Submitted:
22 November 2024
Posted:
26 November 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Urbanization and the expansion of impervious surfaces have increased stormwater runoff volumes, altered runoff timing, and degraded water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Runoff from urban areas carries pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, sediments, and heavy metals, which can adversely impact the physical characteristics of receiving waterbodies. Stormwater management programs aim to mitigate these effects using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to retain and treat stormwater on-site. However, in densely developed areas, space constraints and high costs often make traditional BMPs impractical. This study assessed the effectiveness of expanded shale, an engineered material, as a filtration medium in bioswales, a type of linear BMP commonly used in transportation infrastructure. Thirty scenarios were tested in a 15-ft long plexiglass flume using expanded shale mixed with sandy clay soil. The study evaluated the performance of expanded shale in removing total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity. Results showed that expanded shale achieved sediment removal efficiencies ranging from 20% to 82% for TSS and -4% to 61% for turbidity under different conditions. Expanded shale outperformed conventional filtration materials such as sand and gravel, requiring less channel length. Remarkably, even in a small-scale laboratory setting, expanded shale met the sediment removal standard of 80%, demonstrating its potential as a highly effective filtration material alternative for urban stormwater management.
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Setup
2.2. Inflow Rate and Influent Suspended Sediment Concentration
2.3. Drainage Capacity Tests
2.4. Experimental Procedure
2.5. Particle Size Gradation Tests
2.6. Calculation of Reduction in Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity
2.7. Calculation of Swale Trap Efficiency
3. Results
3.1. Drainage Capacity of Soil Media
3.2. Reduction in Suspended Sediment and Turbidity
3.2.1. Effect of Thickness of Soil Media on TSS Reduction
3.2.2. Effect of Infiltration Media Type and Drainage Conditions on TSS Reduction
3.2.3. Effect of Inflow Rate and Influent Sediment Concentration on TSS and Tu Removal
3.2.4. TSS and Tu Removal Efficiency Based on Sampling Location and Time
3.2.5. Variation in Sediment Gradation in Samples over Time and at Different Locations
3.3. Required Sawle Length for 80% TSS Reduction
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Comprehensive field experiments: Real-world field studies are necessary to more accurately assess the efficiency of expanded shale under actual stormwater conditions.
- Clogging impact: Investigating the long-term effects of clogging on expanded shale’s performance and developing mitigation strategies will be critical.
- Inflow patterns: Studying diverse inflow patterns, including lateral flows, will help to better understand how different flow dynamics influence expanded shale-based systems.
- Vegetation influences: Exploring the interaction between vegetation and expanded shale could lead to optimized designs that enhance stormwater management.
- Cost-benefit analysis: Conducting economic evaluations comparing expanded shale to traditional filter media can help assess its financial feasibility.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National water quality inventory: Report to Congress. 2017. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/305brtc_finalowow_08302017.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G. Performance of Engineered Soil and Trees in a Parking Lot Bioswale. Urban Water Journal 2011, 8, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L. Integrated Urban Stormwater Management: Evolution and Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 2021, 38, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akan, A.O.; Houghtalen, R.J. Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Stormwater Quality: Engineering Applications and Computer Modeling; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- City of Chicago. A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices, Chicago’s Water Agenda, 2003. Available online: https://www.chicago.gov/dam/city/depts/doe/general/NaturalResourcesAndWaterConservation_PDFs/Water/guideToStormwaterBMP.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Problems with Stormwater Pollution, NPDES Stormwater Program. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stormwater-program (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-stormwater (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Stormwater Best Management Practice (Grassed Swales). 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/bmp-grassed-swales.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Gibb, T. Bioswales Can Improve Water Quality Resources, Michigan State University Extension, Michigan State University, June 10, 2015. Available online: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/bioswales_can_improve_water_quality_resources (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Biofiltration Swale Design Guidance, Caltrans Division of Design, Office of Hydraulics and Stormwater Design, Sacramento, CA, USA, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/2_dg-biofiltration_swale_ada.pdf.
- Virginia Cooperative Extension. Best Management Practice Fact Sheet 11: Wet Swale. Virginia Tech: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2020. Available online: https://ext.vt.edu/content/pubs_ext_vt_edu/en/426/426-130/426-130.html (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Ekka, S.; Hunt, B. Swale Terminology for Urban Stormwater Treatment, Urban Waterway Series, NC State Extension, North Carolina State University, 2020. Available online: https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/swale-terminology-for-urban-stormwater-treatment (accessed on 14 June 2024).
- Ekka, S.A.; Rujner, H.; Leonhardt, G.; Blecken, G.-T.; Viklander, M.; Hunt, W.F. Next Generation Swale Design for Stormwater Runoff Treatment: A Comprehensive Approach. Journal of Environmental Management 2021, 279, 111756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, R.A.; Hunt, W.F. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. 2012, 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Stagge, J.H.; Davis, A.P.; Jamil, E.; Kim, H. Performance of Grass Swales for Improving Water Quality from Highway Runoff. Water Research 2012, 46, 6731–6742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clark, M.; Acomb, G. Florida Field Guide to Low Impact Development (Bioswales/Vegetated Swales) |University of Florida, IFAS extension 2008. Available online: https://buildgreen.ifas.ufl.edu/fact_sheet_bioswales_vegetated_swales.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2023).
