Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09220-2

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Stormwater runoff and pollution retention performances

of permeable pavements and the effects of structural factors
Wen Liu 1,2 & Qi Feng 1 & Weiping Chen 2 & Ravinesh C. Deo 1,3

Received: 9 December 2019 / Accepted: 7 May 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Permeable pavements, as additive structures that have a good capability for runoff and pollutant reduction, are extensively used
for sustainable urban drainage techniques. However, the exact mechanisms of runoff retention and pollutant reduction of a
permeable pavement system remain unclear and so, it has become an ongoing issue and motivation for hydrologists and design
and structural engineers. In this research paper, a suite of four scale-based runoff plots representing permeable pavements were
designed with different permeable surface types and gravel layer thickness treatments, and coupled with simulated rainfall
experiments to analyze the impacts of structural factors of permeable pavements on runoff retentions and pollution reduction.
The present results showed that the average time to runoff for permeable pavements under low-intensity rainfall scenarios was
approximately 78.5 min, while this was shortened to only 51.5 min under high-intensity rainfall scenarios. In terms of the average
runoff retention of permeable pavements tested under low- and high-intensity rainfall cases, the results recorded approximately
52.5% and 42.5%, respectively, but runoff retention performances were relatively greater for the case of smaller storms within the
scale experiments. Importantly, there was no statistical significance for the time to runoff and runoff retention between the
permeable bricks and porous concretes for the analyzed rainfall events. The thicker gravel layers significantly delayed runoff
generation and increased runoff retention percentages. Runoff pollutant load reduction rates of total suspended solids (TSS), total
nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) were varied between permeable bricks and porous concretes. Runoff pollutants load
reduction rates of TSS, TN, and TP were highly enhanced while the gravel layer thickness increased from 10 to 20 cm. Higher
TSS, TN, and TP pollutant load removals were found from the lower intensity rainfalls. These findings could promote under-
standing of the hydrologic properties of permeable pavements and help design engineers in optimizing their design of permeable
pavements for better runoff retention and pollution removal.

Keywords Gravel layer thickness . Permeable pavement . Pollution removal . Runoff retention . Simulated rainfall

Introduction

Responsible editor: Xianliang Yi Urbanization has become a global trend (Grimm et al. 2008),
and it changes natural or agricultural land uses to residential,
* Wen Liu commercial, and industrial areas, which increase impervious
liuwen@lzb.ac.cn surfaces such as buildings and pavements in cities (Paul and
Meyer 2001). Due to the increased impervious area, urbani-
1
Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin, Northwest zation disrupts the natural hydrological processes with in-
Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of creased surface runoff, diminished runoff infiltration, reduced
Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China groundwater recharge, and degraded water environment qual-
2
State Key Laboratory for Urban and Regional Ecology, Research ity (Barbosa et al. 2012; Mishra et al. 2010; Nie et al. 2011).
Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Moreover, urban flooding risk may be intensified as the ex-
Sciences, Beijing 100085, China treme weather events more frequently occurred with global
3
School of Sciences, Centre for Applied Climate Sciences & Centre climate change (Foster et al. 2011; Villarreal et al. 2004).
for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Traditional urban stormwater controls are mostly focused on
Queensland, Springfield, QLD 4300, Australia
draining runoff away quickly to prevent flooding (Davis and

McCuen 2005). Some measures such as increasing the drain-
age network and drainage pipe diameters are used to facilitate
the rapid discharge of accumulated runoff (USEPA 2000).
However, drainage facility improvements are prohibitively
expensive or not effective at mitigating the combined sewer
overflows owing to excessive stormwater runoff (Berland
et al. 2017). Permeable pavement system is a kind of green
infrastructure measure, which consists of structural layers with
relatively higher porosity to allow stormwater to pass through
its pavement surface and underlying layers (Chandrappa and
Biligiri 2016; Kamali et al. 2017), and has been widely im-
plemented in roads, car parks, and footpaths.
The summary of design characteristics and performances
for permeable pavements is shown in Table 1. The reported
runoff reduction effectiveness of permeable pavements from
field investigations varied from 50 to 93% (Dietz 2007;
Fassman and Blackbourn 2010; Tota-Maharaj and Scholz
2010). Hunt et al. (2002) demonstrated that 75% of rainfalls
were captured by the permeable layers, while the remaining
25% produced runoff. Dreelin et al. (2006) found that perme-
able pavements reduced 93% of runoff on two parking lots.
Alsubih et al. (2016) observed that the total volume of runoff
discharge from the permeable pavement ranged from 8 to 60%
of the inflow rainfall. Huang et al. (2014) reported an approx-
imate 29% decrease in peak flow with the permeable pave-
ments implemented in the new campus of Tianjin University,
China. Further experiments confirmed that permeable pave-
ments not only can retain runoff but can also eliminate runoff
generation even during the intense rainfalls (Bean et al. 2007;
Brattebo and Booth 2003; Collins et al. 2008). Collins et al.
(2008) found that the averaged lag time of four types of per-
meable pavements was varied from 28 to 50 min.
The hydrological performance of a permeable pavement
system is complex due to different factors that determine its
hydrologic behaviors (Rodriguez-Hernandez et al. 2015).
Runoff retention capacity of permeable pavements depends
on surface materials, pavement structures, the laying slope,
and rainfall intensity (Gomez-Ullate et al. 2011; Liu and
Chui 2017; Pratt et al. 2002). Valinski and Chandler (2015)
observed that infiltration rate of porous asphalt was the
highest. Alyaseri and Zhou (2016) showed that the runoff
reduction percentages from permeable concrete, permeable
asphalt, and permeable pavers were 36%, 13%, and 46%,
respectively. Collins et al. (2008) investigated that concrete
grid pavers generated the greatest surface runoff volumes
compared with other kinds of permeable pavements in a
parking lot in Carolina, USA. Other researchers have studied
the impacts of pavement structures on the infiltration capabil-
ity (Brunetti et al. 2018; Illgen et al. 2007; Valinski and
Chandler 2015).
Permeable pavements can improve runoff water quality
through interception, filtration, sedimentation, and nutrient
transformation by filtration processes that occur within the
Environ Sci Pollut Res
permeable structure layer (Tota-Maharaj and Scholz 2010).
Table 1 showed some studies have documented significant
removal efficiency in runoff pollutant concentrations of total
suspended solids (TSS) (Drake et al. 2014; Fassman and
Blackbourn 2010; Franks et al. 2013; Roseen et al. 2012)
and total phosphorus (TP) (Bean et al. 2007; Roseen et al.
2012). Morquecho et al. (2005) showed that a permeable
pavement can reduce TSS and TP more than 50%. Tota-
Maharaj and Scholz (2010) reported that TSS removal effi-
ciency for a permeable pavement system was 91%. Niu et al.
(2016) demonstrated that the ceramic permeable brick can
effectively reduce TSS and TP in the runoff with 79.8% and
74.2%. However, the removal of dissolved pollutants, such as
ammonia and total nitrogen (TN), is less assured. Collins et al.
(2010) and Drake et al. (2014) reported an increase trend in
nitrate nitrogen coupled with a decrease in ammoniacal nitro-
gen, indicating that nitrification was occurring in the aggre-
gate base. Hatt et al. (2007) found that the removal efficiency
of runoff pollutants was highly related to the thickness of the
gravel layer. Huang et al. (2016) observed linear relationships
between the runoff pollutant removal (TSS, TN, and TP) and
the gravel layer thickness. Liu et al. (2019) observed the pos-
itive linear relationships between the thickness of the gravel
layer and TSS and TP pollutant removal of permeable pave-
ment outflows. However, with reported results, nitrogen re-
moval performances by the permeable pavements are highly
variable and inconsistent (Drake et al. 2014; Razzaghmanesh
and Borst 2019). The presence and removal of nitrogen in
permeable pavements are little understood because of the bio-
geochemical complexity of the nitrogen species and the treat-
ment mechanisms within the permeable pavement structure,
including filtration, adsorption, ion exchange, and biological
transformation (Kuruppu et al. 2019).
Although the permeable pavement system is considered
as a good alternative for mitigating urban flooding and has
been widely implemented in urban areas, there are conse-
quently no firm design guidelines to assist designers and
other stormwater professionals (Mai et al. 2018; Mullaney
and Lucke 2014). Very few state and local agencies have
standards or design guidelines for the construction and
maintenance of permeable pavements for use by practicing
engineers (Eisenberg et al. 2015). A number of European
countries, such as The Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium,
have construction and infiltration guidelines for concrete
permeable pavements (Lucke et al. 2014). Structural design
guidelines for flexible pavements issued by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) are often used for the design of porous asphalt
and permeable interlocking concrete pavement (AASHTO
1993). Weiss et al. (2017) concluded that all specification
guidelines and information should be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis and will vary due to local materials, size, cli-
mate, and traffic.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Summary of design characteristics and performances for permeable pavements

