RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL (max. 10 pages – excluding References)

Summary Details 1. Title of research project proposal: (Project Number/Project Title – max. 20 words)

Integrated multi-functional urban water systems 2. Proposed Project Commencement Date: (month/year): July 2012 Project Duration (years): 5 years 3. Project Abstract: (Objectives, Outputs and Outcomes) This research project will deliver hybrid systems capable of treating multiple water sources (such as stormwater, partially treated wastewater, or polluted groundwater) within urban landscapes and therefore provide ecosystems services to the city. It will focus on further development and optimization of stormwater biofiltration (raingardens, bioretentions) and wetland systems, which are the key Water Sensitive Urban Design WSUD technology for efficient waterway protection, and water recycling of multiple water sources in urban areas. The two main outputs/outcomes are envisaged: •

The new WSUD technology for treatment of multiply water sources within urban landscapes and micro-climate improvements;

•

Adoption guidelines of new technologies, which includes guides on design, operation and maintenance.

4. Number and name of CRC research program  Program A – Society

 Program B – Water Sensitive Urbanism

 Program C – Future Technologies

 Program D – Adoption Pathways

5. ANZSRC Field of Research (FoR) classification 090509 Water Resources Engineering 6. Keywords: (max 6) Water Resources Management

Treatment

Low Energy

Green Infrastructure

Wetlands

Biofilters

7. Project Leader(s) Name: Prof Ana Deletic Institution: Monash University Department: Civil Engineering

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

Research Proposal 8. Objectives and background Objectives The key objectives of the project are: 1. To understand and optimize wetland systems for treatment of urban stormwater to support protection of waterways, with Coastal Plains of WA as a case study; 2. To optimize stormwater biofilters for treatment of (partially-treated) wastewater and/or polluted groundwater; 3. To develop hybrid biofilters that can treat wastewater and/or polluted groundwater during dry weather and capture and treat stormwater during wet weather and deliver improvements; 4. To develop adoption guidelines for this new generation of WSUD systems. Background The urban water systems should be able to deliver traditional water services (supply, sewage and drainage) while protecting waterways, ameliorating urban heat islands and improving the aesthetics and livability of urban landscapes. The systems that can collect and treat stormwater, widely known as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) stormwater systems, exemplify multifunctional technologies that harvest water for people’s use (e.g. Mitchell et al, 2007), protect waterways from polluted and elevated urban discharges (Li et al, 2009), beautify urban landscapes and improve micro-climate by enhancing evapotranspiration (Endreny T., 2008). Stormwater biofilters (known also as raingardens or bioretentions) (Figure 1) and constructed wetlands are currently regarded as one of the most promising WSUD technologies. For example, biofilters are highly efficient in reducing runoff peaks and volumes (Hatt et al, 2009) and removing solids, nutrients and metals from stormwater (e.g. Blecken et al, 2009a, and 2009b, Bratieres et al, 2008, Hatt et al, 2008), while having a relatively small footprint. The systems are undergoing further development for effective removal of pathogens (e.g. Li et al, submitted, Zinger, 2010) and micro-pollutants (Feng et al, in press), with an aim to make them an effective stormwater harvesting treatment technology. Biofilters come in a range of scales: from bio-pots of only couple of m2 that could be easily retrofitted even in dense urban areas or make an integral part of house gardens, to several thousand m2 regional biofilters that treat runoff from large developments. The systems are designed as landscaping features that improve the aesthetics of our cities (Figure 1 – right).

Kfar –Sava Biofilter Pilot

Figure 1: Concepts of (a) biofilters and (b) the first hybrid biofilter built in Kfar-Sava, Israel Constructed wetland systems are well documented WSUD elements able to assimilate stormwater nutrients and other contaminants (Carleton et al., 2000; 2001). However the performance of these systems for this purpose is known to vary depending on the nature of the design, the hydrological regime as well as soil conditions and vegetation characteristics. While