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Overview of stormwater infiltration. 2017. Available online: https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Overview_of_stormwater_infiltration (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- Fardel, A.; Peyneau, P.-E.; Béchet, B.; Lakel, A.; Rodriguez, F. Analysis of Swale Factors Implicated in Pollutant Removal Efficiency Using a Swale Database. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2019, 26, 1287–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. Science of The Total Environment 2017, 601–602, 580–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- King County. Evaluation of Water Quality Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah/East Lake Sammamish Basins. 1995. Available online: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/1995/kcr853.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- Mechleb, G.; Gilbert, R.; Christman, M.; Gupta, R.; Gross, B. Use of Expanded Shale Amendment to Enhance Drainage Properties of Clays; 2014; p 3454. [CrossRef]
- Seters, T.; Smith, D.; MacMillan, G. Performance Evaluation of Permeable Pavement and a Bioretention Swale; 2006.
- Kim, H.; Seagren, E.A.; Davis, A.P. Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff. Water Environ Res 2003, 75, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sloan, J.J.; et al. The suitability of expanded shale as an amendment for clay soils. HortTechnology 2002, 12, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sloan, J.J.; Cabrera, R.I.; Ampim, P.A.Y.; George, S.A.; Mackay, W.A. Performance of Ornamental Plants in Alternative Organic Growing Media Amended with Increasing Rates of Expanded Shale. HortTechnology 2010, 20, 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, M.; Dickson, K.; Golden, T.; Hudak, P.; Doyle, R. Dissolved Phosphorus Retention of Light-Weight Expanded Shale and Masonry Sand Used in Subsurface Flow Treatment Wetlands. Environmental science & technology 2004, 38, 892–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, M.G.; Dickson, K.L.; Saleh, F.; Waller, W.T.; Doyle, R.D.; Hudak, P. Recovery and Fractionation of Phosphorus Retained by Lightweight Expanded Shale and Masonry Sand Used as Media in Subsurface Flow Treatment Wetlands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 4621–4627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mateus, D.M.R.; Pinho, H.J.O. Phosphorus Removal by Expanded Clay—Six Years of Pilot Scale Constructed Wetlands Experience. Water Environment Research 2010, 82, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Jiang, C.; Lei, T.; Li, Y. Experimental Study and Simulation of Water Quality Purification of Urban Surface Runoff Using Non-Vegetated Bioswales. Ecological Engineering 2016, 95, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauser, J.; Curtis, J.; Johnston, J.; Patel, D.; Keisler, M. Small-Scale Pilot Testing of Stormwater Treatment Systems to Meet Numerical Effluent Limits in the Lake Tahoe Basin. In Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation; 2005; Vol. 2005, pp. 3051–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Laboratory Protocol to Access TSS Removal by a Filtration Manufactured Treatment Method. Available online: https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/stormwater/filter-protocol-final-2022-0114.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- American National Standards Institute (ASTM). ASTM D6913-04: Standard test methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of soils using Sieve analysis; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, M.E.; Irish, L.B.; Malina, J.F.; Charbeneau, R.J. Characterization of Highway Runoff in Austin, Texas, Area. Journal of Environmental Engineering 1998, 124, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claytor, R.A. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems; Chesapeake Research Consortium: Solomons, MD (P.O. Box 1280, Solomons 20688), Silver Spring, MD (8737 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring 20910), 1996.
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Operating Procedure: Wastewater Flow Measurement. Laboratory Services & Applied Science Division, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/wastewater_flow_measurement109_af.r4.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2024).
- US Geological Survey (USGS). National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (NFM). Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/national-field-manual-collection-water-quality-data-nfm (accessed on 7 November 2024).
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Field Turbidity Measurement (Operating Procedure). Laboratory Services & Applied Science Division: Athens, GA, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-07/documents/field_turbidity_measurement103_af.r4.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2024).
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Total Suspended Solids, EPA Method 160.2 (Gravimetric), 2017. Available online: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/160_2.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2024).
- Hunt, W.F.; Fassman-Beck, E.A.; Ekka, S.A.; Shaneyfelt, K.C.; Deletic, A. Designing Dry Swales for Stormwater Quality Improvement Using the Aberdeen Equation. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment 2020, 6, 05019004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.A.; Hunt, W.F. Bioretention Performance in the Upper Coastal Plain of North Carolina. 2012, 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Deletic, A. Sediment Transport in Urban Runoff over Grassed Areas. Journal of Hydrology 2005, 301, 108–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grooves, W.W.; Hammer, P.E.; Knutsen, K.L.; Ryan, S.M.; Schlipf, R.A. Analysis of Bioswale efficiency for Treating Surface Runoff, University of California, Santa Barbara 1999. https://bren.ucsb.edu/projects/analysis-bioswale-efficiency-treating-surface-runoff.
