Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Feb 28;15(2):e0229715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229715

Composition of nitrogen in urban residential stormwater runoff: Concentrations, loads, and source characterization of nitrate and organic nitrogen

Jariani Jani 1, Yun-Ya Yang 2, Mary G Lusk 3, Gurpal S Toor 2,*
Editor: Julian Aherne4
PMCID: PMC7048309  PMID: 32109256

Abstract

Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of nitrogen (N) transport to water bodies and hence one means of water quality deterioration. Stormwater runoff was monitored in an urban residential catchment (drainage area: 3.89 hectares) in Florida, United States to investigate the concentrations, forms, and sources of N. Runoff samples were collected over 22 storm events (May to September 2016) at the end of a stormwater pipe that delivers runoff from the catchment to the stormwater pond. Various N forms such as ammonium (NH4–N), nitrate (NOx–N), dissolved organic nitrogen (DON), and particulate organic nitrogen (PON) were determined and isotopic characterization tools were used to infer sources of NO3–N and PON in collected runoff samples. The DON was the dominant N form in runoff (47%) followed by PON (22%), NOx–N (17%), and NH4–N (14%). Three N forms (NOx–N, NH4–N, and PON) were positively correlated with total rainfall and antecedent dry period, suggesting longer dry periods and higher rainfall amounts are significant drivers for transport of these N forms. Whereas DON was positively correlated to only rainfall intensity indicating that higher intensity rain may flush out DON from soils and cause leaching of DON from particulates present in the residential catchment. We discovered, using stable isotopes of NO3, a shifting pattern of NO3 sources from atmospheric deposition to inorganic N fertilizers in events with higher and longer duration of rainfall. The stable isotopes of PON confirmed that plant material (oak detritus, grass clippings) were the primary sources of PON in stormwater runoff. Our results demonstrate that practices targeting both inorganic and organic N are needed to control N transport from residential catchments to receiving waters.

Introduction

Urbanization and anthropogenic activities have accelerated nutrient enrichment and water quality problems in urban waters [1, 2]. Nitrogen (N) is often a limiting nutrient in coastal waters [35], where excess N loading can lead to cultural eutrophication and algal proliferation [6]. Stormwater runoff is one transport vector of N from urban areas to receiving water bodies and thus a critical source to consider in finding strategies to reduce N enrichment of urban surface waters [7].

Nitrogen loading to urban waters via stormwater occurs in several forms, including inorganic forms i.e., ammonium (NH4+), nitrite (NO2), and nitrate (NO3) or organic forms i.e., dissolved organic N (DON) and particulate organic N (PON). Recent studies have shown that organic N can be a large proportion of N in urban stormwater, streams, estuaries and that portions of the DON pool can be bioavailable to the organisms that cause harmful algal blooms [6, 810]. The potential high proportion and bioavailability of DON imply the need to shift from traditional stormwater management practices that focus on inorganic N to the development of new strategies focusing on DON [9, 11]. Thus, we need a better understanding of the composition of N in urban waters, including information on the contribution of organic N in stormwater runoff. To date, only a handful of studies have investigated DON in urban stormwater runoff, and even fewer studies have considered PON in stormwater [10, 11].

The transport of N—both organic and inorganic—via urban stormwater runoff may be altered by changes in hydrology in watersheds [12, 13]. Changes in hydrology can be related to weather (e.g., rainfall, temperature) and/or land use changes (e.g., urbanization, dam and reservoir release), which influence the hydrological pathways [1416]. Investigation of hydrologic trends and variability of N forms is useful to determine hydrologic variables that play important roles in N transport and to elucidate potential influences of rainfall patterns on N forms-specific transport mechanisms. Rainfall variables such as rainfall amount, duration, intensity, and antecedent dry periods have been used to determine the relationship between rainfall variables to nutrient and pollutant transport [1719]. For example, a study by Schiff et al. [20] on stormwater runoff from parking lots in California, US showed that 18 measured compounds were inversely correlated to rainfall duration where longer rain events decreased the concentrations of the constituents in parking lot runoff. Liu et al. [21] found that TN concentration in runoff waters from an N-fertilized field was significantly correlated with rainfall amount as more rainfall generated more N runoff. Antecedent dry period was also reported to be a factor affecting nutrient transport in urban land where greater NH4–N concentrations were observed after a long dry season [22].

In addition to considering all N forms, including organic forms, and relating their transport to rainfall variables, it is also important to elucidate sources of N to watersheds. Sources of N in urban landscapes include atmospheric deposition, anthropogenic (e.g., fertilizers, automotive detergent, pet waste), and organic materials (e.g., throughfall from the urban tree canopy, leaf litter, grass clippings) [12, 13, 23, 24]. A study in Pittsburgh, US, showed that NO3–N sources in an urban stream included atmospheric deposition (6 to 34%), sewage (72 to 94%), and denitrification processes (7 to 22%) [24]. A study by Hobbie et al. [25] on stormwater runoff in St. Paul, Minnesota, US showed that N sources in the catchment included atmospheric deposition (19 to 34%), chemical fertilizers (37 to 59%), and pet waste (28%). Studies conducted by our group in Tampa, Florida, US revealed that atmospheric deposition was the major contributor of NO3–N in residential urban catchments (35 to 71%), followed by chemical fertilizers (1 to 49%), and soil and organic materials (7 to 33%) [26, 27].

While numerous studies have investigated the sources of NO3 in urban waters, very few studies have investigated the sources of organic N forms (DON and PON). In several urban landscapes, particulate matter and organic detritus are considered the main contributors to nutrient enrichment in stormwater runoff [11, 28, 29]. Bratt et al. [11] investigated stormwater outflow in a residential area in Minnesota, US, and suggested that leaf litter was a potential source of N via transport of street PON during high rainfall events and due to the decomposition of litter by microbes. Janke et al. [28] in Minneapolis, US, across 19 urban watersheds demonstrated that TN was strongly correlated to street trees canopy (r = 0.68, p<0.05), suggesting that tree litter (e.g., leaves, seeds, flowers) contributes to N loading in stormwater. The study also showed that organic N concentration, which was the primary N form (mean: 71% of TN across all sites), was strongly correlated with street canopy (r = 0.71, p<0.001). For source tracking of PON sources, dual isotopes of 13C and 15N have been reported as a useful tool [3032].

To aid in developing management strategies for achieving TN reduction in stormwater runoff, the objectives of this study were to investigate (1) all N forms, including DON and PON, in urban runoff, (2) the influence of rainfall variables (e.g., total rainfall, intensity, duration, antecedent dry period) on inorganic and organic N loads to runoff, and (3) the sources of N in stormwater runoff. Specifically, this study is one of the first to look at all N forms, including organic N, and include a source tracking component for PON.

Materials and methods

Site description

The study site was located in Lakewood Ranch, a residential neighborhood in Manatee County, Florida, US, which is a planned community with a population of 29,411 in 2018 (67% increase over the population of 19,816 in 2010). Total land area in the community is 6,153 ha, with 35 ha of water features that include 321 stormwater retention ponds. Surface runoff from residential areas enters into the stormwater ponds, which then flows to the Braden River, a sub-basin of the Manatee River, and a part of the Tampa Bay estuary watershed. Within the community, a study catchment of 3.89 hectares was identified, which consisted of 57.1% impervious surfaces (i.e., houses and roads) and 42.9% pervious surfaces (i.e., tree canopy and turfgrass). Surface runoff from this catchment enters into street gutters, and then into the stormwater drains before draining into a stormwater pond of 0.64 ha (Fig 1 and S1 Table). Aside from the stormwater retention pond, no other runoff control structures are present in the catchment. Homes within the catchment have downspouts that convey roof runoff to the lots. Soils are predominantly sandy spodosols with rapid infiltration rates. Like other counties in Florida, Manatee county (our study site) is subjected to a rainy season N fertilizer ban (Ordinance 11–20) adopted and enacted by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, Florida. This ban prohibits the application of N fertilizers during summer months from June 1 to September 30. The annual precipitation, obtained from the Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN), was 1285 mm (S1B Fig) and the annual mean temperature was 26.7°C.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Location map of the study site and residential catchment and various instruments installed in the stormwater outlet pipe, including A) laser flow meter, B) rain gauge, and C) autosampler. The location map of the catchment was made using open data source, freely available at http://geodata.myflorida.com/datasets/swfwmd::florida-counties in ArcGIS 10.3.1 version.

