environments

Article
Stormwater Quality Benefits of Permeable Pavement
Systems with Deep Aggregate Layers
Sam Abdollahian 1 , Hamidreza Kazemi 2, * ID
, Thomas Rockaway 2 and Venkata Gullapalli 3
1 Vision Engineering, Lexington, KY 40517, USA; [email protected]
2 Center for Infrastructure Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA; [email protected]
3 Louisville Parks and Recreation, Louisville, KY 40213, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-502-852-4617




Received: 17 May 2018; Accepted: 3 June 2018; Published: 5 June 2018


Abstract: Green infrastructure (GI) stormwater control measures (SCMs), such as permeable
pavement systems, are common practices used for controlling stormwater runoff. In this paper, two
permeable pavement strips were studied to quantify their water quality performance. The quality
monitoring was coupled with comprehensive rainfall analysis to investigate the effects of common
rainfall characteristics on the quality performance of the systems. The pavements utilized deep
aggregate layers to promote higher infiltration, and were installed in parking lanes of an urban
neighborhood. Water quality samples were collected from upgradient stormwater runoff and from
stormwater captured by the permeable pavements. In addition to total suspended solids (TSS),
nutrients, and dissolved metals, this research also investigated bacterial contamination (Escherichia
coli, E. coli). The results indicated that the two permeable pavement systems significantly reduced
concentrations of TSS, E. coli, total phosphorus, and ammonia. The average reductions of TSS and
E. coli between the two systems were 47% and 69%, respectively. It was also observed that pollutant
loadings in the stormwater runoff, as well as pollutant reductions, were affected by the intensity of
sampled rainfall events. Thus, it is suggested to consider the effects of rainfall characteristics when
reporting the water quality benefits of stormwater GIs.

Keywords: stormwater; runoff; water quality; permeable pavement; green infrastructure; TSS;
nutrient; E. coli

1. Introduction
The development of urban areas and the associated expansion of impermeable surfaces result in an
increase in runoff volumes and peak discharges, as well as pollutant loadings [1–7]. Stormwater runoff
can carry pollutants such as suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, oils, heavy metals, and pathogens
into receiving surface waters and groundwater supplies [8–11]. These pollutants are expected to cause
water quality degradation in local rivers and streams, thereby impairing the quality of aquatic life,
as well as contaminating drinking water resources [12]. According to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), approximately 46% of identified cases of water quality impairment in the
United States were due to stormwater runoffs [13].
Green infrastructure (GI) stormwater control measures (SCMs), such as bioretention areas, dry and
wet ponds, and infiltration practices (infiltration trenches and permeable pavements), are frequently
used to remediate stormwater quantity concerns. These systems may also be a solution to the
quality issues caused by stormwater runoff [14]. GI systems are expected to reduce pollutant
loadings, including phosphorus, nitrogen, suspended solids, and pathogenic bacteria, from stormwater
runoff [15–19].

Environments 2018, 5, 68; doi:10.3390/environments5060068 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Environments 2018, 5, 68 2 of 16

A common GI SCM used within urban environments to help mitigate stormwater flow is a
permeable pavement. A permeable pavement system is defined as a paved surface that allows the
runoff to infiltrate into a reservoir structure constructed below the pavement surface, which ultimately
exfiltrates into the surrounding and underlying in situ soil layers [20]. These pavements are usually
installed in areas with low traffic loads, such as parking lots, walkways, and the parking lanes of streets.
Previous studies showed the effectiveness of permeable pavements in both improving stormwater
quality and reducing runoff volume [2,15,16]. The efficiency of pollutant removal for permeable
pavements and infiltration trenches, presented in the National Pollutant Removal Performance
Database (2006), indicated high removal rates for total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(TP), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu). However, the removal of nitrogen oxides (NOx) was reported as
close to zero [14]. Similarly, Brattebo and Booth (2003) observed lower concentrations of dissolved
metals such as zinc and copper in exfiltrated samples when compared with those from the runoff [15].
Another study by Bean et al. (2007) reported significant removal rates of total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), ammonia, and total phosphorus for permeable pavements [2]. A recent study by USEPA,
published following the conclusion of this research, investigated the reductions of indicator organisms
for three types of permeable pavements (pervious concrete, porous asphalt, and permeable interlocking
concrete pavements (PICPs)) with shallow underlying reservoirs [21]. Escherichia coli (E. coli) reductions
greater than 90% were observed for porous asphalt and pervious concrete, but the PICPs only showed
a 39% reduction in E. coli.
While the previous studies indicated that permeable pavement systems may reduce the
concentrations of various pollutants, there is currently limited research available on the benefits of
bacterial contamination removal for these systems, or on the effect of rainfall characteristics (intensity,
antecedent conditions, etc.) on their water quality performances.
This study investigates the pollutant removal performances of two permeable pavements applied
in an urban environment, while also considering the effect of rainfall characteristics. To achieve
the objectives of this study, samples from stormwater runoff and from the captured volume at the
bottom of the base-course layer of permeable pavements were collected during the first flush of 19
rainfall events. These samples were analyzed for (1) Escherichia coli (E. coli), a known indicator of fecal
contamination; (2) pollutants, such as TSS, nitrate, nitrite, and total phosphorus; and (3) dissolved
metals, including zinc, copper, and iron.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Project Background and Monitoring Site

Within Louisville, and many similar communities, combined sewer systems (CSS) are used
to convey sewage and stormwater runoff within one piping system. During heavy and intense
rainfall events, in which the stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the CSS, the excess volume is
released into surface waters. The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD)
is working to mitigate the volume and frequency of these combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in a
small (approximately 11 hectares) urban sewershed, by using GI systems. To achieve this objective,
the MSD installed a suite of GI SCMs in 2011 and 2013, including 14 permeable pavement systems,
four infiltration trenches, and 27 tree boxes. Two of the permeable pavement systems (identified as GIs
17G and 17H) were selected for the monitoring efforts of water quality performance.
The two monitored permeable pavement systems were installed along the parking lanes of
a two-lane street, upgradient of the existing sewer system’s catch basins (Figure 1). The specific
dimensions of both systems are presented in Figure 2 and Table 1. Each permeable pavement system
included the following:

- A layer of 14.35-cm articulating concrete blocks/mats (ACBM) on top, leveled with the existing
asphalt. The ACBMs, unlike permeable interlocking concrete pavements (PICPs), do not require
fine aggregates between their joints.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 3 of 16

Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

- AEnvironments
61-cm deep 2018,storage
5, x FOR gallery, filled
PEER REVIEW with 30.5 cm of American Association of State Highway 3 of 15and

