Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Urban snow deposits versus snow cooling plants in northern Sweden: A quantitative analysis of snow melt pollutant releases
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Geosciences and Environmental Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Geosciences and Environmental Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Architecture and Water.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Mining and Geotechnical Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6790-2653
2014 (English)In: Water quality research journal of Canada, ISSN 1201-3080, Vol. 49, no 1, p. 32-42Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

High-velocity runoff from snow deposit transports suspended grain-attached contaminants while underground snow storages trapped these contaminants within the storage. The aim here is to quantify pollutant masses from an urban snow deposit and to investigate the conditions when pollutant control was increased by turning a snow deposit into a snow cooling plant with permeable underground snow storage. Pollutant masses in an urban snow deposit in northern Sweden were: Cu = 67, Pb = 17, Zn = 160, P = 170, SS = 620, 000, Cl = 1, 200, N = 380 kg. A theoretical analysis showed that the fraction of surface runoff from a surface deposit largely depends on the hydraulic conductivity (K, m s-1) of the soil. For a melt rate of 30 mm, day-1, surface runoff would be about 97% for a soil with K = 10-8, while nonexistent for K>10-6. Similar soil conductivities are needed to ensure that all snow melt could be transported as groundwater from an underground storage. The largest pollution-control advantage with underground snow storage compared to a surface deposit would thus be that piping and filters for operation of the plant could be used to filter surface snow melt runoff before rejection

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 49, no 1, p. 32-42
National Category
Geochemistry Geotechnical Engineering
Research subject
Applied Geology; Soil Mechanics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-12344DOI: 10.2166/wqrjc.2013.042ISI: 000343524600006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84894278506Local ID: b7801831-a554-46ce-a555-3ce3f899fa57OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-12344DiVA, id: diva2:985294
Note
Validerad; 2014; 20140304 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Lundberg, AngelaFeiccabrino, JamesWesterlund, CamillaAl-Ansari, Nadhir

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lundberg, AngelaFeiccabrino, JamesWesterlund, CamillaAl-Ansari, Nadhir
By organisation
Geosciences and Environmental EngineeringArchitecture and WaterMining and Geotechnical Engineering
In the same journal
Water quality research journal of Canada
GeochemistryGeotechnical Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 70 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf