Home » » in Poland, 2017, New citation of Moscow University results, environmental science, aquatic ecology, water quality, water pollution control: The article that was cited: Ostroumov SA (2004) Aquatic ecosystem as a bioreactor: water purification and some other functions. Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum 97:67–78;

in Poland, 2017, New citation of Moscow University results, environmental science, aquatic ecology, water quality, water pollution control: The article that was cited: Ostroumov SA (2004) Aquatic ecosystem as a bioreactor: water purification and some other functions. Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum 97:67–78;

in Poland, 2017, New citation of Moscow University results, environmental science, aquatic ecology, water quality, water pollution control:
The article that was cited: 

  1. Ostroumov SA (2004) Aquatic ecosystem as a bioreactor: water purification and some other functions. Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum 97:67–78;

    2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200593682;


https://5bio5.blogspot.com/2017/10/in-poland.html;

this article was cited in:

[HTML] Technical and natural conditions and operating efficiency of a municipal stormwater treatment plant;

T Zubala - Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017;

Zubala, T.; Environ Sci Pollut Res (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0519-8;


Abstract: A decade of observations provided grounds for assessing the operation of one of 
the few stormwater treatment plants in Poland (system: screens—grit chambers—settler—
retention pond) which collects effluents from 471 ha of the city. Among other aspects, the 


... Most of these phenomena are common in natural and artificial water and marsh ecosys-
tems (Dojlido 1995; Bratli et al. 1999; Ostroumov 2004; Dhote and Dixit 2007; Zubala
2009; Trowsdale and Simcock 2011; Tedoldi et al. 2016). ...
**

More detailed info:

Technical and natural conditions and operating efficiency of a municipal stormwater treatment plant.


  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, 
  2. University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland;
  3. tomasz.zubala[at]interia.pl;

Open Access: 
Research Article;
First Online: 27 October 2017;

Abstract

A decade of observations provided grounds for assessing the operation of one of the few stormwater treatment plants in Poland (system: screens—grit chambers—settler—retention pond) which collects effluents from 471 ha of the city. Among other aspects, the following were evaluated: treatment efficiency, relationship between the quality of treated stormwater and that of waters in the receiving body (the ox-bow lake of the Vistula river), operating stability of key units, significance of the facility for nature. During the assessment, the plant had a positive effect on the quality of stormwater effluents—the content of the analysed pollutants was reduced (more than 80% average efficiency for mineral forms of nitrogen and suspension matter) and oxygen ratios improved (23% increase in the average concentration of dissolved oxygen and more than 50% decrease in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand). Although the overall assessment of the facility’s operation was good, some omissions and operating errors were noted (method of removing retained pollutants, stormwater flow control). Eliminating them is a prerequisite for maintaining the expected reliability of the system. An effect of stormwater ponds on the increase in biodiversity in the poor urbanised landscape has also been observed. The structures, forming a uniform system along with urban green areas, constitute specific enclaves which attract living organisms.

Keywords:

Drainage, Environment, Pollutants, Stormwater ;
**

References

  1. Arheimer B, Andersson L, Lepistö A (1996) Variation of nitrogen concentration in forest streams - influences of flow, seasonality and catchment characteristics. J Hydrol 179:281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora AS, Reddy AS (2015) Conceptualizing a decentralized stormwater treatment system for an urbanized city with improper stormwater drainage facilities. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:2891–2900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barałkiewicz D, Chudzińska M, Szpakowska B, Świerk D, Gołdyn R, Dondajewska R (2014) Storm water contamination and its effect on the quality of urban surface waters. Environ Monit Assess 186(10):6789–6803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa AE, Fernandes JN, David LM (2012) Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. Water Res 46:6787–6798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter EH, Mulamoottil G, Gregor D (1985) A study of residential stormwater impoundments: perceptions and policy implications. J Am Water Resour Assoc 21(1):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birgand FR, Skaggs RW, Chescheir GM, Gilliam JW (2007) Nitrogen removal in streams of agricultural catchments - a literature review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 37(5):381–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blecken G-T, Hunt WF, Al-Rubaei AM, Viklander M, Lord WG (2015) Stormwater control measure (SCM) maintenance considerations to ensure designed functionality. Urban Water J:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1111913
  8. Braskerud BC, Hartnik T, Løvstad Ø (2005) The effect of the redox-potential on the retention of phosphorus in a small constructed wetland. Water Sci Technol 51(3–4):127–134Google Scholar
  9. Bratli JL, Skiple A, Mjelde M (1999) Restoration of lake Borrevannet – self-purification of nutrients and suspended matter through natural reed-belts. Water Sci Technol 40(3):325–332Google Scholar
  10. Cettner A, Ashley R, Hedström A, Viklander M (2014) Sustainable development and urban stormwater practice. Urban Water J 11(3):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang M, McBroom MW, Beasley RS (2004) Roofing as a source of nonpoint water pollution. J Environ Manag 73:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang N-B, Islam MK, Wanielista MP (2012) Floating wetland mesocosm assessment of nutrient removal to reduce ecotoxicity in stormwater ponds. Int J Environ Sci Technol 9:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Congying L (2012) Ecohydrology and good urban design for urban storm water-logging in Beijing, China. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 12(4):287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conley DJ (2012) Ecology: save the Baltic Sea. Nature 486:463–464. https://doi.org/10.1038/486463a Accessed 10 December 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corsi SR, De Cicco LA, Lutz MA, Hirsch RM (2015) River chloride trends in snow-affected urban watersheds: increasing concentrations outpace urban growth rate and are common among all seasons. Sci Total Environ 508:488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CSO (Central Statistical Office) (2014) Environment 2014. Statistical Information and Elaborations, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  17. Czemiel Berndtsson J (2014) Storm water quality of first flush urban runoff in relation to different traffic characteristics. Urban Water J 11(4):284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dhote S, Dixit S (2007) Water quality improvement through macrophytes: a case study. Asian J Exp Sci 21(2):427–430Google Scholar
  19. Dojlido J (1995) Chemistry of surface waters. Ekonomia i Środowisko, Bialystok (in Polish)Google Scholar
  20. Eriksson E, Baun A, Scholes L, Ledin A, Ahlman S, Revitt M, Noutsopoulos C, Mikkelsen PS (2007) Selected stormwater priority pollutants - a European perspective. Sci Total Environ 383:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuchs S, Mayer I, Haller B, Roth H (2013) Lamella settler for storm water treatment - performance and design recommendations. NOVATECH:1–10Google Scholar
  22. Geiger W, Dreiseitl H (2001) New methods of rainwater drainage. Oldenbourg Verlag, München (in German)Google Scholar
  23. German J, Svensson G (2005) Stormwater pond sediments and water – characterization and assessment. Urban Water J 2(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. HELCOM (2007) Baltic Sea Action Plan. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in Krakow, Poland, November 15, 2007. http://www.helcom.fi. Accessed 1 December 2015
  25. Herrmann J (2012) Chemical and biological benefits in a stormwater wetland in Kalmar, SE Sweden. Limnologica 42:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrmann J, Yoshiyama M (2014) Treating urban stormwater in constructed wetlands in Kalmar, Sweden, for improved water quality and biodiversity. Linnaeus ECO-TECH` 14 Kalmar, Sweden, November 24–26, 2014, 1–6Google Scholar
  27. Hlavínek P, Zelenakova M (eds) (2015) Storm water management – examples from Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, Springer HydrogeologyGoogle Scholar
  28. Howitt JA, Mondon J, Mitchell BD, Kidd T, Eshelman B (2014) Urban stormwater inputs to an adapted coastal wetland: role in water treatment and impacts on wetland biota. Sci Total Environ 485-486:534–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jamwal P, Mittal AK, Mouchel J-M (2008) Effects of urbanisation on the quality of the urban runoff for Delhi watershed. Urban Water J 5(3):247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jarvie HP, Whitton BA, Neal C (1998) Nitrogen and phosphorus in east coast British rivers: speciation, sources and biological significance. Sci Total Environ 210(211):79–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juang DF, Tsai WP, Liu WK, Lin JH (2008) Treatment of polluted river water by a gravel contact oxidation system constructed under riverbed. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5(3):305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaszewski BM (2008) Climate. In: Uziak S, Turski R (eds) Natural environment of the Lublin region. Lubelskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Lublin, pp 75–111 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  33. Kayhanian M, Singh A, Suverkropp C, Borroum S (2003) Impact of annual average daily traffic on highway runoff pollutant concentrations. J Environ Eng 129(11):975–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kazemi F, Beecham S, Gibbs J (2011) Streetscape biodiversity and the role of bioretention swales in an Australian urban environment. Landsc Urban Plann 101:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kordana S, Słyś D (2016) SWOT analysis of stormwater infiltration systems application in residential areas. J Civ Eng Environ Archit 33(63):209–224 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  36. Langeveld JG, Liefting HJ, Boogaard FC (2012) Uncertainties of stormwater characteristics and removal rates of stormwater treatment facilities: implications for stormwater handling. Water Res 46:6868–6880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Le Viol I, Mocq J, Julliard R, Kerbiriou C (2009) The contribution of motorway stormwater retention ponds to the biodiversity of aquatic acroinvertebrates. Biol Conserv 142:3163–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee JH, Bang KW, Ketchum LH, Choe JS, MJ Y (2002) First flush analysis of urban storm runoff. Sci Total Environ 293:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu A, Egodawatta P, Guan Y, Goonetilleke A (2013) Influence of rainfall and catchment characteristics on urban stormwater quality. Sci Total Environ 444:255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mallin MA, Williams KE, Esham EC, Lowe RP (2000) Effect of human development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecol Appl 10(4):1047–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mangani G, Berloni A, Bellucci F, Tatano F, Maione M (2005) Evaluation of the pollutant content in road runoff first flush waters. Water Air Soil Pollut 160:213–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell VG, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Hatt BE, McCarthy DT (2007) Achieving multiple benefits from stormwater harvesting. Water Sci Technol 55(4):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moore TLC, Hunt WF (2012) Ecosystem service provision by stormwater wetlands and ponds - a means for evaluation? Water Res 46:6811–6823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nzengy'a DM, Wishitemi BE (2001) The performance of constructed wetlands for, wastewater treatment: a case study of Splash wetland in Nairobi Kenya. Hydrol Process 15(17):3239–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ostroumov SA (2004) Aquatic ecosystem as a bioreactor: water purification and some other functions. Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum 97:67–78;

