Solids Removal E A Peri-Urban Catchment: Sustainability

sustainability
Article
Solids Removal Efficiency of a Sedimentation Tank in
a Peri-Urban Catchment
Salvatore Falco 1 , Giuseppe Brunetti 2 , Giovanna Grossi 3, * , Mario Maiolo 4 ,
Michele Turco 1 and Patrizia Piro 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy;
salvatore.falco@sigmawater.it (S.F.); michele.turco@unical.it (M.T.); patrizia.piro@unical.it (P.P.)
2 Institute for Soil Physics and Rural Water Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
1190 Vienna, Austria; Giuseppe.brunetti@boku.ac.at
3 Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering, and Mathematics—University of Brescia,
25123 Brescia, Italy
4 Department of Environment Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy; mario.maiolo@unical.it
* Correspondence: giovanna.grossi@unibs.it

Received: 5 August 2020; Accepted: 31 August 2020; Published: 3 September 2020
Abstract: At the outlet of the Vermicelli catchment—a peri-urban area located in the campus of
University of Calabria (Cosenza, Southern Italy)—a sedimentation tank is located, aiming at collecting
the basin surface runoff and improve its quality. First, experimental results of the treatment effects
are here presented and analyzed. In addition, a monitoring campaign was conducted in order to
characterize the particles transported by surface runoff and to determine the treatment efficiency of the
tank. The analysis showed the presence of a pollutant load in the surface runoff of the Vermicelli basin
and provided information on its particle-size distribution (PSD). Results were considered in terms of
the treatment efficiency of the sedimentation tank, showing a good overall removal efficiency value,
together with a high variability of the removal sedimentation efficiency. This variability is mainly
due to the different grain size of the suspended solids and the characteristics of the rainfall event.
Keywords: urban drainage; sedimentation tanks; surface runoff pollution
1. Introduction
Hydrological processes occurring in a watershed affect the quality and quantity of water conveyed
at its outlet as runoff. In fact, surface runoff generated by the rain falling on the ground mobilizes solid
particles and transports them downstream. According to the local climate and land cover characteristics,
transported solid particles may consist of pollutants or be associated with pollutants and may raise
quality and quantity issues in the lower part of the basin, where solid particles more easily settle.
In addition, sediment transport could be a big issue in natural rivers, altering their geomorphology [1].
This is, namely an important topic in the field of environmental protection and for the protection
of the receiving water bodies, often involving a proper treatment and management plan of the solid
transport of rivers and creeks, besides those crossing urban areas.
Urbanization affects the development of urban drainage systems, as in urban environment the
ongoing surface sealing produces a constant loss of natural areas with drastic effects following a storm,
both in terms of runoff quantity and of its quality [2–7].The direct consequence is the excessive growth
of the size of the sewer pipes and devices, as well as of the water discharge conveyed first to the
treatment plants and then to the unloaded receiving waters.
In urban areas the different land use activities and the degree of waterproofing can produce
different categories of pollutants and different surface runoff volumes. On average an increase in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7196; doi:10.3390/su12177196 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7196 2 of 14
runoff volumes and a decrease in the number and size of mobilized particles is to be expected.
On the other hand, polluted stormwater may reach the receiving body in a few drainage ditches
rather than continuously along the side of the receiving body. Urban runoff may then contain high
concentrations of pollutants. Therefore, dealing with urban drainage system management, it is crucial
to control the concentration of total suspended solids, especially in the early parts of runoff where
the pollutant concentration is expected to be the highest. In fact, the negative impact of the polluted
stormwater can be mitigated by inline storages and subsequent treatment devices [8–12], which may
also include constructed wetlands aiming at restoring ecosystem services [13].
Providing distributed stormwater control measures throughout the catchment, made of several
first treatment tanks for stormwater close to vast paved areas, increases more generally the sustainability
of water management, especially in view of various forms of reuse. In this perspective, it is useful to
experiment these tanks technologically and to analyze their efficiency. This issue is properly accounted
for in the general context of sustainable water management and in more specific Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA), in terms of potential control of contamination risks and the different possibilities of reuse
of water [14–19].
Flush stormwater tanks are storage devices designed to accommodate and retain the first portion
of stormwater. They are undoubtedly among the best solutions aiming at reducing mostly particulate
pollutants in stormwaters, which may also be a vector of other inorganic pollutants such as heavy
metals. These works are traditional treatment systems, installed in urban environment to reduce the
concentration of pollutants, such as particulate matter (PM), nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and
heavy metals [20,21] through the sedimentation process. The hydraulic and PM loadings of these
systems are highly variable, and their effectiveness depends largely upon catchment characteristics,
such as land use, traffic activity and rainfall events [22]. Other uncertainties for the evaluation of
the efficiency of storage removal concern the nature of the pollutants diluted and transported by the
stormwater and the spatial and temporal variability of their concentration inside the tank. In fact,
several scientific studies have already shown that the pollutant load is influenced by numerous
chemical, physical and biologic factors [23–25].
In order to characterize the pollutants, the particle-size distribution (PSD) must be analyzed.
Therefore, information about influent PM PSD is useful for defining which treatment (physical or
chemical) is the most effective one for removing targeted pollutants [26]. To mitigate PM inflows into
receiving water bodies, Unit Operations (UOs) are utilized to separate PM from stormwater, primarily
by discrete particle Type I sedimentation [27,28].
A case study is here presented that demonstrates the efficacy of a treatment system when it is
applied to surface runoff produced in a catchment that is roughly 25% urbanized, with the remainder
natural. The experimental water treatment plant is located at the outlet of the Vermicelli catchment of
28 ha on the campus of University of Calabria (Figure 1).The samples of water taken during the tests
were used to define the particle-size distribution (PSD) and to determine the concentration and the
mass of the total suspended solid (TSS). This analysis aimed at checking the performance of single
components of the treatment plant for each considered storm, as well as at characterizing the overall
performance of the system regardless of the removal process.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Vermicelli catchment (CS,
Vermicelli catchment (CS, Southern
Southern Italy).
Italy).
2. Experimental Facility and Procedure
2.1. Case Study