- Transportation (AASHTO) #3 stone on the bottom, and 30.5 cm of AASHTO #57

A 61-cm deep storage gallery, filled with 30.5 cm of American Association of State Highway and aggregate on top.
- A 61-cm deep storage gallery, filled with 30.5 cm of American Association of State Highway and
A geogrid was installed
Transportation (AASHTO) between
#3 #3 the two
stone onon aggregate
the bottom, layers.
Transportation (AASHTO) stone the bottom,and and30.5
30.5cm
cmofofAASHTO
AASHTO#57#57aggregate
aggregate on
on
- Either aAseries
top.top.geogridof drilled
was shafts
installed (17H)
between or a
the trench
two (17G)
aggregate
A geogrid was installed between the two aggregate layers. was excavated
layers. underneath and along the
- storage
- Either a series
gallery
Either of additional
as
a series drilled shafts
of drilled (17H)
storage,
shafts oras
(17H) a well
or trench as(17G)
a trench an was
wasexcavated
access
(17G) method underneath
excavatedto and
andalong
along the
deeper permeable
underneath sandy
the
storage
soils, which
storagegallery
were as additional
backfilled
gallery as with
additionalstorage,
AASHTO
storage,asas
well#3as
well asananaccess
aggregate.accessmethod
methodtotodeeper
deeperpermeable
permeable sandy
sandy
soils, which
soils, were
which backfilled
were with
backfilled AASHTO
with #3#3
AASHTO aggregate.
aggregate.

Figure Figure
1. (a)
Figure 1. (a)
1. Location
(a) Location
Location of infrastructures
of green green
of green infrastructures
(GIs)
infrastructures (GIs)
17G17G
(GIs) 17Gand
and and17H
17H 17Halong
alongalong parking
parking lanes
lanes
parking of Webster
Webster
of Webster
lanes of Street,
Street,
Louisville, Louisville,
KY, USA.KY, KY,
(b) TheUSA. (b) The articulating concrete blocks/mats (ACBM) application.
Street, Louisville, USA.articulating concreteconcrete
(b) The articulating blocks/mats (ACBM)
blocks/mats application.
(ACBM) application.

Figure Figure 2. Cross-sectional

2. Cross-sectional viewview of the
of the permeable
permeable pavementsystems
pavement systems17G
17G and
and17H.
17H.AASHTO:
AASHTO:American
American
Figure 2. of
Association Cross-sectional
Association of Highway
State view of the
State Highway
and and permeable pavement systems 17G and 17H. AASHTO: American
Transportation.
Transportation.
Association of State Highway and Transportation.
Table 1. Design and drainage characteristics of monitored permeable pavement systems.
Table 1. Design and drainage characteristics of monitored permeable pavement systems.
Table
Green
1. Design and drainage characteristics
Trench
of monitored permeable pavement systems.Impermeable
Method to Total Impervious
Infrastructure Length Width Width (m) Percent Area:
GreenGreen Access Trench
Trench Drainage Drainage Impermeable
Identifier (m) Method
(m) Method to to Total
or Number Total Imperviousness 1 Impervious
Impervious Impermeable
Pavement
InfrastructureLength
Infrastructure Length Width
Width Width(m)
Deep SoilsWidth (m) Area (ha) 1 Percent
Percent Area (ha) Area:
(GI ID) Access
Access Deep Drainage
of Shafts Drainage Drainage
Drainage Area: Pavement
Surface Area
Identifier
Identifier (m)(m) (m)(m) oror
Number
Number 1 Imperviousness1 1
Imperviousness Pavement
17G 21.3 SoilsTrench
2.4 Deep Soils 0.7 m Area
Area(ha)
(ha)
0.43 1 65% Area
Area (ha)
(ha)
0.28 Surface
53:1 Area
(GI ID)
(GI ID) ofofShafts
Shafts Surface Area
17H 27.4 2.4 Shafts 10 0.36 65% 0.25 37:1
17G 17G 1 21.321.3 2.42.4 Trench
Trench 0.70.7mm 0.43
0.43 65%
65% 0.28
0.28 53:153:1
17H 17H Drainage
27.427.4 and2.4
impervious
2.4 areas were estimated
Shafts
Shafts 1010 and provided by65%
0.36
0.36 AECOM Corp.
65% 0.25(Louisville, 37:1
0.25 KY,37:1
USA), using
1 Drainage and 6-inch LiDARareas
impervious data.were
GI: green infrastructure.
1 Drainage and impervious areas were estimatedestimated andby
and provided provided
AECOM by AECOM
Corp. Corp.
(Louisville, (Louisville,
KY, USA), usingKY,
6-inch
USA),
LiDAR using
data. 6-inchinfrastructure.
GI: green LiDAR data. GI: green infrastructure.
The trench and the shafts were off-centered to avoid existing utility lines, and had varied depths.
The
TheThe shaft casings
trench
trench andand in
thethe17H were
shafts
shafts 46 off-centered
were
were cm in diameter,
off-centered toand ranged
avoid
avoid fromutility
existing
existing 2utility
m tolines,
4lines,
m inand
depth.
andhad All shaft
varied
had casings
depths.
varied depths.
The had
shaftslotted
casingssections
in 17H on
were their
46 sides
cm in to allow
diameter, for
andadditional
ranged lateral
from 2 mexfiltration
to 4 m in as
depth.well
All as exfiltration
shaft casings
The shaft casings in 17H were 46 cm in diameter, and ranged from 2 m to 4 m in depth. All shaft casings
through the bottom area. The GI 17G had afor76-cm-wide
additionaltrench excavated along its fullas
length, with a
hadhad slotted
slotted sections
sections onon theirsides
their sidestotoallow
allow for additional lateral
lateralexfiltration
exfiltrationasas well
well as exfiltration
exfiltration
sloping depth of 4.6 m at the upgradient edge and 1 m at the downgradient edge
through the bottom area. The GI 17G had a 76-cm-wide trench excavated along its full length, with a (Table 1).
through the bottom area. The GI 17G had a 76-cm-wide trench excavated along its full length, with a
sloping depth of 4.6 m at the upgradient edge and 1 m at the downgradient edge (Table 1).
sloping depth of 4.6 m at the upgradient edge and 1 m at the downgradient edge (Table 1).
Environments 2018, 5, 68 4 of 16