2

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

general design guidelines exist, a challenge is how to design and optimise wetlands systems in sandy Coastal Plain environments, where high groundwater tables dominate hydrological and biogeochemical aspects of wetland function. In particular, several examples of constructed wetlands have emerged in Perth in WA, but much of the design guidelines are based on information from different geomorphological conditions, and further understanding of the process and pathways of nutrient and contaminant assimilation and how they respond to extremes in flow variability are required to enable managers further optimize wetland design and operation (Lund et al 2001). For example, it is known that event driven systems exhibit variable ability to assimilate nutrients (Kadlec, 2010), and where wetlands intercept shallow water tables then often their ability to assimilate nutrients can be compromised as nutrient rich groundwater fuels eutrophication processes. Furthermore, while constructed wetlands are useful WSUD elements for engineers of new developments, existing urban landscapes are characterised by natural wetland systems that are expressions of the local groundwater table, and strategies for optimising their ability to process stormwater loads can also result in water quality improvement of downstream waterways and increased amenity. Constructed Biofilters are currently designed to exclusively treat stormwater, making them ineffective during dry weather periods. In fact, biofilters built in very dry climates (such as Perth or Adelaide) may require irrigation during prolonged dry weather periods to sustain plants, as well as to work efficiently (it has been shown that prolonged dry periods reduce their removal rate, e.g. Blecken et al, 2009b). At the same time, Class A wastewater that contains high level of nutrients (over 8 mg/L of total nitrogen (TN) and over 3 mg/L of total phosphorous (TP), that are all well over levels found in ’typical’ untreated stormwater with TN=2.5 mg/L and TP=0.35 mg/L, Francy et al, 2010) has been promoted for irrigation of open urban spaces. In situations where groundwater is close to surface (such as in Perth) or irrigated areas are close to waterways, this may cause pollution of natural systems. Polluted groundwater with high levels of nitrate is unfortunately a reality in some urban areas, where nitrate can be over 30 mg/l and phosphorous over 0.5 mg/l (e.g. Wrigley et al 1991; Bolgar and Stevens 1999). This is often a legacy of intensive past farming or wide-spread use of septic tanks (Middle, 1996). It is therefore only practical to extend biofiltration use for treatment of wastewater and/or groundwater during dry weather spells. The hybrid biofiltration systems that could treat stormwater during wet periods and then polish wastewater and/or treat polluted groundwater during dry periods would be far more efficient than the current systems. Such hybrids would be particularly sustainable for dry climates (such as Perth conditions) and will provide treatment of multiple water sources while achieving multiple benefits of waterway protection. 9. Research plan (methods, timelines and outputs – do not include annual workplans) Research Questions Question 1: How to optimise assimilation pathways in wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain of Western Australia to effectively treat stormwater The first aim is to quantify nutrient assimilation pathways in groundwater dominated wetland systems versus constructed systems perched above the water table, and understand how each of these systems responds to different patterns of hydro-climatological variability (eg., extended dry periods followed by hydrological pulses). While nutrient processing under quasi steady state conditions is reasonably well understood, a disproportionate amount of the nutrient processing will occur during hydrological pulses since they drive periods of intense biogeochemical activity. To understand how assimilation pathways respond in groundwater or non-groundwater dominated systems consideration of the soil and vegetation controls on wetland water balance and biogeochemical cycling processes during the pulses and between pulses must be understood. A second aim is to develop suitable ecosystem metrics, such as ‘wetland metabolism’ able to gauge wetland response and to support decision making. Wetland metabolism summarises the intensity and nature of carbon cycling, and through understanding stoichiometric links between carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus, here we propose to explore the hypothesis that carbon metabolism (as measured by rates of change in fluxes of dissolved oxygen and pCO2) is connected to rates of nutrient attenuation.