2.1. Case Study Description
Description
The
The Vermicelli
Vermicelli basin
basin (University
(University of of Calabria)
Calabria) covers
covers about
about 2828 ha.
ha. The
The drainage
drainage area
area consists
consists of
of
natural area for the 74% and urbanized area for the 26%. Average height of the
natural area for the 74% and urbanized area for the 26%. Average height of the catchment is 252 mcatchment is 252 m ASL,
between
ASL, between272 m272ASLm(maximum
ASL (maximum height)height)
and 210and m ASL
210 m(closing section of
ASL (closing the catchment).
section The average
of the catchment). The
slope
average is 2.4%;
slope the length
is 2.4%; theoflength
the main reach
of the mainis 919
reachm.is 919 m.
The
The experimental water treatment
experimental water treatment plant
plant isis located
located atat the
the closure
closure section
section of
of the
the catchment
catchment and and
consists
consists ofof aa sedimentation
sedimentation tanktank and
and aa filtration
filtration unit: surface water
unit: surface water coming
coming intointo the
the plant
plant isis treated
treated
first
first by
by the
the sedimentation
sedimentation tanktank and
and subsequently
subsequently by by the
the filtration
filtration unit.
unit.
The sedimentation tank is responsible for the
The sedimentation tank is responsible for the treatment treatment of of
thethe
coarse
coarse particles transported
particles transported by the
by
stormwater.
the stormwater. The filtration unit carries
The filtration out theout
unit carries taskthe
of retaining particles particles
task of retaining of lower dimension (diameter
of lower dimension
<20 µm) [29].
(diameter <20 The
µm)outline of the
[29]. The experimental
outline apparatus apparatus
of the experimental is shown inisFigure
shown2.inIts elements
Figure 2. Itsare:
elements
are:
1. Stormwater splitter. The first portion of drained stormwater goes to the plant through a rectangular
weir of 7 cm height, while the excess flow continues towards the Vermicelli stream. The cockpit
has a slope towards the plant of 1%.
2. Floodgate. The outflow to the plant is regulated by bulkhead.
3. Venturi tube. It performs the measurement of the flow rates entering the plant. The measurable
range is between 0.55 L/s and 17.27 L/s.
4. Sedimentation tank. It is a rectangular basin (size 2.5 × 2.5 × 10 m). Its internal shape consists of
sloping internal surfaces at corners and along the entire basic perimeter, is such as to avoid the
concentrated accumulation of sedimented solids. In the sedimentation tank, sedimentation of
the coarsest particles occurs. These are predominantly inorganic and ether-dispersed particulate
matter (PM), having a diameter between 0.01 and 10,000 µm [30]. The main mechanism responsible
for the removal of solid particles within the sedimentation tank is the sedimentation process
of Type I [31]: solid particles follow independent trajectories and do not interact with each
other. The sedimentation tank is equipped with an optimized system for draining and cleaning.
This system consists of a drain pump (6) and a hydroejector (7).
5. Filtration unit. The outflow from the sedimentation tank reaches the filtration unit through small
ducts, in order to obtain a uniform distribution throughout the length of the filtering system.
Figure 2. Overhead view of the experimental facility.

Figure 1. Vermicelli catchment (CS, Southern Italy).
2. Experimental Facility and Procedure
2.1. Case Study Description

The Vermicelli basin (University of Calabria) covers about 28 ha. The drainage area consists of
natural area for the 74% and urbanized area for the 26%. Average height of the catchment is 252 m
The filtration unit is divided into three rectangular compartments (110 cm × 410 cm), in which the
ASL, between 272 m ASL (maximum height) and 210 m ASL (closing section of the catchment). The
filter packages are housed. The flow passes through the filter and flows towards the Vermicelli
average slope is 2.4%; the length of the main reach is 919 m.
Creek. The filtration layer is divided into two parts: the first part is made of a layer of polyurethane,
The experimental water treatment plant is located at the closure section of the catchment and
2.5 cm thick; the second part is made of a layer of crushed olive stones. The polyurethane layer
consists of a sedimentation tank and a filtration unit: surface water coming into the plant is treated
is used to block lightweight coarse material escaping the previous sedimentation treatment;
first by the sedimentation tank and subsequently by the filtration unit.
the second layer filters the smaller particles. Recent studies [32] proved that this filtering system
The sedimentation tank is responsible for the treatment of the coarse particles transported by
is able to discharge high flows, still keeping the filter width fairly high and hence enhancing the
the stormwater. The filtration unit carries out the task of retaining particles of lower dimension
removal efficiency potential.
(diameter <20 µm) [29]. The outline of the experimental apparatus is shown in Figure 2. Its elements
are:
Figure 2. Overhead view of the experimental facility.

facility.
The layout of the treatment facilities was chosen according to the orography of the landscape, which is
characterized, in this particular case, by considerable slopes and jumps in altitude. Therefore, a sharp turn
in the flow direction was unavoidable between the conveyance channel and the Venturi tube and this
abrupt change may induce turbulence. Further insights in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics are
needed to describe in more detail this phenomenon.
2.2. Experimental Campaign

Studies carried out on the plant concerned the qualitative and quantitative analysis of surface waters
of the Vermicelli basin arriving at the plant and treated by the first flush tank with sedimentation effect.
The analyses were conducted through a planned monitoring campaign (Table 1).
Table 1. Rainfall events characteristics during the experimental campaign.
Monitoring Experiment
Rainfall Characteristics
Test ID Date V imax d
(mm) (mm/h) (h)
A 4 February 2016 1.78 15.24 1.75
B 3 March 2016 7.36 60.96 2.66
C 15 March 2016 5.35 30.48 1.83
The water samples were taken in the inlet and the outlet sections of the sedimentation tank.
2.3. Precipitation Analysis

A preliminary precipitation analysis was carried out to hydrologically characterize the
catchment. Besides a two-year-long precipitation time series, starting on 1 January 2015 and
ending on 31 December 2016, was selected for the analysis. The precipitation data were recorded
every 1 min by a tipping-bucket rain gauge with a resolution of 0.254 mm and simultaneously saved
on a hardware placed on site. Rain data were preprocessed for the identification of missing data
and outliers and stored in an SQLite database for fast querying and analysis. The hydrological
characterization of the recorded time series of observations was carried out in Python language.
In particular, the duration, the peak and the total volume of single rainfall events were extracted.
A Minimum Inter Event time of 3 h was adopted to identify independent events. Only precipitation
events with a total volume higher than 5 mm were considered in the following analysis.
2.4. TSS Efficiency Evaluation

Total suspended solid (TSS) analysis was performed through the filtration test, with which the
concentration of TSS (mg/L) for each tested sample was calculated.
It was then possible to determine the mass of TSS (1).
n
X
MTSS = TSSi Vi (1)
i=1 M
TSSi represents the concentration of total suspended solids in the volume Vi . The relationship
(1) can be used to calculate: the mass of total suspended solids in the rainwater incoming into
the sedimentation tank Mi,TSS ; the mass of total suspended solids in the rainwater outgoing from
the sedimentation tank Mout,TSS ; the mass of total suspended solids in the rainwater caught by the
sedimentation tank Mc,TSS .
After the mass was calculated, it was possible to determine the overall, catch and sedimentation
removal efficiency of the sedimentation tank (2)–(4).
Mi,TSS − Mout,TSS
EO = (2)
Mi,TSS
Mi,,TSS − Mc,TSS
EC = 1 − (3)
Mi,TSS
ES = EO − EC (4)
EO represents the overall removal efficiency; EC represents the catch removal efficiency;
ES represents the sedimentation removal efficiency.
2.5. Particle-Size Distribution (PSD) through Malvern Mastersize 3000

PSD measurements were performed using the Malvern Mastersize 3000 instrument using laser
diffraction technique (LD).
In a laser diffraction measurement, a laser beam passes through a dispersed particulate sample
and the angular variation in intensity of the scattered light is measured. Large particles scatter light at
small angles relative to the laser beam, while small particles scatter light at large angles. The angular
scattering intensity data are then analyzed to calculate the size of the particles that created the scattering
pattern using the Mie theory of light scattering. The particle size is reported as a volume equivalent
sphere diameter.
The patented folded optical design in the Mastersizer 3000 provides an impressive particle size
range from 10 nm up to 3.5 mm using a single optical measurement path. The Mastersizer 3000 uses
a sequential combination of measurements with red and blue light sources to measure across the
entire particle size range. Measurement of large particulates is provided by an advanced focal plane
detector design able to resolve exceedingly small diffraction angles. Sensitivity to sub-100 nm particles,
scattering light at wide angles, is achieved using advanced optics and a powerful 10 mW solid state
blue light source.
On the basis of the measured PSD, characteristic values d50 and d90 were easily estimated.
The methodological approach is summarized in Figure 3.
Figure
Figure 3. 3.Methodological
Methodologicalapproach.
approach.
3.3.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion
3.1.
3.1.Precipitation
PrecipitationAnalysis
Analysis
Precipitation
Precipitation recorded
recordedduring
during thethe
analyzed
analyzedperiod
periodis plotted in Figure
is plotted 4. At
in Figure 4. aAtfirst inspection,
a first it is it
inspection,
evident how the precipitation pattern exhibited a significant seasonality. While
is evident how the precipitation pattern exhibited a significant seasonality. While the winter monthsthe winter months
were
werecharacterized
characterizedbybyfrequent
frequentprecipitation
precipitationevents,
events,thethesummer
summermonths
monthswereweregenerally
generallydrier
drierwith
with
only
only a few isolated precipitation events. This behavior is typical of a semi-arid Mediterraneanclimate,
a few isolated precipitation events. This behavior is typical of a semi-arid Mediterranean climate,
which
whichisischaracterized
characterizedbybywet wetwinters
wintersandandprolonged
prolongeddrought
droughtperiods
periodsduring
duringsummer.
summer.The Thetotal
total
precipitation recorded during the analyzed period (2 years) was 2600 mm, a significant
precipitation recorded during the analyzed period (2 years) was 2600 mm, a significant amount for amount for the
site.
theItsite.
mustIt be
mustemphasized that some
be emphasized thatuncertainties may arise
some uncertainties may during
arise the measurement
during of very intense
the measurement of very
precipitation (e.g., precipitation intensity >150 mm/h), for which the tipping-bucket
intense precipitation (e.g., precipitation intensity >150 mm/h), for which the tipping-bucket rain gauge couldrain
introduce
gauge couldbias in the measure
introduce bias itself.
in theInmeasure
such circumstances,
itself. In such thecircumstances,
precipitation amount could be slightly
the precipitation amount
overestimated
could be slightlyor underestimated.
overestimated or underestimated.
Figure 4. Time-series of observed precipitation for the analyzed period.

