Nitrogen Removal in Bioretention System: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Karina Chen and Version 1 by Wafaa Ali.

Bioretention is considered one of the best management practices (BMPS) for managing stormwater quality and quantity. The bioretention system has proven good performance in removing total suspended solids, oil, and heavy metals. The nitrogen (N) removal efficiency of the bioretention system is insufficient, however, due to the complex forms of nitrogen. 

  • stormwater quality
  • bioretention
  • nitrogen
  • saturated zone
  • additives

1. Saturated Zone

The gravel layer is a lower part of the conventional system of bioretention that contains fine, medium, or coarse-grade gravel. This layer is the more porous layer of the bioretention system. The primary function of the gravel layer is to collect and transport the treated water to the outlet pipe or surrounding soil, as well as to prevent the washout of engineered soil [20,102].

The gravel layer is a lower part of the conventional system of bioretention that contains fine, medium, or coarse-grade gravel. This layer is the more porous layer of the bioretention system. The primary function of the gravel layer is to collect and transport the treated water to the outlet pipe or surrounding soil, as well as to prevent the washout of engineered soil [1][2].

The inclusion of a saturated zone (SZ) in the bioretention system has a positive effect on the reduction of nitrogen (N), especially nitrate (NO

3

) and nitrite (NO

2). Among the research community, this is a well-known principle. The SZ is used mainly to provide anaerobic conditions as well as plant survival between events in the dry season [102,103]. The main reason for inadequate N removal in the traditional bioretention system is the lack of a denitrification process and anaerobic condition [45,67]. An anaerobic condition is essential for NO

). Among the research community, this is a well-known principle. The SZ is used mainly to provide anaerobic conditions as well as plant survival between events in the dry season [2][3]. The main reason for inadequate N removal in the traditional bioretention system is the lack of a denitrification process and anaerobic condition [4][5]. An anaerobic condition is essential for NO

3

removal to complete the deoxidation or denitrification process. The denitrification process is the process of releasing gaseous nitrogen in the forms of N

2

O, NO, and N

2 [102]. Several published studies describe the link between the removal of N and SZ via the provision of an anoxic zone to improve microbial activity [21,63,76,104]. The denitrification process is unstable; in some cases, it has been found that there was no significant effect of SZ on TN removal [12,105]. This may be due to the presence of a carbon source in the soil media that has been converted into NH

[2]. Several published studies describe the link between the removal of N and SZ via the provision of an anoxic zone to improve microbial activity [6][7][8][9]. The denitrification process is unstable; in some cases, it has been found that there was no significant effect of SZ on TN removal [10][11]. This may be due to the presence of a carbon source in the soil media that has been converted into NH

4

. Furthermore, some studies have found that SZ does not affect NO

X removal (amendment media and SZ) [106,107]. The presence of carbon sources has the main role in SZ enhancement [26,108,109]. To improve the denitrification process, different forms of carbon sources have been used, including woodchips, newspapers, sawdust, and sulfur [109,110,111]. Adding a carbon source within SZ enhanced TN [26,108]. The presence of SZ can also enhance TN and NO

removal (amendment media and SZ) [12][13]. The presence of carbon sources has the main role in SZ enhancement [14][15][16]. To improve the denitrification process, different forms of carbon sources have been used, including woodchips, newspapers, sawdust, and sulfur [16][17][18]. Adding a carbon source within SZ enhanced TN [14][15]. The presence of SZ can also enhance TN and NO

3

removal, whereas NH

4 reduction is not dependent on the presence of a saturated zone (SZ) [51]. On the other hand, NH

reduction is not dependent on the presence of a saturated zone (SZ) [19]. On the other hand, NH

4

removal in a bioretention system without a saturated zone is more efficient. Increasing the depth of the saturated zone has a negative effect on NH

4 removal [108]. Up to 95.42% of NH

removal [15]. Up to 95.42% of NH

4 is retained in the soil media [112]. Different saturated zone depths have been suggested, ranging from 150 to 600 mm [11,23,111,113]. In terms of cost, Xu and Zhang [113] recommended that the best SZ depth for TN removal was 450 mm, and including SZ would mean more excavation work and higher costs.

is retained in the soil media [20]. Different saturated zone depths have been suggested, ranging from 150 to 600 mm [21][22][18][23]. In terms of cost, Xu and Zhang [23] recommended that the best SZ depth for TN removal was 450 mm, and including SZ would mean more excavation work and higher costs.

Table 3 shows a list of studies with different SZ depths and removal efficiency.

1 shows a list of studies with different SZ depths and removal efficiency.

Table 31.

Pollutant removal efficiency in the bioretention system enhanced with the SZ under different sites.

 
Plant Depth SZ (mm) Soil Type (%) Carbon Source (%) Type of Study Removal Efficiency (%) Site Location Ref.
TN NO3 NH4
Bulrushes (Phragmites australis) 200–600 sandy loam:sand:peat moss

(50:40:10)		 Newspaper 5% Column 35–73 −23–62 80 China [111][18]
No 150 Silt + clay

(70:30)		 No Field 68 - - USA [
106]. The common additives that have been used as absorptive, nitrifier, and denitrifier materials are shown in

Furthermore, the available carbon source in this layer promotes the denitrification process [35][31][36]. The denitrification process could be provided by the inclusion of a low-porosity layer at the bottom of the soil media [31]. Providing denitrification conditions in soil media is encouraged, especially in wet climates [37]. The inclusion of a saturated zone (SZ) in the bioretention system is not necessary for tropical countries with rainfall depth of over 2000 mm [37][8][3]. Overall, amendment materials improve nitrogen removal and offer a promising approach for bioretention enhancement [12]. The common additives that have been used as absorptive, nitrifier, and denitrifier materials are shown in

Table 4. However, most studies on this topic do not study the removal of nitrate and nitrite and focus only on the reduction of TN.

2. However, most studies on this topic do not study the removal of nitrate and nitrite and focus only on the reduction of TN.

Table 42.

The characteristics and removal efficiency investigated in amended bioretention systems at different sites.

Additives in Filter Media Plant Soil Description (%) SZ Type of Study Removal Efficiency (%) Site Location Ref.
TN NO3 NH4
WTR 1, GZ 2, M 3, F 4, V 5, T 6, C 7 Buxus sinica and Lolium perenne L. Soil:Sand:Woodchips (65:30:5) No Column >63.4 - - China [48][38]
Organic matter Phragmites australis (Common Reed); Typ—Typha latifolia (Broadleaf Cattail); Scv—Scirpus validus (Soft-stem Bulrush); Sca—Scirpus acutus (Hard-stem Bulrush); Cap—Carex praegracilis (Common field sedge); Cam—Carex microptera (Smallwing Sedge)114][24]
Carex appressa 300 loamy sand or Skye sand filter media No Column 77–96.5 - 95–99.7 Australia [115][25]
Hymenocallis speciosa 200–300 Sandy loam:sand

(50:50)		 Wood chips 5% mesocosms 19–74 - 54–91 China [108][15]
Radermachera hainanensis Merr, Ophiopogon japonica 400–600 10 local red soil and 80 fine sand No Column 68.36–83% 43.03–79.5 95.42–97.69 China [112][20]
Dianella revoluta (Blueberry lily), Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Grass), Carex appressa (Tall sedge) 450 Sandy loam No Mesocosms −150–65 - - Australia [116][26]
Buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), Big Muhly (Muhlenbergia lindheimeri). 150 Sand:Silt:Clay

(88:10:2)

(73:18:9)

(94:2:4)		 Shredded hardwood bark Column 59–79 - - Australia [6][27]
Sand:Silt:Clay (91.7 ± 0.3)

(2.3 ± 0.3)

