.-F.; Pedersen, P.B. Microscreen effects on water quality in replicated recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquac. Eng. 2015, 65, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fowles, G.; Boyes, W.H. Chapter 6—Measurement of Flow. In Instrumentation Reference Book (Fourth Edition); Boyes, W., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 31–68. ISBN 978-0-7506-8308-1. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, D.K. Development and Implementation of Innovative Stormwater Regional Detention Facilites for Urban Water Quality Improvement in Arroyo Colorado; Institute of Sustainable Energy & Environment-TAMUK: Kingsville, TX, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Strassler, E.; Pritts, J.; Strellec, K. Urban Storm Water Preliminary Data Summary; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; p. 8.
- Barrett, M.E. Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Austin, TX, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, G.F.; Matthai, C.; Fazeli, M.S. Efficiency of a retention/detention basin to remove contaminants from urban stormwater. Urban Water J. 2006, 3, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kant, S. Understanding nitrate uptake, signaling and remobilisation for improving plant nitrogen use efficiency. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018, 74, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tanner, C.C. Plants for constructed wetland treatment systems—A comparison of the growth and nutrient uptake of eight emergent species. Ecol. Eng. 1996, 7, 59–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, S.B.; West, J.R.; Guymer, I. Dissolved-Oxygen/Suspended-Solids Concentration Relationships in the Upper Humber Estuary. Water Environ. J. 1999, 13, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouteleux, C.; Saby, S.; Tozza, D.; Cavard, J.; Lahoussine, V.; Hartemann, P.; Mathieu, L. Escherichia coli behavior in the presence of organic matter released by algae exposed to water treatment chemicals. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, J.; Cao, Y.; Rippy, M.A.; Afrooz, A.R.M.N.; Grant, S.B. Indicator and Pathogen Removal by Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. Water 2016, 8, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameters | NOx | TKN | TN | TP | TSS | E. coli | BOD5 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | ||
Concentration (mg/L) 3 | Mean | 0.6 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 406 | 161 | 15,079 | 14,511 | 18.3 | 14.3 |
S.D. 4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 629 | 232 | 23,735 | 20,860 | 15.6 | 8.5 | |
Min | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 25 | 15 | 361 | 365 | 5.0 | 6.0 | |
25% 5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 79 | 46 | 595 | 1269 | 8.3 | 7.0 | |
Median | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 150 | 76 | 1917 | 2076 | 12.5 | 12.5 | |
75% 6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 565 | 222 | 35,140 | 28,250 | 25.3 | 19.3 | |
Max. | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.2 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 2270 | 853 | 61,310 | 57,940 | 57.0 | 29.0 | |
% RE 7 | Mean | −3 | 11 | 7 | 9 | 60 | 4 | 22 | |||||||
Median | −16 | 3 | 2 | 33 | 49 | −8 | 0 | ||||||||
N Samples 8 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 8 | 10 | ||||||||
NURP Median | 0.56 | 1.29 | N/A 9 | 0.26 | 67 | 400–50,000 10 | 7.8 |
Parameters | NOx | TKN | TN | TP | TSS | E. coli | BOD5 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | In 1 | Out 2 | ||
Concentration (mg/L) 3 | Mean | 1.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 245 | 46 | 1248 | 18,118 | 20.5 | 14.3 |
S.D. 4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 301 | 33 | 1044 | 38,315 | 24.3 | 8.5 | |
Min | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 20 | 13 | 201 | 73 | 4.0 | 6.0 | |
25% 5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 54 | 21 | 219 | 380 | 5.0 | 7.0 | |
Median | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 93 | 41 | 1203 | 770 | 14.5 | 12.5 | |
75% 6 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 491 | 56 | 2300 | 44,530 | 21.8 | 19.3 | |
Max. | 2.6 | 1.0 | 3.4 | 8.1 | 4.4 | 8.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 836 | 120 | 2419 | 86,640 | 78.0 | 29.0 | |
% RE 7 | Mean | 37 | −27 | −1 | 1 | 81 | −1352 | −26 | |||||||
Median | 13 | 2 | 31 | 17 | 56 | 36 | 41 | ||||||||
N Samples 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 8 | ||||||||
NURP Median | 0.56 | 1.29 | N/A 9 | 0.26 | 67 | 400–50,000 10 | 7.8 |
Inflow 1 | Outflow 2 | NOx | TKN | TN | TP | TSS | BOD5 | E. coli | Temperature | Rainfall | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
McAuliffe RDF | Inflow 1 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
Outflow 2 | 0.63 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
NOx | 0.01 | −0.37 | 1.00 | |||||||||
TKN | −0.48 | −0.23 | −0.55 | 1.00 | ||||||||
TN | −0.54 | −0.27 | −0.47 | 0.99 | 1.00 | |||||||
TP | −0.41 | −0.32 | −0.48 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 1.00 | ||||||
TSS | −0.32 | −0.09 | −0.80 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.87 | 1.00 | |||||
BOD5 | −0.54 | −0.25 | −0.58 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 1.00 | ||||
E. coli | −0.40 | −0.18 | −0.62 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.99 | 1.00 | |||
Temperature | −0.64 | −0.45 | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.40 | 1.00 | ||
Rainfall | 0.61 | 0.46 | −0.01 | −0.32 | −0.29 | −0.47 | −0.32 | −0.38 | −0.34 | −0.77 | 1.00 | |
Morris RDF | Inflow 1 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
Outflow 2 | 0.99 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
NOx | 0.19 | 0.11 | 1.00 | |||||||||
TKN | 0.70 | 0.70 | −0.28 | 1.00 | ||||||||
TN | 0.70 | 0.70 | −0.28 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
TP | 0.48 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 1.00 | ||||||
TSS | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.18 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 1.00 | |||||
BOD5 | −0.80 | −0.78 | −0.55 | 0.19 | 0.19 | −0.15 | −0.11 | 1.00 | ||||
E. coli | 0.26 | 0.24 | −0.20 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.41 | 1.00 | |||
Temperature | −0.01 | 0.05 | −0.50 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 1.00 | ||
Rainfall | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.25 | −0.04 | 0.79 | −0.18 | 1.00 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guerrero, J.; Mahmoud, A.; Alam, T.; Chowdhury, M.A.; Adetayo, A.; Ernest, A.; Jones, K.D. Water Quality Improvement and Pollutant Removal by Two Regional Detention Facilities with Constructed Wetlands in South Texas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072844
Guerrero J, Mahmoud A, Alam T, Chowdhury MA, Adetayo A, Ernest A, Jones KD. Water Quality Improvement and Pollutant Removal by Two Regional Detention Facilities with Constructed Wetlands in South Texas. Sustainability. 2020; 12(7):2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072844
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuerrero, Javier, Ahmed Mahmoud, Taufiqul Alam, Muhammed A. Chowdhury, Adeniyi Adetayo, Andrew Ernest, and Kim D. Jones. 2020. "Water Quality Improvement and Pollutant Removal by Two Regional Detention Facilities with Constructed Wetlands in South Texas" Sustainability 12, no. 7: 2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072844