Study Type of permeable pavement Design characteristics Location Study rainfall and Runoff volume reduction (%) Pollution removal efficiency
duration (%)

Abbott and PICP (permeable interlocking Impermeable liner with Oxford, UK 20.6 mm, Averaged 67% –
Comino-Mateos (2003) concrete pavers) underdrains 14 months
Bean et al. (2007) Pervious concrete Sandy soil North Carolina, 97 mm, 17 months Averaged 31% of rainfall 33.3% of TSS, 42.1% of TN,
USA 64.3% of TP
Collins et al. (2008) PICP, pervious concrete, Sandy loam to sandy North Carolina, 183 mm, Reductions averaged 37–66% − 2.4% of TN for pervious
concrete grid pavers clay loam with underdrains USA 12 months concrete, − 39.5% of TN
for PICP
Drake et al. (2012) PICP, pervious concrete Silty clay with underdrains Ontario, Canada 51.6 mm, Averaged 57% –
22 months
Dreelin et al. (2006) Plastic GeoCells Well-drained clayey soils Georgia, USA 18.5 mm Direct runoff reduced by 93% 10.9% of TP, 43% of TN
with underdrain
Fassman and Blackbourn PICP Silty clay/clayey silt with Auckland, New 152 mm, Averaged 72% 49.0% of TSS
(2010) underdrains Zealand 11 months
Gilbert and Clausen (2006) PICP Permeable paver Connecticut, USA 70 mm, 12 months Averaged 72.2% 33.6% of TP, 66.9% of TSS
Kwiatkowski et al. (2007) Pervious concrete Silty sand Pennsylvania, 2.5 years 100% infiltration achieved for –
USA rainfall < 5 cm
Legret and Colandini Porous asphalt Porous pavement with Loire-Atlantique, 4 years Averaged 96.7% –
(1999) reservoir structure France
Niu et al. (2016) Permeable brick pavement Coarse sand bedding layers Tianjin, China 60 min No outflow was observed 71.2% of TP, 93.6% of TSS,
before 5 min − 34.3% of TN
Roseen et al. (2012) Porous asphalt Soils with raised underdrain New Hampshire, 12.7 mm, Averaged 25% of rainfall 20.0% of TP, 88.9% of TSS
USA 18 months
Rushton (2001) Pervious concrete Sandy soil Florida, USA 72 mm, 2 years Averaged 35% 25.7% of TN, 38.8% of TP,
62.4% of TSS