(6.0 ± 0.0)		 No Plastic containers 48–52 - - China [121][39]
Sorbtive media Daylilies ‘Stella d’Oro’ (Hemerocallis spp.) and Switchgrass ‘Shenandoah’ (Panicum virgatum); Butterfly Milkweed ‘Tuberosa’ (Asclepias tuberosa), Windflower (Anemone canadensis), Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), New England Aster ‘Purple Dome’ (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae), Blue False Indigo ‘Capsian’ and ‘Midnight Prairiebliss’ (Baptisia australis), Sneezeweed ‘Red+Gold’ (Helenium autumnale), and Cardinal Flower (Lobelia cardinalis) Sand:Compost

(60:40)		 No Field 67 - - USA [76][8]
peat soil, coconut chaff, vermiculite, medical stone, Fly ash, green zeolite, Buxus microphylla, Ophiopogon japonicus Soil:Sand:Wood chips (30:65:5) No Column - - - China [122][40]
hardwood mulch prairie cord grass (Spartina pectinata), sumpweed (Iva annua). Sand:shredded hardwood:sandy loam

(50:20:70)		 No Field 56 33 - USA [123][41]
N\A Ti plant (Cordyline fruticosa), Rosea variegata (Graptophyllum pictum), Bamboo grass (Bambusoideae), Umbrella plant (Cyperus alternifolius) Sand No Column 40.3–45.5 - - Malaysia [22][42]
cockleshell, newspaper, coconut husk and printed paper Red Hot Chinese Hibiscus (Hibiscus rosa-sinensis) Sand:Silt:Clay

(60:20:20)		 No Mesocosm 80.4 - - Malaysia [103][3 Baumea juncea, Melaleuca lateritia, Baumea rubiginosa and Juncus subsecundus 300 Sandy loam Jarrah woodchips Column 93 67 as NOX 95 Australia [81][28]
]
WTR N\A Loamy sand No Field 41 −45 - USA [27][35] No 100
Wood chips, Bottom ash NoSand:Biochar

(7:3)		 No Column 20–30 50–60 50–60 Stanford Sand[104] No[9]
Lab-scale- container 40–55 - - Korea No 559 Sand:Topsoil:Compost

(6:2:2)		 No Column - 42–63 - USA [117][29]

2. Filter Media Additives

Recently, it has been suggested that additives can be used to enhance filter media because they are known to be effective in eliminating nitrogen (N). Waste products are mainly used to improve bioretention efficiency because they are cost-effective, require less effort, and can solve environmental issues. Several types of additives are used as a layer or mixed with soil media, including newspapers, woodchips, sawdust, wheat straw, Skye sand, shredded hardwood bark mulch, and water treatment residuals (WTR). In addition, the bilayer media concept is also used to enhance the bioretention system; it involves different layers of modifier media with various mechanical and chemical properties. The wide range of layer properties including porosity, permeability, particle size, water holding capacity, moisture content, bulk density, CEC, and pH would provide adsorption, nitrification, and denitrification conditions [7,12,39,75,118,119]. The bilayer of bioretention forms an anaerobic condition and increases nitrogen removal by applying a low-porosity layer in the lower portion of the media, which results in best nitrogen removal [39,105]. The less-permeable layer in the bottom of the bioretention media decreases water flow, thereby impeding the diffusion of oxygen and forming an anoxic zone [105].

Recently, it has been suggested that additives can be used to enhance filter media because they are known to be effective in eliminating nitrogen (N). Waste products are mainly used to improve bioretention efficiency because they are cost-effective, require less effort, and can solve environmental issues. Several types of additives are used as a layer or mixed with soil media, including newspapers, woodchips, sawdust, wheat straw, Skye sand, shredded hardwood bark mulch, and water treatment residuals (WTR). In addition, the bilayer media concept is also used to enhance the bioretention system; it involves different layers of modifier media with various mechanical and chemical properties. The wide range of layer properties including porosity, permeability, particle size, water holding capacity, moisture content, bulk density, CEC, and pH would provide adsorption, nitrification, and denitrification conditions [30][10][31][32][33][34]. The bilayer of bioretention forms an anaerobic condition and increases nitrogen removal by applying a low-porosity layer in the lower portion of the media, which results in best nitrogen removal [31][11]. The less-permeable layer in the bottom of the bioretention media decreases water flow, thereby impeding the diffusion of oxygen and forming an anoxic zone [11].

Furthermore, the available carbon source in this layer promotes the denitrification process [27,39,120]. The denitrification process could be provided by the inclusion of a low-porosity layer at the bottom of the soil media [39]. Providing denitrification conditions in soil media is encouraged, especially in wet climates [28]. The inclusion of a saturated zone (SZ) in the bioretention system is not necessary for tropical countries with rainfall depth of over 2000 mm [28,76,103]. Overall, amendment materials improve nitrogen removal and offer a promising approach for bioretention enhancement [
[
124
]
[
43
]
Aquatic plant detritus, Terrestrial plant detuitus.
No Sandy loam No Column 60–63 - 95–97 China [125][44]
WTR, coconut fiber, RCA 8 No Sandy No Column 59.8 - - Singapore [126][45]
Fly ash, crushed straw Fescue (Festuca ovina L.) Sand:fly ash:crushed straw

(90:5:5)		 No Column 76.8–95.3 87.5–97.4 85.1–98.3 China [39][31]

3. Combination of Modified Media and Saturated Zone

The combination of modified filter media (as a mixture or as a layer) and the saturated zone (SZ) is the latest development in nitrogen removal enhancement [11]. This configuration is considered the best since the development has improved the conditions of nitrification and denitrification [127]. Nitrification occurs through enhanced soil media, especially in the dry season, and denitrification via SZ. In this approach, the process of nitrogen removal occurred in steps through soil media, where ammonium (NH

The combination of modified filter media (as a mixture or as a layer) and the saturated zone (SZ) is the latest development in nitrogen removal enhancement [21]. This configuration is considered the best since the development has improved the conditions of nitrification and denitrification [46]. Nitrification occurs through enhanced soil media, especially in the dry season, and denitrification via SZ. In this approach, the process of nitrogen removal occurred in steps through soil media, where ammonium (NH

4

) was adsorbed in the upper part of the filter media and transferred by the nitrification process to nitrate (NO

3) [128]. The addition of additives containing a carbon source increases NH

) [47]. The addition of additives containing a carbon source increases NH

4

adsorption. Furthermore, these additives improve the microbial activity of soil media, thereby enhancing the removal of NO

3 by microorganism assimilation and dissimilation [106]. Microbial activity plays a critical role in minimizing NO

by microorganism assimilation and dissimilation [12]. Microbial activity plays a critical role in minimizing NO

3 compared with soil adsorption [129]. The combination of the saturated zone and modified media in the bioretention system promotes the nitrogen cycle [11,27,120]. Emma V. Lopez-Ponnada et al. [26] conducted a field study and compared the modified system (combined woodchips layer with SZ) and the traditional bioretention system without any modification. The findings have shown that removals of NH

compared with soil adsorption [48]. The combination of the saturated zone and modified media in the bioretention system promotes the nitrogen cycle [21][35][36]. Emma V. Lopez-Ponnada et al. [14] conducted a field study and compared the modified system (combined woodchips layer with SZ) and the traditional bioretention system without any modification. The findings have shown that removals of NH

4

and NO

X

(NO

2

, NO

3) in the modified system were 83% and 81%, respectively, and for the traditional system 74% and 29%, respectively. Some of the studies applied modifiers as a mixture with the media [130]. Xiong et al. [106] compared the performance of the traditional system and retrofitted media with biochar or iron-coated biochar (ICB) and rice husk (RHB). The results have shown that with the inclusion of the SZ, the enhancement media with ICB and RHB give a better performance than the traditional system. The efficiency of the amendment material depends on the CEC and surface area [106]. Another study was undertaken using various materials for waste modification, including flyash, shells, ceramsite, pyrite, quartz, grinding slag, bottom ash, electric arc furnace slag (EAFS), and basic oxygen furnace slag. The results showed that the retrofitted media with bottom ash yielded the best performance with TN removal, indicating an improvement from 58% to 70% [11]. At present, limited research has been conducted to examine the feasibility of this strategy. 

