Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhazmat

Research Article

Using SWMM for emergency response planning: A case study evaluating

biological agent transport under various rainfall scenarios and
urban surfaces
Lifeng Yuan a, *, 1, Anne M. Mikelonis a, Eugene Yan b
a
US EPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response, Homeland Security Materials Management Division,
Durham, NC, USA
b
Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Calibrated SWMM model using observed

spores from a field experiment.
• Compared the impact of different types
of rainfall and washoff coefficients on
spore transport.
• Evaluated spores washoff amount from
asphalt, grass, and concrete surfaces.
• Identified spore migration pathways and
hotspot areas under a hypothetical
plume scenario.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: John D Atkinson To assist in emergency preparedness for a biological agent terrorist attack or accidental pathogen release, po­
tential contaminant levels and migration pathways of spores spread by urban stormwater were evaluated using a
Keywords: Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) of U.S. Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City, North Carolina. The high
Stormwater temporal-spatial resolution SWMM model was built using spore concentrations in stormwater runoff from
B. anthracis
asphalt, grass, and concrete collected from a point-scale field study. The subsequent modeled contamination
PCSWMM
scenarios included a notional plume release and point releases mimicking the field study under three rainfall
Asphalt
Concrete conditions. The rainfall scenarios included a 6-hour natural rainfall event on Dec. 8, 2021 and two design storms
Washoff (2-year and 100-year events). The observed spore concentrations from asphalt and concrete from the actual field
experiment were applied to calibrate the washoff parameters in the SWMM model, using an exponential washoff
function. The calibrated washoff coefficient (c1) and exponent (c2) were 0.01 and 1.00 for asphalt, 0.05 and 1.45
for grass, and 2.45 and 1.00 for concrete, respectively. The calibrated SWMM model simulated spore concen­
trations in runoff at times and magnitudes similar to the field study data. In the point release modeled scenario,

* Correspondence to: 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711, USA.

E-mail address: yuan.lifeng@epa.gov (L. Yuan).
1
Mail code: E343–06.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131747
Received 1 March 2023; Received in revised form 11 May 2023; Accepted 29 May 2023
Available online 2 June 2023
0304-3894/Published by Elsevier B.V.
L. Yuan et al.
the concrete surface generated 55.6% higher average spore concentrations than asphalt. Similarly, in the field
experiment, a 175% (p < 0.05) higher average spore concentration in surface runoff was observed from concrete
than from asphalt. This study demonstrates how SWMM may be used to evaluate spore washoff from urban
surfaces under different precipitation amounts, intensities, and durations, and how visualized spatial migration
pathways in stormwater runoff may be used for emergency planning and remediation.
1. Introduction
A large-scale outdoor spread of pathogenic biological contaminants
such as Bacillus anthracis (Ba) (the causative agent of anthrax) would
threaten human health due to its fatal nature and cause a devastating
environmental disaster [4,17]. Once an intentional or accidental bio­
logical contamination incident arises, a scientifically informed envi­
ronmental emergency response plan should be expeditiously
implemented to protect public health [24]. From the perspective of
pollutant transport, stormwater will contribute to pollutant spread after
an incident by redistributing infectious material away from an initially
contaminated area. It is therefore essential to understand the transport
pattern of contaminants under different urban stormwater runoff set­
tings to aid in remediation decisions and activities. This study does so by
calibrating an urban stormwater model with field-collected spore
washoff data and running the resulting model under different contam­
ination and rainfall scenarios. The resulting maps and analysis are ex­
amples of products that would assist decision makers in determining
actions such as sampling locations, disinfection actions, and waste
staging zones.
Although it is generally recognized that decision makers during an
emergency would benefit from a better understanding of the fate and
transport of biothreat agents by stormwater [21], in practice it is chal­
lenging information to provide due to the complexity and non-linear
relation of rainfall, runoff, and sediment transport [52,55], the intri­
cate flow routing on urban impervious surfaces, the inherent complexity
of overland and subsurface flow processes in an urban drainage system,
and the lack for references for the buildup and washoff of biological
pollutants [24]. A proper physically-based stormwater pollution model
is therefore a powerful tool to investigate the wide-area diffusion of
pollutants in a large-scale contamination release scenario [54] by
evaluating washoff and/or remaining amount on certain surfaces under
a specific or series of storm events, calculating pollutants’ travel and
peak time, and identifying migration pathway from pollutant sources to
outlets.
The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), developed by the U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is a public domain,
physically-based, spatially distributed, dynamic hydrologic-hydraulic-
water quantity and quality model for natural and urban drainage sys­
tems [38]. SWMM explicitly considers many physical processes such as
surface runoff, evaporation, infiltration, groundwater, and pollutant
buildup and washoff, and it has been widely applied throughout the
world [27,30,42]. Working as a low-cost stormwater management and
engineering planning tool, SWMM has been used in recent decades for
modeling and evaluating the fate and transport of various pollutants
such as total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phos­
phorus (TP) [56], biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), heavy metals (e.g. lead, copper, zinc, etc.) [19,45],
coliform bacteria [33], and other user customized contaminants [30].
The worldwide applications of SWMM and its proprietary and
open-source derivatives (e.g., PCSWMM, InfoSWMM, pySWMM, and
XPSWMM) have shown its effectiveness in modeling the fate and
transport of pollutants within an urban catchment [27,34,41].
However, B. anthracis, a spore-forming bacteria with deadly nature,
is a niche pollutant of concern that has not been considered in SWMM
simulations. To the best of our knowledge, only one study has contem­
plated SWMM to model the transport and spread of B. anthracis surro­
gates in laboratory settings. Mikelonis, Anne et al. [22] compared the
2
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
difference in rainfall washoff of two nonpathogenic B. anthracis surro­
gate spores from asphalt and concrete surfaces at a laboratory scale and
assessed the goodness-of-fit for the SWMM’s exponential washoff func­
tion compared to another two-stage exponential function. The results
showed that spore washoff from asphalt and concrete surfaces did not
significantly differ between spore types, but that more spores were
removed from the asphalt surface. This study also derived the specific
washoff coefficient and exponent in SWMM’s exponential washoff
function for different urban surfaces from the rainfall
simulator-generated dataset. To date, we are not aware of any SWMM
model applications simulating spore transport in a large-scale urban
stormwater setting.
The major impediments in applying SWMM to model spore spread
from a large-scale outdoor release involve (1) expensive and laborious
field experiments (e.g., monitoring instrument testing and installation)
[34]; (2) extensive data collection (e.g., various temporal and spatial
data requirements, spatial data preprocessing) [54]; (3) time-consuming
model calibration (e.g., parameterization, the availability of computa­
tion resources) [30]; and (4) a requirement of a high-resolution SWMM
model structure (e.g. finer spatial and temporal resolution for sub­
catchments, 1D and 2D coupled data structure). High-quality field data
provides a solid foundation for a reliable SWMM simulation. For
example, to monitor and sample spore time series data in surface runoff,
various monitoring instruments such as a rainfall disdrometer, runoff
autosampler, soil moisture probe, liquid level sensor, and data transport
equipment need to be installed at field sites in the model domain.
Additionally, due to the lack of embedded algorithms for parameter
sensitivity analysis, automated calibration, and uncertainty analysis in
SWMM [27], users need to develop a customized tool to complete these
tasks for gaining reliable simulated results. Moreover, to include more
detailed surface flow routing, a high-resolution spatial data structure is
required in SWMM. Previously, the lack of methods for efficiently
generating finer spatial resolution vector spatial data structures in
SWMM limited its rapid application in spore transport simulation sce­
narios, but software tools are now available to assist in this aspect [8].
The Homeland Security Research Program at U.S. EPA collaborated
with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and
Technology Directorate and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct an
interagency, multi-year project entitled Analysis of Coastal Operation
Resiliency (AnCOR), which intends to prepare for and respond to a
threat to public health or the environment caused by the release of a
biothreat agent [11]. AnCOR included several large-scale activities
involving decontamination of a USCG vessel, a demonstration of the use
of municipal equipment to decontaminate a USCG base, a wide-area
demo that included a spore release and testing of sampling and decon­
tamination technologies, and a 6-month stormwater fate and transport
study. The modeling presented here was part of the AnCOR stormwater
fate and transport study, and had the following objectives: (1) to
demonstrate the development of a wide-area SWMM spore transport
model, (2) to quantitatively evaluate the fate and transport of spores
from different surfaces (i.e., concrete, grass, and asphalt), (3) to compare
the impact of different types of rainfall (i.e., intensity and duration) and
washoff coefficients on modeling results, and (4) to simulate spore
transport pathways and identify hotspot areas after a hypothetical
plume scenario. The study demonstrates to emergency planners and
responders the capabilities and predictions possible by utilizing a
stormwater model to simulate spore transport.
L. Yuan et al.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and data description
Elizabeth City (36.303◦ N, 76.246◦ W) is located in Pasquotank
County in northeastern North Carolina (Fig. 1). The USCG, a partner of
the AnCOR project, is located in this region and provided stormwater
data necessary to construct a model of the base. The model domain area
covers 3.34 km2 and includes an airport, roadways, and about 144
buildings. The average annual precipitation in Elizabeth City is 1232.9
mm. The average annual high and low temperature is 22.2 ◦ C and
10.0 ◦ C, respectively [28]. The USCG Base in Elizabeth City was selected
as the location for this case study after considering the availability of
utility data, onsite partners, and urban/USCG system representativity
across all USCG bases [34]. The data used to build the SWMM model is
summarized in Table 1 and included the following:
A North Carolina Statewide light detection and ranging (Lidar) dig­
ital elevation model (DEM) (spatial resolution: 1.5 m × 1.5 m) was
downloaded from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) data access viewer [32]. The spatial resolution of the DEM
(Fig. 2a) was resampled to 3.0 m × 3.0 m to reduce errors in flow
routing from a high-resolution micro-terrain [5]. The hydrology and
spatial analysis toolboxes in ArcMap (version 10.7) were applied to fill
sinks and generate a slope map. The average slope gradient in the study
area was in the 0–3% range.
The land use and land cover (LULC) map (Fig. 2b) was derived from a
high-resolution (0.6 m) digital ortho photo image that was downloaded
from the 2018 North Carolina National Agriculture Imagery Program
(NAIP) database [31]. Maximum likelihood classification (MLC) [36]
Fig. 1. Locations of the spore inoculation and sampling field experiment.
3
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
from the image classification module in ArcMap, associated with the
visual image interpretation, was used to classify land use types. The land
use types in the study area include asphalt (8%), concrete (9%), roofs
(4%), grass (68%), trees (9%), and water (1%). Since different washoff
coefficients were not being developed for trees versus grass in this study,
the tree class was eventually merged with grass in the stage of the model
development. The area of urban impervious, pervious, and water ac­
counts for 21%, 77%, and 1%, respectively. Soil data (Fig. 2c) were
obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) of the U.
S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service
[43]. The dominant soil type is Udorthents loamy (53.1%) located at
1–2% slopes. Urban land (21%) type on the soil map stands for urban
impervious regions.
Additionally, the road centerline data of the study area were
downloaded from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) [26]. Base boundary data was used to extract model extent
from the DEM, soil, and land use maps; the road centerline data was
applied to generate street polygon data (Fig. 2d). The urban drainage
system data (Fig. 2d) including underground pipes, outfalls, and junc­
tions were provided by the USCG in a combination of GIS files and
as-built drawings. These raw engineering data are unavailable for public
release. The projection used for all of the spatial data used in this study
was NAD_1983_StatePlane_North_Carolina_FIPS_3200_Feet (2264).
2.2. Spore inoculation and sampling field experiment
Rainfall and spore washoff data from a field experiment were used to
calibrate the model used in this case study. The field experiment is
documented elsewhere [23], but in brief Bacillus globigii (Bg) which is
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

Table 1
Spatial data sources used in developing the SWMM model.
Data type Source Resolution Description Online source

DEM NOAA Resampled to 3 m × 3 2014 North Carolina Statewide Lidar DEM https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/49411
m
Land use NC NAIP High 2018 North Carolina NAIP Digital Ortho Photo https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/58387
Imagery†
Soil USDA Low SSURGO database https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
NRCS
Boundary & Road NCDOT High North Carolina Department of Transportation https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/Pages/GIS-Data
centerline -Layers.aspx
Urban drainage network USCG High The sewer system survey and as-built drawings Not publicly available
†
Image spatial resolution is about 0.6 m. The image classification method can be seen in Supplementary Fig. 1 S.

