A review of phosphorus removal structures: how to assess and compare their performance

Chad Penn*, Isis Chagas, Aleksandar Klimeski, Gry Lyngsie

*Corresponding author for this work
38 Citations (Scopus)
67 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Controlling dissolved phosphorus (P) losses to surface waters is challenging as most conservation practices are only effective at preventing particulate P losses. As a result, P removal structures were developed to filter dissolved P from drainage water before reaching a water body. While many P removal structures with different P sorption materials (PSMs) have been constructed over the past two decades, there remains a need to evaluate their performances and compare on a normalized basis. The purpose of this review was to compile performance data of pilot and field-scale P removal structures and present techniques for normalization and comparison. Over 40 studies were normalized by expressing cumulative P removal as a function of cumulative P loading to the contained PSM. Results were further analyzed as a function of retention time (RT), inflow P concentration, and type of PSM. Structures treating wastewater were generally more efficient than non-point drainage water due to higher RT and inflow P concentrations. For Ca-rich PSMs, including slag, increased RT allowed for greater P removal. Among structures with low RT and inflow P concentrations common to non-point drainage, Fe-based materials had an overall higher cumulative removal efficiency compared to non-slag and slag materials.

Original languageEnglish
Article number583
JournalWater (Switzerland)
Volume9
Issue number8
Number of pages22
ISSN2073-4441
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • Best management practices
  • Legacy phosphorus
  • Phosphorus
  • Phosphorus removal
  • Phosphorus removal structures
  • Phosphorus sorption materials
  • Urban stormwater
  • Water quality

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A review of phosphorus removal structures: how to assess and compare their performance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this