Designing of Geotextile Baffle Contact Systems (GBCS) for the

Treatment of First Flush of Stormwater Runoff

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Cevat Yaman1, Dr. Nafiz Eyup Korkut2

1
Environmental Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology
Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey, Phone:905305260779
2
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Merter, Istanbul, Turkey
1
cevatyaman@yahoo.com, 2korkut34@yahoo.com

Abstract- Geotextile Baffle Contact System (GBCS) is proposed as a new Best Management Practice (BMP) to
remove and degrade pollutants from first flush of stormwater runoff. The GBCS is a rectangular tank where
geotextiles are vertically suspended and closely packed, providing a sinuous sequence of channels with pervious
walls. The geotextile baffles in the GBCS are to serve as biofilm attachment media for the treatment of first flush of
stormwater runoff. The GBCS was originally developed with continuous flow of combined sewage sampled during
both wet and dry weather periods. The pollutants in GBCS are removed by the following mechanisms; filtration
through the porous geotextile baffles, adsorption onto the geotextile baffle surfaces, and sedimentation in the
elongated channel pathway. Intercepted organic material is degraded by biomass growing in the thick porous
geotextiles.

Keywords- Geotextiles, Stormwater, Biomass, Filtration

I. INTRODUCTION

Using geotextiles to improve water quality by supporting biodegradation shows great promise in application to intermittent,
weather-generated non-point pollution. Since the Clean Water Act of 1972, billions of dollars have been invested in
facilities to reduce the impacts of “point discharges” in the US and other countries in the world. However, while water
quality has improved, many streams still do not meet standards established to protect drinking water sources. Many
treatment plants discharge effluent of water quality better than that of the receiving stream. Attention has thus shifted to
“non-point” stream pollution sources such as agricultural drainage, storm runoff, and, in older cities, combined sewer
overflows (CSO). The latter two are really not “non-point” in that their locations are known, but are dispersed and
discharged intermittently. Storm drainage systems usually discharge urban runoff without treatment, which can adversely
impact the quality of receiving waters, sediments and biota. The pollutants and their concentrations in runoff are usually
difficult to predict. In one study, runoff was collected from various sources such as streets, parking lots, roofs, driveways,
and lawns in residential, commercial, and industrial areas of Madison, Wisconsin [1]. Solids, phosphorous, and heavy
metals loads were determined for each source area type from the measured concentrations and runoff volumes. Source areas
with relatively large loads were identified as critical source areas for each land use. Streets were critical for most pollutants
in all land uses. Parking lots were critical in commercial and industrial land areas, while lawns and driveways in residential
neighborhoods contributed nutrient.

Urban streams and the parks are among the remnants of a natural environment in metropolitan areas, and are under
increased public interest and scrutiny. The public increasingly demands that the streams not just function as drains and
aesthetic backdrops, but also be thriving aquatic habitats. However, in addition to water quality impacts, urban development
stresses aquatic habitats physically and hydrologically. The peak discharge rate in storms increases due to changes in land
surface and rapid convergence of runoff in closed drainage systems. Almost any measurable rainfall produces runoff from
an impervious surface. The US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method of calculating runoff illustrates that an extended
rainfall below 1.27 cm generates negligible runoff from almost any vegetated surface. There are thus more incidences of
high streamflow annually in urban streams. The cumulative effect is alteration of stream morphology that is the habitat for
aquatic life, and its frequent disturbance. Equally serious is the reduced groundwater discharge that sustains dry weather
base flow.
It is known from field observations that the first 0.64 – 1.27 cm of rainfall, called first flush, mobilizes material
accumulated on impervious surfaces. Most of this runoff would be infiltrated into the ground on undeveloped surfaces.
Hence, there is interest in diverting only the first flush through sand filters, median swales, or other Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) that promote infiltration and treatment as well as reduce peak runoff rates. These are difficult to
implement in urban areas due to space constraints. In dense urban sites, only compact, underground locations are generally
available for such efforts. Nevertheless, recharge of groundwater with stormwater is desirable where feasible. Not only is
the poorest quality urban runoff generated from streets and parking lots, but also these impervious areas have the largest
contrast between “before” and “after” allocation of rainfall between infiltration and runoff. Many materials entrained in
runoff are amenable to physical separation methods such as screening, sedimentation and floatation, and treatment units
have been developed for this purpose. However, suspended and dissolved organic components may also be of concern,
especially pathogens in animal waste.