) in the modified system were 83% and 81%, respectively, and for the traditional system 74% and 29%, respectively. Some of the studies applied modifiers as a mixture with the media [49]. Xiong et al. [12] compared the performance of the traditional system and retrofitted media with biochar or iron-coated biochar (ICB) and rice husk (RHB). The results have shown that with the inclusion of the SZ, the enhancement media with ICB and RHB give a better performance than the traditional system. The efficiency of the amendment material depends on the CEC and surface area [12]. Another study was undertaken using various materials for waste modification, including flyash, shells, ceramsite, pyrite, quartz, grinding slag, bottom ash, electric arc furnace slag (EAFS), and basic oxygen furnace slag. The results showed that the retrofitted media with bottom ash yielded the best performance with TN removal, indicating an improvement from 58% to 70% [21]. At present, limited research has been conducted to examine the feasibility of this strategy. 

References

  1. Government of Malaysia Department of Irrigation and Drainage. Urban Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia MSMA, 2nd ed.; Department of Irrigation and Drainage: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2012; ISBN 9789839304244.
  2. Payne, E.; Hatt, B.; Deletic, A.; Dobbie, M.; McCarthy, D.; Chandrasena, G. Adoption Guidelines for Stormwater Biofiltration Systems—Summary Report; Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities: Wellington, Australia, 2015.
  3. Goh, H.W.; Zakaria, N.A.; Lau, T.L.; Foo, K.Y.; Chang, C.K.; Leow, C.S. Mesocosm study of enhanced bioretention media in treating nutrient rich stormwater for mixed development area. Urban Water J. 2017, 14, 134–142.
  4. Hatt, B.E.; Fletcher, T.D.; Deletic, A. Hydraulic and pollutant removal performance of fine media stormwater filtration systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 2535–2541.
  5. Brown, R.A.; Hunt, W.F. Impacts of Media Depth on Effluent Water Quality and Hydrologic Performance of Undersized Bioretention Cells. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 132–143.
  6. Qiu, F.; Zhao, S.; Zhao, D.; Wang, J.; Fu, K. Enhanced nutrient removal in bioretention systems modified with water treatment residuals and internal water storage zone. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2019, 5, 993–1003.
  7. Wu, J.; Cao, X.; Zhao, J.; Dai, Y.; Cui, N.; Li, Z.; Cheng, S. Performance of biofilter with a saturated zone for urban stormwater runoff pollution control: Influence of vegetation type and saturation time. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 355–361.
  8. Shrestha, P.; Hurley, S.E.; Wemple, B.C. Effects of different soil media, vegetation, and hydrologic treatments on nutrient and sediment removal in roadside bioretention systems. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 112, 116–131.
  9. Nabiul Afrooz, A.R.M.; Boehm, A.B. Effects of submerged zone, media aging, and antecedent dry period on the performance of biochar-amended biofilters in removing fecal indicators and nutrients from natural stormwater. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 102, 320–330.
  10. Hunt, W.F.; Jarrett, A.R.; Smith, J.T.; Sharkey, L.J. Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2006, 132, 600–608.
  11. Hsieh, C.; Davis, A.P.; Needelman, B.A. Nitrogen Removal from Urban Stormwater Runoff Through Layered Bioretention Columns. Water Environ. Res. 2006, 79.
  12. Xiong, J.; Ren, S.; He, Y.; Wang, X.C.; Bai, X.; Wang, J.; Dzakpasu, M. Chemosphere Bioretention cell incorporating Fe-biochar and saturated zones for enhanced stormwater runoff treatment. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124424.
  13. Dietz, M.E.; Clausen, J.C. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 167, 123–138.