Moreover, there is still a lack of detailed understanding of
the stormwater runoff quantity and quality performance of per-
meable pavements (Liu et al. 2019), which is of considerable
importance to determine the optimal characteristics and ade-
quate guidelines of permeable pavement system. In this re-
search, four scale-based runoff plots representing permeable
pavements were designed with different structural factors, such
as permeable surface types (permeable brick, porous concrete)
and gravel layer thickness treatments. The simulated rainfall
experiments with two rainfall intensities were conducted.
Water quality parameters of TSS, TN, and TP in rainwater input
and outflow runoff were tested. The aims of this study were (1)
to investigate the runoff retention and detention effectiveness
and runoff pollutant load removal of permeable pavements; and
(2) to analyze the effects of permeable surface types, gravel
layer thickness treatments, and rainfall intensity on runoff re-
tention and pollution removals of permeable pavements. The
results emanating from these objectives are expected to im-
prove our understanding of the mechanism of runoff retention
and pollution reduction for permeable pavements.
Materials and methods
Runoff plots of permeable pavements
Scale-based runoff plot platforms respecting permeable pave-
ments were built by a 2-mm-thick stainless steel with internal
dimensions of 1 m wide × 1 m long × 0.5–0.6 m height
Fig. 1 a Schematic of scale-based runoff plot. b Structure of a permeable pavement. c Runoff plots of permeable pavement in field experiments. d A
Norton rainfall simulator
Environ Sci Pollut Res
(Fig. 1a). From top to bottom is a permeable pavement system
composed of permeable surface layer, gravel layer, soil cush-
ion, and permeable geotextile (Fig. 1b). The permeable pave-
ments were designed and constructed according to the
Technical Guideline for the construction of “Sponge City”-
Construction of stormwater system with the concept of low
impact development issued by the Construction Ministry of
China in 2014. Four runoff plots of permeable pavements
were designed with two primary factors (i.e., permeable sur-
face types and gravel layer thickness) at two levels (Table 2;
Fig. 1c). In the inner section of each runoff plot, a non-woven
geotextile fabric was bonded to the upper surface of the steel
plate as the filter layer. A soil cushion layer was padded on the
top of non-woven geotextile with sandy loam soil of 15-cm
thickness. Soil padding process was adequately watered sev-
eral times to avoid soil subsidence during the rainfall experi-
ments. The gravel sizes of 10–15 mm in diameter were em-
pirically selected, which were 100% passing through sieve
analyses. To meet the structural requirements and hydrologic
needs (Ferguson 2005), the gravel layer’s thickness was de-
signed with 10 cm and 20 cm treatments. In this study, two
types of surface pavement layers (i.e., permeable bricks and
porous concretes) were chosen in terms of the popularity and
applicability of permeable pavements (Scholz and
Grabowiecki 2007). Ceramic permeable brick with the effec-
tive porosity of approximately 20% and a permeability coef-
ficient of 3.0 × 10−2 was used in the surface pavement layer.
Porous concrete surface was constructed by proportional
mixing of gravel aggregate with an average size of 25 mm,
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Table 2 Designed characteristics of permeable pavements
Runoff plots Permeable surface types Gravel layer thickness (cm)
PB-10 Permeable brick 10
PB-20 Permeable brick 20
PC-10 Porous concrete 10
PC-20 Porous concrete 20
cement, and admixture, resulting in a mixture with voidage of
15–25%. A steel V-flume was created at the outlet of each
runoff plot for facilitating the collection of surface runoff.
Field rainfall simulation experiments
The simulated rainfall experiments were conducted in the
Dingxi Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, which is
located in the suburb of the Dingxi City of Gansu province,
China (35°34′45.88″ N, 104°38′5.67″ E). The area enjoys a
semiarid climatic zone with a mean annual precipitation of
421 mm. A Norton ladder-type artificial rainfall simulator
was set at 3.5 m above the permeable pavement runoff plots
in the experiments (Fig. 1d). Spraying systems applied six
Veejet 80100 nozzles spaced 1.1 m apart and with water pres-
sure of 41 kPa. A controller oscillated the nozzles across the
runoff plots to generate a set rainfall intensity. Rainfall inten-
sity and duration were chosen according to the local storm
formulation and the runoff collection capacity of a plastic
container based on preliminary experiments. The local storm
formulation was expressed as:
6:86ð1 þ 1:33lgN Þ
i¼ ð1Þ
ðt þ 12:70Þ0:83
where i represents the rainfall intensity (mm/min), N repre-
sents the recurrence period (year), and t represents the rainfall
duration (min).
For each repeated test, the drying period between succes-
sive rainfalls was fixed to 48 h to ensure the same initial
moisture conditions. A tipping bucket rain gauge with a reso-
lution of 0.2 mm/tip (Onset HOBO Rainfall Smart Sensor, S-
RGB, USA) was positioned adjacently and at the same height
as that of the runoff plots to monitor the simulated rainfall
depth. Runoff discharged from the runoff plot was collected
in a plastic container below the platform by means of a plastic
pipe. The plastic container was placed on a fixed base which
was installed with a pressure transducer that aimed to monitor
runoff volume. This pressure transducer was applied with an
industrial-grade pressure transducer weighing load cell with
an accuracy of ± 50 mL (Bengbu Sensor System Engineering
Company, JLBU, China). The weight of the collection con-
tainer was measured continuously on a 1-s interval by the
pressure transducer, to convert the runoff volume by means
of an appropriate calibration relationship. Therewith, all the
rainfall and runoff measurements of 1-min interval were re-
corded into a data logger (Campbell Scientific, CR300, USA)
during the experimental period.
Runoff water quality test methods
For each permeable pavement runoff plot, a composite
water sample was collected with 0.5-L polyethylene bot-
tles after the runoff outflow is over, and then timely
stored in a refrigerator. Before rainfall beginning or runoff
sampling, the plastic containers and sampling bottles were
rinsed three times with distilled water. Six inflow rainwa-
ter samples were manually collected during the experi-
mental period to determine the background water quality
of rainwater input. After the experiments, the collected
water samples were immediately carried to a laboratory
in the Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and
Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and prepared
for water quality testing. The laboratory testing of water
quality was carried out within a week of collection ac-
cording to the Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater (APHA et al. 2005). The concen-
trations of TSS were measured using the filtering, drying,
and weighing method. The TN concentrations were tested
using the alkaline potassium persulfate digestion and UV
spectrophotometric method. The concentrations of TP
were measured using the persulfate digestion spectropho-
tometric method.
Data treatment methods
On the basis of the monitored rainfall and runoff data collected
in the present study, selected hydrologic indicators including
rainfall depth, rainfall intensity, rainfall duration, time to run-
off, runoff discharge, peak flow rate, and runoff retention were
calculated and utilized for further analysis. The mean value
and standard deviation of each hydrologic indicator under the
two rainfall intensities were quantified for detecting the gen-
eral characteristics of the simulated rainfall and discharged
runoff of permeable pavements.
The relationship describing runoff retention from the per-
meable pavement was calculated by the following equation:
P−V
Rv ¼  100% ð2Þ
P
where Rv was the runoff retention percentage (%), P referred
to the rainfall depth received by permeable pavement (mm),
and V was the runoff discharge depth of permeable pavement
(mm).
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