Fig. 2. Spatial data used in the model construction: (A) DEM; (B) Land use; (C) Soil; (D) Urban spatial elements.

commonly used as a surrogate for B. anthracis was sprayed at a target
concentration of 108 CFU m− 2 (colony forming unit per square meter)
and watershed equipment was deployed to monitor spore washoff and
hydrologic information at several locations at the base (Fig. 3). During
the field study spore concentrations were monitored at four locations
(directly downstream of where concrete, grass, and asphalt were inoc­
ulated with spores and at grassy berm receiving runoff from a parking lot
that was not inoculated with spores as a control). Water samples were
enumerated for Bg using spiral and spread plating techniques on Tryp­
ticase Soy Agar (TSA), incubated at 35 ± 2 ◦ C overnight, and manually
counted. Equipment included a rainfall disdrometer (Parsivel2, OTT
HydroMet, Kempten, German), tipping bucket rain gauges (Davis 6462,
Davis Instruments, Hayward, CA and ISCO 674, TELEDYNE ISCO,
Lincoln, NE), soil moisture probes (Digital Hydra Probe II, Stevens Water
Monitoring Systems, Inc., Portland, OR), runoff autosamplers (ISCO
6700 and 6712, TELEDYNE ISCO, Lincoln, NE), and a customized-built
telemetry unit working as a data logger at three sites with different
surfaces: asphalt, grass, and concrete (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3). The measure­
ment accuracy and precision from the OTT Parsivel2, an extensively used
optical disdrometer [2], have been verified by other studies [15,47,49]
and were examined by comparing Parsivel2 rainfall time series with
measurements from the tipping bucket in a recent paper [23]. The field