- Purvis, R.A.; Winston, R.J.; Hunt, W.F.; Lipscomb, B.; Narayanaswamy, K.; McDaniel, A.; Lauffer, M.S.; Libes, S. Evaluating the Water Quality Benefits of a Bioswale in Brunswick County, North Carolina (NC), USA. Water 2018, 10, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucke, T.; Mohamed, M.A.K.; Tindale, N. Pollutant Removal and Hydraulic Reduction Performance of Field Grassed Swales during Runoff Simulation Experiments. Water 2014, 6, 1887–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]











| Experiment No. | Infiltration Media | Media Thickness (inches) | Drainage Condition | Inflow (L/min) |
Influent Sediment Concentrations (mg/Lit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Type 1: Coarse Media | 6 | Open-valve | 60 | 100 |
| 2 | 120 | ||||
| 3 | 180 | ||||
| 4 | 60 | 200 | |||
| 5 | 120 | ||||
| 6 | 180 | ||||
| 7 | Close-valve | 60 | 100 | ||
| 8 | 120 | ||||
| 9 | 180 | ||||
| 10 | 60 | 200 | |||
| 11 | 120 | ||||
| 12 | 180 | ||||
| 13 | 4 | Close-valve | 60 | 100 | |
| 14 | 120 | ||||
| 15 | 180 | ||||
| 16 | 60 | 200 | |||
| 17 | 120 | ||||
| 18 | 180 | ||||
| 19 | Type 2: Fine Media | 6 | Open-valve | 60 | 100 |
| 20 | 120 | ||||
| 21 | 180 | ||||
| 22 | 60 | 200 | |||
| 23 | 120 | ||||
| 24 | 180 | ||||
| 25 | Close-valve | 60 | 100 | ||
| 26 | 120 | ||||
| 27 | 180 | ||||
| 28 | 60 | 200 | |||
| 29 | 120 | ||||
| 30 | 180 |
| Media Type |
Target Inflow (Lit/min) |
Actual Inflow (Lit/min) |
Underflow (Lit/min) |
Overflow (Lit/min) |
Water Depth (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | - | 46.2 | 46.2 | - | 10.0 |
| 60 | 59.5 | 48 | 11.5 | 10.06 | |
| 120 | 120.2 | 53.4 | 66.8 | 10.38 | |
| 180 | 182.2 | 55.2 | 127 | 10.69 | |
| Type 2 | - | 41.2 | 41.2 | - | 10.0 |
| 60 | 62.1 | 42 | 20.1 | 10.06 | |
| 120 | 120.2 | 43.8 | 76.4 | 10.5 | |
| 180 | 182.2 | 48 | 134.2 | 10.75 |
| Media Type |
Target Inflow (Lit/min) |
Actual Inflow (Lit/min) |
Underflow (Lit/min) |
Overflow (Lit/min) |
Water Depth (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1 | 60 | 60.7 | 60.7 | - | 10.0 |
| - | 66.5 | 66.5 | - | 10.0 | |
| 120 | 120.2 | 68.4 | 51.8 | 51.8 | |
| 180 | 182.2 | 72 | 110.2 | 110.2 | |
| Type 2 | 60 | 60.7 | 60.7 | - | 10.0 |
| - | 70.6 | 65.4 | 5.2 | 10.0 | |
| 120 | 120.2 | 71.4 | 48.8 | 10.25 | |
| 180 | 185.2 | 72.6 | 112.6 | 10.63 |
| Media Type | Weighted Average TSS Removal (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 60 Lit/min | 120 Lit/min | 180 Lit/min | |
| 4-inch media | 56 | 40 | 33 |
| 6-inch media | 66 | 42 | 36 |
| Media Type/Drainage Condition | Weighted Average TSS Removal (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 60 Lit/min | 120 Lit/min | 180 Lit/min | |
| Type 1 | 72 | 47 | 41 |
| Type 2 | 70 | 42 | 39 |
| Without underdrain | 66 | 42 | 34 |
| With underdrain | 76 | 47 | 47 |
| Location | Mean TSS Removal (%) | Range of TSS Removal (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Half of Swale Length | 42 | 20 - 75 |
| Overflow | 63 | 19 - 75 |
| Underflow | 68 | 55 - 82 |
| Mean* | 52 | 30 - 82 |
| Overflow (Lit/min) | Flume Width (m) | Velocity (m/s) |
HRT (min) | Method of Calculation | Calculated Trap Efficiency (%) | Observed Trap Efficiency (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Length | Half Length |
Full Length | Half Length | |||||
| 44 | 1.22 | 0.006 | 8.81 | Based on d50 | 19.6 | 13.1 | 71 | 75 |
| Based on PSD | 21.5 | 15.7 | ||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).