3

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

Through model development, this integrated understanding can support assessment of design options to optimise attenuation pathways such as soil amendments (eg. mine residue byproducts for PO4 stripping), water level management (for example to enhance denitrification and vegetation response), and hydrodynamic design options. Question 2: How can we enhance the uptake of nutrients in biofiltration systems, so that they can treat high TN and TP levels found in wastewater and groundwater? The key hypothesis is that the submerged zone (SZ), which is placed at the bottom layer of current stormwater biofilters, could be optimized for quick digestion of high concentrations of nitrate (de-nitrification is currently the limiting step). This could be achieved by experimenting with different types of carbon additives in the SZ (electron-donors), as well as by making the SZ deeper. Phosphorus removal could be enhanced by selection of appropriate media types (e.g. engineered soils) and plant species (Read et al, 2010 and 2008). The new SZ design, optimized for TN removal, should not leach organic matter or reduce phosphorus removal (by leaching PO4). The systems may also require additional layers of engineered media (at the very bottom) to remove organics that could leach from the SZ. Question 3: What is the optimal design of biofilters for treatment of waters of different pollution strengths and flow rates within one single system? It is very likely that biofilter designs optimized for solo treatment of one water type (e.g. only for wastewater, groundwater or stormwater) will differ considerably. However, by selecting the design features that are important for treatment of one water type, but are not detrimental for treatment of the other, could be the way to construct effective hybrids. The hypothesis is also that the treatment will depend on flow rate, so each hybrid design will be developed considering the hydraulic loading rates of the source in question. Question 4: How can we operate and maintain the hybrid systems to work effectively for different water types? It is anticipated that wastewater and highly polluted groundwater should be treated in pulses, alternating between ‘application’ and resting periods. It is crucial to optimize this regime for each developed hybrid design (this should include specification of application/resting periods and application flow rates). The problems related to plant growth (weeding, competition between species, etc), clogging (both physical and biological), and break-through of pollutants (longevity of systems) have to be resolved. The key hypothesis is that the right design of filter media and species selection, with appropriate maintenance, can make systems effective for a long time. Methods The listed research questions will be answered by conducted a series of activities as discussed below: Activity 1: Wetlands for treatment of stormwater from the Coastal Plains of Western Australia In this activity we will conduct a cross system comparison of wetland systems in Perth covering a natural groundwater dominated system and a constructed system disconnected from the water table. The work will be conducted over 3.5 years by a PhD student and consist of the following tasks: Task 1.1: In both systems wetland soil and water nutrient monitoring will be complemented with process rate experiments (eg. denitrification, benthic metabolism etc) and water balance characterisation during several dry and wet periods over a 2-3 yr period. Task 1.2: Wetland metabolism will be calculated from in situ oxygen, pCO2 and CO2 flux sensors, and links between carbon and nutrient delivery and subsequent rates of metabolism and nutrient partitioning / attenuation will be made.

4

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

Task 1.3: Development and application of a wetland eco-hydrological model able to simulate vegetation response to water balance variability and associated changes in biogeochemical cycles, and validated against above data. Task 1.4: Numerical experiments to assess climate variability on wetland function, and assessment of design options to support system optimisation Activity 2: Optimization of stormwater biofilters for treatment of wastewater and polluted groundwater Task 2.1: This task will include large-scale column tests using SZ of three different depths and testing several types of electron donors. In total, 5 replicates of 3 different electron donors will be tested in ‘advanced’ columns that can have variable SZ depth; the methods used by Blecken et al, 2009a, 2009b will be employed (Figure 2). The designs will be tested for wastewater of Class A strength (TN=8-15 mg/l and TP=0.5-5 mg/l), as well as polluted groundwater (Nitrate = 30-50 mg/l) for a number of flow rates and wetting/drying regimes.

Figure 2: Design of advanced testing columns (Blecken et al, 2009b) It is very likely that new designs are not effective in removal of TP and organics (TOC, etc) thus new design features will be engineered to solve the problems. The systems may also require additional layers of engineered media (at the very bottom) to remove organics that could leach from the SZ. The study will be done in small diameter columns using novel materials (building upon the preliminary work of the authors, Bratieres et al, 2010, and Li at el, 2010). Activity 3: Development of hybrid biofilters that can treat polluted groundwater and/or wastewater during dry weather and capture/treat stormwater during wet weather. In the first instance we will select the design features that are important for treatment of one water type, but are not detrimental for treatment of the other. The treatment will very likely depend on flow rate, so each hybrid design will be developed considering the hydraulic loading rates of the source in question. Column tests will be set-up to answer these questions following procedures published in Hatt et al, 2008. We will build up to 5 replicates of new designs and optimise them under laboratory conditions for variable (i) hydraulic loadings, (ii) pollution levels, and (iii) wetting and drying regimes. The systems will also be tested for pathogens and micropollutants to examine how the selected design will perform for water recycling and stormwater harvesting. This work will be done in collaboration with Project C1. Activity 4: Testing of hybrid systems in field conditions. The hybrid system will be implemented in the field and tested to verify the laboratory findings. This will ideally be done as part of a demonstration site (as per Program D), however if this is not possible we will retrofit the Monash Car Park biofilter (the details of the system can be found in Hatt et al 2009). There is a residential block of houses in the vicinity of this biofilter and therefore the system can be used for treatment of grey water produced in this block. The

