Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix E: Additional Data on Technical Achievability of Treatment Stormwater Control Measures
Pages 137-148

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 137...
... Seven studies were of devices was considered for inclusion in the graphical analysis whose primary treatment mechanism was sedimenta- was tested statistically using the nonparametric analyses tion, while six studies primarily relied on filtration for available in SigmaPlot/SigmaStat (Systat Software, water quality treatment, and two were treatment trains Inc.)
From page 138...
... For the Total Copper hard-water benchmark, the dry detention pond and media filter could meet the hard-water benchmark for The copper benchmark is hardness dependent; between 50 and 75 percent of the monitored storm therefore, two sample benchmarks are shown in Fig- events, while the wet retention pond and bioretention ures E-3 and E-4 for the evaluation of technology system met the hard-water benchmark for between 75 performance at individual industrial storm­ ater study w and 90 percent of the monitored storm events. FIGURE E-1 Total aluminum influent versus effluent concentrations.
From page 139...
... FIGURE E-3 Total copper influent versus effluent concentrations compared to the soft-water benchmark concentration of 9 µ/L. NOTES: DP = dry retention pond; HDS = hydrodynamic separator; MF = media filter; TT = treatment train.
From page 140...
... The number of storm-event samples used in each analysis is shown on the graph below each treatment system. FIGURE E-5 International Stormwater BMP Database comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for total copper against the soft-water benchmark of 9 µg/L.
From page 141...
... The improved performance when only industrial stormwater sites, only one treatment train analyzing data where the influent exceeds the hard- had effluent concentrations that consistently met the water benchmark likely is due to the strong association soft-water benchmark of 80 μg/L (>90 percent of the of high concentrations of lead with particulate mat- monitored storm events; see Figure E-11)
From page 142...
... The number of storm-event samples used in each analysis is shown on the graph below each treatment system. FIGURE E-8 Total lead influent versus effluent concentrations comparison against the hard-water benchmark.
From page 143...
... FIGURE E-10 International Stormwater BMP Database comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for total lead compared to the soft-water benchmark. NOTE: RP = wet retention ponds.
From page 144...
... The number of storm-event samples used in each analysis is shown on the graph below each treatment system. FIGURE E-12 Total zinc influent versus effluent concentrations comparison to the hard-water benchmark.
From page 145...
... FIGURE E-13 International Stormwater BMP Database comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for total zinc compared to the soft-water benchmark. NOTE: BR = bioretention; DP = dry detention ponds; MF = media filters; RP = wet retention ponds; WB = wetlands.
From page 146...
... FIGURE E-15 Chemical oxygen demand influent versus effluent concentrations. NOTES: HDS = hydrodynamic separator; MF = media filter; TT = treatment train.
From page 147...
... APPENDIX E 147 FIGURE E-16 International Stormwater BMP Database comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for chemical oxygen demand. NOTE: BR = bioretention; DP = dry detention ponds; MF = media filters; RP = wet retention ponds; WB = wetlands.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.