Fine Particle Capture by Synthetic Vegetation in a Laboratory Flume
By
KRISTEN FAURIA
B.S. (University of Oregon) 2010
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
in the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
Approved:
_____________________________________
S. Geoff Schladow, Chair
_____________________________________
Fabian Bombardelli
_____________________________________
John Reuter
Committee in Charge
2013
i
Abstract
[1] Vegetated floodplains and wetlands trap particulates, a process which is important for water quality
and wetland form and function. The rate of particle removal by vegetation remains poorly characterized,
especially for fine particles with a range of particle sizes. Results from a series of laboratory flume
experiments with synthetic grasses that evaluated particle removal rates for a range of particle sizes and
experimental treatments are presented. Suspended road dust (1.25 – 109 µm diameter) concentration was
monitored in a laboratory flume as flow velocity, initial particle concentration, plant stem density, and the
presence of biofilm were varied. Particle concentration was monitored and first-order decay models were
fit to the particle concentration data. The presence of vegetation was found to increase the rate of particle
capture/decay compared to a bare flume. Additionally, we observed trapping of small (<30µm diameter)
particles by vegetation. Particle capture by plants increased with particle size, the presence of biofilm, and
stem density. Yet, the rate of particle capture was found to decrease with flow velocity. ANOVA mixed
models were used to test the significance of these results; the presence of biofilm, stem density, flow
velocity, and initial particle concentration were found to significantly contribute to the rate of particle
capture. Additionally, we observed an increase in 3-7µm particles over time.
ii
1. Introduction
[2] The transport and fate of particles in vegetated floodplains and wetlands is fundamental to wetland
form and function, pollutant and nutrient transport, primary productivity, land surface elevation, and
downstream water quality [e.g. Larsen and Harvey, 2010; Hokosawa and Horie, 1992; Stubblefield et al.
2006; Davies – Colley et al., 2001; Mudd et al., 2010; Johnston, 1991]. Vegetation is important to these
processes by stabilizing sediment and capturing suspended particles by both altering hydrodynamic
conditions and providing surfaces for particle adhesion. This study focuses on the trapping of particles by
vegetation, specifically this study uses laboratory flume experiments to measure the rate of particle
capture by emergent vegetation for a range of particle sizes and flow conditions. By reporting capture
rates and discussing the effects of particle size, the existence of biofilm, flow velocity, stem density, and
initial particle concentration on particulate trapping, the results demonstrate which variables are most
important to particulate capture and help inform modelers and floodplain restoration efforts.
[3] The importance of vegetation to the fate and transport of particulates in terrestrial systems with
flowing water is well documented. Stumpf [1983] observed the loss of 80 percent of particulates within
12m of a tidal creek; 50 percent of this loss was accounted for by trapping on the stems of vegetation.
Leonard et al. [1995] demonstrated that 4-10 percent of particles captured in a tidal marsh were caught by
the stems of vegetation. Huang et al. [2008] and Saiers et al. [2003] measured trapping of very fine (1µm
and 0.3µm, respectively) particles on the stems of vegetation in the Florida everglades. For the purpose of
particle retention by treatment wetlands, it is known that vegetation increases particle retention by altering
the hydrodynamics of flow and by particle adhesion on plant surfaces [Kadlec and Wallace, 2008, pg.
210]. Despite observations of trapping on plant stems, gravitational settling dominates particle trapping in
vegetated zones under typical flow conditions [eg. Leonard et al., 1995; Mudd et al., 2010]. It is worth
noting, however, that vegetation can enhance settling by altering turbulence intensity and by providing
vertically oriented surfaces for settling [eg. Nepf, 1999; Kadlec and Wallace, 2008; Elliot, 2000].
1
[4] Many particles are too small to settle on the timescale of floodplain inundation even with vegetation
induced changes to turbulence intensity. As a result trapping by plant stems, or direct interception, may
dominate the trapping of these fine particles [eg. Rubenstein and Koehl, 1977; Huang et al., 2008]. There
is value in examining fine particles specifically because fine particles have profound water quality
implications; 97% of particles from highway runoff are smaller than 30µm [Li et al., 2005], and metals
sorb to small particles [eg. Sansalone and Buchberger, 1997]. Here we define small particles as particles
with a diameter less than 30µm based on the findings by Li et al. [2005].
[5] The role of vegetation in open channel flow is often incorporated within a roughness term. However,
particle capture on the surfaces of vegetation is more analogous to flow across a cylinder [eg. Rubenstein
and Koehl, 1977; Spielman, 1977; Shimeta and Jumars, 1991]. Particle capture by a single cylinder has
been investigated experimentally studies [eg. Palmer et al., 2004; Wu et al., 2011]. Palmer et al. [2004]
examined the capture of 194 µm spheres by a grease-coated cylinder in a laboratory flume and found a
relationship between the collector Reynolds number (Rec), the ratio of particle diameter to collector
diameter, and the capture efficiency in turbulent flows (Rec =1-1000). Wu et al. [2011] developed a
similar empirical relationship for colloid capture by a single collector in laminar flows (Rec = 0.4 – 40).
These studies did not consider the wake-generating effects of multiple collectors, surface properties (zeta
potential and the existence of biofilms) of particles and collectors, and particles < 177µm in turbulent
and intermediate turbulent flow. Particulate trapping has been shown to be influenced by biofilms,
composites of micro-organisms and organic material that coat submerged surfaces. Jin et al. [2011]
observed an increase in particle retention with the existence of biofilm on laboratory plates. Wolyniak et
al. [2012] found that the retention of oocysts on biofilm coated natural vegetation depended on roughness.
Finally, Palmer et al. [2004] showed that adding roughness elements to a cylindrical collector increased
capture efficiency. These studies suggest that biofilms are important for particle retention.
[6] The goal of this work is to identify the factors that contribute to particulate trapping by vegetation
with emphasis on <30µm particles. We present results from a series of laboratory flume experiments with
2
bladed synthetic vegetation that test the influence of flow velocity, stem density, particle size, particle
concentration, and the presence of biofilms on particulate capture. We model the change in particle
concentration through time using a first order decay model to characterize each treatment with a single
decay constant. This work is partly motivated by ongoing management efforts at Lake Tahoe, CA-NV,
where inputs of fine, inorganic particles (<20µm) have been related to lake clarity decline [Jassby et al.,
1999; Swift et al., 2006; Sahoo et al., 2010; Lahontan and NDEP, 2010]. The results will help inform
floodplain restoration and efforts in the Tahoe basin to meet fine sediment load reduction targets
established by the Lake Tahoe TMDL [Sahoo et al., 2010; Lahontan and NDEP, 2010].
2.0 Methods
2.1 Theoretical considerations
[7] Particles can be removed from across-vegetation flow by several mechanisms: gravitational settling,
direct interception, inertial impaction, and diffusional deposition [eg. Rubenstein and Koehl, 1977;
Spielman, 1977]. Gravitational settling is the sedimentation of particles or complex aggregated particles
due to gravity; Stokes’ law describes particle settling in the absence of turbulence. However, floodplains
are transitionally turbulent or have spatially heterogeneous turbulent characteristics. Direct interception is
a mechanism through which plant stems trap particles; it is trapping due to travel along stream lines and
subsequent collision and adhesion to collectors (plant surfaces). Inertial impaction occurs when particles
have sufficient momentum to deviate from their stream lines and impact and stick to a collector. Inertial
impaction is negligible for the experiments undertaken because the particles were sufficiently small.