2.2. Sampling and Testing Methods

Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15
The sampling from runoffs and captured stormwater volumes was conducted during the first
1.27 cm
2.2. (0.5 inch)and
Sampling of precipitation,
Testing Methods which was assumed to be representative of the “first flush”. The first
flush runoff might represent a small portion of a storm’s total discharge but it includes a large
The sampling from runoffs and captured stormwater volumes was conducted during the first
percentage of the total contaminant loadings [22]. According to the National Stormwater Quality
1.27 cm (0.5 inch) of precipitation, which was assumed to be representative of the “first flush”. The
Database, the first flush concentrations of TSS, copper, lead, zinc, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
first flush runoff might represent a small portion of a storm’s total discharge but it includes a large
are significantly
percentage ofhigherthe totalthan those in composite
contaminant loadings [22].samples collected
According to theduring
NationaltheStormwater
entire rain Quality
event [23].
Collecting samples during the first flush required extensive preparation prior
Database, the first flush concentrations of TSS, copper, lead, zinc, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) to the onset of the storm
event,
are significantly higher than those in composite samples collected during the entire rain eventNational
which made weather forecasting an important aspect of the sampling effort. The [23].
Weather Service
Collecting (NWS)
samples was the
during used firstfor long-term
flush required (five-day) forecasts when
extensive preparation prior topreparing
the onset ofthethesampling
storm
equipment. The sampling
event, which made weatherprocedure was scheduled
forecasting an important in cases
aspectthat the sampling
of the NWS forecasted
effort. Thea possibility
National of
Weather Service (NWS)
precipitation greater than 50%. was used for long-term (five-day) forecasts when preparing the sampling
equipment.
Three individualThe sampling procedure
grab samples was scheduled
of equal volume (250 in cases
mL)thatwerethecollected
NWS forecasted
at equalatimepossibility of
increments
precipitation greater than 50%.
(10 min) during the first flush of each storm event. The individual samples were then mixed to form a
Three individual
single time-weighted grab samples
composite sample of equal volume (250
for laboratory mL)
and were collected
on-site analyses.atSince
equal the
timerunoff
increments
flowing
(10 min) during the first flush of each storm event. The individual samples were then mixed to form
into both systems was observed to be concentrated along the curbside, the samples were collected
a single time-weighted composite sample for laboratory and on-site analyses. Since the runoff
at the upgradient curbside location of the permeable pavements. The sampling procedure included
flowing into both systems was observed to be concentrated along the curbside, the samples were
the collection
collected at ofthe
duplicate
upgradientsamples
curbsidein the field, of
location andthethe analysispavements.
permeable of replicateThesamples
samplingin the laboratory.
procedure
Duplicate samples were taken for every 10 samples collected on the field.
included the collection of duplicate samples in the field, and the analysis of replicate samples in The replicate samples,
the
which referred to
laboratory. samplessamples
Duplicate that were weresplittakeninto
forsubsamples,
every 10 samples werecollected
created onat the
the laboratory, and were
field. The replicate
tested for TSS,
samples, E. coli,
which and to
referred nutrients.
samples that Thewerepollutant
split intoconcentrations
subsamples, were in the duplicate
created and replicate
at the laboratory,
samples
and were
were compared
tested for TSS,withE.those
coli, ofandthenutrients.
original samples,
The pollutantin anconcentrations
effort to evaluatein thetheduplicate
relative percent
and
replicate
difference samples
(RDP). were compared
A threshold of 20% with those for
was used of the
the original
RDP values samples, in anthe
between effort to evaluate
original samples theand
relative percent
the duplicate difference
and replicate (RDP). A threshold of 20% was used for the RDP values between the
samples.
original
To assess samples and the duplicate
the pollutant removal and replicate samples.
performances of the GIs, samples were also collected from the
To assess the pollutant removal
bottom of the storage layers of 17G and 17H. Similar to performances of the
the GIs,
runoffsamples were time-weighted
sampling, also collected from the
composite
bottom of the storage layers of 17G and 17H. Similar to the runoff sampling, time-weighted composite
samples were collected from the bottom of the trench (17G) and shaft (17H) through pre-installed
samples were collected from the bottom of the trench (17G) and shaft (17H) through pre-installed
monitoring wells, using a mechanical bladder pump (model MB470, Geoprobe Systems, Salina, KS,
monitoring wells, using a mechanical bladder pump (model MB470, Geoprobe Systems, Salina, KS,
USA)USA)during the first flush. The sampling pump was specifically designed for the collection of
during the first flush. The sampling pump was specifically designed for the collection of high-
high-quality and low-turbidity
quality and low-turbidity samples
samples from from groundwater
groundwater monitoring
monitoring wells. wells.
The The2.5-cm-diameter
2.5-cm-diametermonitoring
monitoring wells wellshad had a 1.5-m
a 1.5-m slotted
slotted screenscreen at the which
at the bottom, bottom, waswhich
coveredwas
covered with a groundwater polyester filter sock (pore size of 250 microns). The
with a groundwater polyester filter sock (pore size of 250 microns). The monitoring pipes were installed monitoring pipes were
installed
at 7.9at
m7.9
andm9.1 and 9.1 mthe
m from from the upgradient
upgradient edges of GIsedges
17HofandGIs17G,
17Hrespectively
and 17G, respectively
(Figure 3). (Figure 3).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3. The
3. The monitoring
monitoring pipesinstalled
pipes installedin
in(a)
(a) the
the shaft
shaft of
of17H,
17H;and
and(b)
(b)the trench
the of of
trench 17G.
17G.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 5 of 16

2.3. Field and Laboratory Analysis

Some of the quality parameters, including water temperature, specific conductivity, and pH,
were measured in the field and immediately after sample collections, using a YSI Professional
Plus portable temperature/conductivity/pH meter (YSI Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, USA). For pH
measurements, the electrode was calibrated before each sampling event by using buffer solutions
(Fondriest Environmental Inc., Beavercreek, OH, USA) of pH 4, 7, and 10. The conductivity electrode
was calibrated with a 1413-µS/cm-conductivity standard solution (Fondriest Environmental Inc.,
Beavercreek, OH, USA).
The laboratory samples were collected in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, and were
placed in a cooler partially filled with ice to keep the temperature below 4 ◦ C. The samples were
delivered to the laboratory within six hours for bacterial analysis. The nutrients were tested within
a 24-h period after sampling, except for those that followed special sample-preservation protocols
recommended by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) [24]. The standard methods used in
this study, and their minimum detection levels (MDLs) are summarized in Table 2. In samples
with concentrations below the MDL, the concentrations were assumed as half of the MDL for
statistical purposes.

Table 2. Standard test methods and minimum detection levels (MDLs).

Parameter Standard Method MDL

Total suspended solids (TSS) Standard Methods procedure 2540D 1.0 mg/L
Escherichia coli (E. coli) EPA Method 1604 1 CFU/100 mL
Total phosphorus (TP) Hach TNT843, Equivalent to EPA 365.1 0.05 mg/L
Nitrate (NO3 ) Hach, TNT835 Approved by EPA 0.23 mg/L
Nitrite (NO2 ) Hach TNT839, Equivalent to EPA 353.2 0.015 mg/L
Ammonia (NH3 ) Hach TNT831, Equivalent to EPA 353.2 0.015 mg/L
Copper dissolved (Cu) ICP-OES Spectrometer EPA Method 200.7 5.4 µg/L
Iron dissolved (Fe) ICP-OES Spectrometer EPA Method 200.7 6.2 µg/L
Zinc dissolved (Zn) ICP-OES Spectrometer EPA Method 200.7 1.8 µg/L
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; ICP-OES: Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were statistically analyzed to compare the pollutant concentrations between
runoff and captured volume samples. Paired Student’s t-tests with a criterion of 95% confidence
(p < 0.05) were used to determine the statistical significance of changes in pollutant concentrations
after passing through the permeable pavement layers. All paired data were tested for the assumption
of normality prior to using the t-tests. If the assumption was found to be invalid, the data were
logarithmically transformed, and tested again.
Correlation analyses were used to evaluate the strength of the relationships between various
pollutant concentrations and rainfall characteristics. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) was
calculated to determine the strength of the correlations, if any, and p-values were subsequently
calculated to investigate the significance of the relationships between the parameters. Higher values of
PCC indicate stronger correlations between the tested parameters.

3. Results and Discussion

The water quality data collected during the one-year monitoring period (May 2014–May 2015),
including 15 and 13 sampling events for 17G and17H, respectively, were analyzed to determine the
performances of the GI systems. Along with this data, the rainfall characteristics of each sampled
event, as provided by the radar data, were also determined. The following sections present and discuss
the results from the conducted analyses.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 6 of 16

3.1. Rainfall Characterstics

The continuous rainfall data was delineated into separate rainfall events by using a minimum
6-h antecedent dry period. During the course of this study, a total of 19 rainfall events were sampled
(runoff and captured volume) and tested for a variety of pollutants. Table 3 includes the rainfall
characteristics for these events, as well as the antecedent rainfall depth values, which indicate the
rainfall depth prior to the start of each rainfall for a 7-day period. The sampled storms included a
variety of events, ranging from 5.6 mm to 110.8 mm, with an average of 21.7 mm.

Table 3. Rainfall characteristics of storm events sampled for water quality analysis.

Sampled Maximum 7-Day

Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) 1 Antecedent
Event Date Total Rainfall Total Rainfall Antecedent
Dry Period
Number Duration (h) Depth (mm) 5-min 15-min Rainfall
(Day)
Duration Duration Depth (mm)
1 9 May 2014 12.00 20.8 46.7 21.3 9.68 1.9
2 10 May 2014 3.00 21.8 56.9 27.7 0.25 22.8
3 7 July 2014 0.67 12.4 39.6 35.3 5.09 8.1
4 14 July 2014 1.58 9.1 20.3 12.4 0.38 40.0
5 16 August 2014 29.25 18.0 12.2 8.1 4.97 25.0
6 22 August 2014 3.33 6.6 33.5 15.5 4.80 18.8
7 6 October 2014 6.58 6.4 23.4 11.9 2.40 6.4
8 7 October 2014 2.50 5.6 12.2 9.4 0.86 13.3
9 13 October 2014 13.42 22.9 17.3 10.9 0.59 46.7
10 16 November 2014 14.00 8.8 5.1 4.3 11.65 1.6
11 23 November 2014 14.42 18.9 14.2 10.4 6.04 9.6
12 5 December 2014 34.42 38.4 12.2 3.0 0.26 31.1
13 23 December 2014 3.92 25 6.1 7.5 0.48 5.6
14 1 February 2015 8.92 10.2 5.1 5.1 6.43 5.1
15 3 March 2015 50.58 43.9 4.1 9.8 9.73 2.6
16 13 March 2015 28.17 45.1 7.1 3.4 2.61 28.0
17 2 April 2015 33.42 110.8 40.6 6.4 6.63 4.1
18 13 April 2015 22.50 10.1 4.1 19.0 3.56 37.8
19 16 May 2015 14.17 11.0 18.3 3.0 15.55 2.9
1 Maximum rainfall intensity values were calculated for the sampling period during the first flush, and do not
represent the entire rainfall event.

3.2. In Situ Measurements

The field measurements were conducted to determine pH, temperature, and specific conductivity
(SC) values of composite samples during rainfall events 2–19 (15 for 17G, and 13 for 17H), as shown in
Table 4. The results from both systems showed that measured temperatures of the captured stormwater
in the reservoir structure of the pavements were slightly lower when compared with those of the runoff
during warm months, and slightly higher during cold weather. No significant differences between
the temperatures of runoff and captured stormwater samples were observed in either GI practice.
The average pH values from the captured volume samples were slightly higher when compared
with those from the runoff samples in both systems. The pH differences between the runoff and
captured volume samples were found to be statistically significant (p-value < 0.05). Although the
SC measurements in the captured volume were higher than those in the runoff, the differences were
not determined as significant. The higher values of SC in the effluent samples were also reported in
previous studies [15,19,25].

3.3. Pollutant Concentrations

Mean pollutant concentrations in the samples collected from runoff and captured stormwater
volume, observed reduction percentages, and determined p-values at 95% confidence levels (p-value
< 0.05) are presented for both systems in Tables 5 and 6. The results indicated reductions in several
pollutant concentrations in both permeable pavements, as discussed below.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 7 of 16

Table 4. In situ water quality measurements.

17G (Trench) 17H (Shaft)

Parameter
Runoff Captured p-Value Runoff Captured p-Value
16.8 17.3 14.9 15.5
Average Temperature (◦ C) 0.315 0.270
(n = 15) (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 13)
7.3 7.4 7.0 7.1
Average pH 0.001 0.001
(n = 15) (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 13)
Average Specific 120 185 114 120
0.196 0.509
Conductivity (µS/cm) (n = 15) (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 13)

Nutrient reductions were not significant except for nitrite (NO2 ) in 17G, ammonia (NH3 ) in 17H,
and total phosphorous (TP) in both GI practices. Changes in nitrate (NO3 ) concentration were not
found to be significant in either of the GIs. Nitrate concentrations in the captured samples were
higher than those in the runoff for eight of the 15 monitored events for 17G, and seven of the 13
monitored events for 17H. Low, and sometimes negative, reduction percentages of nitrate and nitrite
were reported in similar previous studies [2,26], and were expected since nitrate removal typically takes
place with vegetated filtration and biofilters [25]. All samples from the captured stormwater showed
lower concentrations of ammonia when compared with the runoff samples in both GIs, except for three
events in 17G, for which the captured samples had slightly higher concentrations of NH3 . Due to the
nitrification process, a portion of the ammonia filtered by the aggregate media could be transformed to
nitrite and nitrate under aerobic conditions. This process explains the higher concentrations of nitrite
and nitrate in the captured volume samples when compared with the runoff samples.
The dissolved metal measurements during the first four events showed high mean reduction
percentages (81% for Cu, 90% for Zn, and 60% for Fe) between runoff and captured volume samples;
however, their differences were not determined as statistically significant. This could be a result of
the small sample size (four) of dissolved metal measurements, which may have weakened the power
of the parametric test [27]. These results for heavy metals were in agreement with previous similar
studies, which found permeable pavements to effectively reduce Cu and Zn concentrations [2,28].
The samples from the captured stormwater volume showed significantly lower concentrations of
E. coli and TSS when compared with the runoff in both systems. The mean reductions in TSS were
43% and 51% for 17G and 17H, respectively. The E. coli mean reduction percentages were 60% for
17G, and 78% for 17H. The measured concentrations of these two parameters are presented in Figure 4
as box plots for better comparison between the runoff and captured volume samples. The observed
E. coli reductions were considerably greater than those seen in the PICP application studied by the
USEPA [21] (60% and 78% versus 39%). The difference between both studies could be attributed to
varying depths of underlying aggregate layers. The depth from the PICP surface to the sampling point
was 40 cm [21], while in this study, the sampling depths were 254 cm and 273 cm for 17H and 17G,
respectively (Figure 3).
Environments 2018, 5, 68 8 of 16

Table 5. Measured pollutant concentrations and observed mean reductions, GI 17G (trench system).

Mean Concentration Values Median Concentration Values

Pollutant Number of Rainfall Events Sampled Events Sampled Mean Reduction % p-Value 1
Runoff Captured Runoff Captured
E. coli (CFU/100 mL) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 2719 1095 1740 740 59.7 <0.001 2
TSS (mg/L) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 242.1 139.4 242.1 100.3 42.6 <0.001 2
Nitrate (mg/L) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 0.667 0.671 0.606 0.499 −0.6 0.965
Nitrite (mg/L) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 0.073 0.043 0.043 0.031 41.1 0.046 2
Ammonia (mg/L) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 0.229 0.124 0.153 0.112 45.9 N/A 3
TP (mg/L) 15 2–12, 14, 15, 18, 19 0.293 0.164 0.258 0.091 44.0 0.002
Cu dissolved (µg/L) 4 1–4 5.80 1.06 2.96 0.92 81.7 N/A 4
Zn dissolved (µg/L) 4 1–4 51.40 4.76 32.61 2.94 90.7 N/A 4
Fe dissolved (µg/L) 4 1–4 23.01 9.16 16.92 9.02 60.2 N/A 4
1 p-values indicating a significant decrease of pollutant concentrations are highlighted in black. 2 Since the concentrations were not normally distributed, log-transformed data were used
in the paired t-test. 3 Differences between the runoff and captured volume concentrations were not normally or lognormally distributed. 4 Results from paired t-tests are not presented due
to the small sample sizes.

Table 6. Measured pollutant concentrations and observed mean reductions, GI 17H (shaft system).

Mean Concentration Values Median Concentration Values

Pollutant Number of Rainfall Events Sampled Events Sampled Mean Reduction % p-Value 1
Runoff Captured Runoff Captured
E. coli (CFU/100 mL) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 3810 845 2300 1400 77.8 0.002
TSS (mg/L) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 184.8 89.9 147.2 98.1 51.4 <0.001 2
Nitrate (mg/L) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 0.723 0.685 0.550 0.521 5.3 0.586
Nitrite (mg/L) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 0.040 0.027 0.036 0.025 32.5 N/A 3
Ammonia (mg/L) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 0.168 0.139 0.077 0.045 17.3 <0.001
TP (mg/L) 13 2, 4, 5, 9–14, 15–17, 19 0.420 0.297 0.414 0.175 29.3 0.005
1 p-values indicating a significant decrease of pollutant concentrations are highlighted in black. 2 Since the concentrations were not normally distributed, log-transformed data were used
in the paired t-test. 3 Differences between the runoff and captured volume concentrations were not normally or lognormally distributed.
 4 as box plots for better comparison between the runoff and captured volume samples. The observed
E. coli reductions were considerably greater than those seen in the PICP application studied by the
USEPA [21] (60% and 78% versus 39%). The difference between both studies could be attributed to
varying depths of underlying aggregate layers. The depth from the PICP surface to the sampling
point was 40 cm [21], while in this study, the sampling depths were 254 cm and 273 cm for 17H and
Environments 2018, 5, 68 9 of 16
17G, respectively (Figure 3).

suspended solids (TSS) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) concentrations for runoff and
Figure 4. The total suspended
captured volume samples between the trench (17G) and and shaft
shaft (17H)
(17H) systems.
systems. Each box illustrates the
25th percentile,
Environments percentile,
2018, the
5, x FOR median,
thePEER
median,and
andthe
REVIEW the75th
75thpercentile.
percentile.The
Thehighest and
highest lowest
and values
lowest areare
values represented by 9 of 15
represented
the toptop
by the andand
bottom
bottomwhiskers.
whiskers.
Positive relationships were observed between E. coli counts and TSS concentrations in the runoff
samples, and also
Positive between their
relationships were reduction percentages
observed between E. coliincounts
both permeable pavement systems
and TSS concentrations (Figure
in the runoff
5).samples,
This suggested that thetheir
and also between removal processes
reduction of these
percentages in bothtwo pollutants
permeable are affected
pavement systemsby the same
(Figure 5).
mechanism. Similar
This suggested correlations
that the were also
removal processes reported,
of these explaining
two pollutants that E. by
are affected colithecells
sameinmechanism.
streams are
commonly associated
Similar correlations with
were alsoparticulate materialsthat
reported, explaining andE. suspended solids are
coli cells in streams [29–31].
commonly The associated
correlations
with particulate
between E. coli andmaterials
TSS wereandstronger
suspended solids
in 17H [29–31].
when The correlations
compared (PCC17HE.>coli
with 17Gbetween PCCand17GTSS were
), and even
stronger infor
significant 17H
thewhen compared
E. coli and TSS with 17G reductions
mean (PCC17H > PCC 17G ), and
(p-value even significant
= 0.025). Weak to for the E. coli
moderate and
positive
TSS mean reductions
correlations (p-value
were observed = 0.025).TP
between Weak
andtoTSS
moderate positive correlations
concentrations, and betweenwere their
observed betweenfor
reductions
TP However,
17G. and TSS concentrations,
similar trendsandwerebetween their reductions
not observed for 17H for 17G. 6).
(Figure However, similar trends were not
observed for 17H (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Correlations between E. coli and TSS concentrations, and their reduction percentages.
Figure 5. Correlations between E. coli and TSS concentrations, and their reduction percentages.
 Figure
Environments 5.5,Correlations
2018, 68 between E. coli and TSS concentrations, and their reduction percentages. 10 of 16