Figure 4. Time-series of observed precipitation for the analyzed period.
The analysis of the Figure 4. Time-series of
precipitation observed
time seriesprecipitation
led to the for the analyzed period.
identification of 107 independent
Theevents.
rainfall analysisResults
of the precipitation
are reported time series5,led
in Figure intowhich
the identification
a box plot for of 107
eachindependent rainfall
variable of interest
events. The analysis
Results are of the precipitation
reported in Figure 5, time
in series aled
which boxto the
plotidentification
for each of 107 independent
variable of interest rainfall
(i.e., peak
(i.e., peak intensity, duration and volume) was used to summarize the statistics of the analyzed sample.
events. Results are reported in Figure 5, in which a box plot for each variable of interest (i.e., peak
intensity,
The average duration
peak and volume)
intensity was used to summarize the statistics of the analyzed sample. The
intensity, duration and(quadrangle
volume) wasinused the to
leftsummarize
plot) was the 49.7statistics
mm/h, of while the 75th percentile
the analyzed sample. Thewas
average
61 mm/h. peak
The intensity
average (quadrangle
duration in the left
and volume wereplot)
574was
min 49.7 mm/h, while the 75th percentile was 61
average peak intensity (quadrangle in the left plot) wasand 49.721.9
mm/h, mm, respectively.
while A comprehensive
the 75th percentile was 61
mm/h.
analysis The
mm/h. average
of theThemain duration
statistics
average and
duration volume
of the
andsample were
volume were 574
is shown min and
in Table
574 min 21.9
and 21.9 mm,
2. mm, respectively.
Interestingly,
respectively.only A comprehensive
8 rainfall events
A comprehensive
analysis of the of
were subhourly.
analysis main
the statistics
However,
main of the
it must
statistics ofbesample
the is shown
emphasized
sample ininsubhourly
that
is shown Table
Table2.2. Interestingly,
events were
Interestingly, only 8 8rainfall
rainfall
characterized
only events
by an
events
were subhourly.
were However,
subhourly. However,it must
it be
must emphasized
be emphasized that
that subhourly
subhourly events
events
average peak of 68.5 mm/h, which is significantly higher than the average value of the whole sample were
were characterized
characterized by by
an an
average peak
average
(i.e., 49.7 mm/h). of 68.5
peak ofmm/h,
68.5 which
mm/h, is
which significantly
is significantly higher
higher than
than the
the average
average value
value of
of the
the whole
whole sample
sample
(i.e.,
(i.e., 49.7 49.7 mm/h).
mm/h).
Figure 5. Boxplots of the main statistics for independent rain events.