5

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

method for the system validation will also be developed by refining the validation methods developed under Projects C1a and C1. Activity 5: Development of models that can assess performance of hybrid biofilters. Starting from the mathematical algorithms that we have already developed for stormwater biofilters (Lintern et al, submitteda), we will develop a comprehensive mathematical model of hybrid system performance. This will include modelling of both hydraulics (that will be based on current model by Daly et al, 2012, Lintern et al 2012), and water treatment (Lintern et al, 2011, Lintern et al, submittedb). The data used in the laboratory studies will be used also for the model development, while the data gathered in the field will allow robust model testing and verification Activity 6: Development of operational and maintenance regimes for hybrid biofilters. It is crucial to optimize this regime for each developed hybrid design (this should include specification of application/resting periods and application flow rates) through a set of controlled laboratory studies using the same column tests as in Activity 3. For the selected designs, the pollution break-through tests will be performed using the Monash rig specifically developed for testing the longevity of stormwater filters following the procedure by Schang et al, 2010. Field testing of hydraulic conductivity over time will be done starting from the large scale field study we have done on 37 biofilters across Australia (Le Coustumer et al, 2009) Activity 7: Development of adoption guidelines that include design, maintenance, and validation specifications for muli-functional WSUD systems. All the knowledge gathered under the above 5 activities will be used to produce comprehensive industry guidelines for the new WSUD technologies, including wetlands and hybrid biofilters. We will follow the scope of FAWB adoption guidelines for stormwater biofilters (FAWB, 2009) that have been downloaded by stakeholders over 2000 times. Timetable of activities Year 1

Activities Activity 1: Wetlands for treatment of stormwater from Costal Plains of Western Australia T1:1: Site monitoring and experiments T1.2: Metabolism and nutrient attenuation T1.3: Wetland model validation T1.4: Model scenarios and optimisation Activity 2: Optimization of stormwater biofilters for treatment of wastewater and polluted groundwater; T2.1: Optimization of SZ for effective nitrogen removal from wastewater and groundwater T2.2: Designs for removal of Phosphorus and reduction of any leaching from SZ Activity 3: Development of hybrid biofilters Activity 4: Field testing Activity 5: Biofilter model development Activity 6: Development of operational and maintenance regimes Activity 7: Development of adoption guidelines

2012/13

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

10. Project Deliverables and Milestones (list quarterly, half-year or annual milestones as appropriate)

6

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE Project Deliverables

Milestone dates

3.4.1

Project planning and initiation

30 June 2014

Choice of WA study wetland systems and agreed monitoring program

31 Dec 2012

WA wetland monitoring program, initial experimental assessments and sensor deployments - phase one

31 Dec 2013

Wetland eco-hydrological model prototype

31June 2014

WA wetland monitoring program, initial experimental assessments and sensor deployments - phase two

31 Dec 2014

Wetland design scenarios

31 June 2015

3.4.2

Commence biofilter optimisation of submerged zone (SZ) for effective nitrogen removal from wastewater and groundwater

30 June 2014

3.4.3

Commence design for removal of phosphorous and reduction of leaching from SZ

30 June 2015

3.4.4

Complete biofilter optimisation for effective nitrogen removal

31st Dec 2015

3.4.5

Development of hybrid biofilters

31st Dec 2016

3.4.6

Phase one technology 'stage gate' review

31st Dec 2016

3.4.7

Field testing/ demonstration of phase one hybrid biofilters

31st July 2017

3.4.8

Specification of operational and maintenance regimes for hybrid biofilters

31st July 2017

3.4.9

Development of adoption guidelines for hybrid biofilters

31st July 2017 31st July 2017

3.4.10 Modelling algorithms for assessing system performance

11. Resources (include anticipated annual cash and inkind budget over the duration of the project) Cash Budget (apply 1.8 multiplier to staff appointments to cover on-cost and infrastructure costs) Item e.g. Post-doctoral laboratory costs etc.