Correlations
Figure 6.6.Correlations
Figure between
between total total phosphorus
phosphorus (TP)
(TP) and TSSand TSS concentrations,
concentrations, and their and their
reduction
reduction percentages.
percentages.

3.4. Effect
3.4. Effect of
of Rainfall
Rainfall Characteristics
Characteristics
The relationships
The relationshipsof of E. and
E. coli coli TSS
andconcentrations
TSS concentrations in the
in the runoff, runoff,
and and their
their reduction reduction
percentages,
percentages,
with rainfallwith rainfall characteristics
characteristics (intensity (intensity and antecedent
and antecedent conditions),
conditions), were alsowereinvestigated.
also investigated.
The
The concentrations of TSS, E. coli, and TP in runoff samples flowing into 17G and 17H were plotted
against the maximum 5- and 15-min intensities (Figures 7 and 8). The results showed that runoff
concentrations of these pollutants increased during higher rainfall intensities. The direct relationship
between pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff and rainfall intensities was also reported in
literature, and may be explained by the higher mobility of pollutants associated with solids during
more intense rainfall events [32–34].
The reduction percentages of E. coli decreased with an increase in maximum intensity rates
in both GI systems (Figure 9). This behavior of E. coli cells with flow velocity was reported in
previous studies, and is known to be a result of the increased movement of water through macropores.
The increased movement of water results in greater distances between the bacterial cells and the filter
media, and therefore a shorter contact time, which decreases the chance of bacterial adsorption into the
aggregate layers [35,36]. No meaningful correlations between TSS reductions and maximum intensity
values were observed.
High concentrations of pollutants were expected in runoff samples with extended antecedent
dry periods. However, such a relationship was not observed in any of the runoff sampling series.
Additionally, it was hypothesized that an increase in rainfall depth prior to the onset of a storm event
would reduce the pollutant concentrations in the runoff, but data analysis showed weak relationships
between pollutant concentrations and the 7-day antecedent rainfall depths. These weak correlations
could be the result of other contributing factors, such as road construction activities in the area, wind,
and traffic, which may have affected the accumulation of pollutants during dry periods [10,37,38].
Additionally, it was hypothesized that an increase in rainfall depth prior to the onset of a storm event
would reduce the pollutant concentrations in the runoff, but data analysis showed weak relationships
between pollutant concentrations and the 7-day antecedent rainfall depths. These weak correlations
could be the result of other contributing factors, such as road construction activities in the area, wind,
Environments 2018, 5, 68 11 of 16
and traffic, which may have affected the accumulation of pollutants during dry periods [10,37,38].

Figure
Figure 7. 7.
TSS, E.E.
TSS, coli,
coli, andandTP
TPconcentrations
concentrations in
in the
the runoff
runoff versus
versusmaximum
maximum5-min
5-minand
and15-min
15-minintensity
intensity
values in GI 17G.
values in GI 17G.

As an example, E. coli and TSS concentrations in the runoff samples of GI 17G were plotted against
the antecedent dry period and the 7-day antecedent rainfall depth values (Figure 10). Contrary to the
original hypothesis, the E. coli and TSS concentrations showed an increasing trend for higher 7-day
antecedent rainfall depth values, and a decreasing trend for longer dry periods.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 12 of 16
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 8. TSS, E. coli, and TP concentrations in the runoff versus maximum 5-min and 15-min intensity
Figure 8. TSS, E.
E. coli,
coli, and
and TP
TP concentrations
concentrations in
in the
the runoff
runoff versus
versus maximum
maximum 5-min and 15-min intensity
values in GI 17H.
GI 17H.
values in GI 17H.

Figure 9. E. coli reduction percentages versus maximum 5- and 15-min intensity values.
Figure9.9.E.
Figure E.coli
colireduction
reductionpercentages
percentagesversus
versusmaximum
maximum5-5-and
and15-min
15-minintensity
intensityvalues.
values.

As
As an
an example,
example, E. E. coli
coli and
and TSS
TSS concentrations
concentrations inin the
the runoff
runoff samples
samples of
of GI
GI 17G
17G were
were plotted
plotted
against
against the antecedent dry period and the 7-day antecedent rainfall depth values (Figure 10).
the antecedent dry period and the 7-day antecedent rainfall depth values (Figure 10).
Contrary
Contrary to
to the
the original
original hypothesis,
hypothesis, the
the E.
E. coli
coli and
and TSS
TSS concentrations
concentrations showed
showed anan increasing
increasing trend
trend
for
forhigher
higher7-day
7-dayantecedent
antecedentrainfall
rainfalldepth
depthvalues,
values,and
andaadecreasing
decreasingtrend
trendfor
forlonger
longerdry
dryperiods.
periods.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 13 of 16
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Runoff
Runoff concentrations
concentrations of
of E.
E. coli
coli and
and TSS
TSS versus
versus antecedent
antecedent rainfall
rainfallconditions
conditionsin
inGI
GI17G.
17G.