The runoff pollutant load reduction rate of permeable pave-
ment was expressed as follows:
 pavements increased by 21.3%. Accordingly, mean runoff
C in  V in −C out  V out
Rp ¼  100%
C in  V in
where Rp was the runoff pollutant load reduction rate
(%), Cin was the pollutant concentration in rainwater
input (mg/L), Vin was the rainfall input volume (L), C out
was the mean outflow pollutant concentration of per-
meable pavement (mg/L), and Vout was the total effluent
volume from permeable pavement (L).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to compare the
averaged time to runoff and runoff retention between the dif-
ferent permeable surface types and gravel layer thickness. All
statistical analyses were performed at a 95% confidence level
and were undertaken in SigmaPlot 12.0.
Results and discussion
General hydrological performance of permeable
pavements
Statistic characteristics of total observed rainfall and runoff
processes of four permeable pavements are shown in
Table 3. For low-intensity rainfalls, the mean rainfall intensity
was 0.59 mm/min. Recorded rainfall depth and duration of
low-intensity rainfalls had a mean value of 84.8 mm and
145.0 min. For high-intensity rainfall events, the observed
rainfalls had a mean intensity of 0.94 mm/min, a mean rainfall
depth of 85.1 mm, and an average rainfall duration of
90.3 min. The mean value of time to runoff of permeable
pavements under low-intensity rainfalls was 78.5 min, and it
was shortened to 51.5 min under the high-intensity rainfalls.
From low- to high-intensity rainfalls, with the approximately
equal rainfall inputs, mean runoff discharge of permeable
retention under low- and high-intensity rainfalls was 52.5%
ð3Þ
and 42.5%, respectively. The mean peak flow rate of high
rainfall intensities was twofold higher than the low-intensity
rainfalls, which is consistent with the intensity increase. A
larger proportion of runoff discharge was observed as rainfall
intensity increased, which indicated that runoff volume reten-
tion was greater for smaller rainfalls. Therefore, the high rain-
fall intensity in turn shortened the time to runoff, increased
runoff discharge, and led to an acceleration of the peak flow,
resulting in significant urban flooding events.
Runoff responses of different permeable pavements
The different runoff responses of four permeable pavements
under low and high rainfall intensities are shown in Fig. 2. The
mean time to runoff was found to be in an increasing order
following PB-10 < PC-10 < PC-20 < PB-20, both under the
low- and high-intensity rainfall conditions. Permeable brick
PB-20 with a gravel layer thickness of 20 cm had the largest
time to runoff (108 and 75 min, respectively) indicating that
they can effectively delay runoff generation. Under the low-
and high-intensity rainfalls, the mean runoff discharge depth
was both in the decreasing order, whereby PB-10 > PC-10 >
PB-20 > PC-20. With the same rainfall inputs and gravel layer
thickness, porous concretes had relatively larger runoff dis-
charge than permeable bricks. Accordingly, runoff retention
of four permeable pavements was found to be in a decreasing
order, such that PC-20 (or PB-20) > PC-10 > PB-10. The
runoff retention of porous concrete PC-20 achieved up to
76.8% and 69.1%, under low and high rainfall intensities,
respectively. The differences in peak flow rate among the four
permeable pavements were minimal; the observed values
ranged from 35.3 to 47.8 L/h and from 60.1 to 72.8 L/h, under
low and high rainfall intensities, respectively.

Table 3 Characteristics of simulated rainfall and runoff responses of Effects of permeable surface types on runoff
permeable pavements
detention and retention performance
Indicators LRIs HRIs
As shown in Fig. 3, the average value of time to runoff
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. for permeable bricks was 49.0 min, which was lower
than that for the porous concretes (52.5 min).
Rainfall depth (mm) 84.80 7.99 85.13 5.01
Similarly, the mean runoff retention of permeable bricks
Rain duration (minutes) 145.00 18.19 90.33 0.58
was lower (44.6%) than that of the porous concretes
Rain intensity (mm/min) 0.59 0.05 0.94 0.06
(48.0%). Although permeable bricks had slightly lower
Time to runoff (minutes) 78.50 20.73 51.50 15.42
time to runoff and runoff retention percentages than
Runoff discharge (mm) 40.27 13.35 48.92 12.79
porous concretes, no statistical significances in the time
Peak flow rate (L/h) 38.08 5.26 66.84 7.53
to runoff and runoff retention performance were noted
Runoff retention (%) 52.51 15.69 42.54 15.00
between the permeable bricks and porous concretes for
LRIs present the low rainfall intensities; HRIs present the high rainfall the analyzed rainfall events (N = 12). The findings indi-
intensities cated that the permeable surface types did not
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 2 Hydrologic indicators of permeable pavements for a low rainfall intensities and b high rainfall intensities

significantly influence the runoff retention and detention
performance of permeable pavements.
Impacts of gravel layer thickness on runoff detention
and retention
As expected, the thicker the gravel layers, the more effective
the permeable pavements were in detaining and retaining
stormwater runoff.
Runoff water quality of the permeable pavements

The results showed that there were statistically significant dif-
ferences in time to runoff between the gravel layer thickness
of 10 cm and 20 cm (p < 0.05, N = 12) (Fig. 4a). The 10-cm
thickness of the gravel layers had lower time to runoff
(29.5 min) compared with the gravel layer thickness of
20 cm (98.0 min). In accordance with the findings, the gravel
layer thickness of 20 cm had a higher runoff retention (ap-
proximately 75.5%) than 10 cm thick gravel layers (19.2%)
(Fig. 4b). The results demonstrated that runoff retention be-
tween gravel layer thickness 10 cm and 20 cm for the analyzed
rainfall events was statistically significant (p < 0.001, N = 12).
The averaged water quality concentrations of rainfall inputs
for TSS, TN, and TP were 41.89 ± 5.65 mg/L, 0.45 ± 0.17 mg/
L, and 0.002 ± 0.001 mg/L, respectively (N = 6). The average
values and standard deviations of the tested water quality con-
centrations of outflows from the four permeable pavements
are summarized in Table 4. The average TSS levels of perme-
able pavements ranged from 13.0 to 43.7 mg/L. Averaged TN
concentration of permeable pavements varied from 0.11 to
0.63 mg/L. Except TSS level in PB-10 and TN concentrations
in PB-10 and PC-10, the mean TSS and TN concentrations in
outflows of the permeable pavements were lower than their