First flush collection systems are employed to capture and isolate the most polluted runoff, with subsequent runoff being
diverted directly to the stormwater system. A broad range of pollutants can be found in stormwater runoff. The nature of
these pollutants depends strongly on the land use and the activities carried out on the site. Pollutants can come from
atmospheric fallout, accidental spills, leakages, materials handling practices, applying chemicals (including fertilizers) and
applying wastes to land. The appropriateness of first flush containment therefore depends primarily on the nature and
source of the pollution, in terms of the drainage hydrology, pollutant mobility and pollutant supply.

First flush is most readily observed on small catchments or individual premises, particularly if a high proportion of the
catchment is impervious (such as paved surfaces and roads). In such cases, the first flush collection system should be an
integral part of the stormwater pollution control system. The first flush containment system also acts as an emergency
backup if there is a chemical spill or similar incident. This reduces the risk of pollution and subsequent prosecution.

When a substantial proportion of the runoff pollutants are degradable, its quality can be improved before infiltration by
treatment by a stormwater BMP such as GBCS. The substrate intercepted in each transient event would be digested up to
the next event. Keeping a viable residual biomass is a problem in droughts, but the geotextile filters display capability to
rebuild an active biomass at each fresh batch. Figure 1 shows an application to a retail parking lot where poor runoff quality
is expected due to customer activities [2].

Materials entrained in urban runoff can be classified as one of seven types:

1. Screenable floating litters 5. Colloidal organic solids
2. Settleable organic and inorganic solids 6. Dissolved organics
3. Colloidal inorganic solids (silt and clay) 7. Dissolved inorganic solids
4. Hydrocarbon fuel and lubricant globules and solutes

Only the last three can be allowed to reach the infiltration surface. Larger materials must be removed upstream. The
longevity of the infiltration surface is enhanced if degradable material (types 4, 5 & 6) is also removed “upstream”.
Figure 1. Layout of a Local Runoff Treatment and Recharge System

II. GEOTEXTILES IN ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATIONS

In recent years, geotextiles have been commonly used in environmental applications. In one study, large-scale flume tests
were performed for the study of the performance of geotextiles in silt fences as sediment barriers under varying values of
runoff discharges [3]. Another study was on hydraulic behavior of permeable geosynthetics within unsaturated
embankments subjected to rainfall infiltration [4]. Geotextiles have also been used in dewatering systems and oil–geotextile
interaction ponds [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]

Biological clogging of landfill leachate collection filters were investigated and it was concluded that stable permeability
was found in only certain types, implying that the biomass growth stabilized with continuous channels through the filter
[13]. Leachate quality was improved by substrate decomposition. This problem was seen as an opportunity to treat dilute
runoff by using porous geotextiles. Issues included finding types of geotextiles that support biomass, the types of treatment
that occur, available hydraulic capacity, and the useful life. Some other studies of biological clogging of nonwoven
geotextiles have been reported in the literature [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]

A pilot plant study showed that Geotextile Baffle Contact System (GBCS) can reduce total suspended solids (TSS),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonia (NH3) to below secondary treatment standards [21]. Nitrate (NO3-)
concentrations were also reduced after certain biofilm thickness was reached. The wastewater sample used in the bench
scale study was collected from a combined sewer system; therefore, it is expected that the GBCS can effectively treat first
flush of stormwater runoff. Currently there is no design data available with regards to the use of GBCS in the field. The
purpose of this paper is to explain the design criteria for the GBCS.

III. DEVELOPMENT AND DESİGN OF GBCS FOR FIRST FLUSH RUNOFF TREATMENT

The pilot plant study was run to study the capability of geotextiles to remove and degrade wastewater pollutants, as shown
in Figure 2. To minimize the headloss that would occur with flow through filters that would gradually clog by captured and
growing biomass, the geotextile baffles were placed in a zigzag pattern, transverse to the flow direction to form a sinuous
channel bounded on both sides with the attachment material, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Typical cross section of GBCS

Figure 3. Plan view of GBCS with developing biofilm

In this pilot plant study, 25.4 cm x 25.4 cm sized coupons of eight different geotextiles were used. Different types of woven
(fiber and slit film) and nonwoven needle punched geotextiles (continuous filament and staple fiber) were tested. The
geotextiles and selected properties are listed in Table 1. It was expected that the geotextiles with higher interior porosity,
the nonwovens, would perform the best. However, the planar woven geotextiles were also tested, including four grades of
woven fiber fabrications to determine if the different thickness made a difference by itself.
 TABLE I
Published Properties of the Geotextiles Used

Product Apparent Opening Permittivity Puncture

(Type & Polymer) Size (AOS), mm sec-1 Resistance
lbs
Amoco 2130 0.6 0.05 65
W/F /PP
Amoco 1199 0.212 0.28 135
W/F/PP
Amoco 2002 0.425 0.05 90
W/F/PP
Geotex 315 ST 0.212 0.06 125
W/SF/PP
Trevira 1125 0.210-0.149 2.01 115
NW/CF/PET
Amoco 4545 0.212 2.1 55
NW/ST/PP
Polyfelt TS700 0.12-0.18 1.6 120
NW/CF/PP
Amoco 4551 0.212 1.5 90
NW/ST/PP

W = Woven, NW = Nonwoven, F= Fiber, SF = Slit Film, ST=Stapled, CF = Continuous Filament, PP = Polypropylene,

PET = Polyester

The results of this study made it clear that nonwoven geotextiles attracted more biomass and better organic removal than
woven ones. The reason is that the nonwoven (NW) geotextiles provide much higher surface area for microbial growth than
the woven ones do [22].

In the pilot study mentioned above, the 0.0757 m3 rectangular tank (30.5 cm x 30.5 cm x 76.2 cm) dimensions provided; a
tank cross-section area of 0.09 m2 normal to the flow, a tank surface area of 0.23 m2, and fifteen (15) individual 25.4 cm by
25.4 cm geotextile baffles at 5.08 cm spacing (total 0.966 m2 geotextile surface area) and a constant 5.08 cm channel width
through the zigzags. The baffles were arranged with narrow channels to foster contact of dissolved organic with the biofilm.
In combination with the use of flexible baffle channel walls to dampen any turbulence, the narrow channels encouraged
laminar flow. With laminar flow, substrate would diffuse laterally (across the flow) to replace material sorbed from the
streamlines along the baffles. It was thus seen as necessary to provide a very large baffle surface area and channel length of
4.57 m, which was easily provided due to the thinness of the geotextile baffles. This also provided a long sedimentation
path length (Figure 3). The selected flow rate of 0.0757 m3/day was applied to the GBCS over 24 hour period. The design
hydraulic loading rate (HLR) for the pilot study, based on the surface area of geotextile material, can be calculated as
follows:

HLR=Flowrate/Total Geotextile Surface Area=0.0757 m3/day/0.966 m2=0.078 m3/day/m2

GBCS, as illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5, is being proposed as a Best Management Practice (BMP) for the treatment of
fist flush of stormwater runoff. As shown in Figure 4, the first flush basin will only capture the first flush runoff generated
during a storm. The volume of this first flush is calculated by multiplying the total impervious area by 1.27 cm.
Figure 4. Cross section of GBCS

Figure 5. Layout of GBCS

Floating litter and coarse soil particles will be captured in the first flush basin as shown in Figure 4. The first flush basin
will automatically close by floating lid, when the basin is full, which then will activate the pump and the air compressor.
The excess runoff will be diverted to storm sewer as seen in Figure 2. Air (oxygen) significantly accelerated the
biodegradation process during the development of GBCS. Therefore, it is suggested that the proposed GBCS have an
aeration system. Diffused air, as suggested for GBCS, will be provided at the bottom of the GBCS tank by using an air
compressor. The amount of air needed is calculated based on the amount of organic material to be biodegraded in GBCS.