3.5. Limitations
3.5. Limitations of
of This
This Study
Study
Although the
Although the observed
observedTSS TSSreductions
reductions (42–50%)
(42–50%) werewerefound to betostatistically
found significant,
be statistically these
significant,
rates were lower than the median TSS removals for porous pavement
these rates were lower than the median TSS removals for porous pavement systems reported in the systems reported in the
USEPA’sNational
USEPA’s National Pollutant
Pollutant RemovalRemoval Performance
Performance Database,Database,
and in theand in the Best
Stormwater Stormwater
Management Best
Management Practices Design Guide [14,39]. Both documents indicated
Practices Design Guide [14,39]. Both documents indicated more than 90% reductions in TSS for more than 90% reductions in
TSS for permeable
permeable pavement pavement
systems.systems. The observed
The observed difference
difference between between the estimated
the estimated reductions
reductions in thisin
this research and the values from literature was attributed to a few limitations
research and the values from literature was attributed to a few limitations of the conducted study, of the conducted study,
whichare
which arediscussed
discussedbelow. below.
The physical
The physical structure
structure and and design
design of of the
the installed
installed GIGI systems
systems and and the
the natural
natural variability
variability ofof the
the
sampled storm events created challenges for the sampling efforts. In
sampled storm events created challenges for the sampling efforts. In rigorous stormwater sampling, rigorous stormwater sampling,
the preferred
the preferred method
method for for acquiring
acquiring samples
samples is is the
the redirection
redirection of of the
the captured
captured stormwater
stormwater into into anan
outflowbox,
outflow box, equipped
equipped withwitha weira andweir and automatic
automatic samplers tosamplers
determine to the
determine
event mean theconcentrations
event mean
concentrations (EMCs) of pollutants. Due to the mentioned constraints,
(EMCs) of pollutants. Due to the mentioned constraints, samples were collected manually through samples were collected
the
manually through the pre-installed monitoring wells during the first
pre-installed monitoring wells during the first flush of rainfall events. Thus, the presented pollutantflush of rainfall events. Thus,
the presented were
concentrations pollutant
not fully concentrations
representativewere of true not fully representative
concentrations throughout ofthetrue
stormconcentrations
events.
throughout the storm events.
Additionally, the inclusion of filter socks at the bottom of the perforated monitoring pipes may
have Additionally,
resulted in anthe inclusion of filter
overestimation socks atconcentrations,
of pollutant the bottom of the perforated
especially TSS.monitoring
The openings pipesofmay
the
filter socks (250 microns) were designed to allow the passing of particulate pollutants into theof
have resulted in an overestimation of pollutant concentrations, especially TSS. The openings the
pipe.
filter socks (250 microns) were designed to allow the passing of particulate
However, during the exfiltration of captured stormwater into the surrounding and underlying soil pollutants into the pipe.
However,
layers, during the
the pressure lossexfiltration
across the of captured
filter sock may stormwater into thethe
have prevented surrounding and underlying
complete flushing soil
of these fine
layers, the pressure loss across the filter sock may have prevented the
sediments. An incomplete flushing could have resulted in an accumulation of TSS at the bottom of the complete flushing of these fine
sediments.
sampling An incomplete flushing could have resulted in an accumulation of TSS at the bottom of
pipes.
the sampling
The authors pipes.
would like to mention that, despite the mentioned limitations, the results from this
The authors
study are considered would like to for
beneficial mention that, despite of
the determination thethe
mentioned
stormwater limitations, the results
quality benefits from this
of permeable
study are considered
pavement systems. beneficial for the determination of the stormwater quality benefits of permeable
pavement systems.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
Although the two monitored GI systems used different designs (shaft and trench) to access deeper
Although
underlying the two
soil layers, monitored
they both had GI systems
similar waterused different
quality designs Unlike
performances. (shaft and
mosttrench)
similar to access
previous
deeper underlying
studies, soil layers, they
this study investigated theboth had removal
bacteria similar water quality performances.
performance of the systemsUnlike most similar
by measuring the
previous studies, this study investigated the bacteria removal performance
E. coli concentrations. The E. coli reductions were found to be significant in both GI practices, but were of the systems by
measuring the E. coli concentrations. The E. coli reductions were found to be significant in both GI
practices, but were slightly greater in GI 17H with the shaft system. The reductions in E. coli were
Environments 2018, 5, 68 14 of 16

slightly greater in GI 17H with the shaft system. The reductions in E. coli were greater than those
in TSS; thus, in addition to the straining and physical removal of the bacterial cells attached to the
suspended solids, the adsorption process was determined as another mechanism responsible for the
E. coli removal. The positive relationship observed between E. coli and TSS reductions supports the
idea that suspended solids serve as a transport method for bacterial cells in stormwater runoff.
The results indicated that TSS and TP reductions observed following the passing through the
aggregate layers were statistically significant, and showed minor differences between the trench and
shaft systems. Similar to previous studies, negative and almost zero reduction rates were observed for
nitrate concentrations in both systems, and they were attributed to the nitrification process resulting in
nitrate leaching, and the transformation of the filtered ammonia to nitrate.
The effect of rainfall characteristics on the pollutant concentrations and reduction percentages
were also investigated in this study. The results indicated positive relationships between maximum
rainfall intensities and the concentrations of E. coli, TSS, and TP in the runoff. Higher intensity rainfall
events generally resulted in lower reduction percentages of E. coli contents. These findings indicate
that the rainfall characteristics not only affect the pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff, but
may also have an impact on water quality performances of permeable pavement systems. Thus, it is
suggested to consider local rainfall characteristics during the performance assessment of GI practices.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: S.A., T.R. and H.K. Methodology: S.A. and H.K. Validation: S.A.,
H.K. and T.R. Formal Analysis: S.A. Investigation: S.A. and V.G. Resources: T.R. Data curation: S.A. and V.G.
Writing (original draft preparation): S.A. and H.K. Writing (review and editing): T.R. and H.K. Visualization: H.K.
Supervision: T.R. Project administration: T.R. Funding acquisition: T.R.
Acknowledgments: The reported research in this paper is the result of a collaborative effort between the USEPA
Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District
(MSD), the AECOM Corporation, and the University of Louisville Center for Infrastructure Research. We thank
Michael Borst, Robert Brown, and the Louisville MSD for their input and suggestions in this paper. The authors
would also like to acknowledge Qian Zhao, Deborah Yoder-Himes, and Jagannadh Satyavolu for their cooperation
during the laboratory analysis efforts of this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Any opinions expressed in this paper are
those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Louisville and Jefferson Country MSD or the USEPA;
thus, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

References
1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS).
Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds: TR-55; USDA NRCS: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
2. Bean, E.Z.; Hunt, W.F.; Bidelspach, D. Evaluation of four permeable pavement sites in eastern North Carolina
for runoff reduction and water quality impacts. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2007, 133, 583–592. [CrossRef]
3. Goonetilleke, A.; Thomas, E.; Ginn, S.; Gilbert, D. Understanding the role of land use in urban stormwater
quality management. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 74, 31–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. VanWoert, N.D.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Rugh, C.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Xiao, L. Green roof stormwater
retention: Effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1036–1044. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Aryal, R.; Vigneswaran, S.; Kandasamy, J.; Naidu, R. Urban stormwater quality and treatment. Korean J.
Chem. Eng. 2010, 27, 1343–1359. [CrossRef]
6. Moglen, G.E. Hydrology and impervious areas. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 303–304. [CrossRef]
7. Todeschini, S. Hydrologic and environmental impacts of imperviousness in an industrial catchment of
northern Italy. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2016, 21, 05016013. [CrossRef]
8. Shaver, E.; Horner, R.; Skupien, J.; May, C.; Ridley, G. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management; North
American Lake Management Society (NALMS): Madison, WI, USA, 2007; pp. 44–52.
9. Schueler, T. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems; Center for Watershed Protection: Ellicott City, MD,
USA, 2003.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 15 of 16