Fig. 3 Effects of permeable surface types on a time to runoff and b runoff retention
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 4 Impacts of gravel layer thickness on a time to runoff and b runoff retention

levels of input rainfalls. All permeable pavements had very
low TP concentrations; the mean value ranged from 0.001 to
0.005 mg/L. Conversely, the mean TP concentrations in out-
flows of permeable pavements were slightly higher than their
levels of input rainfalls (except PB-10).
Impacts of permeable surface types and gravel layer
thickness on runoff pollutant load removals
Runoff pollutant load removals of TSS, TN, and TP between
different types of permeable surfaces varied (Fig. 5). The
mean runoff pollutant load reduction rates of TSS between
permeable bricks and porous concretes were nearly equal.
The mean TP load reduction rate for permeable bricks was
59.1%, which was higher than for the porous concretes
(43.0%). However, the average runoff pollutant load reduc-
tion rate of TN for permeable bricks was 42.7%, which was
lower than that for the porous concretes (52.2%). The mean
runoff pollutant load reduction rate of TSS for 20-cm-thick
gravel layers was 79.5%, which was significantly higher than
for the gravel layer thickness of 10 cm (59.0%). Consistently,
the gravel layer thickness of 20 cm had higher TP load reduc-
tion rate (62.3%) than the gravel layer thickness of 10 cm
(39.9%). As the gravel layer thickness increased to 20 cm,
the averaged TN load reduction rate reached up to 54.6%.
Effects of rainfall intensity on runoff pollutant load
removals
Pollutant load removal performances of porous pavements
were tested for low and high rainfall intensities. As illustrated
in Fig. 6, the pollution load removals for TSS, TN, and TP all
decreased as the rainfall intensity increased. The pollution
load removal rate decreased from 72.1 to 66.5% (TSS), 48.6
to 46.3% (TN), and 54.1 to 48.1% (TP) as the rainfall intensity
increased from 0.59 to 0.94 mm/min.
Discussion
Effects of structural factors on runoff retention of
permeable pavements
In this study, permeable pavements were shown to effectively
retain stormwater runoff. The averaged runoff retention in this
study was 52.51% and 42.54%, which occupies a lower range
of the reported values (Table 1); a reason for this is the fact that
we have used large storms in the simulated rainfall experi-
ments. As an integral part of permeable pavement system,
the surface pavement material is the top layer which contacts
with the runoff firstly (Li et al. 2017). The characteristics of
surface pavement types will directly affect runoff infiltration

Table 4 Average water quality

concentrations of outflow from Average pollutant concentrations PB-10 PB-20 PC-10 PC-20
the permeable pavements (mg/L)

TSS 43.67 ± 8.25 16.00 ± 0.94 31.50 ± 9.19 13.00 ± 0.47

TN 0.51 ± 0.13 0.43 ± 0.06 0.63 ± 0.32 0.11 ± 0.02
TP 0.001 ± 0.028 0.005 ± 0.035 0.004 ± 0.005 0.003 ± 0.020

Values are means ± S.D. TSS total suspended solids, TN total nitrogen, TP total phosphorus
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fig. 5 Influences of structural factors on pollutant load reduction rates. a Permeable surface types. b Gravel layer thickness
in permeable pavements (Nichols et al. 2014). In the present
study, porous concretes had similar structures with permeable
bricks except that the surface layers were replaced by porous
concrete layers. However, no significant differences in the
time to runoff and runoff retention performance were noted
between the permeable bricks and porous concretes for the
analyzed rainfall events. The results were consistent with the
findings reported by Collins et al. (2008) and Gomez-Ullate
et al. (2011), who found no substantial differences between
permeable pavement types. Generally, the infiltrate rate of a
permeable pavement is designed far exceeding the intensities
of ordinary rains allowing the stormwater freely infiltrated
into the cushion layer. Therefore, the choice of pavement sur-
face material was not the governing factor in hydrological
performance of the permeable pavements.
The results of this study showed that there were both sta-
tistically significant differences of time to runoff and runoff
retention between the gravel layer thickness of 10 cm and
20 cm. Consistently, some studies have highlighted the im-
portance of the gravel layer thickness because the water stor-
age capacity of the gravel layer mainly depends on it
(Beeldens and Herrier 2006; Hou et al. 2008; Yoo et al.
Fig. 6 Effects of rainfall intensity on pollutant load reduction rates
2016). As expected, the thicker gravel layer increased the
runoff storage of permeable pavements; thus, the stormwater
runoff retention percentages of permeable pavements were
effectively enhanced.
Runoff pollutant removal mechanism of permeable
pavements
The removal rates of TSS from the permeable pavements
ranged from 37.4 to 97.9% with an average value of 69.3%,
which is consistent with the observations on permeable pave-
ment by Rushton (2001) (62.4%). The porous bricks rapidly
removed particles by filtration, sorption, and interception
(Hou et al. 2008). Balades et al. (1995) stated that large parti-
cles are initially trapped in the top of the pavements and then
small particles are pushed through the entire layer by runoff
flow. Physical processes such as filtration and sedimentation
are the primary mechanisms governing the TSS removal
(Wiesmann 1994). The TSS trapped in permeable pavement
layers will occupy pore space that leads to a decrease in the
porosity of permeable pavement and therewith resulted in de-
creasing of its hydraulic conductivity (Kamali et al. 2017).
Therefore, permeable pavements termly required proper main-
tenance practices to deal with surface clogging during perfor-
mance period.
In this study, the mean TP load reduction rate for perme-
able bricks and porous concretes was 59.1% and 43.0%, re-
spectively, which was approached with Bean et al. (2007) who
reported the TP removal efficiency was 42.1%. A significant
positive correlation was found between TSS and TP load re-
moval rates (r = 2.48, R2 = 0.80, p < 0.01; Fig. 7), which indi-
cated that TP could also be adsorbed by particles; this agreed
with the conclusions of Eck et al. (2012). The variations in the
TP removal rates were consistent with those of the TSS re-
movals, indicating that the removal of TP and TSS might be
governed by the same physical processes such as interception
and sedimentation within pavements. Hatt et al. (2007) and