4
L. Yuan et al.
Fig. 3. The field sampling and data telemetry equipment for the collection of
observed spore concentration data used in the case study model.
study provided Bg (CFU mL− 1) data for stormwater runoff samples
following observed rainfall events at concrete, asphalt, and grass land
use areas.
2.3. Model development
Personal Computer Stormwater Management Model (PCSWMM)
(version 7.5) was used to construct a high-resolution stormwater spore
pollution model. PCSWMM is a proprietary software that runs the EPA
SWMM core code but includes enhanced tools such as integration of a
geographic information system (GIS), watershed delineation, and con­
struction of quasi-2D models [8]. PCSWMM can run many different
SWMM code versions. In this study, SWMM version 5.1.015 was used.
PCSWMM has a module that can generate 2D cells with hexagonal or
rectangular mesh to simulate overland flow in a quasi-2D mode. Similar
to Shireman et al. [41], the following layers were used: a buildings/roofs
layer as obstructions, a boundary layer that included the base perimeter
and roads, a junctions layer from the 1D SWMM model, and the DEM.
During mesh creation, both rectangular and hexagonal geometry was to
discretize roads (spatial resolution: ~21 m2) and other regions (spatial
resolution: ~50 m2), see inserted subplot in Fig. 5, respectively. The
shape of the areas inoculated during the field study release were also
intentionally included as polygons in the boundary layer so that the
mesh generation would consider those areas as one subcatchment,
making modeling results easier to interpret. The special field study areas
were an asphalt (23.7 m2), grass (18.6 m2), and concrete (19.2 m2) with
location data collected at the field site (Fig. 1) by a global positioning
system (GPS). The use of different spatial resolutions for different parts
of the mesh was intended to balance tradeoffs between model detail and
computation burden. Also, it was important to build flexibility during
the mesh generation for environmental emergency response activities
focused on roadways [41]. PCSWMM’s quasi-2D modeling tools
generate conduits on the surface of the model that are not physically
present onsite but used by the model to perform hydraulic calculations
of stormwater surface runoff and visualize drainable pathways. In
essence, the final model is a very large and detailed 1D SWMM model.
The physically present 1D underground pipes from the urban drainage
system were connected to these quasi-2D conduits using PCSWMM’s
1D-2D tools. PCSWMM’s tools create 2D nodes at the centroid of the
mesh shape. The 1D underground conduit’s junctions are then paired
with nearby 2D nodes using a weir equation to participate in the
continuity-momentum calculation. The quasi-2D mesh was then trans­
ferred into the SWMM subcatchments layer and assigned an outlet by
using the ‘Set Outlet’ tool in PCSWMM which looked for the junction
5
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
nearest to the centroid of the subcatchment shape. After this transfer
into the subcatchment layer, hydrologic modeling could be executed
either using PCSWMM or the EPA SWMM platform. Model quality
assurance included checking and replacing subcatchments that over­
lapped with the rooftop of buildings. It is important to note that the
subcatchment sizes used in this work do not approximate 2D modeling
functionality (e.g., being able to predict a change of flow at intersections
or overtopping curbs), but the entire study area was discretized at finer
resolution than traditional SWMM models so that drainage pathways of
overland flow could be visualized. In the subcatchment layer, the
smallest and largest subcatchment areas is 2 m2 and 18876 m2, and the
median and mean area was 50.0 and 41.6 m2 (σ = 110.0 m2), respec­
tively. Fig. 4 summarizes the SWMM model development process for this
case study.
In alignment with the field study, three land use types: asphalt, grass,
and concrete were defined in the SWMM model. All subcatchments were
also categorized as six types: 2D (generated from previous quasi-2D
mesh), roads, asphalt, grass, concrete, and rooftop for analysis pur­
poses. Linked with the LULC map, each subcatchment was assigned a
respective land use using a spatial query/spatial weighting tool in
PCSWMM. Asphalt, concrete, roads, and roofs were set to 100%
impervious areas. The manning’s roughness value (n) of overland flow
for these impervious areas was set to 0.011, 0.012, 0.011, and 0.013,
respectively. The grass was set to 0% impervious area, and its overland
flow Manning’s n value was 0.41 [7]. Two soil types: loam and silt loam
were considered in the model. The infiltration parameters of subcatch­
ments with the loam and silt loam soil were set to have a suction head of
3.3 and 6.6 mm, hydraulic conductivity of 88.9 and 169.9 mm hr− 1, and
initial deficit of 0.347 and 0.366 [9], respectively. The average surface
slope (%) came from the DEM and varied for each subcatchment, but the
slope of roofs was set uniformly to 10%. The flow length of 2D, roads,
asphalt site, concrete site, and grass site was separately set to 4.57, 2.44,
3.81, 3.66, and 3.35 m respectively, along with a varying length of
overland sheet flow for roofs with different shapes based on the equiv­
alent rectangle representation of the roof. The depth of depression
storage on impervious and pervious areas was set to 1.27 and 2.54 mm
[6], respectively. For the point release scenario, the initial spore buildup
value for asphalt, grass, and concrete was set to 1.1 × 108 CFU m− 2
reflecting the amount of spores used during the inoculation at the field
experiment. Due to no subarea existing inside each subcatchment in this
model, the subcatchment outlet option was selected as the internal flow
routing between pervious and impervious areas for all subcatchments,
along with 100% of surface runoff routed for subareas. In the conduits
layer, the value of Manning’s n was 0.014 for 2D conduits generated by
PCSWMM, and varying n values based on the materials listed in the
underground pipe data provided by the USCG. The remainder of the
parameters in the model were kept to the default options. Supplemen­
tary Table 1 S summarizes the primary hydraulic parameters used in the
SWMM model.
In summary, the model includes 80,076 subcatchments, 80,016
junctions, 39 outfalls, 220,261 conduits (1D underground pipes: 346,
quasi-2D simulated conduits: 219,915), three land use types, one rain
gauge, and one pollutant (spores). This model involved the main process
simulations of rainfall/runoff, flow routing, and water quality. The
Green-Ampt method [13] was used to simulate the water infiltration
process, and the dynamic wave method [16] with Hazen-Williams
governing equation [48] was applied to model hydraulic flow routing
using a 0.5 s routing time step. All SWMM simulations were run using a
1-min reporting time step. This time step was less than the field study
sampling time intervals (≥ 5 min), so it is possible to aggregate the
SWMM-simulation time series to align with the field sampling results.
The model did not consider antecedent dry days or street sweeping
during the simulation period, groundwater interactions, snowmelt
(none occurred during the study), and soil erosion processes. Addi­
tionally, a custom Python script in PCSWMM (code provided in the
Supplementary Information) was written to export the
L. Yuan et al.
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the model development and scenario construction.
SWMM-simulated surface runoff and spore time series as a.csv file from
certain conduits that corresponded to the asphalt, grass, and concrete
field study locations.
2.4. Spore washoff modeling
Washoff is the process of removing pollutants from ground surfaces
during a wet-weather period, due primarily to raindrop impact and
runoff shear stress during a rainfall event [24]. In SWMM, the washoff of
pollutants on surfaces can be simulated by three empirical functions:
event mean concentrations (EMCs), exponential functions, or rating
curves [39]. Since EMCs assume that each pollutant has a constant
runoff concentration throughout the entire simulation period and are
typically used for a long-term pollution loading estimation using
monitoring data, it is not a feasible option when modeling the variation
in pollutant concentration in surface runoff over time during a single
stormwater event. The exponential function is a mathematical expres­
sion where the washoff load is proportional to the amount of runoff
raised to certain power and the amount of pollutant buildup remaining.
The exponential function used in SWMM is [40]:
6
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
W(t) = mB (0)⋅(1 − e− kt ) (1)
where W(t) is the cumulative mass of the constituent washed off at time t,
mB(0) is the initial amount of the constituent on the surface at time = 0,
and k is a fitted coefficient that is related to the runoff rate:
k = c1 qc2 (2)
where q is the runoff rate over the subcatchment, and c1 and c2 are the
empirical washoff coefficient and exponent, respectively. The expo­
nential washoff function that has been widely used in urban stormwater
quality models has been proven effective [14]. The parameters c1 and c2
are highly variable in the literature and dominated by localized factors
such as pollutant type, slope, surface roughness, soil, land use, etc. They
need to be determined by a way of monitoring or model calibration. The
exponential function can model the concentration of a pollutant over
time and was used in this study. The rating curve function is a special
case of the exponential function which does not consider the initial
pollutant buildup.
L. Yuan et al.
2.5. Model scenario construction
Three rainfall scenarios with different durations and intensities were
evaluated in this work: (1) a 6-hr rainfall event (9.1 mm total rainfall
depth) collected by a Parsivel2 disdrometer at the model site on
December 8, 2021, (2) a 2-year return period, 24-hr design storm event
for Elizabeth City (SCS Type III with 87.4 mm total rainfall depth), and
(3) a 100-year return period, 24-hr design extreme storm event (SCS
Type III with 240.8 mm total rainfall depth). The precipitation depths
used for the design storms were obtained from the precipitation fre­
quency data server (PFDS) of NOAA’s Hydrometeorological Design
Studies Center (HDSC) using the geographical location (36.2596◦ N,
76.1788◦ W) [29]. Each rainfall model input was applied to two types of
spore contamination scenarios: (1) the locations of spore release during
the field experiment (Figs. 1), and (2) a hypothetical large-scale plume
scenario (Fig. 5). The initial spore buildup on each site-specific surface:
asphalt, grass, and concrete was set to 1.1 × 108 CFU m− 2 in the three
Fig. 5. The initial spatial distribution of the plume scenario (The initial spore concentration in plume 1, plume 2, and plume 3 was set to 1.1 × 105, 1.1 × 106, and
1.1 × 107 spores m− 2, respectively. The inserted subplot shows different spatial discretization methods for grass and asphalt areas on the subcatchment layer).
7
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
location field scenario (see Supplementary Fig. 2 S). The plume scenario
assumed that spores contaminated a wide area of the base. The initial
concentration gradient of the hypothetical plume was set to 1.1 × 105
CFU m− 2 for least contaminated area of the plume, 1.1 × 106 CFU m− 2
for the medium contamination level, and 1.1 × 107 CFU m− 2 for the area
of highest contamination. A total of six simulation scenarios were con­
structed (Table 3). Henceforth, “A” refers to the field experiment sce­
nario, and “B” represents the hypothetical plume scenario. A flowchart
of model construction steps and simulation scenario definition is pro­
vided in Fig. 4.
2.6. Model calibration
Sensitivity analysis of model parameters (from pollutants to hy­
draulics) is helpful to find the most impactful parameters that represent
key physical processes and reduce the calculation burden in calibration
[51]. We determined that washoff coefficients were model sensitive
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

parameters through literature investigation [19,20,22,41,44,56]. Table 3

To calibrate SWMM using the washoff parameters, SWMM version Scenario definition by precipitation type and spore contamination event.
5.1.015 computational engine was compiled and run using EPA’s Linux- Storm events Scenarios
based High-Performance Computing (HPC) platform using command (Precipitation type and total
Field experiment Hypothetical plume
line. An R version 4.2 [35] script based on the ‘swmmr’ package [18] accumulation)
point release (A) scenario (B)
was developed to calibrate the SWMM model in batch mode to find the
6-hr real rainfall with 1-min collection A1 B1
optimal washoff parameter combination for asphalt, concrete, and grass interval during the field experiment
surfaces based on the field study data. Table 2 lists the initial value, (9.1 mm)
range, and final calibrated value for the three urban surfaces during 2-yr, 24-hr design storm with 6-min A2 B2
calibration. The initial values for asphalt and concrete were from pre­ interval (SCS Type III, 87.4 mm)
100-yr, 24-hr design storm with 6-min A3 B3
vious laboratory experiments [24], and the initial washoff coefficients
interval (SCS Type III, 240.8 mm)
for grass were from Shireman et al. [41] based on the literature for total
suspended solids. The parameter set for the base model included the
initial values of washoff parameters and other hydraulic parameters that 1-min time interval and a total precipitation depth of 9.1 mm, which
remained constant throughout the calibration runs (see Supplementary was observed from a Parsivel2 laser scanner (OTT, German, www.ott.
Table 1S). During calibration, the values of washoff parameters on three com) on Dec. 8, 2021, was used during the SWMM calibration pro­
surfaces in the SWMM input file were replaced by a new value that was cess. The optimal washoff parameter combination from asphalt, grass,
obtained by randomly sampling from the value domain (Table 2), and and concrete was subsequently applied to all six scenarios.
then a new SWMM simulation was run to gauge improvement. The
objective functions of Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias 3. Results
(PBIAS), and root mean square error (RMSE) were selected to evaluate
the fitting performance between SWMM-simulated and observed spores Table 4 lists the mass balance continuity errors of runoff quantity and
time series. flow routing for the six scenarios. The model continuity error for runoff
∑n 2 (flow routing) from scenarios A1/B1, A2/B2, and A3/B3 was − 0.019%
(y′i − yi ) (− 1.463%), − 0.011% (− 0.280%), and − 0.009% (− 0.035%), respec­
NSE = 1 − ∑i=1 (3)
tively. Additionally, the total amount of precipitation/infiltration in A1/
n 2
i=1 (yi − y)
∑n B1, A2/B2, and A3/B3 scenario settings were 9.1/6.4, 87.4/36.5, and
240.8/63.7 mm, respectively. According to the general guide to pollu­
′ yi )
i=1 (yi −
PBIAS = 100 × ∑n (4)
i=1 yi tion simulation from Rossman [37], it is a reasonable level when these
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ continuity errors fall in the range of ± 10%. Clearly, the results in
√∑
√n ′ 2 Table 4 indicated that both the field and plume scenarios produced
√ (yi − yi )
√i=1 acceptable hydraulic continuity errors in the model.
RMSE = (5)
n
3.1. Field experiment scenario simulations
Where yi is the observed data series, y′i is the simulated data series, y is
the mean of the observed data series, and n is the number of samples. 3.1.1. The impact of different washoff coefficients
When the objective function met reasonable accuracy (NSE > 0.2 for this Select washoff parameters assigned to asphalt, grass, and concrete
project), the iterative process of calibration ceased. The hydroGOF surfaces in calibration were used to analyze the impact on spore trans­
package [57] in R was used to calculate the above statistics. A total of 50 port. Table 5 lists the five selected SWMM-simulated results from the 50
model calibration runs were obtained for further washoff parameter washoff parameter combinations used during calibration along with
screening. Supplementary Table 2 S listed the minimum, maximum, and model quality continuity errors, model performance, select descriptive
median values of the objective functions such as NSE, PBIAS, and RMSE statistics, and comparison to field data of spore stormwater concentra­
from all 50 calibration attempts. The above-mentioned objective func­ tions. For asphalt, Run00, Run00_3, Run00_25, and Run00_28 over­
tions were used to screen all 50 calibration sets. The NSE statistics were estimated the average spore concentration by 819.2%, 87.7%, 16.6%,
used to rank NSE of each calibration set from high to low. The top five and 532.9%, while Run00_7 underestimated by 8.9%, in comparison to
runs with the largest NSE value were selected to represent the optimized the observed spore concentrations. Compared with statistical indicators
simulations for asphalt and concrete sites. Additionally, a mass balance from other washoff parameter sets, the Run00_3 simulation had the
continuity error using in SWMM represents the difference between the highest NSE at 0.34, the lowest RMSE at 7.59 CFU mL− 1, and the lowest
total inflow to a node and the total outflow from that node over a given quality continuity errors (0.000% and − 1.463%) for both runoff and
time period, expressed as a percentage of the total inflow [39]. flow routing, along with a PBIAS of − 54.1%. For washoff from asphalt,
Spore concentration values from a 6-hr rain event with an aggregated the maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the spore
concentration time series from Run00_3 (simulated/observed values)
was 41.7/39.0, 0.0/0.3, 13.7/7.3, and 11.6/9.6 CFU mL− 1, respectively.
Table 2
Washoff coefficient (c1) and exponent (c2) values used in calibration and SWMM
Amongst all calibration runs, Run00_3 also had the peak spore concen­
simulations. tration value most closely matching the observed data. Therefore, the
washoff coefficient and exponent from Run00_3 was used in the six
Surfaces Parameters Initial valuea,b Value rangec,d Calibrated value
scenarios for asphalt.
Asphalt c1 0.01 0.01–0.56 0.01 For concrete, three groups of washoff parameters in Table 5 (i.e.,
c2 0.55 0.55–1.23 1.00
shaded Run00, Run00_14, and Run00_15) demonstrated the parameters’
Grass c1 0.13 0.05–4.90 0.05
c2 1.20 0.38–1.57 1.45 non-uniqueness issue [1], that is different washoff parameter sets
Concrete c1 0.01 0.01–2.45 2.45 generated the same simulation signal. In this case, the reason is that the
c2 0.57 0.57–1.25 1.00 soil infiltration capacity was larger than the calibration precipitation
a
Shireman et al. [41], amount on grassy areas, so only changing washoff parameters on grass
b
Mikelonis et al. [22], will not modify the simulated results in any part of the model unless an
c
Tu and Smith [44] increased precipitation amount that can generate surface runoff on grass
d
Maharjan et al. [19]. was used and generated runoff into another area. The maximum,

8
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

Table 4
The model mass balance continuity errors from the six modeled scenarios using the calibrated washoff parameters, along with total precipitation accumulation,
infiltration loss, spore initial buildup, total spore washoff and remaining, and the number of outfalls predicted to discharge spores.
Scenario Continuity error Total rainfall Total Total Spores† Contaminated
duration precipitation infiltration loss outfalls‡
Runoff Flow Initial buildup Total washoff Remaining
quantity routing (fraction) (fraction)
2
% Hours mm Log CFU m−

A1 -0.019 -1.463 6 9.1 6.4 Asphalt 8.03 5.569 (0.5%) 8.028 (99.5%) 0
Concrete 8.03 7.793 (57.9%) 7.654 (42.1)
Grass 8.03 0.000 (0%) 8.030 (100%)
A2 -0.011 -0.280 24 87.4 36.5 Asphalt 8.03 6.557 (3.4%) 8.015 (96.6) 1
Concrete 8.03 8.026 (99.0%) 6.015 (1.0%)
Grass 8.03 6.857 (6.7%) 8.000 (93.3%)
A3 -0.009 -0.035 24 240.8 63.7 Asphalt 8.03 6.985 (9.0%) 7.989 (91.0%) 1
Concrete 8.03 8.026 (99.0%) 6.015 (1.0%)
Grass 8.03 7.559 (33.8%) 7.851 (66.2%)
B1 -0.019 -1.463 6 9.1 6.4 Plume1: 5.03 seeFigs. 8, 9, andsupplementary 38
B2 -0.011 -0.280 24 87.4 36.5 Plume2: 6.03 Figure 4 S 38
B3 -0.009 -0.035 24 240.8 63.7 Plume3: 7.03 38
†
Data were extracted from subcatchments. Fraction calculation was based on the corresponding spore initial buildup.
‡
The number of contaminated outfalls in which spores were predicted in flow discharges.

Table 5
Comparison of washoff parameters, model performance, and select descriptive statistics for simulated spore concentrations in runoff between different calibration runs
and comparing with observed spore data from in the field.
Site Simulation No. Washoff parameters Quality continuity Goodness-of-fit Simulated spores concentration
errors data descriptive statistics†
Asphalt Grass Concrete Runoff Routing NSE PBIAS RMSE Max. Min. Mean Sd.
1
c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 % % CFU mL− CFU mL− 1
Asphalt Run00 0.01 0.55 0.13 1.20 0.01 0.57 0.000 -16.089 -0.25 24.5 10.46 328.0 0.0 67.1 82.4
Run00_3 0.01 1.00 0.05 1.45 2.45 1.00 0.000 -1.463 0.34 -54.1 7.59 41.7 0.0 13.7 11.6
Run00_7 0.01 1.23 0.74 0.38 2.45 1.00 0.000 0.470 0.08 -72.4 8.98 16.9 0.0 6.65 4.7
Run00_25 0.01 1.15 2.15 1.08 1.41 0.77 0.000 -7.071 0.17 -67.1 8.52 23.0 0.0 8.51 6.4
Run00_28 0.01 0.65 1.35 0.58 1.51 0.67 0.000 -14.540 0.24 -0.20 8.15 207.5 0.0 46.2 52.7
Concrete‡ Run00 0.01 0.55 0.13 1.20 0.01 0.57 0.000 -16.089 0.27 -33.4 31.86 440.3 0.0 58.0 84.9
Run00_2 0.27 0.55 2.82 1.20 0.01 1.25 0.000 -19.361 -0.13 -85.3 39.84 25.0 0.0 6.70 6.0
Run00_14 0.01 0.55 2.05 1.38 0.01 0.57 0.000 -16.089 0.27 -33.4 31.86 440.3 0.0 58.0 84.9
Run00_15 0.01 0.55 1.05 0.38 0.01 0.57 0.000 -16.089 0.27 -33.7 31.86 440.3 0.0 58.0 84.9
Run00_22 0.11 0.85 3.05 0.98 0.01 0.67 0.000 -19.715 0.20 -46.9 33.4 254.7 0.0 40.2 52.0
Observation Asphalt – – – 39.0 0.3 7.3 9.6
Concrete 181.7 0.8 20.1 * 38.2
Grass 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0
†
Max. = maximum, Min. = minimum, Sd. = standard deviation.
* significant at 95% confidence level. A paired two-sample, one-tailed t-test of observed spore concentrations data (n = 22) from concrete was tested against measured
ones from asphalt.
‡
Note: the parameters non-uniqueness issue is in bold rows.

minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the observed spore con­
centrations washed from the concrete area was 181.7, 0.8, 20.1, and
38.2 CFU mL− 1, respectively. Compared with the observed mean spore
concentration, Run00/Run00_14/Run00_15 and Run00_22 predicted an
overestimate of 188.6% and 100.0% from the concrete surface, while
Run00_2 projected an underestimate of 66.7%. Overall, the average
spore concentration in runoff from asphalt and concrete surfaces from
the five reported washoff parameter calibration sets was 28.4 and 44.2
CFU mL− 1 (Table 5), respectively. Using the average of the five cali­
bration parameter sets, Table 5 indicated that 55.6% higher average
spore concentrations in runoff were predicted from concrete than
asphalt surfaces for the December 8th rain event. Similarly, a paired
two-sample, one-tailed t-test showed that higher average spore con­
centrations in runoff were detected on concrete in the field experiment,
with a significant increase of 175% (p < 0.05) on average (n = 22), in
comparison to asphalt.
Fig. 6 compared the observed spore concentrations with the simu­
lated values from the washoff parameter combinations listed in Table 5
during a natural rainfall event from 6:00 am to 12:00 am on Dec. 8,
2021 and showed the response of spore concentration to a 5-min time
interval precipitation intensity. It is to be noted that both spore
concentration and precipitation intensity were plotted on a logarithm
scale on the y-axis to clearly compare different spores concentration
curves. Fig. 6 demonstrated that simulated spore washoff was sensitive
to the variation of washoff parameters. For asphalt, the spore concen­
tration curve can be adjusted to fit the maximum concentration
observed by modifying washoff parameters, but the shape of the spore
concentration curves remained similar regardless of parameter modifi­
cation. For concrete, the curves of Run00, Run00_14, and Run00_15
were the same due to the parameter uniqueness issue. However, washoff
parameter sets in Run00 (Run00_14, Run00_15), Run00_2, and
Run00_22 generated different shapes of spore concentration curves,
which indicated that the shapes of simulated spore concentration curves
could be modified by adjusting washoff coefficients and exponents.
Additionally, the ‘first flush’ phenomenon was more clearly observed on
the concrete as spores were flushed rapidly from 8:00 am to 9:00 am. It
appeared that the simulated spore concentration curve from Run00
(Run00_14, Run00_15) captured this phenomenon as well but it
occurred earlier at about 7:20 am. Interestingly, for each simulation of
the concrete area washoff, there was a steep drop in spore concentration
from 11:00 am to 11:15 am that plateaued to a zero value until
11:45 am and then climbed to a peak at about 12:00 pm before rapidly

9
L. Yuan et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison between the simulated spore concentrations and observed spore concentrations in runoff during the field point release experiments at the asphalt
and concrete locations for different washoff parameters. (The blue line/secondary y-axis displays the 5-min interval rainfall intensity and the two vertical grey dashed
lines in each panel indicate the time range of data used during calibration).
dropping to zero. This was not observed at the asphalt or grass locations
or in the field data for this site. It is speculated that this may have
occurred due to several reasons. The first is that the concrete area col­
lects runoff from a large impervious drainage area associated to the
airport runways. The travel time from other areas may dilute and lower
the concentration to a more noticeable degree causing that sudden drop
to zero when arriving at the monitoring location at concrete. Alterna­
tively, or in conjunction with travel time, the micro-scale hydraulics of
the 2D surface pipes used to simulate runoff may have caused the
simulation to have this distinct pattern. The 2D pipes generated by
PCSWMM rely on DEM data and are highly influenced by the precision
of that dataset. A slight alternation of the slope of these pipes can induce
micro-scale ponding which requires enough hydraulic head to generate
flow of water in the simulated results and may also “pause” the sharp
increase in the concentration of contaminates during a simulation run.
The concrete area pattern is an important reminder that when specific
drainage pathways are of interest the DEM data must be locally verified
to ensure the 2D surface pipes inverts are very precise as they can in­
fluence the concentration curves. The field experiment collected discrete
grab samples without corresponding flow measurements, so a mass
balance approach to verifying simulation results is not an option. As
reported in Table 5, most simulated results overestimated the average
spore concentration (except Run00_7 and Run00_2) compared to
observed data. Considering the limited field data available, with more
data it is anticipated that a SWMM-based spore model is capable of
predicating a reasonably accurate dynamic spores washoff transport
time series on the same magnitude level and timing compared to the
observed data, which is an important finding for the emergency plan­
ning and response community since the existing simulation results are
already on the same order of magnitude as field collected data (i.e., for
spore data reasonable uncertainty is ± one – two Log).
3.1.2. The effect of rainfall amount and duration on spore washoff
Differences in the amount of spore washoff were compared for
different rainfall events. Table 4 showed the total amount of spores in
10
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
terms of initial buildup, washoff, and amount remaining during three
different precipitation events of 6-hr 9.1 mm (1.5 mm hr− 1), 24-hr
87.4 mm (3.6 mm hr− 1), and 24-hr 240.8 mm (10.0 mm hr− 1), corre­
sponding to the A1, A2, and A3 scenarios. Since the precipitation
amount was less than the soil infiltration capability on grass in A1,
surface runoff was not generated on the grassy areas and no spores were
detected or found in the field study or SWMM simulation. The total
amount of spore washoff (and remaining) on asphalt, concrete, and grass
was 5.569 (8.028), 7.793 (7.654), and 0.000 (8.030) Log CFU m− 2 in A1,
6.557 (8.015), 8.026 (6.015), and 6.857 (8.000) Log CFU m− 2 in A2,
6.985 (7.989), 8.026 (6.015), and 7.599 (7.851) Log CFU m− 2 in A3
(Table 4), respectively (Further visual details are available in Supple­
mentary Fig. 3 S which illustrates the spatial distribution of the spore
initial buildup, washoff, and remaining amounts in scenario A1, and
statistically compares their differences). Compared to asphalt, more
spore washoff and fewer spores remaining were predicted from con­
crete, which is consistent with the field observed results. The rainfall in
scenario A2 was much larger and longer than scenario A1 (an 860%
increase in the total precipitation and an 18-hr increase in duration).
Compared to A1, scenario A2 increased by 3.1%, 41.2%, and 6.7% in
total spore washoff and a corresponding decrease of 2.9%, 41.1%, and
6.7% in spores remaining on asphalt, concrete, and grass, respectively
(Table 4). Scenario A3 represented an extreme rainfall event (2546%
more total precipitation and 18-hrs longer than scenario A1). As a result,
scenario A3 predicted an increase of 8.7%, 41.2%, and 33.8% in total
spore washoff and a corresponding decrease of 8.5%, 41.1%, and 33.8%
in spores remaining on asphalt, concrete, and grass, respectively,
compared to scenario A1. Clearly, the relationship between total pre­
cipitation and spore washoff was not linear. In addition to generating
enough surface runoff to produce spores washoff from grassy area, the 2-
yr and 100-yr design storms transported spores over a long distance to
discharge from #1600 outfall. When the total precipitation depth
increased from 87.4 mm (A2) to 240.8 mm (A3) in 24 h, the fraction of
spore washoff on concrete did not change (Table 4), which indicates that
spores will remain on concrete even after extreme weather events
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