10. Burns, S.E. Stormwater Controls for Pollutant Removal on GDOT Right-of-Way; GDOT Project No. 07-27;
Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Materials and Research: Forest Park, GA, USA, 2012.
11. Granata, F.; Papirio, S.; Esposito, G.; Gargano, R.; de Marinis, G. Machine Learning Algorithms for the
Forecasting of Wastewater Quality Indicators. Water 2017, 9, 105. [CrossRef]
12. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: Small MS4
Stormwater Program Overview. Factsheet 2.0.; EPA 833/F-00-002; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
13. US EPA. Overview of the Stormwater Program; EPA 833/R-96-008; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
14. Winer, R. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices; Center for
Watershed Protection: Ellicot City, MD, USA, 2000.
15. Brattebo, B.O.; Booth, D.B. Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement
systems. Water Res. 2003, 37, 4369–4376. [CrossRef]
16. Legret, M.; Colandini, V. Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on runoff water: Water quality
and fate of heavy metals. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 111–117. [CrossRef]
17. Kaseva, M. Performance of a sub-surface flow constructed wetland in polishing pre-treated wastewater—A
tropical case study. Water Res. 2004, 38, 681–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Hunt, W.; Smith, J.; Jadlocki, S.; Hathaway, J.; Eubanks, P. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a
bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, NC. J. Environ. Eng. 2008, 134, 403–408. [CrossRef]
19. Kazemi, F.; Hill, K. Effect of permeable pavement basecourse aggregates on stormwater quality for irrigation
reuse. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 77, 189–195. [CrossRef]
20. US EPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet: Porous Pavement; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
21. Selvakumar, A.; O’Connor, T.P. Organism detection in permeable pavement parking lot infiltrates at the
Edison Environmental Center, New Jersey. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 21–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Prince Georges County. Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis; Prince Georges County Department of
Environmental Resources: Largo, MD, USA, 1999.
23. Maestre, A.; Pitt, R. The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1, a Compilation and Analysis of NPDES
Stormwater Monitoring Information; Center for Watershed Protection: Ellicott City, MA, USA, 2005.
24. Law, N.L.; Fraley-McNeal, L.; Cappiella, K.; Pitt, R. Monitoring to Demonstrate Environmental Results: Guidance
to Develop Local Stormwater Monitoring Studies Using Six Example Study Designs; Center for Watershed
Protection: Ellicott City, MD, USA, 2008.
25. Roseen, R.M.; Ballestero, T.P.; Houle, J.J.; Avelleneda, P.; Wildey, R.; Briggs, J. Storm water low-impact
development, conventional structural, and manufactured treatment strategies for parking lot runoff:
Performance evaluations under varied mass loading conditions. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006,
1984, 135–147. [CrossRef]
26. Roseen, R.M.; Ballestero, T.P.; Houle, J.J.; Briggs, J.F.; Houle, K.M. Water quality and hydrologic performance
of a porous asphalt pavement as a storm-water treatment strategy in a cold climate. J. Environ. Eng. 2011,
138, 81–89. [CrossRef]
27. Helsel, D.; Hirsch, R. Statistical methods in water resources. In Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations
of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4: Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation; US Geological Survey:
Reston, VA, USA, 2002.
28. Pagotto, C.; Legret, M.; Le Cloirec, P. Comparison of the hydraulic behaviour and the quality of highway
runoff water according to the type of pavement. Water Res. 2000, 34, 4446–4454. [CrossRef]
29. Schillinger, J.E.; Gannon, J.J. Bacterial adsorption and suspended particles in urban stormwater. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 1985, 57, 384–389.
30. Mallin, M.A.; Williams, K.E.; Esham, E.C.; Lowe, R.P. Effect of human development on bacteriological water
quality in coastal watersheds. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1047–1056. [CrossRef]
31. Anderson, C.W.; Rounds, S.A. Phosphorus and E. coli and Their Relation to Selected Constituents during Storm
Runoff Conditions in Fanno Creek, Oregon, 1998–99; 02-4232; US Geological Survey: Denver, CO, USA, 2003.
32. Barrett, M.E.; Irish, L.B.; Malina, J.F.; Charbeneau, R. Characterization of highway runoff in Austin, Texas,
area. J. Environ. Eng. 1998, 124, 131–137. [CrossRef]
33. Chui, P. Characteristics of stormwater quality from two urban watersheds in Singapore. Environ. Monit. Assess.
1997, 44, 173–181. [CrossRef]
34. Horner, R.; Guedry, J.; Kortenhof, M.H. Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway Construction Site Erosion
and Pollution Control; Washington State Department of Transportation: Olympia, WA, UAS, 1990.
Environments 2018, 5, 68 16 of 16

35. Stevik, T.K.; Aa, K.; Ausland, G.; Hanssen, J.F. Retention and removal of pathogenic bacteria in wastewater
percolating through porous media: A review. Water Res. 2004, 38, 1355–1367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Rutter, P.; Vincent, B. Physicochemical interactions of the substratum, microorganisms, and the fluid phase.
In Microbial Adhesion and Aggregation; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1984; pp. 21–38.
37. Horner, R.R.; Burges, S.J.; Ferguson, J.F.; Mar, B.W.; Welch, E.B. Highway Runoff Monitoring: The Initial Year;
WA-RD-39.3; Washington State Department of Transportation, Public Transportation and Planning: Olympia,
WA, USA, 1979.
38. Barrett, M.E.; Zuber, R.D.; Collins, E.R.; Malina, J.F.; Charbeneau, R.J.; Ward, G.H. A Review and Evaluation of
Literature Pertaining to the Quantity and Control of Pollution from Highway Runoff and Construction; Center for
Research in Water Resources, Bureau of Engineering Research, the University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX,
USA, 1995.
39. Clar, M.L.; Barfield, B.J.; O’Connor, T.P. Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide. Volume 2: Vegatative
Biofilters; EPA/600/R-04/121A; The US Environmental Protenction Agency: Cincinatti, OH, USA, 2004.

© 2018 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/).