Fig. 7 Linear regression of TSS load removal rates on TP load removal
rates
Huang et al. (2016) concluded that TP is likely removed along
with TSS in the pavement layers by sedimentation and
filtration.
In this study, the averaged TN load removal rate was
47.4%, which was relatively lower than TSS and TP re-
movals. Some available results also describe permeable pave-
ment as ineffective at reducing TN concentrations (Bean et al.
2007; Collins et al. 2010; Drake et al. 2014; Roseen et al.
2009). Collins et al. (2010) observed that TN concentrations
can occasionally be higher in permeable pavement outflow
than in asphalt runoff. Moreover, recent researchers showed
that permeable pavement has higher nitrite and nitrate pollut-
ant concentrations which is probably due to the nitrification
(Collins et al. 2010; Drake et al. 2014). TN pollutant in the
outflow of permeable pavement is removed by different
mechanisms that are primarily biological processes which take
place in the void space of pavement, which is separately from
particles (Newman et al. 2002). Due to incomplete denitrifi-
cation, the traditional permeable pavement design is likely to
cause nitrogen migration to groundwater or into the
stormwater harvesting systems without adequate treatment.
Creating a saturated sub-base layer to encourage denitrifica-
tion (Collins et al. 2010) or promoting greater assimilation of
ammonia nitrogen may increase TN removal of permeable
pavements (Newman et al. 2002).
Impacts of gravel layer thickness on runoff pollutant
load removals
In the present study, increasing the thickness of the gravel
layer from 10 to 20 cm could effectively enhance the pollutant
removal efficiency; thus, great TSS, TP, and TN load re-
movals were exhibited from the thicker gravel layers of per-
meable pavements. Stormwater runoff will travel through a
longer pathway when the thickness of gravel layer increases,
Environ Sci Pollut Res
which in turn leads to more absorption and removal process
for the runoff pollutants (Jaeel and Faisal 2018).
Consequently, the thicker gravel layers of permeable pave-
ments lead to higher capacity of adsorption, interception, fil-
tration, and ion exchange for runoff pollutants (Liu et al.
2019). However, in practices, a thicker gravel layer requires
higher construction cost. Thus, an increase of the thickness of
the gravel layer is not always economical. Ideally, an optimal
thickness of gravel layer is needed to be determined by con-
sidering its overall performance in terms of the runoff reten-
tion, pollutant removal, and other factors such as the need for
traffic load and economics.
Impacts of rainfall intensity on pollutant load
removals
The results demonstrated that the pollution load removals for
TSS, TN, and TP were all decreased as the rainfall intensity
increased. As the rainfall intensity increased, the permeable
pavements were quickly saturated and gave a shorter time to
infiltrate, adsorb, and retain pollutants, resulting in inadequacy
of denitrification process in the permeable pavements. Under
the lower intensity rainfalls, more particles were trapped on
the surface of the permeable pavements, leading to high re-
moval efficiencies for TSS and sediment-associated constitu-
ents (Myers et al. 2011). The nitrogen removal through per-
meable pavements depends on denitrification where hydraulic
retention time is an important factor. In the present study, the
rainfall duration was increased to 55 min from low to high
rainfall intensities. Consequently, the high removal efficiency
at low rainfalls can be attributed to the increased nitrification
and denitrification of nitrates by microbial degradation and
nutrient transformation as hydraulic retention time is in-
creased. The increased contact time between denitrifying bac-
teria caused by the low rainfall intensities is beneficial for
adequate reaction (Kuruppu et al. 2019).
Conclusion
A desired permeable pavement design is not just strong
enough to handle traffic loads but also having the runoff stor-
age, infiltration capacity, and ability to improve runoff water
quality to achieve stormwater management objectives. During
the design phase of a permeable pavement system, structural
analyses with hydrologic requirements are highly required in
order for the pavement to function properly. In this research,
four scale-based runoff plots of permeable pavements were
designed with different permeable surface types and gravel
layer thickness configurations to assess the runoff retention
and pollution reduction performance of permeable pavements
in detail by relating it to structural factors and rainfall charac-
teristics. The experimental results implied that permeable
Environ Sci Pollut Res
pavements can effectively delay runoff generation and retain
runoff volume. Runoff retention percentages of permeable
pavements were greater for smaller rainfall intensities.
Permeable surface types had no significant influences on run-
off retention performance of the permeable pavements. The
thicker the gravel layers, the more effective the permeable
pavements were in detaining and retaining stormwater runoff.
The variations in the TP removal rates were consistent with
those of the TSS removals, indicating that TP is removed
along with TSS in the pavement structure. Increasing the
thickness of the gravel layer leads to higher capacity of ad-
sorption, interception, and filtration for runoff pollutants; thus,
it highly enhanced TSS, TN, and TP removal efficiency.
Higher pollutant load removals were exhibited from the lower
intensity rainfalls due to increasing the hydraulic retention
time. These results could potentially promote the understand-
ing of runoff retention and pollution reduction mechanism in
permeable pavements. As limitations of application of the
results, results in the present study may largely depend on
design characteristics of permeable pavements and method
used. Therefore, a standard construction guideline of perme-
able pavements for each country is highly needed.
Acknowledgments We thank both reviewers and the journal Editor for
their constructive and sincere comments that have improved the clarity of
the final manuscript.
Funding information This study was supported by the CAS “Light of
West China” Program (29Y729841), the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (2016M602899), and the International Postdoctoral
Exchange Fellowship Program 2019 awarded from the Office of China
Postdoctoral Council (20190068).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) (1993) Guide for design of pavement structures. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC
Abbott C, Comino-Mateos L (2003) In-situ hydraulic performance of a
permeable pavement sustainable urban drainage system. J Chart Inst
Water Eng 17(3):187–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1747-6593.
2003.TB00460.X
Alsubih M, Arthur S, Wright G, Allen D (2016) Experimental study on
the hydrological performance of a permeable pavement. Urban
Water J 14(4):427–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2016.