An effluent filter system, as shown in Figure 4, will prevent large particles from entering the GBCS and will intercept oil
and grease.

Microorganisms attached to organic particles will colonize the geotextile baffles to degrade the organics found in the
runoff. While biomass grows at each dose, the lack of fresh substrate during dry period will cause decomposition and re-
open geotextile pore spaces.
If a GBCS were to be designed for a retail parking lot with 2 025 m2 surface area, the design steps should be as follows:

A 1.27 cm rain on a 2 025 m2 retail parking lot will generate a first flush volume of 25.5 m3. The total geotextile surface
area needed for the GBCS, based on the volume of first flush runoff of 25 485 liters, can be calculated as: Total geotextile
surface area (m2) = 25.5 m3/day/0.078 m3/day/m2=327 m2, which approximately translates into 10 square shaped geotextile
baffles, each having surface area of 32.7 m2 (5.72 m x 5.72 m). The dimensions of the rectangular treatment chamber can
be selected as 6.1 m x 6.1 m x 11.45 m, which leaves 0.38 m of constant channel width through the zigzags. The
dimensions, cross section and the layout of the GBCS for this design example are illustrated in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The
treated final effluent will be discharged to subsurface to recharge the groundwater.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigated the potential to use GBCS for treatment of first flush of stormwater runoff. The GBCS is arranged
to maintain hydraulic capacity and maximize exposure of influent to a treating biomass. The GBCS combined sanitary and
geosynthetic engineering principles to investigate the use of geotextiles for treating stormwater runoff by physical filtration
and biological decomposition. The first question was to determine which types of currently available geotextiles can
efficiently support the biodegradation of organics. It was found that only porous nonwoven geotextiles of the needle
punched type are suitable. A treating biomass floc grows from microorganisms attached to suspended or colloidal particles
captured within the structure of the geotextile baffles, using the host organic particle as substrate. Eventually, the biomass
coalesces and grows outward to project beyond the fabric surface to directly contact liquid flowing through the sinuous
channels defined by the baffles.

The key economic and engineering feasibility parameters were aeration and vessel dimensions. The two indices found
appropriate for physical design were the hydraulic loading rate (HLR), expressed as m 3/day-m2 of baffle surface and the
surface settling rate, also expressed in m3/day/m2 terms. The latter is used to determine the surface area of the vessel, but
implicitly, the size of the particle that is settled out and the hydraulic detention time.

Ratio of HLR to baffle surface area, m3/day/m2, is not just an index of available surface area to provide opportunity for
sorption, it also represents the food (organics in influent) to microorganisms (F/M) ratio for the actual degradation. Since
there is a finite biomass thickness on the baffles, and the HLR represents the organic loading rate, this is essentially an F/M
ratio on a rate basis. The design value will be that used in the experiments, 0.078 m3/day/m2 (baffle surface area). For a
given daily flow, this index sets the number of baffles in the treatment unit.

Operating the bench scale pilot plant baffle at 0.078 m3/day/m2 of HLR reduced the primary effluent TSS and BOD5 over
90%, to less than 5 mg/l. Ammonia was reduced over 90% to 1.0 mg/l and effluent nitrate (NO 3-) to below 10 mg/l when
the biofilm aged. The extended batch aeration tests indicated that about 40% of the ammonia removal was due to
evaporation after release from organic nitrogen, and the rest was biologically converted to nitrate with microorganisms
attached to the geotextiles.

Note: The author declares no Conflict of Interest on behalf of both authors.