    46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200593682;

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8083617;
  47. Patro M, Zubala T (2010) Role and threats of water reservoir in the urban palace and park complex in Puławy. Commission of Protection and Formation of Natural Environment – Polish Acad Sci 7:297–304Google Scholar
  48. Peng H-Q, Liu Y, Wang H-W, Gao X-L, Ma L-M (2016) Event mean concentration and first flush effect from different drainage systems and functional areas during storms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:5390–5398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pennino MJ, McDonald RI, Jaffe PR (2016) Watershed-scale impacts of stormwater green infrastructure on hydrology, nutrient fluxes, and combined sewer overflows in the mid-Atlantic region. Sci Total Environ 565:1044–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petrucci G, Gromaire M-C, Shorshani MF, Chebbo G (2014) Nonpoint source pollution of urban stormwater runoff: a methodology for source analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:10225–10242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Qin H-P, Khu S-T, Yu X-Y (2010) Spatial variations of storm runoff pollution and their correlation with land-use in a rapidly urbanizing catchment in China. Sci Total Environ 408:4613–4623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Quigley RJ, Taylor LC (2004) Evaluating health impact assessment. Public Health 118(8):544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rivett MO, Cuthbert MO, Gamble R, Connon LE, Pearson A, Shepley MG, Davis D (2016) Highway deicing salt dynamic runoff to surface water and subsequent infiltration to groundwater during severe UK winters. Sci Total Environ 565:324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sakson G, Zawilski M, Badowska E, Brzezińska A (2014) Stormwater pollution as the basis of choice the method of their management. J Civ Eng Environ Archit 31(61):253–264 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  55. Sawicka-Siarkiewicz H (2003) Limitation of pollutions in surface runoff from roads. Institute of Environmental Protection, Warsaw (in Polish)Google Scholar
  56. Sharma AK, Gray S, Diaper C, Liston P, Howe C (2008) Assessing integrated water management options for urban developments – Canberra case study. Urban Water J 5(2):147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SO (Statistical Office) (2014) Puławy town commune, Puławy County. Statistical Vademecum for Local Government, Lublin (in Polish)Google Scholar
  58. Tao T, Wang J, Xin K, Li S (2014) Multi-objective optimal layout of distributed storm-water detention. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:1473–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor A, Curnow R, Fletcher T, Lewis J (2007) Education campaigns to reduce stormwater pollution in commercial areas: do they work? J Environ Manag 84(3):323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tedoldi D, Chebbo G, Pierlot D, Kovacs Y, Gromaire MC (2016) Impact of runoff infiltration on contaminant accumulation and transport in the soil/filter media of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: a literature review. Sci Total Environ 569-570:904–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tran D, Kang JH (2013) Optimal design of a hydrodynamic separator for treating runoff from roadways. J Environ Manag 116:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trowsdale SA, Simcock R (2011) Urban stormwater treatment using bioretention. J Hydrol 397:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turski R, Uziak S, Zawadzki S (2008) Soils. In: Uziak S, Turski R (eds) Natural environment of the Lublin region. Lubelskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Lublin, pp 211–315 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  64. Wang C-Y, Sample DJ (2014) Assessment of the nutrient removal effectiveness of floating treatment wetlands applied to urban retention ponds. J Environ Manag 137:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang C-Y, Sample DJ, Bell C (2014) Vegetation effects on floating treatment wetland nutrient removal and harvesting strategies in urban stormwater ponds. Sci Total Environ 499:384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yu J, Yu H, Xu L (2013) Performance evaluation of various stormwater best management practices. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:6160–6171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zubala T (2009) Influence of dam reservoir on the water quality in a small upland river. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 9(2–4):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zubala T, Patro M (2015) Rainwater reservoirs in the urban landscape – case study. J Ecol Eng 16(5):128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
**