Diffusional deposition, the deposition of particles on a collector due to random processes like Brownian
motion or turbulence, is another mechanism for trapping. Interpretation of the results is confounded by
the potential for particle flocculation. While giving the impression of particle removal in smaller size
classes and reducing the number of particles, flocculation transfers particle mass to larger size classes.
[8] Palmer et al. [2004] examined the trapping of 177- 210µm spherical plastic beads by direct
interception on a single grease-coated cylinder in a laboratory flume for intermediate Reynolds number
3
(and transitional turbulent) conditions. Palmer et al. [2004] found an empirical relationship between the
capture efficiency (η), collector Reynolds number (Rec) and ratio of particle diameter to collector
diameter (R),
  0.224(Rec )0.718 (R)2.08
(1).
Capture efficiency is defined by Palmer et al. [2004] and aerosol filtration theory as the ratio of the
upstream span of particles, dp, that are captured by a collector of diameter dc,
  dp / dc
(2).
From a geometric perspective on flow through emergent vegetation, the rate of particle removal by direct
interception can be written as,
kDirecInterception  udclc' ,
(3)
'
where and lc is the collector length per unit volume and u is flow velocity. Palmer et al. [2004] use
Stokes’ Law for particle settling in a still fluid to describe particle settling in an emergent wetland where
the rate of particle removal by settling is,
ksettling  vs / h ,
(4)
where vs is the Stokes’ settling velocity and h is water depth. From this point forward the empirical
relationship (eq. 1) presented by Palmer et al. [2004] will be described as PNPA theory.
2.2 Experimental Design
[9] Laboratory flume experiments to investigate the capture of suspended road dust by synthetic
vegetation were conducted. Suspended road dust was recirculated through synthetic vegetation in a
laboratory flume and the suspended particle concentration (by size class) was measured. Particle
4
concentration was expected to change through time according to the two dimensional diffusion –
convection equation,
dC
dC
d2C
d2C
u
 Dx 2  Dz 2  C ,
dt
dx
dx
dz
(5)
where C is particle concentration, u is flow velocity, Dx and Dz are longitudinal and vertical dispersion
coefficients, and  is the rate of particle removal. The flume was assumed to be uniformly mixed by
turbulence such that  is the only source for changing particle concentration. Thus, concentration decay
with time is modeled as,
P  Po exp  kt ,
(6)
where P is particle concentration, Po is initial particle concentration, k is the rate of change in suspended
particle concentration, and t is time. The rate of change in suspended particle concentration, k , integrates
all the previously described mechanisms for particle removal: settling, direct interception, inertial
impaction, diffusional deposition, and flocculation.
2.2 Experimental Apparatus
[10] A reservoir of 200 gallons of water was recirculated through a 7.90 m long X 0.46 m wide X 0.50 m
deep flume at flow rates of 1.2 x 10-3, 3.2 x 10-3, and 4.6 x 10-3 m3s-1 using two pumps (0.5hp and 1.5hp)
in parallel (Fig. 1). Each experiment ran for 65 minutes such that the reservoir volume passed through the
flume 6.2, 16.5, and 23.7 times for each respective flow rate. A list of the experimental treatments is
shown in table two. Suspended particle (road dust) volume concentration was measured with an in situ
particle size analyzer (Sequoia LISST-100X; type B, size range 1.25 – 250 µm). The LISST measures
particle size distribution and concentration through laser diffraction techniques. We processed the raw
scattering intensities measured by the LISST using MATLAB© routines [Andrews et al., 2010]. The
5
LISST was positioned on its side to prevent lens fouling and measurements were made in the real-time
burst operating mode and reported at 1-9 second (average of six seconds) intervals.
[11] Road dust (described below) was suspended in tap water at two different starting particle
concentrations (SPCs): 16.6 SD 6.5 µL L-1 and 28.7 SD 6.1 µL L-1. Example particle size distributions of
these two starting concentrations are shown in figure 2. To set the desired SPC value, particles were
mixed in the flume until the recorded LISST transmission reached 75 or 55 percent, respectively. To mix
to these target SPCs, road dust was first stirred into the 200 gallon reservoir. The pumps and LISST were
then turned on for ten to twenty minutes to ensure that the reservoir was thoroughly mixed and to check
the transmission values. During this time, additional particles were added to the reservoir to reach the
desired SPC. After the target SPC was achieved, the pumps and LISST were turned off and the flume
water drained into the reservoir for five to ten minutes.
[12] The pumps were initiated to begin the experimental runs after the desired SPC was reached; the
LISST was turned on ninety seconds after the pumps. While an experiment was running, the water in the
reservoir was kept agitated by the pumps and the return water from the flume. Despite this, it is possible
that particle settling occurred in the reservoir. However, particle settling in the reservoir would occur
equally during the control runs (no vegetation in flume) compared to runs with vegetation. Thus, we used
the control runs to separate reservoir settling from trapping by vegetation. To avoid initialization effects,
time zero for data analysis was set as five minutes after the LISST was turned on. Between experiments
the water in the flume drained into the reservoir. The water and particles in the reservoir were replaced
after several experiments. At these times the flume bottom was also scrubbed and rinsed free of particles.
Water was not reused between runs with and without dry biofilm.
[13] The road dust was collected in the Lake Tahoe basin by a Tymco DST-6 regenerative air sweeper in
the Gardner Mountain, South Lake Tahoe, California subdivision and is characterized by volcanic
cinders, eroding sediment, and road material [Russell Wigart, pers. comm., 2011]. The road dust in Lake
6
Tahoe may contain residues of traction sand that is applied during winter, and road dust characteristics
likely vary with the collection location. Figure 3 shows a magnified image of the suspended road dust
particles that demonstrates the angularity of the particles. The PSDs in figure 2 show that the initial
volume particle concentrations peaked around 11µm. Additionally, the high SPC particle size distribution
shows a consistent secondary peak at 4µm and a trough at 7µm (Fig. 2).
[14] We examined particle removal when the flume was empty (control runs) and by plastic grass mats
(0.46 m wide x 4.0 m long) with stem densities of 2704 and 7209 stems m-2 (Table 1; Fig. 1b, 1c). The
mats consisted of bladed stems that were 6 mm wide at their base and that tapered to a point at their tips
with an average width of 3mm. The stems were bladed, naturally bent in random orientations, and 13.0 to
20.3 cm long with average lengths of 14.5cm (7209stems m-2) and 16.6cm (2704 stems m-2) (Fig. 1b, 1c).
The mats filled the entire width of the flume and, due to their buoyancy, were held to the base of the
flume with aluminum rods.
[15] Biofilms were grown on the plastic mats to make the artificial grass more analogous to natural
conditions (Fig. 1c). The plastic mats were submerged in Lake Spafford, a hyper-eutrophic body of water
located on the UC Davis campus. After one week, the mats were extracted and gently rinsed to remove
loosely attached organic material. The mats were then dried outside for several days to mimic the state of
intermittent floodplains that are dry before flooding. Biofilm mass from a total of fifty six stems was
measured as 1.19 x 10-2g biofilm per stem or 8.26 x 10-4 g cm-2.
[16] Longitudinal flow velocities were measured 1) with two 3D Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADVs,
Son-Tek) measuring at 5 Hz in front and behind of the grass mats and 2) by measuring flow depth at the
ADV locations and calculating cross-sectional mean velocity. Flow rates were calibrated prior to the
experiments using a sluice gate. From this calibration we found that the three flow rate settings correlated
with cross-sectional mean velocities with ranges of 1.6 – 2.1, 4.0 - 5.0, and 5.8 – 6.8 cm s-1, respectively;
the mean velocities were: 1.8, 4.5, and 6.1 cm s-1. Four aluminium screens (hole diameter 0.6 cm; 17,500
7
holes/m2) were placed inside the flume upstream of the experimental vegetation to straighten the flow
(Fig. 1a). Additionally, the ADVs did not collect data at a sufficient rate to measure turbulence intensity.
However, we do verify that horizontal velocity varied through time (Fig. 4). The velocity fluctuations
shown in figure 4 indicate that the flow in the flume was non-laminar.
2.3 Statistical Analysis
[17] The influence of biofilm, initial particle concentration, flow velocity, and stem density on capture
rates (k) was tested with several mixed ANOVA models in a manner similar to Harvey and Bourget
[1995]. Subsets of the data from individual experiments were used to test for the influence of different
factors. We could not test all the factors at once because we did not have data in all the factor levels
(replicate data). For example, this means that there was no data for control runs with a high stem density.
Mixed models were compared with a type = 3 ANOVA to determine the best fit ANOVAs. Fixed factors
included: biofilm, initial particle concentration, flow velocity, and stem density. Particle diameter and R2
values (the fit of K to the raw data) were set as random blocking factors unless otherwise noted. Due to
the presence of two levels within most factors, posterior comparisons were not needed.
3. Results
[18] Suspended particle concentration decreased during all experimental runs for many particle size
classes. Particle capture (decay) rates were fitted to particle concentration in each particle bin size. The
decay rates, k , are plotted against particle diameter for each experiment type (Figs. 5 and 6). Figure 6 is a
rescaled replicate of Figure 5. Higher k values for runs with plants compared to control runs show that
greater particle removal when plants were present. The control runs also demonstrate a decline in
suspended particles, albeit it small, during nearly all runs (i.e. a positive value of k). With one exception
(6.1 cm s-1; SPC 16.6 µL L-1; Fig. 5C), runs with biofilm demonstrated the highest rates of particle
removal. Plants without biofilm and with high stem densities exhibited the second highest removal rates
8
followed by low stem density plants and control experiments without plants (Figs. 5 and 6). Perhaps the
strongest response seen in Figures 5 and 6 is the increase in k with particle diameter for most runs.
[19] Figures 5 and 6 show that the high SPC runs exhibited a different removal trend with particle size
compared to low SPC runs. For high SPC runs, k decreases for 1.25 to 4µm particles, increases for 4 to
~15µm particles and then plateaus for particles greater than ~30µm. Additionally, high SPC runs exhibit
an increase in of 3 - 7µm particles. Low SPC runs show that k increased roughly linearly with particle
size. The low SPC control runs exhibit lower removal rates compared to the high SPC control runs.
Additionally, low and medium flow rate low SPC runs with high density plants and no biofilm exhibited
similarly low k values. We speculate that this is due to a change in particle source between runs 5c and
6a. While the particles used throughout the experiments were collected from the same location using the
same method, the second batch of particles was collected on a different date. This change in particle
source/collection date may be a source of variation in our results and indicates that particle type could be
important to trapping.
[20] Table 3 lists the percent of particles removed for several size classes and experimental treatments
over one hour. These percent removal values were calculated using eq. 6 and the k values. Table 3
demonstrates that treatments with plants removed a higher percentage of particles compared to control
treatments. The percentage of removed particles peaked above 90 percent for the 53.2 to 62.8µm size
class while particles between 23.2 - 27.4µm peaked at over 80 percent removal. There is a negative
removal percentage for 4.44 - 5.24 µm particles from the high SPC experiments, indicating that the 4.44 5.24 µm size class increased during the experiment.
[21] ANOVA mixed models reveal statistical differences between treatments/experimental conditions.
Treatment effects were tested in multiple models due to the absence of replicate data. The models
presented here were chosen out of a variety of models that best fit the data. Mixed model 10 tests the
effects of the presence of plants compared to control, flow velocity, and initial particle concentration on
9
raw k. For mixed model 10, control vs. plants, flow velocity, and initial particle concentration were set as
fixed factors while particle size and k goodness of fit (R2) were set as blocking factors; results from all
experimental runs except those with biofilm were included in mixed model 10. Mixed model 10 found
that the presence of plants, initial particle concentration, flow rate, and most of their interactions affect
raw k in a statistically significant way (table 4). Mixed model 11compared high stem density and low
stem density treatments. For mixed model 11, our experimental results were separated into subsets such
that only high stem density and low stem density treatments were compared with fixed factors set as stem
density and initial particle concentration and blocking factors set as particle size and R2. Table 5 shows
that both stem density and initial particle concentration statistically significant to raw k. ANOVA mixed
model 2 tested the influence of biofilm on raw k by comparing high density plant experiments with and
without biofilm (no control runs or low plant density experiments were included in this test). Biofilm,
flow velocity, and initial particle concentration were fixed factors while particle size and R2 were taken
into account as blocking factors. Table 6 shows that biofilm, flow velocity, initial particle concentration,
and most of their interactions are statistically significant to raw k. In summary, all the tested factors:
biofilm, flow velocity, initial particle concentration, the presence of plants, and plant density are
statistically significant to particle capture.
[22] The goodness of fit (R2) of the particle removal rates (k) were evaluated as a function of starting
particle concentration, flow velocity, and particle diameter and are plotted in Figure 15. Figure 15
demonstrates that the R2 values suggest that our first order decay model is best for particles greater than
~11µm. Many particles below ~11µm result in low R2 values. Values for R2 that are close to 1.0 suggest
a very good fit for the selected first order decay approach (Figure 15).
4. Discussion
[23] For the purpose of comparison to PNPA theory, we apply corrections to the k values presented in
Figures 5 and 6. We refer to the k values reported in Figures 5 and 6 as raw k and introduce three new
categories of k: adjusted k, modeled k, and PNPA k. Both adjusted k and modeled k are calculated from
10
raw k according to the methods described below. PNPA k is calculated from PNPA theory using Eqs. 1
and 3. It is worth recalling that PNPA theory formulates an empirical relationship for particle capture
efficiency and scales capture efficiency to model first order decay, kPNPA, according to Eq. 3. For clarity,
in the section below we calculate adjusted k and modeled k from raw k and compare modeled k to PNPA
k.
[24] To examine our results within the context of PNPA theory we first subtract the effects of settling and
flocculation from raw k to create adjusted k and then scale adjusted k from the flume to a theoretical
floodplain. To do this first, control runs are used to estimate background settling and flocculation in the
flume and the reservoir. We subtract the influence of settling and flocculation from raw k to create
adjusted k ( a k value that represents particle removal without the influence of settling or flocculation)
i
i
according to kip  ki  kave
, where i is the particle bin size, k p is adjusted k, k i is raw k from runs with
i
plants, and kave is k (control runs) averaged by bin size within each experimental treatment .
[25] Secondly, to compare adjusted k to PNPA k we scale from the flume to a theoretical floodplain. To
do this we consider the time rate of travel in the flume and on a theoretical floodplain. In the flume travel
time of the particles in suspension through the flume system is proportional to
VT
, where VT is the total
Q
volume of water in circulation in the flume and Q is the flow rate. On a theoretical floodplain travel time
is proportional to
l
, where l is the length of the floodplain and u is the velocity of the flow. Thus, to
u
scale the flume to a theoretical floodplain we divide the travel time of particles in the flume by the travel
time of particles in a theoretical floodplain such that the scaling factor, sf 
VT u
. By considering our
Ql
flume system where l is the length of plants in the flume and Q  uwh , where w is the width of the
flume and h is the depth of water, sf 
VT VT
 , where V p is the volume of water in the synthetic
lwh Vp
11
vegetation. Now we apply sf to adjusted k to create modeled k (which can be compared to PNPA k).
Modeled k is,
kip'  kpi VT / Vp .
(6)
Raw k, adjusted k, and modeled k are compared in Figure 7 (for a representative run). Raw k values are
larger than adjusted k for each particle size because the effects of settling and flocculation have been
subtracted from raw k to create adjusted k. Modeled k values are mostly larger than adjusted k and show
the influence of scaling factor sf.
[26] Now that the differences between raw k, adjusted k, modeled k, and PNPA k have been described we
compare modeled k to PNPA k in figures 8 and 9. Figures 8 and 9 show the modeled rates of particle
i'
decline, k p , for each experimental treatment. Figure 9 is a rescaled replicate of figure 8. The high SPC
runs show variation in modeled k with particle size. For example, figure 9a-c shows that modeled k
increases with particle size for <20µm particles. Figure 9d-e exhibits an increase in modeled k with
particle size for particles 5 - 11 µm and a decrease in modeled k with particle size for particles 12- 20 µm.
Figures 8 and 9 also show that modeled k declines as flow velocity increases.
[27] We plot the modeled k results with PNPA k in figures 8 and 9. PNPA k was calculated using
equations 1 and 3 and stem densities of 2724 – 7209 stems m-2 and cylinder diameters of 0.003 m
(straight lines, Figs. 8 and 9). Figures 8 and 9 show that modeled k is approximately equal to PNPA k for
particles less than approximately 50µm. We observe a decrease in modeled k values with flow velocity;
this observation contrasts with the trends of PNPA k. The trend of decreasing modeled k with flow
velocity is especially apparent in figure 9a-c.
[28] We report the percent change in particle concentration for specific bin sizes based on modeled k
values in table 7. By calculating the percent change in particle concentration (from the modeled k values)
for flow through vegetation for one hour, we determined that there can be up to a ~99 percent reduction in
12
particles for 53.2 - 62.8µm particles. 23.2 - 27.4µm and 10.2 - 12.0µm particles show a decline in
particles up to 95 and 85 percent, respectively. Like the previously reported percent changes in particle
concentration based on raw k, high SPC treatments show an increase of up to 28 percent over one hour for
4.44 - 5.24µm particles. 1.94-2.29µm particles also demonstrate a decline of up to 13% of particles over
one hour based on modeled k values (table 7).
[29] For floodplain restoration efforts it is useful to consider the length of wetland over which a certain
fraction of particles are removed from suspension; we choose the length where fifty percent of particles
are removed from suspension to maintain consistency with Palmer et al. [2004]. This is length is called
L50 and is calculated from flow velocity, u , and particle decay rate, k, such that,
L50  0.693u / k .
(8)
[30] This model equation matches our lab results that particle concentration decayed
exponentially with time (fig. 17). Moreover, L50 can evaluate different trapping mechanisms
separately or together. For example, we evaluate L50 for the effects of particle capture by plants
alone ( L50( p ) ), settling/flocculation ( L50(s,f) ), and the combined effects of settling/flocculation and
particle trapping by plants ( L50( s , f , p ) ). The effects of settling/flocculation and trapping by plants
can combined such that, L50( s, f , p)  0.693u / (ks, f  k p ) .
(9)
where k s , f is the empirically derived value for the settling/flocculation rate from our control experiments
and k p is the empirically derived value for trapping by plants. We examined four particle sizes: 9.9, 16.3,
43.9, and 85.2 µm. However, it is worth noting that the L50 values reported here should be applied to
natural floodplains with caution; these L50 values were derived from our experimental flume system and
may yield different results compared to a natural floodplain because of a differing starting PSD, particle
type, vegetation type/geometry, temporal properties of the natural floodplain/biofilm.
13
[31] Our experimental results show that L50( p ) increases with flow velocity and decreases with particle
size (Figs. 10a - 13a). This means that the effectiveness of trapping by plants increases as flow velocity
decreases and particle size increases. The observation that particle trapping by a collector decreases with
increasing flow velocity is consistent with findings by Wu et al. [2011]. Wu et al. [2011] demonstrated
that capture efficiency of 1.05µm colloids decreased as flow increases from 0 to 0.2 cm s-1. This negative
correlation between capture and colloid velocity has been demonstrated for spherical collectors in porous
media [Camesano et al., 1998; Compere et al., 2001; Kretzschmar et al., 1997].
[32] L50(s,f) also decreased with increasing particle size and increased with flow velocity, i.e it required a
longer distance for fifty percent of the particles to be removed from the water. This tendancy for particles
to be more effectively removed by settling as flow velocity decreases and particle size increases is well
known. However, it is worth noting that L50( p ) for 9.9µm particles is less than L50(s,f) . This demonstrates
that trapping by plants may be more effective than settling and flocculation combined for 9.9µm particles
(fig. 10a). The combined effects of settling, flocculation and plant capture result in the smallest L50
distances (Figs. 10a-13a).
[33] Figures 10b-13b show L50 predictions by PNPA theory (stem diameter= 0.003m, particle density =
2300 kg m-3, eq. 1, 3, 4, and 6). Figures 10-13 show that compared to our calculations using the
experimental data, PNPA theory estimates a larger L50( p ) for 9.9µm particles, similar L50( p ) for 16.32µm
particles, and smaller L50( p ) values for 43.9 and 85.2µm particles. Unlike our calculated L50 values, the
modeled PNPA L50 values show a decline in L50( p ) with flow velocity (Figures 10-13). The PNPA
model predicts that the trapping rate particles by vegetation increases with flow velocity. This is in
contrast to our findings and those by Wu et al. [2011] which show that the time rate of trapping by direct
interception decreases with flow velocity. The difference may be partly due to differences in particle size
used in experiments by Palmer et al. [2004] compared to the sizes examined by Wu et al. [2011] and this
14
study; 194µm compared to less than 109µm particles for this study and particles <10.5µm for Wu et al.
[2011]. However, when settling is incorporated into the PNPA model, the PNPA model trends in the same
direction (increasing L50 with flow velocity) as ours and reports similar or slightly lower L50 values. To
reiterate, our results demonstrate an increase in L50( p ) (decrease in trapping) with increasing flow velocity
while PNPA theory predicts a decrease in L50( p ) (increase in trapping).
[34] The turbulence intensity inside fields of vegetation may also be important to the rate of direct
interception of particles. Nepf [1999] demonstrated that turbulence intensity initially increases as stems
are introduced to a bare channel. However as stem density increases, Nepf [1999] showed that the
turbulence intensity decreases due to a reduction in mean flow velocity. Our experimental set-up differs
from Palmer et al. [2004]’s and Wu et al. [2011]’s due to the presence of a vegetative array in place of a
single cylinder. We measured a decrease in the mean flow velocities with the presence of vegetation. In
addition to trapping, this change in mean flow velocity may have enhanced deposition and resulted in
higher trapping rates in a vegetated flume – thereby differentiating our results from those by Palmer et al.
[2004]. However, it is worth noting that the results by Wu et al. [2011] show the same trend of trapping
rate with flow velocity although Wu et al. [2011] examined flow across a single cylinder by colloidal
particles in laminar flow. PNPA theory predicts shorter L50(p) distances for larger particles compared to
our results (figs. 10 - 13). This is counterintuitive to our prediction that a vegetated array would enhance
settling of larger particles more than a single cylinder. Modelers for individual projects may wish to
validate PNPA theory before application to particles less than 109µm due to our results that suggest that
other mechanisms may be at play.
[35] Particle flocculation, both in the flume and the reservoir, complicates our measurements of particle
removal. Through flocculation particles can transfer between size bins without actually being removed
from suspension. However, particle flocculation occurs naturally in emergent floodplains and wetlands.
We observed what appeared to be flocculation during the flume experiments, with particle concentration
15
repeatedly increasing in several size bins. Fig. 14 shows the change in particle concentration from the
beginning to the end of experimental run 23b. The concentration of 3 - 7µm particles increased during the
experimental run while the concentration of smaller and larger particles decreased (Fig. 14). This trend
was observed in most other treatments with a high SPC. There were no other particle sources during our
experimental runs and thus the particles must have been coming from within the flume system as particles
changed size.
[36] Zeta potential analysis showed that flocculation was possible for our experimental conditions
(Supplementary material, table A). However, based on the measured zeta potential values other particle
sizes would be conducive to floc. We observed a larger increase in 3-7µm particles in experiments with
plants compared to without (table 3). This indicates that the presence of plants may increase particle
flocculation presumable by altering the turbulence intensity to allow for flocculation.
[37] Zeta potential measurements from Tahoe area streams indicate that the zeta potential for our
experiments was similar to that of natural water bodies (Supplementary material, table A). Because zeta
potential is an indicator for the stability of particles in a solution, it is reasonable to assume that
flocculation in some natural water bodies will occur to a similar degree as did in this study.
[38] Additional uncertainty in our experimentally measured particle trapping rates may have originated
from particle settling on the vertically oriented plant surfaces. This is because we cannot isolate the effect
of settling on the vegetation stems from direct interception. It is also worth noting that synthetic
vegetation may not have similar surface properties to real vegetation. While the presence of biofilm may
make the synthetic vegetation more analogous to real world vegetation, comparing synthetic vegetation to
synthetic vegetation with biofilm may not be the same as a comparison between real vegetation with and
without biofilm. Biofilm and real vegetation will likely have widely varied surface properties based on
their geometries, species, and life stage. Particle types in the suspended load in natural environments will
16
also be widely varied. However, road runoff in suspended load of particular concern because to the
presence of sorbed contaminants on those particles.
5. Conclusions
[39] This study examines the process of particle removal from a continuous distribution of particle sizes
in a laboratory flume using submerged, synthetic vegetation. The particle size distribution embraced the
size range 1.25 – 109µm, and was provided from road dust removed from roadways in the Lake Tahoe
basin. Particle concentration in re-circulating water was found to decay with time in the absence and, to a
greater extent, in the presence of synthetic vegetation; a first order decay model for particle concentration
matches this trend well for particles larger than ~11µm. The rate of decay increased with particle size for
most treatments. We found that synthetic vegetation captures particles at higher rates compared to a bare
flume. Flow velocity, initial particle concentration, stem density, and presence of biofilm were found to
have statistically significant effects on the rate of particle capture. The rate of particle trapping increased
with stem density and the presence of biofilm and decline with increasing flow velocity. In vegetated
flows a higher flow velocity resulted in more passes through vegetation; yet, the overall rate of capture
was less than in slower flows even after the effects of settling in a bare channel were removed. This
decline in direct particle capture with increasing flow velocity contrasts with results by Palmer et al.
[2004] but is in alignment with those by Wu et al. [2011]. From our first order decay model we calculated
the percentage of particles removed by various flow treatments over one hour and found that vegetation
can remove up to 99 percent of suspended particles. We also observed an increase in the concentration of
3-7µm particles during high SPC runs. Our findings suggest that the presence of vegetation enhances
particle capture across all particle classes that were tested. We were unable to differentiate between
enhanced removal due to settling vs. direct interception. However, our findings show that lower flow
rates, higher stem densities, and the presence of biofilm all enhance trapping. The initial particle
concentration was found to have a complex, but significant effect on the rate of particle capture. We
hypothesize that this is due to flocculation and transfer of particle between size bins.
17
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a SNPLMA grant. Kristen Fauria is supported in part by the National
Science Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP). Deret Kehlet and Bill Sluis are
gratefully acknowledged for their technical assistance building the flume experimental set-up and Aileen
Luo is much appreciated for her assistance running the experiments. We thank William Fleenor for his
thoughtful input to the flume design and for providing the ADVs and thank Russell Wigart for supplying
the road dust particles and for thoughtful discussion. We acknowledge Emily Parry and Thomas Young
for their assistance with zeta potential analysis and thank Debbie Hunter for imaging the road dust
particles. We are in debt to Rachel Kerwin for her guidance through the statistical analysis of the data
presented here. Thoughtful reviews by John Reuter improved this manuscript.
6. References
Beckett, K. P., P. Freer-Smith, and G. Taylor (1998), Urban woodlands: their role in reducing the effects
of particulate pollution, Environmental pollution, 99, 347-360.
Davies‐Colley, R. and D. Smith (2001), Turbidity, suspended sediment, and water clarity; A Review,
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37, 1085-1101.
DiCesare, E. W., B. Hargreaves, and K. Jellison (2012), Biofilm roughness determines Cryptosporidium
parvum retention in environmental biofilms, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 78, 4187-4193.
Elliott, A. (2000), Settling of fine sediment in a channel with emergent vegetation, J. Hydraul. Eng., 126,
570-577.
Harvey, M., E. Bourget, and R. G. Ingram (1995), Experimental evidence of passive accumulation of
marine bivalve larvae on filamentous epibenthic structures, Limnol. Oceanogr., 40, 94-104.
Huang, Y. H., J. E. Saiers, J. W. Harvey, G. B. Noe, and S. Mylon (2008), Advection, dispersion, and
filtration of fine particles within emergent vegetation of the Florida Everglades, Water Resour. Res., 44.
Jassby, A. D., J. E. Reuter, and C. R. Goldman (2003), Determining long-term water quality change in the
presence of climate variability: Lake Tahoe (USA), Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 60, 1452-1461.
Jin, Y., A. Aiona, S.G. Schladow, S. Wuertz (2011), Biofilms in floodplain retain inorganic fine particles
present in stormwater. IWA Biofilm Conference 2011: Processes in Biofilms, October 27-30, Tongjji
University, Shanghai, China.
Johnston, C. A. (1991), Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: effects on surface water
quality, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 21, 491-565.
18
Kadlec, R. H., & Wallace, S. (2008). Treatment wetlands. CRC press.
Kirwan, M. L. and S. M. Mudd (2012), Response of salt-marsh carbon accumulation to climate change,
Nature, 489, 550-553.
Larsen, L. G. and J. W. Harvey (2010), How vegetation and sediment transport feedbacks drive landscape
change in the Everglades and wetlands worldwide, Am. Nat., 176, E66-E79.
Lahontan and NDEP, 2010. Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Carson
City, Nevada.
Leonard, L. A., A. C. Hine, and M. E. Luther (1995), Surficial sediment transport and deposition
processes in a Juncus roemerianus marsh, west-central Florida, J. Coast. Res., 322-336.
Nepf, H. (1999), Drag, turbulence, and diffusion in flow through emergent vegetation, Water Resour.
Res., 35, 479-489.
Palmer, M. R., H. M. Nepf, T. J. Pettersson, and J. D. Ackerman (2004), Observations of particle capture
on a cylindrical collector: Implications for particle accumulation and removal in aquatic systems, Limnol.
Oceanogr., 76-85.
Roberts et al., 2007.
Rubenstein, D. I. and M. Koehl (1977), The mechanisms of filter feeding: some theoretical
considerations, Am. Nat., 981-994.
Russell Wigart, personal communication, (2012).
Sahoo, G., S. Schladow, and J. Reuter (2010), Effect of sediment and nutrient loading on Lake Tahoe
optical conditions and restoration opportunities using a newly developed lake clarity model, Water
Resour. Res., 46.
Saiers, J. E., J. W. Harvey, and S. E. Mylon (2003), Surface‐water transport of suspended matter through
wetland vegetation of the Florida everglades, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30.
Sansalone, J. J., & Buchberger, S. G. (1997). Partitioning and first flush of metals in urban roadway storm
water. Journal of Environmental engineering,123(2), 134-143.
Shimeta and Jumars, (1991), Physical mechanisms and rates of particle capture by suspension feeders.
Oceanogr. Mar . Biol . Annu . Rev ., 29, 191-257.
Spielman, L. A. (1977), Particle capture from low-speed laminar flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 9, 297319.
Stumpf, R. P. (1983), The process of sedimentation on the surface of a salt marsh, Estuar. Coast. Shelf
Sci., 17, 495-508.
19
Swift, T. J., J. Perez-Losada, S. G. Schladow, J. E. Reuter, A. D. Jassby, and C. R. Goldman (2006),
Water clarity modeling in Lake Tahoe: Linking suspended matter characteristics to Secchi depth, Aquat.
Sci., 68, 1-15.
DiCesare, E. W., Hargreaves, B. R., & Jellison, K. L. (2012). Biofilm roughness determines
Cryptosporidium parvum retention in environmental biofilms. Applied and environmental
microbiology, 78(12), 4187-4193.
Wu, L., Gao, B., & Munoz-Carpena, R. (2011). Experimental analysis of colloid capture by a cylindrical
collector in laminar overland flow. Environmental science & technology, 45(18), 7777-7784.
Yao, K., M. T. Habibian, and C. R. O'Melia (1971), Water and waste water filtration. Concepts and
applications, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5, 1105-1112.
7. Supplementary Material
Water samples were taken during most experimental runs and analyzed for zeta potential. Zeta potential is
the charge of the electrokinetic double layer that characterizes the repulsive or adhesive force between
particles and tendency for particles to flocculate [eg. Yao et al., 1971]. Colloidal systems with highly
positive or negative zeta potentials tend to have colloids that stay in suspensions while systems with zeta
potentials close to zero contain colloids that coagulate and stick to surfaces. Zeta potential values during
the experimental runs ranged from -7.10mV to -18.14mV with an average value of -12.51mV and
standard deviation of 2.18 mV. To compare these values to zeta potential values in natural water bodies,
water samples were taken at several streams in the Tahoe basin and analyzed for zeta potential. The
average zeta potential found in Lake Tahoe stream water was -11.74 with a standard deviation of 2.22
(Table A, supplementary material). The zeta potential of the flume water is comparable to natural streams.
Both zeta potential values are in the range that indicates intermediate particle stability/flocculation.
Table A: Zeta Potential of streams in the Tahoe Basin and in Lake Spafford UC Davis, CA (ARB).
Sample Location
Incline Creek (ICC)
Third Creek (TCC)
Third Creek (TCC)
Trout Creek (TRS)
Trout Creek (TRS)
Upper Truckee (UTS)
Sample Date
Zeta Potential (mV)
4/25/2013
4/30/2013
4/25/2013
4/25/2013
4/30/2013
4/25n/2013
-9.08
-9.23
-11.54
-11.38
-11.68
-16.10
20
Conductance
140
68
102
96
77
57
PH
6.83
6.39
6.16
7.22
6.27
6.28
Third Creek (TCC)
5/3/2013
-13.18
70
6.37
8. Tables
Table 1: Comparison of experimental conditions to natural floodplains. Values for natural floodplains are
from: flow velocity: e.g. Valiela et al. [1978]; flow depth: Kadlec [1990]; Vegetation Diameter: Andrews
Tahoe measurements; Collector Reynolds number: Kadlec [1990]; Suspended Particle Concentration: LTIMP
values; Vegetation density: Valiela et al. [1978].
Particle Trapping Variable
Channel average flow velocity (cm s-1)
Experiments
1.8 ; 4.5; 6.1
Natural Floodplain
0-25
Flow depth (cm)
14 - 17
1 - 50
Stem diameter (cm)
0.1- 0.4
0.1 - 3.0
Stem (collector) Reynolds number
18 - 558
5 - 1000
Suspended particle concentration (µL L-1)
9.61 - 49.64
Vegetation density (stems m-2)
0; 2724;7209
0 – 2500
Table 2: Summary of experimental treatments showing flow rate, velocity, and initial particle concentrations
(1.25-250µm diameter). ND indicates no recorded flow data. Flow along width and length of flume was
assumed to be homogenous. Uncertainties reflect one standard deviation.
Run ID
Date
Treatment
Flow Rate
(m3/s)
Velocity
(m/s)
Starting particle
concentration (µL L-1)
1a
9/6/2012
No plants
0.0012
0.018
29.07
0.35
1b
9/7/2012
No plants
0.0012
0.019
34.62
1.15
1c
9/7/2012
No plants
0.0012
0.019
29.52
0.46
2a
9/7/2012
No plants
0.0032
0.047
27.54
0.45
2d
9/10/2012
No plants
0.0032
0.045
15.02
0.32
2e
9/10/2012
No plants
0.0032
0.045
12.50
0.25
3a
9/10/2012
No plants
0.0046
0.063
15.34
0.59
3b
9/11/2012
No plants
0.0046
0.061
15.53
0.63
3c
9/11/2012
No plants
0.0046
0.061
14.25
0.19
4a
9/13/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.018
4b
9/13/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.018
4c
9/13/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.018
5a
9/14/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.045
18.47
0.51
5b
9/14/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.045
13.08
0.51
21
5c
9/14/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.045
13.32
0.43
6a
9/17/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0046
0.059
11.57
0.26
6b
9/17/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0046
ND
23.12
0.78
6c
9/17/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0046
0.060
14.69
0.41
7a
9/18/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0012
0.018
13.50
0.78
7b
9/18/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0012
0.018
10.42
0.31
7c
9/18/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0012
0.018
11.09
0.23
8a
9/19/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0032
0.044
15.59
0.69
8b
9/19/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0032
0.044
9.61
0.14
8c
9/19/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0032
0.044
11.93
0.47
9a
9/20/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0046
0.059
16.49
0.67
9b
9/20/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0046
0.059
10.20
0.41
9c
9/20/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0046
0.059
9.57
0.27
10a
9/21/2012
No plants
0.0012
0.019
32.79
0.92
10b
9/21/2012
No plants
0.0012
0.019
25.76
0.54
11a
9/22/2012
No plants
0.0032
0.047
28.63
0.83
11b
9/22/2012
No plants
0.0032
0.047
25.68
0.97
12a
9/22/2012
No plants
0.0046
0.062
26.26
0.95
12b
9/22/2012
No plants
0.0046
0.062
23.13
0.56
13a
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.018
28.80
0.89
13b
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.018
24.24
0.53
14a
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.046
25.74
0.75
14b
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.046
26.68
0.86
15a
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0046
0.060
24.45
0.42
15b
9/23/2012
High density plants no biofilm
0.0046
0.060
49.64
2.17
16a
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0012
0.019
33.94
1.57
16b
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0012
0.018
38.83
1.71
17a
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0032
0.047
29.35
1.38
17b
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0032
0.047
31.28
0.90
18a
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0046
0.060
26.49
0.93
18b
9/24/2012
High density plants dry biofilm
0.0046
0.060
25.81
0.66
19a
9/25/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.017
18.45
0.52
19b
9/25/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0012
ND
16.66
0.57
20a
9/25/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.046
18.69
0.50
20b
9/25/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.046
11.50
0.69
21a
9/25/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0046
0.061
13.15
0.56
21b
9/26/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0046
ND
24.60
22a
9/26/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.019
32.88
1.31
22b
9/26/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0012
0.019
25.00
0.56
23a
9/26/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.048
25.31
0.77
23b
9/26/2012
Low density plants no biofilm
0.0032
0.048
22.33
0.86
22
1.07
Particle size (µm)
1.94-2.29
4.44 - 5.24
10.2 - 12.0
23.2 - 27.4
53.2 - 62.8
5
10
15
20
25
Particle Bin Number
Experimental treatment & run number
Control; low SPC (2a)
2.94%
5.49%
12.94%
11.48%
4.96%
Low density plants; low SPC (20a)
4.14%
15.73%
54.33%
73.73%
84.54%
High density plants; low SPC (5a)
7.88%
14.59%
49.01%
52.11%
36.36%
High density plants with biofilm; low SPC (8a)
7.19%
13.40%
55.79%
73.60%
87.42%
Control; High SPC (11a)
2.91%
-12.11%
42.04%
72.01%
77.27%
Low density plants; high SPC (23a)
7.27%
-11.43%
63.83%
75.94%
85.25%
High density plants; high SPC (14a)
7.41%
-26.52%
73.06%
84.44%
90.06%
High density plants with biofilm; high SPC (17a)
5.06%
-19.55%
76.29%
87.30%
91.79%
Table 3: Percent removal percentages for five particle sizes and eight experimental treatments. Total time
of treatment is equal to one hour. These percentage values were determined from the raw k values for
removal. The percentage of particles removed increases with most plant treatments compared to a bare
flume.
Mixed
Model 10
Significance
level
Source of variation
F -value
dF
dF residual
P-value
Control
9.16
1
1081.00
2.54E-03
Flow velocity
10.29
2
1081.00
3.78E-05
Initial particle concentration
67.61
1
1069.63
5.73E-16
Control x Flow velocity
0.87
2
1080.55
4.20E-01
Control x initial particle concentration
Flow velocity x initial particle
concentration
Control x flow velocity x initial particle
concentration
17.52
1
1076.20
3.07E-05
***
7.02
2
1079.11
9.39E-04
***
5.27
2
1080.63
5.30E-03
**
**
***
***
Table 4: Mixed model 10. The data was subset such that only treatments without biofilm were
considered. Control vs. plants, flow velocity, and initial particle concentration were set as fixed factors.
2
Bin size and R values were random blocking factors. The model was fit to raw k values. All fixed factors
are found to be significant as well as most of their interactions. . Significance codes (highest to lower
significance): 0 level: ‘***’; 0.001 level: ‘**’; 0.01: ‘*’; 0.05 level: ‘.’.
Mixed
Model 11
Source of variation
F -value
dF
dF
residual
P-value
Significance
level
Stem Density
36.07
1
666.09
3.13E-09
Initial particle concentration
Stem Density x initial particle
concentration
22.65
2
666.56
3.04E-10
***
***
22.64
2
666.24
3.07E-10
***
Table 5: Mixed model 11. The data was subset such that only treatments with plants and without
2
biofilm were considered. Flow velocity and stem density were set as fixed factors. Bin size and R values
were random blocking factors. The model was fit to raw k values. All fixed factors are found to be
significant as well as most of their interactions. . Significance codes (highest to lower significance): 0
level: ‘***’; 0.001 level: ‘**’; 0.01: ‘*’; 0.05 level: ‘.’.
23
Mixed
Model 2
Source of variation
F -value
dF
Biofilm
3.08
1
Flow velocity
1.31
2
Initial particle concentration
63.69
1
Biofilm x flow velocity
0.01
2
Biofilm x initial particle concentration
Flow velocity x initial particle
concentration
Biofilm x flow velocity x initial particle
concentration
20.80
dF
residual
Significance
level
P-value
7.95E-02
1
801.00
796.40
801.00
799.86
801.00
5.90E-06
***
34.55
2
200.51
4.05E-15
***
12.05
2
200.20
7.10E-06
***
.
***
***
7.15E-04
5.04E-15
9.91E-01
Table 6: Mixed model 2. The data was subset such that only treatments with plants and without biofilm
2
were considered. Flow velocity and stem density were set as fixed factors. Bin size and R values were
random blocking factors. The model was fit to raw k values. All fixed factors are found to be significant
as well as most of their interactions. Significance codes (highest to lower significance): 0 level: ‘***’;
0.001 level: ‘**’; 0.01: ‘*’; 0.05 level: ‘.’.