Study site instrumentation

We have several years of collaboration with the Homeowners Association (HOA) of the Lakewood Ranch, Bradenton, Florida. We were granted permission by the HOA to access the neighborhood and out study catchment to conduct research. As this is a residential community, no permits were required for our field work. Field instruments (laser flowmeter, rain gauge, and autosampler) were installed at the end of the stormwater pipe (76 cm diameter) that delivers runoff from the catchment to the stormwater pond (Fig 1). A laser flowmeter (Model 2160, LaserFlow Non-contact Velocity Sensor, Teledyne ISCO Inc., Nebraska, US) was used to measure flow, and a rain gauge was used to measure rainfall (Model 674, Teledyne ISCO Inc., Nebraska, US). The laser flowmeter has an accuracy of ±0.006 m at <0.3 m level change and ±0.012 m at >0.3 m level change. A refrigerated autosampler was used to collect runoff water samples (Avalanche, Teledyne ISCO Inc., Nebraska, US). The autosampler was triggered to collect runoff samples when the rain gauge recorded 2.54 mm of rainfall in 10 minutes and/or the minimum level of water depth in the pipe (detected by the flowmeter) was 19.05 mm for 5 minutes. These criteria allowed the collection of runoff samples over several storm events of various duration and magnitude. As it is an urban residential site, there was no baseflow in the stormwater pipe. The autosampler contained 14 plastic bottles of 950 ml each and kept the samples stored at 4°C. The flow meter was connected to a modem, which provided an online download of all data (rainfall amount and duration, runoff volume, and sample collection times) using the FlowLink 5.1 software (Teledyne ISCO Inc., Nebraska, US). The online connectivity system enabled monitoring and management of the sampling program remotely, using the FlowLink 5.1 software.

Sample collection and preparation

Sampling was conducted in 2016 to capture the summer rainy season (June to September) and a month (May) preceding it. The plastic bottles from the autosampler were replaced at the end of each storm event that met the sampling threshold (2.54 mm of rainfall for 10 minutes and/or minimum water depth of 19.05 mm for 5 minutes in the pipe) or when all 14 bottles were full. The collected samples were transported on ice to the laboratory within 24 h of collection. Prior to the sampling, all bottles were acid-washed (10% hydrochloric acid, HCl) and rinsed with deionized water. The rainfall samples were collected from the sample bottle connected to the rain gauge.

Nitrogen concentrations analysis

A subsample of the stormwater samples (n = 218) was vacuum-filtered using 0.45 μm glass fiber filters (GF/F) (Pall Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI) within 24 h of collection and analyzed using an auto-analyzer (AA3, Seal Analytical Inc., Mequon, WI) for NH4–N and NOx–N (NO3–N + NO2–N) with USEPA Method 350.1 [33] and 353.2 [34], respectively. The filtered (0.45 μm) and unfiltered samples were analyzed for total dissolved N (TDN) and TN, respectively, using oxidative combustion-chemiluminescence by Total Organic Carbon Analyzer (TOC-L CPH/CPN, Shimadzu Corp., Columbia, MD). Other N forms were calculated as follows: PON = TN–TDN; DON = TDN–(NOx–N + NH4–N).

Flow-weighted mean concentrations (FWMC) in mg L-1 were used to quantify the weighted concentration proportional to corresponding flow volume. The FWMC for each parameter are derived from the concentrations and flow volume for each sample during a specified window of time. This equation allows the concentration in each sample to be considered in light of the time and associated flow volume [35, 36]. The equation is as follows:

FWMC=1n(ci*ti*qi)/1n(ti*qi) (2-1)

where ci = concentration in the ith sample

ti = time (min) window of the ith sample

qi = flow volume in the ith sample

Water isotopes analysis

Subsamples of filtered stormwater were refrigerated at 4°C for stable isotopes of water (H2O), i.e. oxygen (δ18O–H2O) and hydrogen (δD–H2O). A total of 10 rainfall samples over 10 storm events and 176 runoff samples (additional 14 samples from event 1 and 7 samples from event 2 were omitted due to technical error) were analyzed for the isotopic composition of H2O using Chlortetracycline Liquid Chromatography Prep and Load (CTC LC-PAL) autosampler that was coupled with an off-axis integrated cavity output spectroscopy (OA-ICOS) water isotope analyzer (LWIA, Los Gatos Research, Mountain View, CA). A detailed description of H2O stable isotope analysis can be found in Lis et al. [37]. All stable isotopes values were reported as per mil (‰) according to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) standards for O, and deuterium (D) with δ (‰) = 1000 x [(R sample/R standard)]– 1, where R represents the measured isotopic ratios of 18O/16O, and D/H, respectively.

Nitrate isotopes analysis

The filtered stormwater samples were frozen for NO3 isotopic analysis, i.e. δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3. Out of 22 storm events, runoff samples from 12 events (n = 176), and 12 rainfall samples were analyzed for the isotopic composition of NO3. The 176 runoff samples for the isotopic composition of NO3 were chosen based on the storm events that had more than 5 samples. Out of the 176 samples, 148 samples were suitable for NO3 isotopic analysis as the rest of the samples had NO3 concentrations below the detection limit. Analysis of NO3 isotopes was conducted using the AgNO3 method as described by [38]. All stable isotopes values are reported as per mil (‰) according to VSMOW standards for O and N with δ (‰) = 1000 x [(R sample/R standard)]– 1, where R represents the measured isotopic ratios of 18O/16O, and 15N/14N, respectively.

A Bayesian stable isotope mixing model Stable Isotope Analysis in R (MixSIAR) was used to quantify the contribution of NO3 sources as described elsewhere [27, 39] Measured stable isotope data of our samples was compared with end- member values of NO3 sources (δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3) obtained from the literature [27, 4042] to infer the NO3 sources in our stormwater runoff. Potential end- members considered here included atmospheric deposition, NH4+ fertilizer, NO3 fertilizer, nitrification, and soil and organic N in stormwater runoff (S2 Table). In the Bayesian mixing model, measured δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3 values for each of the runoff samples from May to September 2016 (n = 148) were assigned as “customer” and the mean isotopic values of the NO3 sources from the literature were assigned as “sources”.

Particulate organic nitrogen sources analysis

Isotopic characterization of 13C and 15N in stormwater particulates was used to investigate the potential sources of PON, based on methods similar to Kendall et al. [43]. Stormwater runoff samples were filtered through weighted 0.45 μm filters (GF/F). The retained particulates on the filter paper were oven-dried at ~80°C. Potential sources of organic N from the residential catchment, i.e. grass clippings, oak leaves, and acorns, were collected in May 2016. These were washed with deionized water and oven-dried at ~80 oC before grinding to a fine powder. Both filter paper and the powder were then analyzed for 13C and 15N, total carbon (C), and TN with an elemental analyzer (Costech ECS 4010 Elemental Combustion System) coupled to a mass spectrometer (Thermo Finnigan DeltaPlus XL, San Jose, California). All stable isotopes values are reported as per mil (‰) according to Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) standards for C, and atmospheric N2 for N with δ (‰) = 1000 x [(R sample/R standard)]– 1, where R represents the measured isotopic ratios of 13C/12C and 15N/14N, respectively.

The isotopic mixing model, IsoError, as described by Phillips et al. [44] was used to investigate the contribution of each potential source to runoff PON. The IsoError model is freely available from the US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/eco-research/stable-isotope-mixing-models-estimating-source-proportions). The potential sources/end members 13C and 15N values are presented in the S3 Table.

Statistical analysis

The SAS JMP Pro 13 software was used for statistical analysis in this study. Differences in the mean for response variables (i.e., TN, DON, PON, NH4–N, NOx–N, δ15N–NO3, and δ18O–NO3) and rainfall variables (i.e., antecedent dry period, amount, intensity and duration of rainfall), were input into a Pearson correlation to test for relationships among the variables. An alpha value equal to 0.05 was used as a threshold for statistical significance.

Results and discussion

Relationship between rainfall and stormwater runoff

Total rainfall during the study period (May to September 2016) was 835 mm (monthly mean: 167±54 mm), with the highest amount in August (254 mm) and the lowest in June (125 mm). Ten-year records (2006–2015) obtained from the FAWN show that total rainfall from May to September ranged from 522 mm to 1148 mm, with a mean value of 808±196 mm (S1 Fig).

From May to September 2016, 22 out of 75 storm events met the threshold requirement of sampling (2.54 mm of rainfall for 10 minutes and/or minimum water depth level of 19.05 mm for 5 minutes the in the pipe). The rainfall associated with the 22 events was 283 mm or 34% of total rainfall throughout the study period (835 mm), which included many small storms (<2.54 mm rain in 5 minutes) that did not meet the sampling threshold. In other words, a total of 3668 m3 ha–1 of rainfall was received in 22 storm events, with a range of 25.4 m3 ha–1 in event 4 to 1466 m3 ha–1 in event 1 (Fig 2A). The rainfall intensity associated with 22 storm events ranged from 1.8 to 32.4 mm hr-1 (Fig 2B). The total flow associated with 22 sampled storm events varied with the rainfall characteristics, with the lowest of 1.5 m3 ha–1 in event 4 and highest of 1050 m3 ha–1 in event (Fig 2C).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(A) Rainfall amount and information about 22 sampled storm events (red triangles), (B) rainfall intensity, and (C) stormwater flow associated with storm events from May to September, 2016.