  14. Lopez-Ponnada, E.V.; Lynn, T.J.; Ergas, S.J.; Mihelcic, J.R. Long-term field performance of a conventional and modified bioretention system for removing dissolved nitrogen species in stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2020, 170, 115336.
  15. Wang, M.; Zhang, D.; Li, Y.; Hou, Q.; Yu, Y.; Qi, J.; Fu, W.; Dong, J.; Cheng, Y. Effect of a submerged zone and carbon source on nutrient and metal removal for stormwater by bioretention cells. Water 2018, 10, 1629.
  16. Lopez-Ponnada, E.V.; Lynn, T.J.; Peterson, M.; Ergas, S.J.; Mihelcic, J.R. Application of denitrifying wood chip bioreactors for management of residential non-point sources of nitrogen. J. Biol. Eng. 2017, 11, 1–14.
  17. Kim, H.; Seagren, E.A.; Davis, A.P. Engineered Bioretention for removal of nitrate from stormwater runoff. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2000, 2000, 623–632.
  18. Wang, C.; Wang, F.; Qin, H.; Zeng, X.; Li, X.; Yu, S.-L. Effect of saturated zone on nitrogen removal processes in stormwater bioretention systems. Water 2018, 10, 162.
  19. Li, L.; Yang, J.; Davis, A.P.; Liu, Y. Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen Behavior and Fate in Bioretention Systems: Role of Vegetation and Saturated Zones. J. Environ. Eng. (USA) 2019, 145, 1–9.
  20. Fan, G.; Li, Z.; Wang, S.; Huang, K.; Luo, J. Migration and transformation of nitrogen in bioretention system during rainfall runoff. Chemosphere 2019, 232, 54–62.
  21. You, Z.; Zhang, L.; Pan, S.Y.; Chiang, P.C.; Pei, S.; Zhang, S. Performance evaluation of modified bioretention systems with alkaline solid wastes for enhanced nutrient removal from stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2019, 161, 61–73.
  22. Wang, S.; Lin, X.; Yu, H.; Wang, Z.; Xia, H.; An, J.; Fan, G. Nitrogen removal from urban stormwater runoff by stepped bioretention systems. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 340–348.
  23. Xu, X.; Zhang, Q. Sustainable Configuration of Bioretention Systems for Nutrient Management through Life-Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis. J. Environ. Eng. (USA) 2019, 145, 1–9.
  24. Braswell, A.S.; Winston, R.J.; Hunt, W.F. Hydrologic and water quality performance of permeable pavement with internal water storage over a clay soil in Durham, North Carolina. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 224, 277–287.
  25. Glaister, B.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Cook, P.L.M.; Hatt, B.E. Interactions between design, plant growth and the treatment performance of stormwater biofilters. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 21–31.
  26. Zinger, Y.; Blecken, G.T.; Fletcher, T.D.; Viklander, M.; Deletić, A. Optimising nitrogen removal in existing stormwater biofilters: Benefits and tradeoffs of a retrofitted saturated zone. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 51, 75–82.
  27. Barrett, M.E.; Limouzin, M.; Lawler, D.F. Effects of media and plant selection on biofiltration performance. J. Environ. Eng. (U. S.) 2013, 139, 462–470.
  28. Zhang, Z.; Rengel, Z.; Liaghati, T.; Antoniette, T.; Meney, K. Influence of plant species and submerged zone with carbon addition on nutrient removal in stormwater biofilter. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 1833–1841.
  29. Yang, H.; McCoy, E.L.; Grewal, P.S.; Dick, W.A. Dissolved nutrients and atrazine removal by column-scale monophasic and biphasic rain garden model systems. Chemosphere 2010, 80, 929–934.
  30. Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y. Remediation and accumulation characteristics of dissolved pollutants for stormwater in improved bioretention basins. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 763–771.
  31. Luo, Y.; Yue, X.; Duan, Y.; Zhou, A.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, X. A bilayer media bioretention system for enhanced nitrogen removal from road runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 705, 135893.
  32. Wan, Z.; Li, T.; Shi, Z. A layered bioretention system for inhibiting nitrate and organic matters leaching. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 107, 233–238.
  33. Marvin, J.T.; Passeport, E.; Drake, J. State-of-the-Art Review of Phosphorus Sorption Amendments in Bioretention Media: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2020, 6.
  34. Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Ruan, T.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H. Modified media for heavy metals and COD removal from urban stormwater runoff using pilot bioretention systems. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 3735–3744.
  35. Li, L.; Davis, A.P. Urban stormwater runoff nitrogen composition and fate in bioretention systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3403–3410.
  36. Rahman, M.Y.A.; Nachabe, M.H.; Ergas, S.J. Biochar amendment of stormwater bioretention systems for nitrogen and Escherichia coli removal: Effect of hydraulic loading rates and antecedent dry periods. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 310, 123428.
  37. Goh, H.W.; Lem, K.S.; Azizan, N.A.; Chang, C.K.; Talei, A.; Leow, C.S.; Zakaria, N.A. A review of bioretention components and nutrient removal under different Climates—Future directions for tropics. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 1–16.
  38. Jiang, C.; Li, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y. Nitrogen retention and purification efficiency from rainfall runoff via retrofitted bioretention cells. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 220, 25–32.
  39. Rycewicz-Borecki, M.; McLean, J.E.; Dupont, R.R. Nitrogen and phosphorus mass balance, retention and uptake in six plant species grown in stormwater bioretention microcosms. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 99, 409–416.
  40. Li, J.; Li, L.; Dong, W.; Li, H. Purification effects of amended bioretention columns on phosphorus in urban rainfall runoff. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 1937–1945.
  41. Chen, X.; Peltier, E.; Sturm, B.S.M.; Young, C.B. Nitrogen removal and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria quantification in a stormwater bioretention system. Water Res. 2013, 47, 1691–1700.
  42. Hermawan, A.A.; Talei, A. Removal process of nutrients and heavy metals in tropical biofilters. Proc. E3S Web Conf. EDP Sci. 2018, 65, 5026.
  43. Kim, H.J.; Choi, J.W.; Kim, T.H.; Park, J.S.; An, B. Effect of TSS removal from stormwater by mixed media column on T-N, T-P, and organic material removal. Water 2018, 10, 1069.
  44. Zhou, Z.; Xu, P.; Cao, X.; Zhou, Y.; Song, C. Efficiency promotion and its mechanisms of simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal in stormwater biofilters. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 218, 842–849.
  45. Guo, H.; Lim, F.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Lee, L.Y.; Hu, J.Y.; Ong, S.L.; Yau, W.K.; Ong, G.S. Soil column studies on the performance evaluation of engineered soil mixes for bioretention systems. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 54, 3661–3667.
  46. Zuo, X.J.; Guo, Z.Y.; Wu, X.; Yu, J. Diversity and metabolism effects of microorganisms in bioretention systems with sand, soil and fly ash. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 676, 447–454.
  47. Cho, K.W.; Song, K.G.; Cho, J.W.; Kim, T.G.; Ahn, K.H. Removal of nitrogen by a layered soil infiltration system during intermittent storm events. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 690–696.
  48. Xu, H.J.; Wang, X.H.; Li, H.; Yao, H.Y.; Su, J.Q.; Zhu, Y.G. Biochar impacts soil microbial community composition and nitrogen cycling in an acidic soil planted with rape. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 9391–9399.
  49. Tian, J.; Jin, J.; Chiu, P.C.; Cha, D.K.; Guo, M.; Imhoff, P.T. A pilot-scale, bi-layer bioretention system with biochar and zero- valent iron for enhanced nitrate removal from stormwater. Water Res. 2019, 148, 378–387.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback