Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 101, Issue 1–3, pp 23–38 | Cite as


  • G. F. BIRCH
  • M. S. FAZELI


The efficiency of a Stormwater Infiltration Basin (SIB) to remove contaminants from urban stormwater was assessed in the current investigation. The SIB, installed in an urban suburb in eastern Sydney (Australia), was monitored over seven rainfall events to assess the removal efficiency of the remedial device for total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients (TP, TKN, Nox, TN), trace metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn), organochlorine pesticides and faecal coliforms (FC) from stormwater. The weighted average concentration (WAC) of TSS in the stormwater effluent from the SIB was reduced by an average of 50%, whereas the WAC of Cu, Pb and Zn were also reduced by an average 68%, 93% and 52%, respectively. However, the WAC of Cr, Fe, Mn and Ni displays either similar concentrations as the stormwater influent (Cr and Mn), or substantially higher concentrations (Fe and Ni), due possibly to leaching of fine-grained zeolite clay particles in the filtration bed. The mean removal efficiency of the SIB for total phosphorus (TP) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was 51% and 65%, respectively. In contrast, the average WAC of oxidisable nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite nitrogen or Nox) is about 2.5 times greater in the effluent (1.34 ± 0.69 mg L–1) than in the incoming stormwater (0.62 ± 0.25 mg L–1). The WAC of total nitrogen (TN) was similar for stormwater at the in-flow and out-flow points. The SIB was very efficient in removing FC from stormwater; and the WAC of almost 70 (100 mL)–1 at inflow was reduced to <2000 cfu (100 Ml)–1 at the outflow, representing a mean removal efficiency of 96%. Due to the low concentrations of Cd, organochlorine pesticides and PAHs in the stormwater, it was not possible to assess the efficiency of the SIB in removing these contaminants.


infiltration basin stormwater contaminants remediation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANZECC: 1992, ‘Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters’, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, November 1992.Google Scholar
  2. ANZECC: 1999, ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality’; Volume 2: Aquatic ecosystems—rationale and background information, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, July 1999 (Draft).Google Scholar
  3. Bardin, J. P., Gautier, A., Barruad, S. and Chocat, B.: 2001, ‘The purification performance of infiltration basins fitted with pretreatment facilities: A case study’, Water Sci. Technol. 43(5), 119–128.Google Scholar
  4. Ellis, J. B.: 2000, ‘Infiltration systems: A sustainable source-control option for urban stormwater quality management’, J. Chartered Institution Water Environ. Manage. 14(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
  5. EPA: 1997, Managing Urban Stormwater—Treatment Techniques. New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Report No. 97/97, November 1997, 104 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, B. K.: 1995, ‘Storm-water infiltration for peak-flow control’, J. Irrig. and Drainage Engineer. 121(6), 463–466.Google Scholar
  7. Lee, J. H., Bang, K. W., Ketchum, L. H., Choe, J. S. and Yu, M. J.: 2002, ‘First flush analysis of urban storm runoff’, Sci. Total Environ. 193, 163–175.Google Scholar
  8. Lind, B. B. and Karro, E.: 1995, ‘Stormwater infiltration and accumulation of heavy metals in roadside green areas in Göteborg, Sweden’, Ecolog. Eng. 5(4), 533–539.Google Scholar
  9. LPRSWMP: 1999, Lower Parramatta River Stormwater Management Plan for Lower Parramatta River Stormwater Management Councils, Woodlots and Wetlands, Molino Stewart Environmental Services, Robyn Tuft and Associates and Lawson and Treloar, August 1999, 172 pp. + Appendices.Google Scholar
  10. Marsalek, J. and Marsalek, P. M.: 1997, ‘Characteristic of sediments from a stormwater management pond’, Water Sci. Technol. 36(8/9), 117–122.Google Scholar
  11. Martens and Associates: 1998, Annandale Stormwater Sand Filter (Final Report), Report No. 98G234JR1, 10 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Matthai, C.: 2000, ‘Efficiency of a stormwater infiltration basin to remove contaminants’, NSW EPA, Stormwater Trust Scheme, SP/G 2097, Sydney, Australia, p. 61.Google Scholar
  13. Mikkelsen, P. S., Weyer, G., Berry, C., Walden, Y., Colandini, V., Poulsen, S., Grotehusmann, D. and Rohlfing, R.: 1994, ‘Pollution from urban stormwater infiltration’, Water Sci. Technol. 29(1/2), 293–302.Google Scholar
  14. Sansalone, J. J. and Buchberger, S. G.: 1995, ‘An infiltration device as a best management practice for pollutants in urban highway runoff’, Water Sci. Technol. 32(1), 119–125.Google Scholar
  15. Sansalone, J. J.: 1999, ‘In-situ performance of a passive treatment system for metal source control’, Water Sci. Technol. 39(2), 193–200.Google Scholar
  16. Schueler, T.: 1987, Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. Walker, T. A., Allison, R. A., Wong, T. H. F. and Wootton, R. M.: 1999, Removal of suspended and associated pollutants by a CDS gross pollutant trap. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Caulfield, Victoria, Report 99/2, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Weiss, G., Brombach, H. and Haller, B.: 2002, ‘Infiltration and inflow in combined sewer systems: long-term analysis’, J. Internat. Assoc. Water Res. 45(7), 11–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Geology Group, School of GeosciencesThe University of SydneyNSWAustralia

Personalised recommendations