S2A Fig displays percent runoff (fraction of rainfall that became runoff) during 75 storm events, including runoff associated with 22 sampled storm events. The frequency distribution graph shows that the percent runoff in 75 events ranged from 10 to 80% and that 22 storm events represented samples captured over this range of percent runoff, with 6 events with 10% runoff, 3 events with 20% runoff, 4 events with 30% runoff, 3 events with 40% runoff, 2 events with 50% runoff, 3 events with 70% runoff, and 1 event with 80% runoff (S2B Fig). The amount of rainfall was positively correlated with the amount of runoff (r = 0.92 to 0.99, p<0.001), with slopes of 0.70 to 0.71, suggesting that 70 to 71% of total rainfall was converted to runoff (S3C Fig). Similar findings regarding large rainfall events and stormwater runoff were reported by Brezonik and Stadelmann [45].

Concentrations and loads of nitrogen forms in stormwater runoff

Overview of nitrogen forms

Concentrations of TN in 22 storm events ranged from 0.28 to 10.11 mg L-1, with FWMC of 2.45±0.2 mg L-1 (S3 Fig). Among N forms, DON and PON had the highest concentrations in runoff samples. The FWMC of DON over 22 events ranged from 0.1 to 9.2 mg L-1 (grand mean: 1.2 mg L-1), whereas PON ranged from 0.07 to 8.3 mg L-1 (grand mean = 0.9 mg L-1).

Over the study period, the stormwater runoff transported 3.9 kg ha-1 of TN, with DON as the dominant contributor at 72% (2.8 kg ha-1), followed by PON at 10% (0.39 kg ha-1), NH4–N at 10% (0.39 kg ha-1), and NOx–N at 8% (0.31 kg ha-1) (Fig 3A). Organic N forms (DON + PON) accounted for an average of 82% (range: 3 to 95%) of TN loads over the study period (Fig 3B). Our results are similar to other studies that observed ON as the most dominant form in stormwater samples [7, 10, 28]. For example, Lusk et al. [46] studied rainy season TN in stormwater runoff in a different Florida residential neighborhood and found that average TN over the season was 1.61 mg L-1, of which DON was 37%, and PON was 25%. Other studies in Australia, Maryland, and Minnesota have reported stormwater ON proportion of 66%, and 52%, and 73%, respectively [7, 10].

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(A) Loads of various nitrogen forms separated into four loading groups and (B) percentage of nitrogen forms in 22 storm events from May to September 2016.

Inorganic nitrogen forms

Dissolved inorganic N (DIN) forms had lowest concentration in runoff samples with FWMC NOx–N ranging from 0.02 to 0.6 mg L-1 (grand mean: 0.2 mg L-1) and NH4–N ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 mg L-1 (grand mean: 0.2 mg L-1) (S4 Table). The relative contribution of DIN was higher at the beginning of the wet season, especially during storm events with high rainfall and greater percent runoff (> 40%) (S2 and S3 Figs). For example, the prolonged high runoff in events 1, 8, and 13 resulted in higher DIN loads as compared to other shorter duration storms (Fig 3B). As such, both DIN forms were significantly (p<0.05) positive correlated with the duration of rainfall (S5 Table). Further, inorganic N forms were significantly correlated with total rainfall (r = 0.90, p<0.001), and antecedent dry period (r = 0.94, p<0.001), suggesting that a longer dry period followed by high rainfall events, such as the first event of the season, resulted in increased DIN loss to the runoff. In previous studies, pollutant build-up and wash-off have been observed [46]. For example, Li et al. [47] showed that the first flush effects in an urban catchment in China were driven by antecedent periods and rainfall amounts. Lewis and Grimm [22] observed a greater concentration of NH4–N in their urban catchment due to the longer antecedent dry period. Dry season or antecedent dry period provides an extended window for accumulation of dry deposits and nutrient build-up on urban surface such as the streets and rooftops before the onset of summer storms [48, 49]. When storm events occur, these accumulated pollutants are washed off into stormwater runoff [50]. Kojima et al. [48] concluded that surface deposits such as road dust were the dominant contributor of NOx–N in their urban catchment located in Chiba City, Japan.

In 22 storm events, the concentration of all N forms decreased after the onset of rainfall as runoff volume increased (S3 Fig). Further, when rainfall decreased and eventually stopped, runoff volume slowly decreased, and TN concentrations slightly increased, suggesting that the decrease in N forms in storm events was due to the dilution effect with rainfall. This trend is similar to a study by Miguntanna et al. [50], who also observed a decrease in TN concentration with an increase in rainfall duration.

Organic nitrogen forms

The composition of DON over 22 storm events was relatively consistent, as DON was the most dominant form during the study period (S4 Table). Among rainfall variables, DON load was significantly correlated with only intensity (r = 0.50, p<0.05), indicating that other variables such as rainfall amount, duration, runoff volume, and antecedent dry period did not significantly influence the relatively high contribution of DON to stormwater runoff. This suggests that a significant amount of DON can be transported in low and high rainfall events. In previous studies, DON sources were linked to organic fertilizers, soil organic matter, atmospheric deposition, and degradation of plant debris and leaf litters from urban landscapes [3, 9]. Hagedorn et al. [51] showed that there was an increase in DON export in the summer as a result of high decomposer activity and availability of fresh leaf litter. Decomposition of leaf litter has been reported to be one of the main contributors to DON in urban runoff [11, 52] suggesting that in order to reduce DON input in stormwater runoff, a control measure (e.g., street cleaning) prior to storm events could be used to eliminate the potential of PON decomposition to DON [29]. Selbig [29] showed that street cleaning and removal of leaf litter from street surfaces reduced the TN by 74% and TDN by 71% as this reduced the potential of N leaching from accumulated particulates. They further suggested that coherence, constancy, and timing of street cleaning and leaf removal are important factors to be measured in constructing effective stormwater management practices. Hochmuth et al. [53] reported that stormwater has the potential to leach nutrients from plant debris instantly, thus removal of leaf litter and plant debris must be done as soon as possible prior to storm events. Furthermore, a number of researchers, including our previous work in Tampa Bay, Florida, US, have concluded that a portion of the DON may be bioavailable and thus can be a source of water quality impairment in urban waters [3, 8, 39, 54].

In urban landscapes, engineered headwaters flowing over impervious surfaces and storm gutters rapidly deliver dissolved organic matter and N during storm events and increase particulate inputs into urban stream networks [55]. Research has demonstrated that organic detritus and particulates can be the main contributors of N input into urban stormwater [29]. In this study, PON load was significantly correlated with antecedent dry days (r = 0.67, p<0.001), rainfall amount (r = 0.73 p<0.001), and duration of rainfall (r = 0.55 p<0.001) (S5 Table) indicating more particulate accumulation during longer dry periods, and high rainfall and prolonged storm events transport more PON. Within our study catchment, we observed particulates such as plant debris and leaf litter trapped on the grates of storm gutters. Our runoff samples recorded unusual high PON (events 6 and 7) concentrations (>50% of TN) that led to high TN concentrations (S4 Table and Fig 3). The data showed that these events had low rain and runoff volume, and occurred after storms with low rain and runoff volume (<40% runoff) (Fig 3A). Wei et al. [56] suggested that particulate matter might be intercepted by coarse surfaces during low stormwater runoff from previous events, thus debris stuck in the storm drains was not flushed, resulting in high PON concentrations in the subsequent samples.

Given the contributions of DON and PON to stormwater in our study and the potential for DON to contribute bioavailable N in urban waters, we recommend efforts to incorporate organic N into N loading budgets and in designs for more effective stormwater management to improve the quality of urban waters, as also suggested by other researchers [9, 57].

Variation in water isotopes in rainfall and stormwater runoff

In urban residential areas, stormwater runoff can originate from multiple water sources such as rainfall, municipal water used for irrigation, reclaimed water, or wastewater leaks. Therefore, we used water isotopes to determine the origin of water in stormwater runoff samples. Stable isotopes of δ18O–H2O and δD–H2O are known as environmental isotopic tracers that allow inference of the hydrological processes and origin of water in the aquatic systems [58]. The values of δ18O–H2O and δD–H2O in our rainfall samples (n = 10) ranged from –6.1‰ to –0.4‰ (mean: –3.5‰) and –36.4‰ to 10.1‰ (mean: –16.1‰), respectively (S4 Fig). The δ18O and δD of rainfall H2O can be used as an indicator of weather conditions where lower values indicate higher precipitation amounts [59]. This observation was confirmed in our three high rainfall events (1, 13, and 19) that had lower δ18O and δD of H2O as compared to other events (S5 Fig).

The runoff samples (n = 176) had δ18O–H2O ranging from –6.42‰ to 1.63‰ (mean: –3.15‰) and δD–H2O ranging from –43.35‰ to 18.64‰ (mean: –14.27‰) (S4 and S5 Figs). Our isotopic data are similar to a study conducted in South Florida during the summer wet season with mean values of δ18O–H2O at –3.38‰ and δD–H2O at –16.5‰ [59]. The global meteoric water line (GMWL) is an equation interpreted as δD–H2O = 8δ18O–H2O + 10, which represents the relationship between H and O isotopes of water [60]. The isotopic composition of our runoff samples was identical with GMWL, as shown in S4 Fig with δD–H2O = 8δ18O–H2O + 11. The isotopic composition of runoff and rainfall samples at the study site was also similar (i.e., δD–H2O = 8δ18O–H2O + 11), indicating that all runoff in 22 storm events originated from local rainfall and not from other sources (e.g., municipal water, reclaimed water, wastewater).

Our water isotopes data showed differences for both δ18O–H2O and δD–H2O in rainfall and sequential runoff samples across individual events (S5 Fig). These differences and variations might be attributed by the effects of rainfall water being transmitted thorough canopy such as throughfall and stemflow before falling into the ground and emerging as surface runoff [61] and as condensation and evaporation processes that occurred as water was conveyed from land to stormwater network [27, 42].

Variation in nitrate isotopes in rainfall and stormwater runoff

The δ15N and δ18O of NO3 in rainfall samples over 12 storm events (n = 148) were –4.43‰ to 5.69‰ (mean: –5.30‰) and 36.70‰ to 67.08‰ (mean: 60.52‰), respectively (S6 Fig). The rainfall δ15N–NO3 values were between the values reported by Felix et al. [40] and Buda and Dewalle [62], who reported δ15N of –5.7‰ to 11.3‰ (mean: 3.2‰) and –0.6‰ to 5.0‰ (mean: –2.9‰), respectively. The δ18O–NO3 were also similar to Felix et al. [40] and Buda and DeWalle [62] who reported values of 32.2‰ to 68.7‰ (mean: 47.9‰) and 11.9‰ to 70‰ (mean: 43.8‰), respectively. Studies on seasonal patterns showed that the isotope values of δ15N–NO3 and δ18O–NO3 in precipitation varied due to the differences in NO3 sources and atmospheric oxidation pathways [40, 42, 62]. For example, Hastings et al. [63] reported that δ15N–NO3 was lower in the cool season (October to March) compared to the warm season (April to September) in their studied region (Bermuda) due to more lightning during the warm season. Studies demonstrated that in the summer season, atmospheric reactions are dominated by oxidation of NOx through hydroxyl radicals (OH), which causes lower δ18O–NO3, whereas in the winter season, the reaction between NOx and O3 results in higher δ18O–NO3 [62, 63]. The δ15N–NO3 of stormwater runoff samples ranged from –9.72‰ to 8.06‰ (mean: 1.02‰), whereas δ18O–NO3 of stormwater runoff samples ranged from –9.19‰ to 59.70‰ (mean: 26.93‰) (S6 Fig). The δ15N–NO3 in our sequential 10 minute collected runoff samples showed wide variation within the individual storm events. The differences in the intra-storm variation of δ15N–NO3 ranged from 0.39‰ to 10.06‰ for all 12 storm events (mean: 5.04‰), with the highest variation of 10.06‰ in event 19 (S6A Fig). The δ18O–NO3 in runoff samples also showed variation within individual storm events (S6B Fig). The intra-storm variation of δ18O–NO3 ranged from 14.17 to 56.67‰ for all 12 storm events (mean: 33.28‰), with the highest difference of 56.67‰ in event 8. In summary, our results showed that the variation in the δ15N–NO3 and δ18O–NO3 in stormwater runoff samples might be attributed to the changes in the sources of atmospheric NO3 and mixing of NO3 from different sources in the catchment during storm events [26, 62, 64, 65].

Changing sources of nitrate in storm events

The δ15N and δ18O of NO3 in our runoff samples were in the range observed for multiple sources such as atmospheric deposition (that includes vehicle emission and lightning), nitrification, inorganic fertilizer (NO3 and NH4+), and soil and organic N (S2 Table and Fig 4). The δ18O–NO3 values from –10‰ to 10‰ have been suggested to be indicative of nitrification, which can be calculated using this formula: δ18O–NO3 = 1/3 δ18O–O2 + 2/3 δ18O–H2O [42]. The expected values of δ18O–NO3 for nitrification in our samples, obtained from the equation, ranged from 3.55‰ to 8.92‰.

Fig 4. δ15N–NO3 and δ18O–NO3 in 12 selected storm events from May to September 2016.

Fig 4

Boxes indicate the range of the δ15N–NO3 and δ18O–NO3 values for NO3 sources according to Kendall et al. (2007), Heaton (1990), and Felix et al. (2015) as shown in S2 Table.

We observed a shifting pattern of NO3 sources in individuals storm events, especially in events with high and longer duration of rainfall such as events 1, 8, 13, and 19 (Fig 5). In these four events, atmospheric deposition was initially the main NO3 source, however, as the storm events progressed, the main source of NO3 changed to NO3 fertilizer, eventually, including multiple other sources such as NH4+ fertilizers, nitrification, and soil and organic N. This pattern suggests that when the storm events started, the earliest runoff samples were from the direct atmospheric deposition. As the storm event progressed, the runoff began carrying other landscape sources of NO3. This provides evidence that stormwater runoff can mobilize and transport inorganic N fertilizers from urban landscapes (Figs 4 and 5), and, therefore there is some validity to the claims that urban N fertilizers have the potential to be carried via stormwater runoff to receiving water bodies.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

δ15N–NO3 and δ18O–NO3 in four individuals storm events (A) event 1 (number of samples, n = 14), (B) event 8 (n = 27), (C) event 13 (n = 39), and (D) event 19 (n = 10) from May to September, 2016.

Identifying nitrate sources in stormwater runoff

While nitrate concentrations were lower than organic N forms in our samples, the urban fertilizer ordinances in our study area necessitate some discussion of NO3 sources—as the premise behind the regulatory fertilizer bans in several Florida counties is that summer rains mobilize bioavailable inorganic N to stormwater runoff. To date, however, no local studies have attempted to verify or provide data in support of this premise. We used a Bayesian mixed model to separate the contribution of various sources of NO3. Consistent with our previous research in Tampa Bay region [26], we found that atmospheric deposition was an important contributor of NO3 in stormwater runoff (34.9%), followed by NO3 fertilizer (24.7%), NH4+ fertilizers (17.2%), nitrification (14.8%), and soil and organic N sources (8.4%) (Fig 6A). In this study, we applied the Bayesian mixing model to individual storm events to identify the NO3 sources to capture source variability between storm events. Among 12 storm events, 7 events had isotopic signatures of NO3 dominated by atmospheric deposition (mean: 30.1 to 63.5%), 3 events were dominated by NO3 fertilizer (mean: 31.6 to 43.5%), 1 event (#13) was dominated by NH4+ fertilizers (48.1%), and another event (#7) was dominated by nitrification (28.3%) (Fig 6B). The changing sources contribution in different events highlights the variable nature of NO3 sources in the landscape and the complex interplay of rainfall with landscape features on changes in the source contributions in different storm events.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

(A) Overall mean percent contribution of five NO3 sources and (B) Mean percent contribution of NO3 sources in 12 individual storm events from May to September, 2016.

Inorganic N fertilizers (NO3 and NH4+) were the 2nd and 3rd largest contributors to NO3–N in our runoff samples (Fig 6A). The Bayesian mixing model indicated that NO3 fertilizer contributed 13.5% to 43.5% (mean: 24.7%), whereas NH4+ fertilizer contribution to NO3–N was 4.6% to 48.1% (mean: 17.2%). Several studies on potential sources of anthropogenic N found that N input from fertilizer was the largest source of anthropogenic N fluxes from landscapes into the aquatic ecosystems [6668]. Inorganic N fertilizers are commonly used in urban residential areas as part of landscape management to maintain plant quality. Inorganic N fertilizer was the dominant contributor in events 8, 15, and 19, which were the storm events with high rainfall amounts that resulted in high runoff flows. Even though our study was conducted during the summer season when application of N fertilizers is prohibited in this residential catchment from June 1 to September 30 (exception of event 1), the source of inorganic fertilizers might be from the residues of long-term controlled release fertilizers applied before the ban period (i.e., June 1).

Sources of particulate organic nitrogen in stormwater runoff

The values of δ15N and δ13C in stormwater runoff particulates i.e. PON (n = 163 in 19 storm events) ranged from –1.99‰ to 6.27‰ (mean: –1.03±1.38‰) and –28.31‰ to –19.46‰ (mean: –23.04±1.73‰), respectively (Fig 7). These isotopic values appeared to be from a mixture of grass clippings of St. Augustine (Stenotaphrum secundatum) and acorns and leaves of live oak (Quercus virginia) trees. The mean 15N for grass clippings, acorns, and oak leaves was –0.46 ‰ (range: –1.93 to 0.68), 1.58‰ (range: 1.55 to 1.60), and –1.24‰ (range: –1.70 to –0.83), respectively (Fig 7 and S3 Table). Whereas the mean 13C for St. Augustine grass, acorns, and oak leaves was –14.2‰ (range: –17.8 to –11.6), –29.4‰, (range: –30.79 to –28.44) and –28.8‰ (range: –29.90 to –27.41), respectively. This data was modeled using the IsoError mixing model (Phillips et al., 2005), which estimated that acorns (41%), followed by grass clippings (32%), and oak leaves (27%) were the dominant contributor of PON in stormwater runoff (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Values of δ15N and δ13C for particulate organic N (PON) in stormwater runoff samples (blue crosses) and end-members (acorns, oak leaves, and St. Augustine grass).

Fig 7

Source proportions of three end-members were derived from the IsoError mixing model and are estimates of the proportion of each source to PON in the stormwater runoff samples.

Acorns drop from live oak trees in Florida during October each year, which then decompose on the ground for the following several months. Live oak trees naturally shed old leaves in spring (February to March) as the new leaves emerge, which then slowly decompose over the dry season. When the wet season begins in June, these partly decomposed materials (acorns and oak leaves) are carried by the stormwater runoff into the gutter and then contribute PON in runoff [69]. This hypothesis is supported by several studies that demonstrated the decomposition of leaf litter as a contributor to dissolved N in stormwater [11, 28, 29, 70]. These studies suggested particulates were decomposed by vehicle activity on the road surface, movement during storm events, and further decomposition in road gutters, thus contributing PON while DON was gained from leaching of freshly fallen litter. In this study, the particulates from oak detritus (acorn and oak leaves) accounted for 59% of PON in stormwater samples.

Urbanization often leads to changes in vegetation from trees to grasses [71]. In our study catchment, turfgrass (St. Augustine) covered about 51% of the total area (S1 Table), thus making grass clippings one of the most abundant sources of PON. Newcomer et al. [72] suggested that grass clippings are a potential source of labile N that can be readily mineralized. Lusk et al. [73] showed that DON was the main N form in leachate from turfgrass (St. Augustine) and suggested that root and microbial exudates in turf systems can convert inorganic fertilizer N to organic N that can be leached as DON in short periods of times (days to week).

Conclusions

This study was conducted to investigate the composition of N forms and sources of NO3 and PON in stormwater runoff. Among all N forms, DON was the dominant N form (mean: 47%) in stormwater runoff from May through September 2016 suggesting that management of runoff in terms of N should target not only inorganic N, but also organic N. Among rainfall variables, DON was positively correlated to only intensity, indicating that higher intensity of rain may be flushing out DON from soils and causing leaching of DON from particulates in the catchment. Statistical analysis showed that longer antecedent dry season and high rainfall amounts are more significant drivers for DIN transport to water bodies. Nitrate loading to stormwater runoff was derived from the mixing of multiple sources with atmospheric deposition as the dominant NO3–N source (34.9%) followed by NO3 fertilizer (24.7%), NH4+ fertilizer (17.2%), nitrification (14.8%), and soil and organic N (8.4%). The isotopic data showed a shifting pattern of NO3 sources in events with high and longer duration of rainfall, suggesting that stormwater management to reduce N transport should include approaches that incorporate both rainfall and stormwater runoff in designs, such as stacking of best management practices including rain gardens, roof gardens, and permeable pavements. These low-impact development methods will not only reduce the momentum and erosive power of the stormwater and provide more time for the water to infiltrate into the ground, but also help to filter N before the stormwater enters into connected urban waters. Our data provides validity to the claims that inorganic fertilizers have the potential to runoff in urban residential areas. The sources of PON in stormwater runoff were acorns (41%), grass clippings (32%), and leaves from live oak trees (27%) present in the residential catchment. The decomposition of PON is a potential contributor to DON loading in urban runoff, suggesting an approach for N reduction should take place prior to storm events such as removal of organic materials (e.g., leaf litters, grass clipping, animal wastes) from urban pervious and impervious surfaces. Further, research on understanding the sources of DON, holistic evaluation of ways to prevent DON leaching, and the impacts of stormwater pond designs on N removal from residential catchments is needed.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(A) Annual and May to September rainfall from 2006 to 2016, (B) comparison of mean 10 years (2006–2015) and 2016 rainfall, and (C) comparison of monthly rainfall from May to September for 2006–2015 and 2016 in the study site located in Bradenton, Florida. Red bar in (A) indicates data of sampling year (2016).

(TIFF)

S2 Fig

(A) Percent runoff of total rainfall, (B) frequency distribution of percent runoff, and (C) relationship between rainfall and runoff amount for total 75 storm events and sampled 22 storm events from May to September, 2016 (line fits for both 75 and 22 events are shown).

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. Flow-weighted mean concentrations of various nitrogen forms in 10-minute samples collected in 22 individual storm events from May to September, 2016.

(TIFF)

S4 Fig. Relationship between δ18O–H2O and δD–H2O for rainfall (n = 10) and runoff samples (n = 176) collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

(TIFF)

S5 Fig

Variation in stable isotope composition (A) δ18O–H2O and (B) δD–H2O in rainfall (n = 10) and stormwater runoff samples (n = 176) collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

(TIFF)

S6 Fig

Variation in stable isotope composition (A) δ15N-NO3- and (B) δ18O-NO3- in rainfall (n = 12) and stormwater runoff samples collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Pervious and impervious area of residential catchment located in Lakewood Ranch, Bradenton, Florida, United States.

(PDF)

S2 Table. End-member literature values of δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3.

(PDF)

S3 Table. 13C and 15N of PON in various landscape sources and collected stormwater runoff samples.

(PDF)

S4 Table. Runoff volume variables, flow-weighted mean concentration of nitrogen forms, and δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3 values for 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

(PDF)

S5 Table. Pearson correlation among rainfall variables and nitrogen forms from May to September, 2016.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs. Kati Migliaccio, Andrew Koeser, and John Thomas for serving on Jariani Jani’s PhD advisory committee. The first author thanks Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia for providing a PhD fellowship. We thank Stefan Kalev, former MS student, for his help and assistance in troubleshooting field instruments and collecting stormwater runoff samples. advisory committee. This project would not have been possible without tremendous support, cooperation, and advocacy from residents and homeowner association of Lakewood Ranch community, located in Manatee County, Florida.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

GST received funding from Florida Department of Environmental Protection. There is no grant number. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Fields S. Global nitrogen: Cycling out of control. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2004; 112(10):A556 10.1289/ehp.112-a556 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lu C, Bowman D, Rufty T, Shi W. Reactive nitrogen in turfgrass systems: Relations to soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2015; 44(1):210–218. 10.2134/jeq2014.06.0247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bronk D, See J, Bradley P, Killberg L. DON as a source of bioavailable nitrogen for phytoplankton. Biogeosciences. 2007; 4(3):283–296. 10.5194/bg-4-283-2007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Howarth RW, Marino R. Nitrogen as the limiting nutrient for eutrophication in coastal marine ecosystems: evolving views over three decades. Limnology and Oceanography. 2006; 51(1):364–376. 10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0364 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Smith VH, Joye SB, Howarth RW. Eutrophication of freshwater and marine ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography. 2006; 51(1part2):351–355. 10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0351 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Seitzinger SP, Sanders R, Styles R. Bioavailability of DON from natural and anthropogenic sources to estuarine plankton. Limnology and Oceanography. 2002; 47(2):353–366. 10.4319/lo.2002.47.2.0353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Li L, Davis AP. Urban stormwater runoff nitrogen composition and fate in bioretention systems. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014; 48:3403–3410. 10.1021/es4055302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lusk M, Toor G. Dissolved organic nitrogen in urban streams: Biodegradability and molecular composition studies. Water Research. 2016; 96:225–235. 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lusk M, Toor G. Biodegradability and molecular composition of dissolved organic nitrogen in urban stormwater runoff and outflow water from a stormwater retention pond. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016; 50:3391–3398. 10.1021/acs.est.5b05714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Taylor GD, Fletcher TD, Wong TH, Breen PF, Duncan HP. Nitrogen composition in urban runoff—implications for stormwater management. Water Research. 2005; 39:1982–1989. 10.1016/j.watres.2005.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bratt AR, Finlay JC, Hobbie SE, Janke BD, Worm AC, Kemmitt KL. Contribution of leaf litter to nutrient export during winter months in an urban residential watershed. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017; 51:3138–147. 10.1021/acs.est.6b06299 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Band LE, Elliott EM, Shields CA, Kendall C. Tracking Nonpoint source nitrogen pollution in human-impacted watersheds. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011; 45:8225–8232. 10.1021/es200779e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang Y-Y, Lusk MG. Nutrients in urban stormwater runoff: Current state of the science and potential mitigation pptions. Current Pollution Reports. 2018; 4:112–27. 10.1007/s40726-018-0087-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Denault C, Millar RG, Lence BJ. Assessment of possible impacts of climate change in an urban catchment. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2006; 42:685–697. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb04485.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Langeveld JG, Schilperoort RP, Weijers SR. Climate change and urban wastewater infrastructure: there is more to explore. Journal of Hydrology. 2013; 476:112–119. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Willems P. Revision of urban drainage design rules after assessment of climate change impacts on precipitation extremes at Uccle, Belgium. Journal of Hydrology. 2013;496:166–177. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.05.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hathaway J, Tucker R, Spooner J, Hunt W. A traditional analysis of the first flush effect for nutrients in stormwater runoff from two small urban catchments. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2012; 223:5903–15. 10.1007/s11270-012-1327-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lee J, Bang K, Ketchum L, Choe J, Yu M. First flush analysis of urban storm runoff. Science of the Total Environment. 2002; 293:163–175. 10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00006-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schiff KC, Tiefenthaler LL. Seasonal Flushing of Pollutant Concentrations and Loads in Urban Stormwater1. Wiley Online Library; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schiff K, Tiefenthaler L, Bay S, Greenstein D. Effects of rainfall intensity and duration on the first flush from parking lots. Water. 2016; 8:320 10.3390/w8080320 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Liu H, Jeong J, Gray H, Smith S, Sedlak DL. Algal uptake of hydrophobic and hydrophilic dissolved organic nitrogen in effluent from biological nutrient removal municipal wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011; 46:713–721. 10.1021/es203085y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lewis DB, Grimm NB. Hierarchical regulation of nitrogen export from urban catchments: interactions of storms and landscapes. Ecological Applications. 2007; 17:2347–2364. 10.1890/06-0031.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carey RO, Hochmuth GJ, Martinez CJ, Boyer TH, Nair VD, Dukes MD, et al. Regulatory and resource management practices for urban watersheds: The Florida experience. HorTechnology. 2012; 22:418–429. 10.21273/HORTTECH.22.4.418 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Divers MT, Elliott EM, Bain DJ. Quantification of nitrate sources to an urban stream using dual nitrate isotopes. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014; 48:10580–10587. 10.1021/es404880j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hobbie SE, Finlay JC, Janke BD, Nidzgorski DA, Millet DB, Baker LA. Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in urban watersheds and implications for managing urban water pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017; 114: 4177–4182. 10.1073/pnas.1618536114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yang Y-Y, Toor GS. δ15N and δ18O Reveal the sources of nitrate-nitrogen in urban residential stormwater runoff. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016; 50:2881–2889. 10.1021/acs.est.5b05353 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yang Y-Y, Toor GS. Sources and mechanisms of nitrate and orthophosphate transport in urban stormwater runoff from residential catchments. Water Research. 2017; 112:176–184. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Janke BD, Finlay JC, Hobbie SE. Trees and streets as drivers of urban stormwater nutrient pollution. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017; 51:9569–9579. 10.1021/acs.est.7b02225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Selbig W. Evaluation of leaf removal as a means to reduce nutrient concentrations and loads in urban stormwater. Science of the Total Environment. 2016; 571:124–133. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bardhan P, Naqvi SWA, Karapurkar SG, Shenoy DM, Kurian S, Naik H. Isotopic composition of nitrate and particulate organic matter in a pristine dam reservoir of western India: implications for biogeochemical processes. Biogeosciences. 2017; 14:767–779. 10.5194/bg-2016-270 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Derrien M, Kim M-S, Ock G, Hong S, Cho J, Shin K-H, et al. Estimation of different source contributions to sediment organic matter in an agricultural-forested watershed using end member mixing analyses based on stable isotope ratios and fluorescence spectroscopy. Science of The Total Environment. 2018; 618:569–578. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gao X, Yang Y, Wang C. Geochemistry of organic carbon and nitrogen in surface sediments of coastal Bohai Bay inferred from their ratios and stable isotopic signatures. Marine pollution bulletin. 2012; 64:1148–55. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.03.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.U.S. EPA. Method 350.1. Determination of ammonia nitrogen by semi-automated colorimetry. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH: 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.U.S. EPA. Method 353.2. Determination of nitrate-nitrite nitrogen by automated colorimetry. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH: 1993. b. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Charbeneau RJ, Barrett ME. Evaluation of methods for estimating stormwater pollutant loads. Water Environment Research. 1998; 70:1295–1302. 10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sansalone JJ, Buchberger SG. Partitioning and first flush of metals in urban roadway storm water. Journal of Environmental engineering. 1997; 123:134–143. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lis G, Wassenaar L, Hendry M. High-precision laser spectroscopy D/H and 18O/16O measurements of microliter natural water samples. Analytical Chemistry. 2008; 80:287–293. 10.1021/ac701716q [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Coplen T, Haiping Q, Révész K, Casciotti K, Hannon J. Determination of the δ (15 N/14N) and δ (18O/16O) of Nitrate in Water: RSIL Lab Code 2900. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jani J, Toor GS. Composition, sources, and bioavailability of nitrogen in a longitudinal gradient from freshwater to estuarine waters. Water Research. 2018;137:344–354. 10.1016/j.watres.2018.02.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Felix JD, Elliott EM, Shaw SL. Nitrogen isotopic composition of coal-fired power plant NO x: influence of emission controls and implications for global emission inventories. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012; 46:3528–35. 10.1021/es203355v [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hoering T. The isotopic composition of the ammonia and the nitrate ion in rain. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 1957; 12:97–102. 10.1016/0016-7037(57)90021-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kendall C, Elliott EM, Wankel SD. Tracing anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen to ecosystems. Stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science. 2007; 2:375–449. 10.1002/9780470691854.ch12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kendall C, Silva SR. Carbon and nitrogen isotopic compositions of particulate organic matter in four large river systems across the United States. Hydrological Processes. 2001; 15:1301–1346. 10.1002/hyp.216 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Phillips DL, Newsome SD, Gregg JW. Combining sources in stable isotope mixing models: alternative methods. Oecologia. 2005; 144:520–527. 10.1007/s00442-004-1816-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Brezonik PL, Stadelmann TH. Analysis and predictive models of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentrations from watersheds in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota, USA. Water Research. 2002; 36:1743–57. 10.1016/s0043-1354(01)00375-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Vaze J, Chiew FHS. Study of pollutant washoff from small impervious experimental plots. Water Resour Research. 2003;39 10.1029/2002wr001786 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li DY, Wan JQ, Ma YW, Wang Y, Huang MZ, Chen YM. Stormwater runoff pollutant loading distributions and their correlation with rainfall and catchment characteristics in a rapidly industrialized city. PLos ONE. 2015; 10:17 10.1371/journal.pone.0118776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kojima K, Murakami M, Yoshimizu C, Tayasu I, Nagata T, Furumai H. Evaluation of surface runoff and road dust as sources of nitrogen using nitrate isotopic compisition. Chemosphere. 2011; 84:1716–1722. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tsai YI, Cheng MT. Characterization of chemical species in atmospheric aerosols in a metropolitan basin. Chemosphere. 2004; 54:1171–1181. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Miguntanna NP, Liu A, Egodawatta P, Goonetilleke A. Characterising nutrients wash-off for effective urban stormwater treatment design. Journal of Environmental Management. 2013; 120:61–67. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hagedorn F, Bucher JB, Schleppi P. Contrasting dynamics of dissolved inorganic and organic nitrogen in soil and surface waters of forested catchments with Gleysols. Geoderma. 2001;100:173–192. 10.1016/S0016-7061(00)00085-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Duan S, Delaney-Newcomb K, Kaushal S, Findlay S, Belt K. Potential effects of leaf litter on water quality in urban watersheds. Biogeochemistry. 2014; 121:61–80. 10.1007/s10533-014-0016-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hochmuth G, Nell T, Sartain J, Unruh JB, Martinez C, Trenholm L, et al. Urban water quality and fertilizer ordinances: Avoiding unintended consequences: A review of the scientific literature. 2012. UF/IFAS Extension. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/SS49600.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Osborne D, Podgorski D, Bronk D, Roberts Q, Sipler R, Austin D, et al. Molecular-level characterization of reactive and refractory dissolved natural organic nitrogen compounds by atmospheric pressure photoionization coupled to Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry. 2013; 27:851–858. 10.1002/rcm.6521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Fork ML, Blaszczak JR, Delesantro JM, Heffernan JB. Engineered headwaters can act as sources of dissolved organic matter and nitrogen to urban stream networks. Limnology and Oceanography Letters. 2018; 3:215–24. 10.1002/lol2.10066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Wei Z, Simin L, Fengbing T. Characterization of urban runoff pollution between dissolved and particulate phases. The Scientific World Journal. 2013; Article ID 964737. 10.1155/2013/964737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Van Kessel C, Clough T, van Groenigen JW. Dissolved organic nitrogen: An overlooked pathway of nitrogen loss from agricultural systems? Journal of Environmental quality. 38:393–401. 10.2134/jeq2008.0277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kendall C, McDonnell JJ. Isotope tracers in catchment hydrology: Elsevier; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Price RM, Swart PK, Willoughby HE. Seasonal and spatial variation in the stable isotopic composition (δ18O and δD) of precipitation in south Florida. Journal of Hydrology. 2008; 358:193–205. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Craig H. Isotopic variations in meteoric waters. Science. 1961;133:1702–1703. 10.1126/science.133.3465.1702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Allen ST, Keim RF, Barnard HR, McDonnell JJ, Renée Brooks J. The role of stable isotopes in understanding rainfall interception processes: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. 2017; 4:e1187 10.1002/wat2.1187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Buda AR, DeWalle DR. Using atmospheric chemistry and storm track information to explain the variation of nitrate stable isotopes in precipitation at a site in central Pennsylvania, USA. Atmospheric environment. 2009; 43:4453–64. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hastings MG, Sigman DM, Lipschultz F. Isotopic evidence for source changes of nitrate in rain at Bermuda. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2003;108(D24). 10.1029/2003JD003789 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Altieri K, Hastings M, Peters A, Sigman D. Molecular characterization of water soluble organic nitrogen in marine rainwater by ultra-high resolution electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2012;12:3557–3571. 10.5194/acp-12-3557-2012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hale RL, Turnbull L, Earl S, Grimm N, Riha K, Michalski G, et al. Sources and Transport of Nitrogen in Arid Urban Watersheds. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014; 48:6211–6219. 10.1021/es501039t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fissore C, Baker LA, Hobbie SE, King JY, McFadden JP, Nelson KC, et al. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes in household ecosystems in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota, urban region. Ecological Applications. 2011; 21:619–639. 10.1890/10-0386.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Han Y, Fan Y, Yang P, Wang X, Wang Y, Tian J, et al. Net anthropogenic nitrogen inputs (NANI) index application in Mainland China. Geoderma. 2014; 213:87–94. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Cao D, Cao W, Fang J, Cai L. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agricultural systems in China: a meta-analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2014; 85:727–32. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lusk MG, Toor G. S., and Inglett P. W. Organic nitrogen in residential stormwater runoff: Implications for stormwater management in urban watersheds. Science of the Total Environment. 2019. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hobbie S, Baker L, Buyarski C, Nidzgorski D, Finlay J. Decomposition of tree leaf litter on pavement: implications for urban water quality. Urban Ecosystems. 2014; 17:369–385. 10.1007/s11252-013-0329-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Band LE, Elliott EM, Shields CA, Kendall C. Tracking nonpoint source nitrogen pollution in human-impacted watersheds. Enviromental Science & Technology. 2011; 45:8225–32. 10.1021/es200779e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Newcomer TA, Kaushal SS, Mayer PM, Shields AR, Canuel EA, Groffman PM, et al. Influence of natural and novel organic carbon sources on denitrification in forest, degraded urban, and restored streams. Ecological Monographs. 2012; 82:449–66. 10.5061/dryad.4gk00 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Lusk MG, Toor GS, Inglett PW. Characterization of dissolved organic nitrogen in leachate from a newly established and fertilized turfgrass. Water Research. 2018; 131:52–61. 10.1016/j.watres.2017.11.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Julian Aherne

21 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21012

Composition of Nitrogen in Urban Residential Stormwater Runoff: Variation in Concentrations, Loads, and Source Characterization of Nitrate and Organic Nitrogen

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Toor,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All three reviewers agree that the manuscript requires minor revisions. Please address all revisions as suggested by the reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript requires minor revisions based on the comments from three reviewers (all three agree that the manuscript requires minor revisions). Please ensure that in your revised manuscript you address all comments (note: one reviewer has provided comments directly on a PDF copy of the manuscript). I looked forward to the revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General observations

The manuscript represents a valuable addition to the literature on stormwater (SW) quality and general approaches to quality controls. While the initial approach to SW control focused on removals of suspended solids with attached chemicals, environmental concerns about nutrients exported with SW from urban catchments were addressed at a later date and often indicated transformations of various species of N and P in Best Management Practice facilities, or poor experimental methods and erroneous measurements. Hence, scientifically rigorous contributions, as the one reviewed herein, are useful precursors of further progress in this field. The manuscript is well thought out and written, the objectives clearly stated, experimental methods are advanced, data statistically analyzed, the conclusions well supported by the data presented, and in principle, the reviewer recommends its acceptance, pending some relatively minor corrections/clarifications improving the clarity of presentation.

Speaking of clarity, the reviewer is slightly concerned that the authors depart in some cases from a common usage of hydrological terms and units, when describing the catchment hydrology (defined as those appearing e.g., in the Journal of Hydrology). I realize that these simple formal changes may involve enough work, and therefore, leave it up to the Editor to decide whether those changes are worthwhile. At the same time, the usage in the manuscript is somewhat distracting.

Specific comments

Line (L) 66/67 – flow (presuming runoff flow) should not be listed as a rainfall variable.

L101 – runoff volume is not a rainfall variable

L107-123 – the study catchment description is incomplete; for applications elsewhere, one would be interested e.g. in an average lot size; whether the impervious areas are directly connected to sewers, or some of them discharge on pervious parts of the catchment; do roofs discharge onto lots, or are they connected to sewers?; soil type (and even just a qualitative description of soil infiltration); whether any runoff controls are used on individual lots, or in the catchment.

L116 – surface runoff does not enter into curbs, but street gutters and then into storm sewers (or drains) before draining…; any comments on the N fertilizer ban compliance?

L124 – annual precipitation and air temperatures, any other comments re the catchment climate.

L126 – the rain gauge is not installed in the storm sewer outlet, but at, or by; and incidentally, the one shown in Fig. 1 is most likely “shaded” by the nearby trees (bias in in rainfall capture) and measurement accuracy.

How were the rainfall events defined? They are usually defined by the minimum rainfall depth (e.g., > 2 mm) and minimum inter-event time (e.g., 6 hours) – needed to distinguish between events with shorter periods of no rain and two events generated by different whether systems.

L130-132 – flow monitoring – the model number?, some estimates of accuracy?

L163-167 – please check eq. (2-1) – I believe that it is incorrect (assuming that n is a sample count); as it is written, I can cancel “ti*ci” in the numerator and denominator and the equation then reads FWMC = sum (ci), from 1 to n.

L170 – rainfall samples – I do not recall reading about them earlier, how and where they were collected?

L221 – the rainfall variables are listed correctly (contrarily to Line 101); rainfall “amount” is generally measured as rainfall depth [mm]; the intensity – is that event mean intensity?

L226 and elsewhere – total rainfall of 1,055 mm (this applies throughout the manuscript)

L232 – 233 – two decimal points 2.54 mm, 19.05 mm is excessive and misleading as to measurement accuracy, use 2.5 and 19.1 mm; …2.5 mm of rainfall in 10 minutes…; …the in the…, L233, delete the first the.

L236 – the rainfall intensity …ranged from 2.0 to 5.1 mm hr-1 …. – the intensities were averaged over the storm event duration; for later discussion of N export from the catchment, peak intensities over some fixed time interval (close to the catchment time of concentration, perhaps 15 – 30 minutes, would be more relevant.

L237-238 – unusual units of total volume (rather than amount) of runoff – the larger number equals 554 mm of runoff and the smaller 168 mm of runoff (from the catchment studied). 1 litre is perhaps much too small unit of volume; why not m3 ?

L276-277 – it would be useful to define “high” rainfall and runoff quantitatively

L281-284 – this has been defined in the literature as “pollutant build-up and wash-off” (e.g., in the US EPA SWMM model, or see e.g. Vaze, J. and Chiew, H.S. (2003). Study of pollutant washoff from small impervious experimental plots. Wat.Res. Research, 39(6), 1160; doi: 10.1029/2002WR001786

L302 – rainfall amount listed twice

L383 - …winter season, reaction occurs….

L496 – 497 – it is not just the issue of age of sanitary and storm sewers, but more importantly, no cross-connections (misconnections) between both systems.

L521-523 – it is hard to visualize “rotting” leaves and acorns in street gutters in an obviously upscale residential area; does this really happen?

L542 – perhaps “longer antecedent dry season”

L556 – it is easy and “logical” to suggest cleaning streets before storm events, but that is a very costly proposition. Perhaps one should somehow temper this recommendation. Also, there is a stormwater pond designed to control runoff from the study area, does it help the N situation? (I know this is outside of the paper scope, but so are your comments on SW quality controls).

Reviewer #2: This article is well written and provides an interesting assessment of nitrogen species partitioning in urban runoff. The most compelling section was the isotope analysis based on its novelty. I have relatively minor comments on the attached document. I have a few items that should be cleared up for publication. In particular, I would ask the authors to specify if they checked for normality of the data.

Reviewer #3: General

The authors present an extensive and very valuable stormwater data set; in particular, the within-event isotopic analyses are a unique and interesting data set. The data have been thoroughly checked against previous studies and data sets. The field, lab, and statistical analyses are solid, and appropriate for the work. The paper is also pretty well written, logically organized, and thoroughly referenced. The results are a bit long and the conclusions a bit light, but mostly appropriate given the large size of the data set.

I have a few general comments that could potentially improve the clarity and impact of the results:

1) I think the conclusions could be strengthened by digging into the more novel aspects of the data set (DON, PON sources; within-event source dynamics) and making recommendations for BMPs or providing support for existing BMPs for treating those forms of N.

2) There is a lot of detail on the NO3 results (for good reason, given the extensive number of isotope samples that were processed), but it appears to be a minor component of TN at this site, and not a lot to be concluded from the results. NO3 and NH4 concentrations of 0.2mg/L (mean) are pretty low. I think the organic N part of the work is potentially more useful / interesting.

3) I would be interested in learning more about the within-event concentrations and isotopic composition, and what the results might mean for type or timing of stormwater management; and how might event characteristics (intensity, depth, duration), which vary across climates, impact prescribed management? I feel that this is a very important component of your data set!

4) “percent runoff” / “percent of runoff” needs to be more carefully defined for clarity (see comment below)

--

Minor Comments:

- check references to tables/figures so that they are consistent with the form required by the journal, e.g. “S4 Table” in L276 (should this be “Table S4?”), “Fig 3A and 4B” in L278 (should this be “Figs. 3A and 4B”), and elsewhere

- in citing studies, be consistent with locations (i.e. use City, State, Coutry or just State, Country)

Methods

- does the site have any baseflow? threshold for sampling seems small so guessing not but maybe good to mention

L135-144: check grammar (“enabled to monitor”… etc)

L146+: time paced sampling, or flow paced sampling? FWMC implies time pacing but is unclear.

- each sample bottle analyzed separately, right?

L160: is FWMC calculated for each event, or across all samples? If this is calculated across all samples, this would seem to bias results towards more frequently sampled storms (?)

L222: omit comma

Results

L233,L238: seems like a small threshold for runoff yet only 36% of rainfall and 30% of runoff was sampled — how applicable might results be for small storms?

L242: what quantities are being compared here — volumes? And if so, how is this different from the result presented in L248-9 (and Fig 3C)? Also, does the correlation include sampled events, or all events? Correlation of rainfall and runoff is an intuitive/obvious result, but this still needs to be explained.

L242-3 (and L332): what is “percent runoff” — fraction of rainfall that became runoff, or fraction of total runoff that was sampled, or something else? The first definition is implied by the subsequent lines, but an explicit definition would be helpful. This is also especially confusing because the y-axis label in Fig 3A (and x-axis in 3B) is “percent OF runoff”, which implies a potentially different definition (e.g. “percent of runoff that was observed”, rather than “percent of rainfall as runoff”). I think this term needs to be changed for clarity, even if is more verbose.

L247: similarly, 10-80% of what? rainfall?

L260: should be “Fig. S2”?

L282-4: check grammar

L333: course should be coarse

L342: are these expected to be major sources of water in your study area?

L363-4: this seems to conflict with the last sentence of the previous paragraph, which stated that rainfall and runoff samples were “identical with each other” — please clarify what difference is being referenced here (event-to-event perhaps?)

L370+, L352+, L501+: would it be useful to condense the isotope data (means and ranges) to a table, maybe along with references for similar studies? Your main points in these paragraphs (e.g. that runoff water was nearly all rainfall, explanation of seasonal and intra-event variability of dN-NO3) get buried at the end of the paragraphs. I think these would be easier to read and stronger paragraphs if you lead each with a main result from your study. Might be personal preference, though.

L393-395: this is a somewhat vague explanation of variability of isotopic composition within events — you provide a nice explanation in the previous paragraph for seasonal variability of dN-NO3, but perhaps you could do more with your data to explain how the changes in this isotope over an event explain changes in N source?

L397: I think this section could be expanded a bit to discuss changing sources during events, and if possible, discussing both NO3 and ON.

L403: the result beginning on L403 (change in source over the event) seems like a more interesting starting point than just summarizing your isotope results. Or could start a new paragraph here to discuss changes in source over an event. This is an important issue that your dataset is well equipped to address!

L410: this sentence needs clarification. Why would DIN become a larger component of TN as the larger events become “enriched” in ON? This would imply the opposite pattern. Do you perhaps mean “saturated” in ON, i.e. only so much can be mobilized?

413: Discussion of fertilizer kind of comes out of nowhere. Might be good here to point readers to Fig 5 again to show the importance of fertilizer — which appears to be important only for a few events?

424-499: I realize that the substantial amount of nitrate isotope data collected compels you to do a source-tracking analysis, which is interesting, but it comprises such a small component of stormwater N at your site, and the largest component is atmospheric, such that management implications are pretty minimal. The thorough discussion of the various components of atmospheric NO3 (L450-466) and organic NO3 (L481-99) do not add much to the main points of your paper and could potentially be condensed into a single paragraph discussing other NO3 sources.

- this section also needs to reference Fig 6

L467+: I think the fertilizer section might be the most important part of the NO3 results, especially in light of the fertilizer ban in place during the study period. How does the percentage of NO3/NH4 as fertilizer in your study compare to the other cited studies? If fertilizer restrictions were NOT in place in those other studies, then you have an interesting result for the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a fertilizer ban.

L510, L517: this is an important result. It might be personal preference, but leading with a summary of the results is less exciting than leading with your major outcome. Also, oaks may be considered "messy" trees; how might the results change with a watershed containing different deciduous species (or mix of species)?

L520: Ong reference needs to be in numbered form

Conclusions

- Mostly just a summary of the results. What have you learned from the data set? (Most of the BMP suggestions in the conclusions are practices that are already being implemented for both N and P management.) For example, what insights did you gain from doing the within-event analyses, which are fairly rare as a data set?

L537: if DON is the dominant form, what might be some management options? The BMPs suggested for management of NO3 (L547-9), which is a minor component of TN, are already pretty standard practices, so this is not new information.

L554+: does this imply that street sweeping could be a particularly effective BMP?

--

Figures

Fig 2

- line graph implies continuity from point to point, yet these are discontinuous data (discrete x axis rather than continuous/time). Could this info be condensed into a table, or perhaps make all of the plots bar graphs (like top plot in figure)?

Fig 3

- A,B: see above concerns about “percent of runoff” label on y-axis

- C: is the line fit to all events or just sampled events?

Fig 4

- B: y-axis is really hard to read; possible to make text larger?

- legend: remove “for easy visualization” (which is subjective) and describe how they are grouped — it appears they are grouped by magnitude of TN (i.e. scale)?

Fig 6

- Legend: please give the dates of the events (rather than “May to September 2016”), and maybe rainfall amounts? Also please explain that “n” is number of samples within the event.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-21012_reviewer.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Julian Aherne

13 Feb 2020

Composition of Nitrogen in Urban Residential Stormwater Runoff: Concentrations, Loads, and Source Characterization of Nitrate and Organic Nitrogen

PONE-D-19-21012R1

Dear Dr. Toor,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have revised the manuscript in line with the comments from the three reviewers. I recommend that it is accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Julian Aherne

19 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-21012R1

Composition of Nitrogen in Urban Residential Stormwater Runoff: Concentrations, Loads, and Source Characterization of Nitrate and Organic Nitrogen

Dear Dr. Toor:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Julian Aherne

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (A) Annual and May to September rainfall from 2006 to 2016, (B) comparison of mean 10 years (2006–2015) and 2016 rainfall, and (C) comparison of monthly rainfall from May to September for 2006–2015 and 2016 in the study site located in Bradenton, Florida. Red bar in (A) indicates data of sampling year (2016).

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig

    (A) Percent runoff of total rainfall, (B) frequency distribution of percent runoff, and (C) relationship between rainfall and runoff amount for total 75 storm events and sampled 22 storm events from May to September, 2016 (line fits for both 75 and 22 events are shown).

    (TIFF)

    S3 Fig. Flow-weighted mean concentrations of various nitrogen forms in 10-minute samples collected in 22 individual storm events from May to September, 2016.

    (TIFF)

    S4 Fig. Relationship between δ18O–H2O and δD–H2O for rainfall (n = 10) and runoff samples (n = 176) collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

    (TIFF)

    S5 Fig

    Variation in stable isotope composition (A) δ18O–H2O and (B) δD–H2O in rainfall (n = 10) and stormwater runoff samples (n = 176) collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

    (TIFF)

    S6 Fig

    Variation in stable isotope composition (A) δ15N-NO3- and (B) δ18O-NO3- in rainfall (n = 12) and stormwater runoff samples collected during 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Table. Pervious and impervious area of residential catchment located in Lakewood Ranch, Bradenton, Florida, United States.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. End-member literature values of δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. 13C and 15N of PON in various landscape sources and collected stormwater runoff samples.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Runoff volume variables, flow-weighted mean concentration of nitrogen forms, and δ18O–NO3 and δ15N–NO3 values for 22 storm events from May to September, 2016.

    (PDF)

    S5 Table. Pearson correlation among rainfall variables and nitrogen forms from May to September, 2016.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-21012_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses-R1 .pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES