3.8 Article

Water quality impacts of young green roofs in a tropical city: a case study from Singapore

期刊

BLUE-GREEN SYSTEMS
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 145-162

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/bgs.2021.007

关键词

carbon; eutrophication; green roof water quality; nutrients; trace metals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study in Singapore reveals that different substrates and grass cover on green roofs can impact runoff water quality. Commercial substrate configurations led to significant increases in nitrogen and sulfur content in runoff, while soil substrate excelled in retaining nutrients and trace metals.
This study examined the effects of two substrates (SOIL and COMMERCIAL) and grass on the green roof runoff quality in Singapore. Ten events were sampled over a 9-month period. Rainfall and green roof runoff from grass and bare experimental configurations were tested for total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients (NO3--N and PO43--P), cations/anions and trace metals (Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb). All configuration units neutralised acid rainfall and removed metals except Fe despite their proximity to an industrial area. Concentrations decrease over the monitoring period for most water quality variables. The COMMERCIAL (COM) configurations elevated Cl- (3.8-10.8 ppm), SO42- (1.5-32.4 ppm), NO3--N (7.8-75.6 ppm) and NH4+-N (22.0-53.1 ppm) concentrations in the runoff. Concentrations of NO3--N (4.5-67.7 ppm) and NH4+-N (14.7-53.0 ppm) remained high at the end of the monitoring period for the COMgrass configuration, even with dilution from monsoon rainfall, making it suitable as an irrigation water source and a fertiliser substitute. The SOIL substrate retained N-nutrients, TOC and trace metals with concentrations comparable or below rainfall inputs. This substrate is suitable for widespread green roof applications in Singapore and other tropical cities. We recommend substrate testing before their approval for use on green roofs and encourage the long-term monitoring of these systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据