Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2026 Jan;98(1):e70268.
doi: 10.1002/wer.70268.

Technosols Offer a Suitable Replacement for Sand-Based Filter Media in Rain Garden Design

Dallas M Williams  1 , Briana M Wyatt  1
Affiliations

Technosols Offer a Suitable Replacement for Sand-Based Filter Media in Rain Garden Design

Dallas M Williams et al. Water Environ Res. 2026 Jan.

Abstract

The sustainability of sand is becoming more uncertain; therefore, a critical need exists to identify alternative materials for green infrastructure that meet desirable, site-specific functions. Technosol rain gardens (glass, shale, and shell) were tested for their ability to infiltrate and filter stormwater of chemical pollutants. Technosols had similar infiltration rates as sand, while large particle sizes of technogenic materials led to significantly higher saturated hydraulic conductivities (111-211 cm h-1) compared to sand (37.3 cm h-1). Technosols decreased all pollutant concentrations, except Zn, compared with the synthetic stormwater. Shale (0.0461 mg L-1), shell (0.0544 mg L-1), and sand (0.0306 mg L-1) had comparable effluent NH4-N. Compared with sand, shale removed 27.8% more Cu, while glass, shale, and shell removed 58.9%, 85.3%, and 57.7% more Pb, respectively. Glass and shell demonstrate potential for increasing long-term runoff capture under saturated conditions while removing > 50% of chemical pollutants like NH4-N, P, Cu, and Pb.

Keywords: Technosol; green infrastructure; low impact development; rain garden; stormwater management; technogenic; urban hydrology; water quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Barrett, M. E., M. Limouzin, and D. F. Lawler. 2013. “Effects of Media and Plant Selection on Biofiltration Performance.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 139, no. 4: 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943–7870.0000551.
    1. Davis, A. P., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma, and C. Minami. 2001. “Laboratory Study of Biological Retention for Urban Stormwater Management.” Water Environment Research 73, no. 1: 5–14.
    1. Davis, A. P., M. Shokouhian, H. Sharma, C. Minami, and D. Winogradoff. 2003. “Water Quality Improvement Through Bioretention: Lead, Copper, and Zinc Removal.” Water Environment Research 75, no. 1: 73–82.
    1. Deeb, M., P. M. Groffman, M. Blouin, et al. 2020. “Using Constructed Soils for Green Infrastructure – Challenges and Limitations.” Soil 6: 413–434. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil‐6‐413‐2020.
    1. De‐Ville, S., D. Green, J. Edmondson, R. Stirling, R. Dawson, and V. Stovin. 2021. “Evaluating the Potential Hydrological Performance of a Bioretention Media With 100% Recycled Waste Components.” Water 13, no. 15: 2014. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152014.

LinkOut - more resources