YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Effects of Postprocessing Decisions on Flow-Weighted Event Mean Concentrations

    Source: Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment:;2024:;Volume ( 010 ):;issue: 003::page 04024005-1
    Author:
    Edward Tiernan
    ,
    Elizabeth Fassman-Beck
    ,
    Nicholas Lombardo
    DOI: 10.1061/JSWBAY.SWENG-552
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: The sensitivity of an industry-defining stormwater quality metric, the flow-weighted event mean concentration (EMC), to nonstandardized calculation protocols was evaluated. Our objective was to explicate quantitative methods and practical aspects of obtaining EMCs and provide recommendations for minimizing bias where validation is not possible. EMCs may be generated by poststorm compositing of discrete (also known as grab) samples or by collecting flow-weighted composite samples using automated equipment. Three methodological crossroads (flow attribution, volume integration, and flow-sample resolution) were assessed for their relative impact on the flow-weighted EMC. Field monitoring campaigns produced 38 total suspended solids (TSS) pollutographs and hydrographs characterizing untreated and treated runoff that were used to generate EMCs using each available calculation scheme. Untreated runoff was collected from a parking lot and an asphalt street. Treated runoff was collected from a grassed swale system, a proprietary treatment system in series with a constructed wetland, and a permeable pavement. A combinatorial averaging method was utilized to quantify each scheme’s effect; the resultant EMC was compared against an adopted benchmark EMC. EMC outcomes from methodologies that use prior flow attribution underestimate the presumed highest accuracy benchmark EMC by 12.9% on average, regardless of the volume integration method or flow-sample resolution used. No other decision variables demonstrated a meaningful effect size. Composite sampling with autosamplers fits a prior flow-sample attribution scheme, but advanced program options can ameliorate the significant bias associated with prior flow attribution. Outcomes are meaningful for stormwater managers to reduce potential uncertainty when characterizing stormwater control measure (SCM) and collating SCM monitoring data across studies with differing sample collection methods. An open-source web application is offered for any user to conduct flow-weighted EMC calculations using the benchmark method. There are two common methods by which a water quality EMC can be generated from field monitoring data: grab sampling over the hydrograph duration with poststorm compositing, and intermittent programmed autosampling into a flow-weighted composite. The EMC is the weighted average concentration of a given pollutant in the runoff from a given storm event, which may be reported by different data collection or postprocessing methods. This paper investigated and quantified the systematic differences between these two methods based on calculation and procedural assumptions. The analysis suggests that autosamplers using default settings may underestimate the EMC by 13.7% relative to the presumed more accurate grab-sample approach. Fortunately, most autosamplers are equipped with advanced user settings that may reduce the bias compared with the benchmark method.
    • Download: (1.594Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Effects of Postprocessing Decisions on Flow-Weighted Event Mean Concentrations

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4298272
    Collections
    • Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment

    Show full item record

    contributor authorEdward Tiernan
    contributor authorElizabeth Fassman-Beck
    contributor authorNicholas Lombardo
    date accessioned2024-12-24T10:05:12Z
    date available2024-12-24T10:05:12Z
    date copyright8/1/2024 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2024
    identifier otherJSWBAY.SWENG-552.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4298272
    description abstractThe sensitivity of an industry-defining stormwater quality metric, the flow-weighted event mean concentration (EMC), to nonstandardized calculation protocols was evaluated. Our objective was to explicate quantitative methods and practical aspects of obtaining EMCs and provide recommendations for minimizing bias where validation is not possible. EMCs may be generated by poststorm compositing of discrete (also known as grab) samples or by collecting flow-weighted composite samples using automated equipment. Three methodological crossroads (flow attribution, volume integration, and flow-sample resolution) were assessed for their relative impact on the flow-weighted EMC. Field monitoring campaigns produced 38 total suspended solids (TSS) pollutographs and hydrographs characterizing untreated and treated runoff that were used to generate EMCs using each available calculation scheme. Untreated runoff was collected from a parking lot and an asphalt street. Treated runoff was collected from a grassed swale system, a proprietary treatment system in series with a constructed wetland, and a permeable pavement. A combinatorial averaging method was utilized to quantify each scheme’s effect; the resultant EMC was compared against an adopted benchmark EMC. EMC outcomes from methodologies that use prior flow attribution underestimate the presumed highest accuracy benchmark EMC by 12.9% on average, regardless of the volume integration method or flow-sample resolution used. No other decision variables demonstrated a meaningful effect size. Composite sampling with autosamplers fits a prior flow-sample attribution scheme, but advanced program options can ameliorate the significant bias associated with prior flow attribution. Outcomes are meaningful for stormwater managers to reduce potential uncertainty when characterizing stormwater control measure (SCM) and collating SCM monitoring data across studies with differing sample collection methods. An open-source web application is offered for any user to conduct flow-weighted EMC calculations using the benchmark method. There are two common methods by which a water quality EMC can be generated from field monitoring data: grab sampling over the hydrograph duration with poststorm compositing, and intermittent programmed autosampling into a flow-weighted composite. The EMC is the weighted average concentration of a given pollutant in the runoff from a given storm event, which may be reported by different data collection or postprocessing methods. This paper investigated and quantified the systematic differences between these two methods based on calculation and procedural assumptions. The analysis suggests that autosamplers using default settings may underestimate the EMC by 13.7% relative to the presumed more accurate grab-sample approach. Fortunately, most autosamplers are equipped with advanced user settings that may reduce the bias compared with the benchmark method.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleEffects of Postprocessing Decisions on Flow-Weighted Event Mean Concentrations
    typeJournal Article
    journal volume10
    journal issue3
    journal titleJournal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment
    identifier doi10.1061/JSWBAY.SWENG-552
    journal fristpage04024005-1
    journal lastpage04024005-12
    page12
    treeJournal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment:;2024:;Volume ( 010 ):;issue: 003
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian