MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3041336279 · doi:10.3133/sir20205046

Effects of stormwater runoff from selected bridge decks on conditions of water, sediment, and biological quality in receiving waters in South Carolina, 2013 to 2018

2020· article· en· W3041336279 sur OpenAlexaff
Celeste A. Journey, Matthew D. Petkewich, Kevin J. Conlon, Andral W. Caldwell, Jimmy M. Clark, Jeffrey W. Riley, Paul M. Bradley

Notice bibliographique

RevueScientific investigations report · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Établissements canadiensTransport Canada
Organismes subventionnairesU.S. Geological SurveySouth Carolina Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
Mots-clésSurface runoffHydrology (agriculture)StormwaterEnvironmental scienceGeological surveyTransectWater qualitySedimentSouth carolinaGeologyOceanographyEcologyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

First posted July 8, 2020 For additional information, contact: Director, South Atlantic Water Science CenterU.S. Geological Survey 720 Gracern RoadColumbia, SC 29210Contact Pubs Warehouse The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation, investigated the effects of stormwater runoff from bridge decks on stream water quality conditions in South Carolina. The investigation assessed 5 bridges in 3 physiographic provinces in South Carolina (Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain, and Lower Coast Plain) that had a range of bridge, traffic, and hydrologic characteristics. The five selected South Carolina bridge sites (coincident with U.S. Geological Survey stations) and corresponding highways were Lynches River at Effingham (station 02132000; U.S. Highway 52), North Fork Edisto River at Orangeburg (station 02173500; U.S. Highway 301), Turkey Creek above Huger (station 02172035; South Carolina Highway 41), South Fork Edisto River near Denmark (station 02173000; U.S. Highway 321), and Fishing Creek at Highway 5 below York (station 021473415; South Carolina Highway 5). Bridge decks at the selected sites used open chutes, scuppers, and downspouts to drain stormwater directly into the receiving water at evenly spaced intervals.Stream water, sediment, and biological samples were collected and analyzed for a variety of constituents to evaluate the stream conditions for this study. Five to six stream samples were collected at transects upstream and downstream from each selected bridge site using the equal-width-increment technique during observable stormwater runoff. Routine samples of the receiving waters were collected 12 to 14 times at the upstream transect during nonstorm conditions. Samples were analyzed for physical properties, suspended sediment, nutrients, major ions, trace metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and Escherichia coli. Bridge-deck sediment and streambed sediment at upstream and downstream transects were collected once at each bridge site and analyzed for metals and semivolatile organic compounds that include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Benthic macroinvertebrate community surveys were conducted once using Hester-Dendy multiplate artificial substrate samplers deployed at multiple upstream and downstream transects concurrently.Statistical analysis of the water-quality data determined that stormwater runoff from bridges did not significantly degrade physical properties, nor nutrient, trace-metal, Escherichia coli, and suspended-sediment concentrations at the selected sites beyond the variability at the upstream transect (no bridge influence) during the study period. During storm sampling at the bridge sites, water-quality conditions were statistically similar upstream and downstream from each bridge, except for greater turbidity, total nitrogen, and total organic nitrogen plus ammonia concentrations found downstream from the bridge site on Fishing Creek; higher total chromium concentrations detected downstream from the bridge site on Turkey Creek; and increased Escherichia coli concentrations found downstream from the bridge site on the North Fork Edisto River. Total recoverable lead, cadmium, and copper concentrations were the only trace metals that periodically exceeded the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control freshwater aquatic-life criteria at some bridge sites (lead, copper, and cadmium in Turkey Creek; cadmium and lead in Fishing Creek; lead in the South Fork Edisto River and Lynches River), but the exceedances occurred more frequently during routine sampling upstream from the bridge sites than during storm sampling at upstream and downstream transects. In general, stormwater runoff from the bridge decks did not seem to be the major source of metal enrichment in receiving waters during the study period. North Fork and South Fork Edisto Rivers and Turkey Creek had only one storm sample that exceeded South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control recreational criterion for Escherichia coli at both the upstream and downstream locations, while Fishing Creek had more frequent exceedances. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were detected infrequently in the stream samples.In general, sediment trace-metal concentrations were below the threshold and probable effect concentration at all bridge sites, except for the chromium concentration (45.1 milligrams per kilogram) detected upstream from the bridge site on Fishing Creek that exceeded the threshold effect concentration of 43.4 milligrams per kilogram. Based on enrichment ratios less than 1.5, bridge-deck runoff did not seem to be affecting trace-metal accumulation in the streambed sediment downstream from the bridge sites, except for lead at the bridge site on the Lynches River and manganese at the bridge site on Fishing Creek.Individual polycyclic aromatic compound concentrations and the sum of 18 compounds did not exceed any threshold and probable effect concentrations, indicating polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the streambed sediment at downstream and upstream transects were not likely to affect the health of benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Although the cumulative polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in downstream sediment at the sites on Turkey and Fishing Creeks were well below the threshold effect concentration of 1,610 micrograms per kilogram, the 3- to 100-fold increase in downstream concentrations indicated a strong probability of a bridge-deck runoff source.Overall, benthic macroinvertebrate community health downstream from the bridge sites did not seem to be affected by bridge-deck runoff based on several multivariate analyses that indicated statistically similar benthic macroinvertebrate communities at upstream and downstream transects. Of the five bridge sites in this study, the site on Turkey Creek seemed to have the least healthy benthic macroinvertebrate communities because of the lowest Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera spp. (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies, respectively) taxa, species richness, and diversity; and the highest biotic indices, indicative of poorer ecological health, at upstream and downstream transects. This ecological finding was not unexpected because of seasonal periods of negligible flow when dissolved-oxygen concentrations fell below 4 milligrams per liter during the study period. Of the five bridge sites in this study, the site on the South Fork Edisto River seemed to have healthier benthic macroinvertebrate communities because of the greater mean Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera spp. taxa; and lower mean biotic indices at upstream and downstream transects.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,275
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,521

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScientific investigations reportMême sujetUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsTravaux en français237 207