Figure 5. Boxplots of the main statistics for independent rain events.
Table 2. Main statistics calculated starting from the independent rain events.
Table 5.
Figure 2. Boxplots
Main statistics calculated
of the starting for
main statistics from the independent
independent rainrain events.
events.
Peak Duration Volume
Statistics Peak Duration Volume
calculated (mm/h)
Statistics
Table 2. Main statistics starting
(mm/h)from
(minutes) (mm) rain events.
the independent
(minutes) (mm)
Average
Average 49.7
49.7 Duration574
574 21.9
21.9
Standard deviation Peak
41.2 600 Volume
20.5
Statistics
Standard deviation 41.2 600 20.5
Minimum (mm/h)
15.24 (minutes)
15 (mm)
5.08
Minimum
Percentile 15.24 15 5.08
Average25% 15.24
49.7 201
574 7.75
21.9
Percentile
Percentile 50% 25% 15.24
30.48 201
409 7.75
14.73
Standard deviation
Percentile 50% 41.2
30.48 600
409 20.5
14.73
Percentile 75% 60.96 752 28.57
Minimum
Maximum 15.24
213.36 15
3817 5.08
118.6
Percentile 25% 15.24 201 7.75
Percentile 50% 30.48 409 14.73
3.2.1. Test A
Figure 6 shows the TSS inflow into and outflow from the sedimentation tank with the water flow
entering the2020,
Sustainability plant.
12, 7196 8 of 14
The TSS concentration measured in the rainwater flowing into the sedimentation tank showed
a maximum value of approximately 450 mg/L, during the first moments of runoff. Later, the value
remained constant with concentrations below 100 mg/L. The high value of TSS in the first moments
of runoff
3.2.1. Testwere
A probably due to the first flush phenomenon while the TSS concentration measured in
the water outflowing from the sedimentation tank was constant and lower than 50 mg/L.
Figure
The 6 shows
water flow the TSSsedimentation
to the inflow into and outflow
tank from the
was always sedimentation
higher than 2 L/stank
withwith
the the
peakwater
valueflow
of
entering
7.62 L/s. the plant.
Totalsuspended
Figure6.6.Total
Figure suspendedsolid
solid(TSS)
(TSS)inflow
inflowand
andoutflow
outflowfor
forthe
theevent
event of
of Test
Test A.
A.
Theoverall
The TSS concentration
efficiency ofmeasured
removingin the
the rainwater
pollutant flowing
was into catch
84%, with the sedimentation tank showed
removal efficiency of 83%
a maximum value of approximately
and sedimentation removal efficiency of 1%. 450 mg/L, during the first moments of runoff. Later, the value
remained constant with
The removal concentrations
sedimentation below 100
efficiency mg/L.
was The highlow:
extremely valueprobably
of TSS in the
the first moments
runoff to theof
runoff were probably due to the first flush phenomenon while the TSS concentration
sedimentation tank triggered particle resuspending motions when the sedimentation tank reached measured in the
water
the outflowing
maximum from
degree ofthe sedimentation tank was constant and lower than 50 mg/L.
filling.
The water flow to the sedimentation tank was always higher than 2 L/s with the peak value of 7.62 L/s.
3.2.2. The
Testoverall
B efficiency of removing the pollutant was 84%, with catch removal efficiency of 83%
and sedimentation removal efficiency of 1%.
The removal sedimentation efficiency was extremely low: probably the runoff to the sedimentation
entering the plant.
tank triggered particle resuspending motions when the sedimentation tank reached the maximum
degree of filling.
3.2.2. Test B
entering the plant.
The TSS concentration measured in the rainwater flowing into the sedimentation tank showed a
maximum value of approximately 800 mg/L, during the first instants of runoff. Then it had a further
peak value of 400 mg/L. These two peak values were probably due to the first flush phenomenon and
to the sand deposit in the sewerage.
Afterwards, the value remained constant with concentrations below 100 mg/L.
In contrast, the TSS concentration measured in the water out of the sedimentation tank was
constant and lower than 100 mg/L.
The water flow to the sedimentation tank showed peak values included between 8 and 10 L/s.
The overall efficiency of removing the pollutant was 77%, with a catch removal efficiency of 55%
This test showed an improvement in the sedimentation efficiency when compared to the previous
Sustainability
one. Likely, 2020,
this12,efficiency
x FOR PEERvalue
REVIEW
was
due to a bigger particle size of suspended solids. 9 of 14
Figure 7. TSS inflow and outflow for the event of Test B.
a maximum value of approximately 800 mg/L, during the first instants of runoff. Then it had a further
peak value of 400 mg/L. These two peak values were probably due to the first flush phenomenon and
to the sand deposit in the sewerage.
This test showed an improvement in the sedimentation efficiency when compared to the
Figure
previous one. Likely, thisFigure 7.7.TSS
efficiency TSSinflow
inflow
value and outflow
anddue
was to afor
outflow forthe
theevent
bigger eventofofTest
particle TestB.
sizeB.of suspended solids.
3.2.3. Test C
3.2.3.The TSS
Test C concentration measured in the rainwater flowing into the sedimentation tank showed
a maximum
Figure value of approximately
8 relates the TSS inflow 800
intomg/L, duringfrom
and outflow the first
the instants of runoff.
sedimentation Then
tank withitthe
hadwater
a further
flow
peak Figureof8400
value relates
mg/L.theThese
TSS two
inflow into
peak and were
values outflow from the
probably duesedimentation
to the first tank
flush with the water
phenomenon and
entering the plant.
flow
to the entering the plant.
sand deposit in the sewerage.
This test showed an improvement in the sedimentation efficiency when compared to the
previous one. Likely, this efficiency value was due to a bigger particle size of suspended solids.
3.2.3. Test C
Figure 8 relates the TSS inflow into and outflow from the sedimentation tank with the water
flow entering the plant.
Figure 8. TSS inflow and outflow for the event of Test C.
The TSS concentration measured in the rainwater flowing into the sedimentation tank showed a
maximum value approximately of 52 mg/L, during the first instants of runoff and a subsequent peak
value about 20 mg/L.
constant and less than 5 mg/L.
The water flow to the sedimentation tank showed a constant value of 0.5 L/s.
a maximum value approximately of 52 mg/L, during the first instants of runoff and a subsequent
peak value about 20 mg/L.
Sustainability
constant 2020, 12, 7196
and less than 5 mg/L. 10 of 14
The water flow to the sedimentation tank showed a constant value of 0.5 L/s.
The overall efficiency of removing the pollutant was 91%. In this test the sedimentation tank was
The overall efficiency of removing the pollutant was 91%. In this test the sedimentation tank was
full before the rain event. Therefore, the removal efficiency was due solely to the sedimentation
full before the rain event. Therefore, the removal efficiency was due solely to the sedimentation process.
process.
3.3. Particle-Size Distribution Curves
3.3. Particle-Size Distribution Curves
3.3.1. Test A
3.3.1. Test A
In Figure 9 the particle-size distribution (PSD) curves for inflow to and outflow from the
sedimentation tank are plotted.
Figure9.9.Inflow
Figure Inflowand
andoutflow
outflow particle-size distribution(PSD)
particle-size distribution (PSD)for
forthe
theevent
eventofof Test
Test A.A.
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d of 27 µm and a characteristic diameter d d90ofof200
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter50d50 of 27 µm and a characteristic diameter90 200
µm.
The outlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 8.68 µm and a characteristic diameter d90
µm.
of 29 µm.
The outlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 8.68 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of
29 µm.
3.3.2. Test B
3.3.2.
In Test
Figure B 10 the particle-size distribution (PSD) curves for inflow to and outflow from the
Sustainability 2020,
sedimentation 12, xare
tank FORplotted.
PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Figure 10. Inflow and outflow PSD for the event of Test B.
Figure 10. Inflow and outflow PSD for the event of Test B.
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 32 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 400
µm.
The outlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 46 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 150
µm.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7196 Figure 10. Inflow and outflow PSD for the event of Test B. 11 of 14
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 32 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 400
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 32 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 400 µm.
µm.
The outlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 46 µm and a characteristic diameter d90
The outlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 46 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 150
of 150 µm.
µm.
3.3.3. Test C
3.3.3. Test C
In Figure tank
sedimentation 11 the
areparticle-size
plotted distribution (PSD) curves for inflow to and outflow from the
sedimentation tank are plotted
Figure 11. Inflow and outflow PSD for the event of Test C.
Figure 11. Inflow and outflow PSD for the event of Test C.
The inlet PSD had a characteristic diameter d50 of 30 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 240 µm.
The inlet
The outletPSDPSD had
hada characteristic diameter
a characteristic diameterd50dof 30 µm and a characteristic diameter d90 of 240
50 of 16.4 µm and a characteristic diameter d90
µm.
of 54 µm.
The comparison
The outlet PSD had a characteristic
of the diameter d50
examined characteristic of 16.4 µm
diameters and a the
outlines characteristic diameter d90 of
following features:
54 µm.
•Sustainability
Minimum 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
The comparison variability
of theofexamined
the characteristic diameter
characteristic d50 measured
diameters outlinesinthe
thefollowing
inlet section 12 of 14
(Figure
features: 12);
• Greater variability of the characteristic diameter d50 measured in the outlet section (Figure 12);
• Minimum variability of the characteristic diameter d50 measured in the inlet section (Figure 12);
•• Lower
Greatervariability
variabilityofofthethecharacteristic
characteristicdiameter
diameterd90d50measured
measuredininthe
theoutlet
outletsection
section(Figure
(Figure13);
12);
•• Greater
Lower variability of the characteristic diameter d9090measured in the outlet section (Figure 13).
variability of the characteristic diameter d measured in the inlet section (Figure 13);
• Greater variability of the characteristic diameter d90 measured in the inlet section (Figure 13).
Figure 12. Statistical analysis for d50.


More specifically, the main findings of this work are:
More specifically, the main findings of this work are:
• The overall efficiency of the treatment facilities ranged from 77% to 91% reaching the highest
• The overall efficiency of the treatment facilities ranged from 77% to 91% reaching the highest
value when the sedimentation tank was full and only sedimentation processes occurred;
value when the sedimentation tank was full and only sedimentation processes occurred;
• Results obtained from three different tests showed overall a high removal efficiency value,
• Results obtained from three different tests showed overall a high removal efficiency value, but
but different values of the sedimentation removal efficiency;
different values of the sedimentation removal efficiency;
• The diameter characteristics had an influence on the overall efficiency and on the type of treatment
• The diameter characteristics had an influence on the overall efficiency and on the type of
process that took place in the treatment unit.
treatment process that took place in the treatment unit.
Considering this
Considering this work
work represents
represents aa case
case study
study with
with experimental
experimental results,
results, further
further investigations
investigations
regarding the turbulence processes that are triggered within the treatment units by use of
regarding the turbulence processes that are triggered within the treatment units by use of computational
computational fluid dynamics analysis (CFD) and numeric
fluid dynamics analysis (CFD) and numeric modeling are needed. modeling are needed.
4. Conclusions
In this paper,
paper, first
first results
resultsofofthe
theexperimental
experimentalsitesitelocated
locatedinin
the Vermicelli
the Vermicellibasin
basin(University
(Universityof
Calabria
of Calabriacampus,
campus, Cosenza,
Cosenza, Southern
SouthernItaly)
Italy)are
arepresented.
presented.TheyTheywere
wereobtained
obtained by
by analyzing the
treatment of
treatment of surface
surfacerunoff
runoffthrough
throughthe thesedimentation
sedimentationtank.
tank.AAmonitoring
monitoring campaign
campaign was
was conducted
conducted in
in order
order to characterize
to characterize the the particles
particles transported
transported bydrainage
by the the drainage system
system to determine
to determine the efficiency
the efficiency of the
of the treatment
treatment of the sedimentation
of the sedimentation tank. tank.
were carried
Tests were carried out out to
to define
define the
the particle-size
particle-size distribution
distribution (PSD) and to determine
determine the
concentration and the mass of the total total suspended
suspended solid
solid (TSS).
(TSS). Performed
Performed analyses showed the
presence of a pollutant load in runoff waters of Vermicelli Vermicelli basin
basin and
and provided
provided the estimate of the
treatment efficiency of of the
the sedimentation
sedimentationtank. tank.The
Theoverall treatment
overall treatment efficiency was
efficiency wasdetermined
determined by
by considering the removal catch efficiency and the removal sedimentation efficiency. The results
obtained from three different tests showed a high overall removal efficiency value, ranging from 77%
to 91% and reaching the highest value when the sedimentation tank was full, but different values of
the removal sedimentation efficiency. These differences are mainly due to the different grain size of
the suspended solids and other characteristics of the rainfall event. In fact, the comparison between
examined characteristic diameters showed a high variability in different tests.
Instead, a recurrent result in all three tests was the presence of a high value of TSS in the inflow to
the system in the first moments of runoff (first flush phenomenon).
The occurrence of a first flush and the optimal overall removal efficiency confirm that the
sedimentation tanks are optimal solutions to reduce the pollution in the stormwater.
An even greater efficiency can be obtained by optimizing the behavior of the entire treatment
plant made up of the sedimentation tank and the filtration unit.
In the near future, a new experimental monitoring campaign will be carried out focusing on a
performance analysis of the entire plant.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.F. and G.B.; methodology S.F. and M.T.; validation, G.G. and M.T.;
formal analysis and investigation, S.F., M.M. and P.P.; data curation, S.F. and G.B.; writing—original draft
preparation, S.F., G.B., M.T.; writing—review and editing, S.F. and G.G., M.T.; visualization, M.T., G.B.; supervision,
M.M. and P.P.; project administration, P.P.; funding acquisition, G.G. and P.P.. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was cofunded by the University of Brescia and University of Calabria in the framework
of the research project URBAID ‘Assisted and Integrated Urban Restoration’ (University of Brescia Health and
Wealth call 2015).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kuriqi, A.; Koçileri, G.; Ardiçlioğlu, M. Potential of Meyer-Peter and Müller approach for estimation of
bed-load sediment transport under different hydraulic regimes. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 6, 129–137.
[CrossRef]
2. Garofalo, G.; Palermo, S.; Principato, F.; Theodosiou, T.; Piro, P. The influence of hydrologic parameters on
the hydraulic efficiency of an extensive green roof in mediterranean area. Water 2016, 8, 44. [CrossRef]
3. Adams, B.J.; Papa, F. Urban Stormwater Management Planning with Analytical Probabilistic Models; Wiley:
West Sussex, UK, 2000.
4. Walesh, S.G. Urban Surface Water Management; John Wiley & Sons Baffms Lane: West Sussex, UK, 1989.
5. Piro, P.; Turco, M.; Palermo, S.A.; Principato, F.; Brunetti, G. A comprehensive approach to stormwater management
problems in the next generation drainage networks. In The Internet of Things for Smart Urban Ecosystems; Cicirelli, F.,
Guerrieri, A., Mastroianni, C., Spezzano, G., Vinci, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
6. Turco, M.; Brunetti, G.; Carbone, M.; Piro, P. Modelling the hydraulic behaviour of permeable pavements
through a reservoir element model. In Proceedings of the International Multidisciplinary Scientific
GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2–8 July 2018.
7. Carbone, M.; Turco, M.; Nigro, G.; Piro, P. Modeling of hydraulic behaviour of green roof in catchment scale.
In Proceedings of the 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014, Albena,
Bulgaria, 17–26 June 2014.
8. Bacchi, B.; Balistrocchi, M.; Grossi, G. Proposal of a semi-probabilistic approach for storage facility design.
Urban Water J. 2008, 5, 195–208. [CrossRef]
9. Balistrocchi, M.; Grossi, G.; Bacchi, B. An analytical probabilistic model of the quality efficiency of a sewer
tank. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W12420. [CrossRef]
10. Soonthornnonda, P.; Christensen, E.R. Source apportionment of pollutants and flows of combined sewer
wastewater. Water Res. 2008, 42, 1989–1998. [CrossRef]
11. Krajewski, A.; Wasilewicz, M.; Banasik, K.; Sikorska, A.E. Operation of Detention Pond in Urban Area–Example
of Wycigi Pond in Warsaw, Environmental Engineering V; Magorzata, P., Lucjan, P., Eds.; CRC Press/Balkema:
Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 211–216.
12. Guo, Y. Hydrologic design of urban flood control detention ponds. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2001, 6, 472–479. [CrossRef]
13. Stefanakis, A.I. The role of constructed wetlands as green infrastructure for sustainable urban water
management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981. [CrossRef]
14. Maiolo, M.; Pantusa, D. A methodological proposal for the evaluation of potable water use risk.
Water Pract. Technol. 2015, 10, 152–163. [CrossRef]
15. Maiolo, M.; Pantusa, D. An optimization procedure for the sustainable management of water resources.
Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2016, 16, 61–69. [CrossRef]
16. Maiolo, M.; Pantusa, D. A proposal for multiple reuse of urban wastewater. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 2017, 8,
468–478. [CrossRef]
17. Carini, M.; Maiolo, M.; Pantusa, D.; Chiaravalloti, F.; Capano, G. Modelling and optimization of least-cost
water distribution networks with multiple supply sources and user. Ric. Mat. 2017, 67, 465–479. [CrossRef]
18. Maiolo, M.; Carini, M.; Capano, G.; Nigro, G.; Piro, P. Life cycle assessment of a bitumen anti-root barrier on
a green roof in the Mediterranean area. Int. J. Petrochem. Res. 2017, 1, 92–95. [CrossRef]
19. Maiolo, M.; Mendicino, G.; Pantusa, D.; Senatore, A. Optimization of DrinkingWater Distribution Systems in
Relation to the Effects of Climate Change. Water 2017, 9, 803. [CrossRef]
20. Piro, P.; Carbone, M.; Garofalo, G.; Sansalone, J. Size distribution of wet weather and dry weather particulate
matter entrained in combined flows from an urbanizing sewershed. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2010, 206, 83–94.
[CrossRef]
21. Sansalone, J.J.; Kim, J.Y. Transport of particulate matter fractions in urban source area pavement surface
runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 1883–1893. [CrossRef]
22. Li, W.; Shen, Z.; Tian, T.; Liu, R.; Qiu, J. Temporal variation of heavy metal pollution in urban stormwater
runoff. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2012, 6, 692–700. [CrossRef]
23. McCarthy, D.T.; Hathaway, J.M.; Hunt, W.F.; Deletic, A. Intra-event variability of Escherichia coli and total
suspended solids in urban stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2012, 46, 6661–6670. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, K.; Li, Y.; Ren, S.; Yang, P. A case study on settling process in inclined-tube gravity sedimentation tank
for drip irrigation with the yellow river water. Water 2020, 12, 1685. [CrossRef]
25. Rommel, S.H.; Helmreich, B. Influence of temperature and de-icing salt on the sedimentation of particulate
matter in traffic area runoff. Water 2018, 10, 1738. [CrossRef]
26. Garofalo, G.; Carbone, M.; Piro, P. Sampling, testing and modeling particle size distribution in urban catch
basins. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 1873–1879. [CrossRef]
27. Karlsson, K.; Viklander, M.; Scholes, L.; Revitt, M. Heavy metal concentrations and toxicity in water and
sediment from stormwater ponds and sedimentation tanks. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 178, 612–618. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Kertesz, R.; Sansalone, J.; Raje, S.; Garofalo, G.; Pathapati, S. Redesign of infrastructure with green technology
for hydrologic and constituent load reduction. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2013:
Showcasing the Future; ASCE Library: Reston, VA, USA, 2013; pp. 313–324.
29. Piro, P.; Carbone, M. A modelling approach to assessing variations of total suspended solids (tss) mass fluxes
during storm events. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 2419–2426. [CrossRef]
30. Kim, J.; Sansalone, J. Event–Based size distribution of particulate matter transported during urban
rainfall-runoff events. Water Res. 2008, 42, 2756–2768. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Sansalone, J.; Lin, H.; Ying, G. Experimental and field studies of type I settling for particulate matter
transported by urban runoff. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 135, 953–963. [CrossRef]
32. Carbone, M.; Garofalo, G.; Nigro, G.; Piro, P. Hydraulic performance of olive stone filtration systems.
Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 941, 970–974. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Solids Removal E A Peri-Urban Catchment: Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Solids Removal E A Peri-Urban Catchment: Sustainability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solids Removal E A Peri-Urban Catchment: Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: urban drainage; sedimentation tanks; surface runoff pollution

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7196; doi:10.3390/su12177196 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Experimental Facility and Procedure

2.1. Case Study

Figure 2. Overhead view of the experimental facility.

2. Experimental Facility and Procedure

2.1. Case Study Description

Figure 2. Overhead view of the experimental facility.

2.2. Experimental Campaign

Table 1. Rainfall events characteristics during the experimental campaign.

2.3. Precipitation Analysis

2.4. TSS Efficiency Evaluation

2.5. Particle-Size Distribution (PSD) through Malvern Mastersize 3000

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 4. Time-series of observed precipitation for the analyzed period.

Figure 5. Boxplots of the main statistics for independent rain events.

Figure 7. TSS inflow and outflow for the event of Test B.

Figure 8. TSS inflow and outflow for the event of Test C.

Figure 12. Statistical analysis for d50.

Figure 13. Statistical analysis for d90.

You might also like