V. REFERENCES

[1] R. T. Bannerman, D. W. Owens, R. B. Dodds and N. J. Hornewer, “Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater”
Water Science and Technology, Vol.28, No.3-5, 241-259, (1993).

[2] C. Yaman, “Geotextiles as Biofilters in Wastewater Treatment” Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, PA, (2003).

[3] R. J. C. Farias, E. M. Palmeira and J. C. Carvalho, “Performance of geotextile silt fences in large flume tests”
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 13, No. 4, 133-144, (2006).

[4] E. F. Garcia, C. P. K. Gallage and T. Uchimura, “Function of permeable geosynthetics in unsaturated embankments
subjected to rainfall infiltration”. Geosynthetics International, Vol.14, No.2, 89-99, (2007).
[5] J. Fowler, M. Duke, M. L. Schmidt, B. Crabtree, R. M. Bagby and E. Trainer, “Dewatering sewage sludge and
hazardous sludge with geotextile tubes”. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Delmas, Gourc
and Girard, Editors, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1007–1012, (2002).

[6] H. Mori, H. Miki, and N. Tsuneoka, ”The geo-tube method for dioxin-contaminated soil”. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 20, No. 5, 281–288, (2002).

[7] G. R. Koerner and R. M. Koerner,”Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test”. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol.24, No.2, 129–137, (2006).

[8] H. Moo-Young, T. E. Myers, D. Townsend and C. Ochola, “The migration of contaminants through geosynthetic fabric
containers utilized in dredging operations”. Engineering Geology, 53, No. 2, 167–176, (1999).

[9] H. K. Moo-Young, D. A. Graffney, and X. Mo, “Testing procedures to assess the viability of dewatering with geotextile
tubes”. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.20, No. 5, 289–303, (2002).

[10] M. E. Kutay, and A. H. Aydilek, “Retention performance of geotextile containers confining geomaterials”
Geosynthetics International, Vol.11, No.2, 100–113, (2004).

[11] M.B. Mendonca, M. Ehrlich, M. C. Cammarota and D. D. C. Freire, “Dewatering of oily slurry using drying bed with
geotextile filter”. Geosynthetics International, Vol.15, No. 3, 184-191, (2008).

[12] J. D. Scott, “Geotextiles for filtering water and oil fluids”. NAGS2005/GRI-19 Cooperative Conference, Las Vegas,
NV (CDROM), (2005).

[13] G. R. Koerner, “Performance Evaluation of Geotextile Filters Used in Leachate Collection Systems of Solid waste
Landfills”. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, PA, (1993).

[14] E. M. Palmeira, A. F.N. Remigio, M. L.G. Ramos, and R. S. Bernardes, “A study on biological clogging of nonwoven
geotextiles under leachate flow”. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.26, 205–219, (2008).

[15] I.R. Fleming and R.K. Rowe, “Laboratory studies of clogging of landfill leachate collection and drainage systems”.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41 (1), 134–153, (2004).

[16] R.K. Rowe, “Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems”. Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique, 55 (9), 631–
678, (2005).

[17] R.K. Rowe and R. McIsaac, “Clogging of tire shreds and gravel permeated with landfill leachate”. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131 (6), 682–693, (2005).

[18] R. McIsaac and R.K. Rowe, “Change in leachate chemistry and porosity as leachate permeates through tire shreds
and gravel”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42 (4), 1173–1188, (2005).

[19] R. McIsaac and R.K. Rowe, “Effect of filter/separators on the clogging of leachate collection Systems”. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 43 (7), 674–693, (2006).

[20] R. McIsaac and R.K. Rowe, “Clogging of gravel drainage layers permeated with landfill leachate”. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133 (8), 1026–1039, (2007).

[21] N. E. Korkut, “Geotextiles as Biofilm Attachment Baffles for Wastewater Treatment”. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University,
PA, (2003).

[22] C. Yaman, J. P. Martin and N.E. Korkut, “Use of layered geotextiles to provide a substrate for biomass development
in the treatment of septic tank effluent prior to ground infiltration”. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131, No.
12, 1667–1675, (2005).