Measurements of nutrients and mercury in green roof and gravel roof runoff

•Green roofs leached more N and P than traditional gravel roofs.•Although the concentration of Hg was higher in rainwater runoff from green roofs, the load of Hg running off of green roofs was not significantly different from that of gravel roofs due to a reduction in runoff volume.•The water-retent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological engineering 2014-12, Vol.73, p.705-712
Hauptverfasser: Malcolm, Elizabeth G., Reese, Margaret L., Schaus, Maynard H., Ozmon, Ivy M., Tran, Lan M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Green roofs leached more N and P than traditional gravel roofs.•Although the concentration of Hg was higher in rainwater runoff from green roofs, the load of Hg running off of green roofs was not significantly different from that of gravel roofs due to a reduction in runoff volume.•The water-retention and water-drainage underlayments tested did not result in a significant difference in runoff volume, P, or Hg concentrations.•Alum and Ultra-Phos Filter were applied in pouches over green roof drains in order to reduce P in runoff: the alum configuration was somewhat successful, but Ultra-Phos Filter was not. Green roofs are a popular stormwater management technique because they are effective in reducing runoff volume from buildings. However, this does not necessarily result in a reduced pollutant load. Runoff from experimental gravel and green roof plots and two sets of real gravel and green roofs, were analyzed for mercury, nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals. The effects of roof type (green versus gravel) and underlayments (drainage layer, water-retention layer) on runoff volume, pollutant concentration, and pollutant load were evaluated. Although mercury concentrations in runoff were often higher from green roofs than gravel roofs, the reduction in runoff volume from green roofs typically resulted in no significant difference in runoff load. The green roofs also leached significantly higher concentrations of the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen than the gravel roofs, but reduction in runoff volume did not similarly mitigate the nutrient load. Underlayment type had no significant effect on runoff volume, mercury, or phosphorus concentrations. Plots with a water-retention layer embedded with fertilizer initially leached higher nitrogen, but were similar to other green roof treatments two months following installation. Alum and Ultra-Phos Filter (UltraTech International, Inc.) were also tested for their potential to reduce the phosphorus in runoff. The average reduction in phosphorus in runoff directed through alum-filled pouches was 22%. Based on the elevated nitrogen and phosphorus load running off of the green roofs, caution is recommended when considering the application of fertilizer during installation or maintenance of green roofs. When choosing green building technology, materials and methods must be carefully chosen to match the most critical needs of the local environment.
ISSN:0925-8574
1872-6992
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.030