Particle size (µm)
1.94-2.29
4.44 - 5.24
10.2 - 12.0
23.2 - 27.4
53.2 - 62.8
5
10
15
20
25
Low density plants; low SPC (20a)
2.45%
25.72%
78.17%
95.12%
99.21%
High density plants; low SPC (5a)
12.07%
21.86%
68.43%
72.26%
57.46%
High density plants with biofilm; low SPC (8a)
10.32%
18.95%
78.33%
94.23%
99.41%
Low density plants; high SPC (23a)
13.15%
8.29%
69.41%
56.27%
79.93%
High density plants; high SPC (14a)
12.87%
-28.76%
85.06%
85.54%
92.29%
6.91%
-10.89%
89.32%
91.53%
95.36%
Particle Bin Number
Experimental treatment & run number
High density plants with biofilm; high SPC (17a)
9. Figures
24
A
B
C
Figure 1: A) plan and cross sectional view of flume experimental set-up. B) high density plants in
the flume during an experimental run C) high density plants with dry biofilm before an
experimental run.
25
Figure 2: Initial PSD of a high SPC run (filled circles; run 22a) and a low SPC run (open circles; run 19b)
from LISST measurement. Both high and low SPCs have a peak in the PSD at ~11µm. The high SPC PSDs
have a secondary peak at ~4µm and a trough at ~7µm.
Figure 3: Image of road dust (total magnification 200X – Phase imaging). Courtesy of Debbie Hunter –
UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.
26
Figure 4: Time series longitudinal velocity profile of the flow rate settings in the flume. The
measurements were taken 5cm from the flume base (10 cm ADV setting, 5cm blanking distance) at
5Hz. The data shown here are from ADV1 (Fig. 1A) and run numbers: 20B, 21B, and 22A. The variability
in the longitudinal flow velocities shows that the flow in the flume was non-laminar.
-1
Figure 5: Particle diameter (µm) vs.
(s ). Each treatment was repeated two or three times and each
-1
-1
run is shown. A) Depth averaged flow velocity: 1.8cm s ; SPC: 16.6 SD 6.5 µL L . B) Depth averaged
-1
-1
-1
flow velocity: 4.5 cm s ; SPC: 16.6 SD 6.5 µL L . C) Depth averaged flow velocity: 6.1 cm s ; SPC: 16.6
-1
-1
-1
SD 6.5 µL L . D) Depth averaged flow velocity: 1.8cm s ; SPC: 28.7 SD 6.1 µL L . E) Depth averaged
-1
-1
-1
flow velocity: 4.5cm s ; SPC: 28.7 SD 6.1 µL L . F) Depth averaged flow velocity: 6.1cm s ; SPC: 28.7
-1
SD 6.1 µL L .
27
Figure 6: Rescaled replicate of figure 5 such that fine particles are more visible. Each treatment was
-1
repeated two or three times and each run is shown. A) Depth averaged flow velocity: 1.8cm s ; SPC:
-1
-1
-1
16.6 SD 6.5 µL L . B) Depth averaged flow velocity: 4.5 cm s ; SPC: 16.6 SD 6.5 µL L . C) Depth averaged
-1
-1
-1
flow velocity: 6.1 cm s ; SPC: 16.6 SD 6.5 µL L . D) Depth averaged flow velocity: 1.8cm s ; SPC: 28.7 SD
-1
-1
-1
6.1 µL L . E) Depth averaged flow velocity: 4.5cm s ; SPC: 28. 7 SD 6.1 µL L . F) Depth averaged flow
-1
-1
velocity: 6.1cm s ; SPC: 28.7 SD 6.1 µL L .
Fig 7: Comparison of raw k, adjusted k, and modeled k from run number 14a. Adjusted k
values are less than raw k values. Modeled k values are adjusted k values that have been
amplified by the relative exposure of the water in the flume to vegetation in the flume.
28
-1
Figure 8: Particle diameter vs. K’ (s ) is plotted against predicted K’ (grey lines = 2724 stems/m
2
plants; black lines = 7209stems/m plants) by Palmer et al. [2004]. The first row of plots
-1
-1
represents a SPC of 16.6 +/- 6.5 µL L , the second row represents 28.7 +/- 6.1 µL L . The first,
second, and third columns show data with depth-averaged flow velocities of 1.8, 4.5, and 6.1
cm/s respectively.
-1
2
Figure 9: Rescaled replicate of figure 8. Particle diameter vs. K’ (s ) is plotted against predicted K’ (grey
2
2
lines = 2724 stems/m plants; black lines = 7209stems/m plants) by Palmer et al. [2004]. The first row of
-1
-1
plots represents a SPC of 16.6 +/- 6.5 µL L , the second row represents 28.7 +/- 6.1 µL L . The first,
second, and third columns show data with depth-averaged flow velocities of 1.8, 4.5, and 6.1 cm/s
respectively.
29
B
A
Figure 10: L50 due to capture by plants, settling, and particle flocculation in a typical wetland for
-1
9.12 – 10.8 µm (mean 9.9 µm) particles. A) The results of our experiments (SPC =28.7+/- 6.1µL L ).
3
B) L50 predicted by Palmer et al. [2004] (stem diameter = 0.003m, particle density = 2300kg/m ).
B
A
Figure 11: L50 due to capture by plants, settling, and particle flocculation in a typical wetland for
-1
15 – 17.7 µm (mean 16.3 µm) particles. A) Our experimental results (SPC =28.7 SD 6.1µL L ) . B) L50
3
predicted by Palmer et al. [2004] (stem diameter = 0.003m, particle density = 2300kg/m ).
30
A
B
Figure 12: L50 due to capture by plants, settling, and particle flocculation in a typical wetland
for 40.5 – 47.7 µm (mean 43.9 µm) particles. A) The results of our experiments (SPC =28.7+/-1
6.1µL L ) . B) L50 predicted by Palmer et al. [2004] (stem diameter = 0.003m, particle density =
3
2300kg/m ).
[2004] (stem diameter = 0.003m, particle density = 2300kg/m3 ).
A
B
Figure 13: L50 due to capture by plants, settling, and particle flocculation in a typical wetland for
-1
78.4 – 92.6 µm (mean 85.2 µm) particles. A) The results of our experiments (SPC =28.7+/- 6.1µL L )
3
. B) L50 predicted by Palmer et al. [2004] (stem diameter = 0.003m, particle density = 2300kg/m ).
31
Figure 14: Initial (solid line) and ending (dashed line) PSD from experiment 23b. More 3- 7µm
particles are present at the end of the experiment compared to the beginning. We attribute this
to the mechanism of flocculation. Particles in other bins decline from the start to the end of the
experiment.
32
2
Figure 15: Heat map of goodness of fit (R ) of the first order decay model plotted against particle
diameter and flow velocity. The plots use the same scale and are sorted by experimental
treatment. The best fits occur for particles above ~ 8µm. Low SPC experiments also have poor fits
for particles above ~50µm.
33