Fellow,

PhD

PhD Scholarship (UWA) Operational (UWA)

Budget

of

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

$29,000

$30,000

$30,000

$15,000

$15,000

$5,000

scholarship,

PhD scholar

Post-doc in Engineering – over 3 years @ 1 FTE (Level B)

$153,526 $161,202 $169,262

Technical Help– over 2 years @ 0.1 FTE

$12,240

$12,852

Equipment and lab set up

45,000

35,000

Operating costs

$70,000

$67,500

$19,500

Travel

$10,000

$20,000

$7,000

Total

$44,000

$45,000

$325,766

$296,554

$195,762

7

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

In-kind contributions (include personnel, equipment, laboratory analyses etc.) Item e.g. Name of personnel & Institution, other inkind expenditures

Prof Ana Deletic (MU)

Year 1 (FTE) 5%

Year 2 (FTE)

Year 4 (FTE)

Year 5 (FTE)

20%

20%

20%

Dr David McCarthy (MU)

5%

5%

5%

Dr Perran Cook (MU)

10%

10%

10%

Dr Belinda Hatt (MU)

15%

15%

15%

10%

5%

5%

Dr Matthew Hipsey (UWA)

10%

5%

Year 3 (FTE)

10%

12. Risk and Risk Management (identify risks to the successful completion of the project and risk management measures adopted) Risk

Management Measures

Delay in appointment of suitable PhD candidate and commencement of WA wetland nutrient monitoring

Current international applicant already applying for UWA entry; if not successful commence monitoring in conjunction with WA Dept of Water and/or through undergraduate student projects

Damage to deployed instrumentation

Regular data download and maintenance

Insufficient validation

data

for

detailed

wetland

model

Given limited funds for data collection, study sites with historical monitoring data collection campaigns will be identified; potential to piggy-back this study on sites with active monitoring programs in place by WA Dept of Water or Water Corporation

Delay in establishment of biofiltration testing columns

We will grow plants in greenhouse right from the start to make sure that they are established well to shorten the required 6 month establishment period

Delay in field selection and implementation of hybrid systems in field

We will do our best to build the pilot system as part of selected Program D demonstration sites, but we will retrofit the system into Monash car park Biofilter if necessary (to assure that field testing happens)

Delay in model development

This will happen only if we do not gather enough data from lab and field work. So the management of the items from above will asure the management of this risk as well

8

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

Adoption Pathways 13. Linkages to other Projects (linkages to other research activities within the Program and across other Programs within the CRC)

The linkages within the Program are identified as: 

C1 - There is also strong link between Projects C1, C1b and this project. WSUD systems (such as biofilters and wetlands) are the key technology developed under both C1 and C1a projects. However while C1a is focused on development of WSUD for stormwater harvesting, and therefore is focused on pathogen and micropollutant removal, C4 is focused on nutrient removal of both polluted stormwater for Perth conditions and other sources than stormwater (groundwater and treated wastewater). C1b is crucial since it characterises stormwater that is than treated by systems developed by C1a



C2 – effluent from wastewater recovery systems could be used as input to C4’s technologies (biofilters), so the link is important



C3 – no link



C5 - in Activity 1 of C4 we will deploy continuous sensors for real-time data steams of WQ that can be linked with C5

Links with other Programs are mainly through incorporation of the models developed under this project within DAnCE4Water software package (developed in Program A) Wetland vegetation response and hydrology and metabolism will link to micro-climate (CO2 and vapour fluxes related to water balance and vegetation). This is a clear link with Project B3. There is also strong link with Project B2a (waterway protection), and flooding projects (Project 5a and 5b).

14. Linkages to Adoption Pathways activities (outline possible adoption pathways activities to disseminate and encourage industry adoption of project outputs.

Output 3.04 is utilised by consultants (engineering and design), decentralised water system technology manufacturers and service providers, urban land developers, building contractors, local and state planning authorise and water utilities. This will include the Project C4 work with Program D team on the following: U3.4.1

Initial field testing of prototype 'phase one' hybrid biofilters

U3.4.2

Initial field testing of prototype 'phase two' hybrid biofilters

U3.4.3 Commencement of adoption of validated hybrid biofilter technologies by small number of 'early adopters' The key activities will include: Demonstration projects: we support the development of demonstration sites, as a need arises for hybrid biofilters of wetlands for waterway protection in Coastal Plain cities of WA. Capacity building: we develop short courses on WSUD design and deliver them as needed across the partner cities.

9

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE

References 15. References Blecken G, Zinger Y, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Viklander M (2009a) Influence of intermittent wetting and drying conditions on heavy metal removal by stormwater biofilters, Water Research, 43(18), 4590-4598. Blecken G, Zinger Y, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Viklander M (2009b) Impact of a submerged zone and a carbon source on heavy metal removal in stormwater biofilters, Ecological Engineering, 35(5), 769-778. Bolgar, A, and Stevens M., (1999). Contamination of Australian Groundwater Systems with Nitrate. LWRRDC Occasional Paper 03/99. Bratieres K, Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Zinger Y (2008) Nutrient and sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: A large-scale design optimisation study, Water Research, 42(14), 3930-3940. Carleton, J.N., Grizzard, T.J., Godrej, A.N., Post, H.E., Lampe, L. and Kenel, P.P., (2000). Performance of a constructed wetlands in treating urban stormwater runoff. Water Environment Research, 72, 295-304. Carleton, J.N., Grizzard, T.J., Godrej, A.N., and Post, H.E., (2001). Factors affecting the performance of stormwater treatment wetlands. Water Research, 35, 1552–1562. Endreny T. (2008) Naturalizing urban watershed hydrology to mitigate urban heat-island effects, Hydrological Processes 22, 461–463 (2008) – INVITED COMMENTARY Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Deletic A (2009) Hydrologic and pollutant removal performance of biofiltration systems at the field scale, Journal of Hydrology, 365(3-4), 310-321 Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Deletic A (2008) Hydraulic and pollutant removal performance of fine media stormwater filters, Environmental Science and Technology, 42(7), 2535–2541. Kadlec, R.H. (2010). Nitrate dynamics in event-driven wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 36 (4), 503-516. Le Coustumer S, Fletcher TD, Deletic A, Barraud S, Lewis JF (2009) Hydraulic performance of biofilter systems for stormwater management: Influences of design and operation, Journal of Hydrology, 376(1-2), 16-23. Li, H. W., L. J. Sharkey, et al. (2009). "Mitigation of Impervious Surface Hydrology Using Bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 14(4): 407415 Li Y.L., D.T. McCarthy, and A. Deletic (2010) Treatment of pathogens in stormwater by antimicrobial-modified filter media, 12th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Porto Alegre/Brazil, 11-16 September 2011 Li Y., D.T. McCarthy, L. Alcasar, K. Bratieres, T.D. Fletcher, A. Deletic, (submitted) Biofilters for removal of microorganisms from urban stormwater – submitted to Water Research Lund M.A., Lavery P.S. and Froend R.F. (2001). Removing filterable reactive phosphorus from highly coloured stormwater using constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol. 44, 85-92. Middle (1996), Environmental requirements for the disposal of effluent from wastewater disposal systems, Desalination 106 (1996) 323-329 Mitchell VG, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Hatt B, McCarthy DT (2007) Achieving Multiple Benefits from Urban Stormwater Harvesting, Water Science and Technology, 55(4) 135-144. Read J, Fletcher DH, Wevill T, Deletic A (2010) Plant traits that enhance pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems, International Journal of Phytoremediation, 12(1), 34–53. Read J, Wevill T, Fletcher DH, Deletic A (2008) Variation among plant species in pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems, Water Research, 42(4-5), 893 – 902. Schang C., D. T. McCarthy, K. Bratieres and A. Deletić (2010) Expected performances and lifespan of the enviss™ stormwater treatment technologies: results of a breakthrough analysis, 12th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Porto Alegre/Brazil, 11-16 September 2011 Zinger Y, Deletic A, T.D. Fletcher, P. Breen, T. Wong (2010) A Dual-mode Biofilter System: Case study in Kfar Sava, Israel, 12th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Porto Alegre/Brazil, 11-16 September 2011

10