1 Introduction
1.1 Flow Through Permeable Porous Media
1.2 Runoff PM Load
1.3 Filtration Mechanisms
2 Objectives
3 Materials and Methods
3.1 Laboratory Rainfall Simulation
3.2 Particulate Matter (PM) Loads
3.3 XRT Analysis
3.4 Digital Image Processing
3.5 Pore Parameters
4 Results
4.1 Pore Parameters
Sample ID(a) | Street | Date of sampling | Land use |
---|---|---|---|
MI_golgi_17_ott_2016 | Via Golgi | 17/10/2016 | Residential |
MI_pascoli_21_ott_2016 | Via Pascoli | 21/10/2016 | Residential |
MI_romagna_2_nov_2016 | Viale Romagna | 2/11/2016 | Residential Mostly |
MI_zanoia_4_nov_2016 | Via Zanoia | 4/11/2016 | Residential |
4.2 Modeled Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (ksat)
Sample ID(a) | Nominal total porosity(b) ϕT,Nominal [-] | Total porosity ϕT,XRT [-] | Effective porosity ϕe [-] | Pore area mean Amean [mm2] | Pore area median Amedian [mm2] | Pore diameter mean dm, mean [mm] | Pore diameter median D50 [mm] | D30 [mm] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PA_25_A | 0.25 | 0.2025 | 0.1977 | 8.41 | 2.41 | 2.49 | 1.75 | 1.16 |
PA_25_B | 0.25 | 0.2260 | 0.2202 | 11.74 | 2.58 | 2.75 | 1.81 | 1.19 |
PA_25_C | 0.25 | 0.2130 | 0.2093 | 10.05 | 2.45 | 2.64 | 1.77 | 1.15 |
PA_25_D | 0.25 | 0.2395 | 0.2367 | 13.06 | 1.69 | 2.58 | 1.47 | 0.99 |
PA_15_A | 0.15 | 0.1344 | 0.1209 | 6.38 | 2.43 | 2.27 | 1.76 | 2.01 |
PA_15_B | 0.15 | 0.1576 | 0.1484 | 7.53 | 2.48 | 2.40 | 1.78 | 1.16 |
PA_15_C | 0.15 | 0.1370 | 0.1006 | 6.41 | 2.44 | 2.30 | 1.76 | 1.21 |
PA_20 | 0.20 | 0.2432 | 0.2472 | 12.92 | 2.46 | 2.74 | 1.77 | 1.22 |
4.3 PM Loads Characteristics
Sample ID | Effective porosity ϕe [-] | D30 [mm] | ksat modeled (m/s) |
---|---|---|---|
PA_25_A | 0.20 | 1.16 | 5.21 × 10–4 |
PA_25_B | 0.22 | 1.19 | 6.06 × 10–4 |
PA_25_C | 0.21 | 1.15 | 5.42 × 10–4 |
PA_25_D | 0.24 | 0.99 | 4.50 × 10–4 |
PA_15_A | 0.12 | 2.01 | 9.54 × 10–4 |
PA_15_B | 0.15 | 1.16 | 3.91 × 10–4 |
PA_15_C | 0.10 | 1.21 | 2.88 × 10–4 |
PA_20 | 0.25 | 1.22 | 7.12 × 10–4 |
Sample ID | d10 | d50 | d60 | d90 | U |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[μm] | [μm] | [μm] | [μm] | [-] | |
Laboratory assembled mix | 189 | 1906 | 3347 | 9593 | 18 |
MI_golgi_17_ott_2016 | 185 | 1767 | 2502 | 6794 | 13.5 |
MI_pascoli_21_ott_2016 | 75 | 1150 | 1732 | 5954 | 23.1 |
MI_romagna_2_nov_2016 | 75 | 738 | 1092 | 3862 | 14.6 |
MI_zanoia_4_nov_2016 | 89 | 524 | 715 | 1780 | 8.0 |
Sample ID | Gamma distribution | Goodness of fit(a) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
α | β | SSE | p-value | K-S | Hyp. Null(b) | |
Laboratory assembled mix | 0.59 | 6.74 | 102 | 1.0000 | 0.0909 | true |
MI_golgi_17_ott_2016 | 0.80 | 3.45 | 36.35 | 0.9448 | 0.1667 | true |
MI_pascoli_21_ott_2016 | 0.57 | 3.89 | 142.05 | 0.3874 | 0.2941 | true |
MI_romagna_2_nov_2016 | 0.56 | 2.57 | 284.39 | 0.3874 | 0.2941 | true |
MI_zanoia_4_nov_2016 | 1.09 | 0.66 | 307.97 | 0.3874 | 0.2941 | true |
4.4 Measured Particle Separation
4.5 Modeled PM Separation
Sample ID | PM fate on mass | ||
---|---|---|---|
Physical–chemical | Straining | Cake | |
PA_25_A | 8.4% | 4.2% | 87.4% |
PA_25_B | 8.5% | 4.3% | 87.1% |
PA_25_C | 8.4% | 4.2% | 87.3% |
PA_25_D | 7.6% | 3.8% | 88.6% |
PA_15_A | 11.3% | 5.6% | 83.1% |
PA_15_B | 8.4% | 4.2% | 87.4% |
PA_15_C | 8.4% | 4.2% | 87.4% |
PA_20 | 8.6% | 4.3% | 87.0% |