1176221
Alyaseri I, Zhou J (2016) Stormwater volume reduction in combined
sewer using permeable pavement: city of St. Louis. J Environ Eng
142(4):04016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.
0001056
APHA, AWWA, WEF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health
Association, Washington, DC
Balades JD, Legret M, Madiec H (1995) Permeable pavements: Pollution
management tools. Water Sci Technol 32(1):49–56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0273-1223(95)00537-W
Barbosa AE, Fernandes JN, David LM (2012) Key issues for sustainable
urban stormwater management. Water Res 46(20):6787–6798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.029
Bean EZ, Hunt WF, Bidelspach DA (2007) Field survey of permeable
pavement surface infiltration rates. J Irrig Drainage Eng 133(3):249–
255. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:3(249)
Beeldens A, Herrier G (2006) Water pervious pavement blocks: the
Belgian experience. In: Proceedings of the 8th international confer-
ence on concrete block paving. San Francisco, pp 6–8
Berland A, Shiflett SA, Shuster WD, Garmestani AS, Goddard HC,
Herrmann DL, Hopton ME (2017) The role of trees in urban
stormwater management. Landsc Urban Plan 162:167–177. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017
Brattebo BO, Booth DB (2003) Long-term stormwater quantity and qual-
ity performance of permeable pavement systems. Water Res 37(18):
4369–4376. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00410-X
Brunetti G, Šimůnek J, Turco M, Piro P (2018) On the use of global
sensitivity analysis for the numerical analysis of permeable pave-
ments. Urban Water J 15(3):269–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1573062X.2018.1439975
Chandrappa AK, Biligiri KP (2016) Pervious concrete as a sustainable
pavement material–research findings and future prospects: a state-
of-the-art review. Constr Build Mater 111:262–274. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.054
Collins KA, Hunt WF, Hathaway JM (2008) Hydrologic comparison of
four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern
North Carolina. J Hydrol Eng 13(12):1146–1157. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:12(1146)
Collins KA, Lawrence TJ, Stander EK, Jontos RJ, Kaushal SS,
Newcomer TA et al (2010) Opportunities and challenges for man-
aging nitrogen in urban stormwater: a review and synthesis. Ecol
Eng 36(11):1507–1519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.03.
015
Davis AP, McCuen RH (2005) Stormwater management for smart
growth. Springer Science & Business Media, Belin
Dietz ME (2007) Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of
Current Research and Recommendations for Future Directions.
Water, Air Soil Pollut 186(1):351–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11270-007-9484-z
Drake J, Bradford A, Van Seters T (2012) Evaluation of permeable pave-
ments in cold climates-Kortright Centre. Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, Vaughan
Drake J, Bradford A, Van Seters T (2014) Stormwater quality of spring-
summer-fall effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pave-
ment systems and conventional asphalt pavement. J Environ Manag
139:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.056
Dreelin EA, Fowler L, Carroll CR (2006) A test of porous pavement
effectiveness on clay soils during natural storm events. Water Res
40(4):799–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.12.002
Eck BJ, Winston RJ, Hunt WF, Barrett ME (2012) Water quality of
drainage from permeable friction course. J Environ Eng 138(2):
174–181. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000476
Eisenberg B, Collins K, Lindow PE, Smith DR (2015) Permeable pave-
ments task committee. The American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, pp 3–48
Fassman EA, Blackbourn S (2010) Urban runoff mitigation by a perme-
able pavement system over impermeable soils. J Hydrol Eng 15(6):
475–485. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000238
Ferguson BK (2005) Porous pavements. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Foster J, Lowe A, Winkelman S (2011) The value of green infrastructure
for urban climate adaptation. Center for Clean Air Policy 750(1):1–
52 http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-
Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf
Franks CA, Davis AP, Aydilek AH (2013) Effects of runoff characteris-
tics and filter type on geotextile storm water treatment. J Irrig
Drainage Eng 140(2):04013014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IR.1943-4774.0000675
Gilbert JK, Clausen JC (2006) Stormwater runoff quality and quantity
from asphalt, paver, and crushed stone driveways in Connecticut.
Water Res 40:826–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2005.
12.006
Gomez-Ullate E, Castillo-Lopez E, Castro-Fresno D, Bayon JR (2011)
Analysis and contrast of different pervious pavements for manage-
ment of storm-water in a parking area in northern Spain. Water
Resour Manag 25(6):1525–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
010-9758-x
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X,
Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities.
Science 319(5864):756–760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1150195
Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Deletic A (2007) Treatment performance of gravel
filter media: implications for design and application of stormwater
infiltration systems. Water Res 41(12):2513–2524. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2007.03.014
Hou L, Feng S, Huo Z, Ding Y, Zhang S (2008) Experimental study on
rainfall-runoff relation for porous pavements. Hydrol Res 39(3):
181–190. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2008.001
Huang JJ, Li Y, Niu S, Zhou SH (2014) Assessing the performances of
low impact development alternatives by long-term simulation for a
semi-arid area in Tianjin, northern China. Water Sci Technol 70(11):
1740–1745. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.228
Huang J, Valeo C, He J, Chu A (2016) The influence of design parame-
ters on stormwater pollutant removal in permeable pavements.
Water Air Soil Pollut 227(9):311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-
016-3020-y
Hunt B, Stevens S, Mayes D (2002) Permeable pavement use and re-
search at two sites in eastern North Carolina. In: Proceedings of the
ninth international conference on urban drainage, American Society
of Civil Engineers, September 8–13, Portland, OR
Illgen M, Harting K, Schmitt TG, Welker A (2007) Runoff and infiltra-
tion characteristics of pavement structures-review of an extensive
monitoring program. Water Sci Technol 56(10):133–140. https://
doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.750
Jaeel AJ, Faisal GH (2018) COD removal from synthetic wastewater
using pervious concrete. In: 2018 international conference on ad-
vance of sustainable engineering and its application (ICASEA), pp
174-178
Kamali M, Delkash M, Tajrishy M (2017) Evaluation of permeable pave-
ment responses to urban surface runoff. J Environ Manag 187:43–
53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.027
Kuruppu U, Rahman A, Sathasivan A (2019) Enhanced denitrification by
design modifications to the standard permeable pavement structure.
J Clean Prod 237:117721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
117721
Kwiatkowski M, Welker A, Traver R, Vanacore M, Ladd T (2007)
Evaluation of an infiltration best management practice utilizing per-
vious concrete. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43(5):1208–1222. https://
doi.org/10.1111/J.1752-1688.2007.00104.X
Legret M, Colandini V (1999) Effects of a porous pavement with reser-
voir structure on runoff water: water quality and fate of heavy
metals. Water Sci Technol 39(2):111–117. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.1999.0098
Li H, Li Z, Zhang X, Li Z, Liu D, Li T, Zhang Z (2017) The effect of
different surface materials on runoff quality in permeable pavement
Environ Sci Pollut Res
systems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(26):21103–21110. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-017-9750-6
Liu C, Chui T (2017) Factors influencing stormwater mitigation in per-
meable pavement. Water 9(12):988. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w9120988
Liu J, Yan H, Liao Z, Zhang K, Schmidt AR, Tao T (2019) Laboratory
analysis on the surface runoff pollution reduction performance of
permeable pavements. Sci Total Environ 691:1–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.028
Lucke T, Boogaard F, Van den Ven F (2014) Evaluation of a new exper-
imental test procedure to more accurately determine the surface
infiltration rate of permeable pavement systems. Urban Plan
Transp Res 2(1):22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2014.
893200
Mai Y, Zhang M, Chen W, Chen X, Huang G, Li D (2018) Experimental
study on the effects of LID measures on the control of rainfall runoff.
Urban Water J 15(9):827–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.
2018.1561912
Mishra V, Cherkauer KA, Niyogi D, Lei M, Pijanowski BC, Ray DK,
Bowling LC, Yang G (2010) A regional scale assessment of land
use/land cover and climatic changes on water and energy cycle in
the upper Midwest United States. Int J Climatol 30(13):2025–2044.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2095
Morquecho R, Pitt R, Clark SE (2005) Pollutant associations with partic-
ulates in stormwater. In: World water and environmental resources
congress. ASCE/EWRI, Anchorage, Alaska
Mullaney J, Lucke T (2014) Practical review of pervious pavement de-
signs. CLEAN–Soil Air Water 42(2):111–124. https://doi.org/10.
1002/clen.201300118
Myers B, Beecham S, JAV L (2011) Water quality with storage in per-
meable pavement basecourse. Proc Inst Civil Eng 164(7):361–372
Newman AP, Coupe SJ, Puehmeier T, Morgan JA, Henderson J, Pratt CJ
(2002) Microbial ecology of oil degrading porous pavement struc-
tures. Global solutions for urban drainage, In, pp 1–12
Nichols WBP, Lucke T, Dierkes C (2014) Comparing two methods of
determining infiltration rates of permeable interlocking concrete
pavers. Water 6(8):2353–2366. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6082353
Nie W, Yuan Y, Kepner W, Nash MS, Jackson M, Erickson C (2011)
Assessing impacts of landuse and landcover changes on hydrology
for the upper San Pedro watershed. J Hydrol 407(1–4):105–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.012
Niu ZG, Lv ZW, Zhang Y, Cui ZZ (2016) Stormwater infiltration and
surface runoff pollution reduction performance of permeable pave-
ment layers. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(3):2576–2587. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-015-5466-7
Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev
Ecol Syst 32(1):333–365. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.
32.081501.114040
Pratt C, Wilson S, Cooper P (2002) Source control using constructed
pervious surfaces: hydraulic, structural and water quality perfor-
mance issues (no. C582)
Razzaghmanesh M, Borst M (2019) Long-term effects of three types of
permeable pavements on nutrient infiltrate concentrations. Sci Total
Environ 670:893–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.
279
Rodriguez-Hernandez J, Andrés-Valeri VC, Ascorbe-Salcedo A, Castro-
Fresno D (2015) Laboratory study on the stormwater retention and
runoff attenuation capacity of four permeable pavements. J Environ
Eng 142(2):04015068. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-
7870.0001033
Roseen RM, Ballestero TP, Houle JJ, Avellaneda P, Briggs J, Fowler G,
Wildey R (2009) Seasonal performance variations for storm-water
management systems in cold climate conditions. J Environ Eng
135(3):128–137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)
135:3(128)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Roseen RM, Ballestero TP, Houle JJ, Briggs JF, Houle KM (2012) Water
quality and hydrologic performance of a porous asphalt pavement as
a storm-water treatment strategy in a cold climate. J Environ Eng
138(1):81–89. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.
0000459
Rushton B (2001) Low-impact parking lot design reduces runoff and
pollutant loads. J Water Resour Plan Manag 172(3):172–179.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:3(172)
Scholz M, Grabowiecki P (2007) Review of permeable pavement sys-
tems. Build Environ 42(11):3830–3836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2006.11.016
Tota-Maharaj K, Scholz M (2010) Efficiency of permeable pavement
systems for the removal of urban runoff pollutants under varying
environmental conditions. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29(3):358–
369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10418
USEPA (2000) Low impact development (LID), a literature review.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-841-B-00-
005
Valinski NA, Chandler DG (2015) Infiltration performance of engineered
surfaces commonly used for distributed stormwater management. J
Environ Manag 160:297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2015.06.032
Villarreal EL, Semadeni-Davies A, Bengtsson L (2004) Inner city
stormwater control using a combination of best management prac-
tices. Ecol Eng 22(4–5):279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.
2004.06.007
Weiss PT, Kayhanian M, Gulliveret JS, Khazanovich L (2017)
Permeable pavement in northern North American urban areas: re-
search review and knowledge gaps. Int J Pavement Eng 20(2):143–
162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1279482
Wiesmann U (1994) Biological nitrogen removal from wastewater. In:
Biotechnics/wastewater. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 113–154
Yoo C, Ku JM, Jun C, Zhu JH (2016) Simulation of infiltration facilities
using the SEEP/W model and quantification of flood runoff reduc-
tion effect by the decrease in CN. Water Sci Technol 74(1):118–129.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.189
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.