regardless of an increased volume of water involved.
3.1.3. Comparison of spore spread through conduits
Understanding how contamination spreads based on the size of
rainfall events is important for emergency response planning. For
example, portions of the contaminated sites may be covered, treatment
equipment installed, or inlets to the underground pipe system sealed off.
In this model, there were two types of conduits: the underground pipes
which are physically present and the 2D pipes that model components
used to simulate surface flow. Together these pipe lengths represented a
picture of the overall amount of contaminated area above and below
ground. The aggregated length of contaminated conduits at different
pollution levels: ≤ 0, 0.01–3.00, 3.01–5.00, 5.01–7.00, and > 7.01 Log
CFU for scenarios A1–3 is presented in Table 6. For the highest spore
contamination level of > 7.01 Log CFU, the total length of contaminated
conduits increased by 0.029% in A2 and 0.043% in A3 as compared with
A1 and similar trends occurred for the other contamination levels.
Overall, the total amount of contaminated conduits increased as pre­
cipitation events grew in scale, but since it was a small scale release the
total increase was noticeable but not large. This is further visualized in
Fig. 7 which illustrates migration pathways and contaminant levels in
overland flow and underground pipes for scenarios A1, A2, and A3 and
shows how the affected areas grew around the release point with more
rainfall. In Fig. 7, for the asphalt and grass location, the northern spread
was due to washoff from the asphalt area and the area of spread to the
southeast was due to washoff from the grass area. These maps of
spreading may be beneficial to take emergency measures or design a
field sampling plan by environmental responders.
3.2. Hypothetical plume scenario simulations
3.2.1. Wide-area spore washoff transfer processes and pathways
To quantity the contaminant levels in the B scenarios, Table 6 cate­
gorized the total number of spores washed off into five levels: ≤ 1.00,
1.01–3.00, 3.01–5.00, 5.01–7.00, and > 7.01 Log CFU. The majority of
spore washoff occurred in the 5.01–7.00 Log CFU range for B1, B2, and
B3, and the corresponding length of contaminated conduits at this level
was 6.3% in B1, 22.0% in B2, and 20.6% in B3, respectively. The largest
contaminant level of > 7.01 accounted for 13.7% of the contaminated
conduit length in B3. Under the plume scenarios, spores reached the
river. For the B scenarios, 38 out of 39 outfalls predicted spores in the
flow discharged (Table 4). Additional outfall information is contained in
Supplementary Fig. 4S which showed the outfall hydrographs from the
five largest spore dischargers during the 2-year design storm. Overall,
similar to the A scenarios, the larger precipitation events increased the
distance and range of spore transport in a B scenarios, causing extensive
urban contamination. This is visualized in Fig. 8 where it is evident that
for the smaller rain events spore washoff primarily occurred on imper­
vious roads with asphalt and concrete surfaces, but as rainfall events
increased in magnitude spore washoff gradually spread from the roads
to the grassy area and through more of the underground pipe network to
outfalls further away from the initial spore deposition. Careful exami­
nation of the maps lets emergency planners determine which buildings
and areas of the base will be potentially impacted by forecasted weather
events.
3.2.2. Hotspot area identification
The movement of spores during the rain event is interesting for
designing mitigation measures to stop the spread of contamination, but
the fraction removed by a rain event is also important in determining
appropriate decontamination methods for spores remaining on urban
surfaces. Total runoff depth generated during B1, B2, and B3 and the
predicted fraction of spores removed from the surface of each sub­
catchment is displayed in Fig. 9. In B1, the areas with zero total runoff
corresponded to pervious regions where the infiltration capacity was
larger than the precipitation depth. With an increase in the precipitation
amount from B1 to B3, larger surface runoff was generated from
impervious areas such as roads, roofs, and flight runways. Scenario B3
generated the largest amount of total runoff. The results also showed
that more spores were removed from roofs and runways as larger
overland flow was generated from those areas than from other surfaces.
The fraction of spores removed from asphalt, grass, and concrete sur­
faces was 4.13%, 0.00%, and 23.0% in B1, 9.21%, 2.91%, and 44.8% in
B2, and 11.89%, 10.4%, and 46.9% in B3 (Table 7), respectively. As in
B2, more spore washoff occurred from concrete than from asphalt and is
potentially attributable to a greater runoff volume. Additional data is
visualized in Supplementary Fig. 5S which shows the spatial distribution
of initial buildup and subsequent spore washoff amount per square
meter. The data indicated that roads closer to the initial incident site had
larger spore washoff than those farther away due to a higher initial
pollution load close to the incident site. Again, identifying these major
migration pathways and hotspot areas of spore contaminant supplies
valuable information for implementing emergency response by effec­
tively allocating sampling and remediation resources.
4. Discussion
To ensure model accuracy, we used observed spore data from asphalt
and concrete surfaces from a field experiment to calibrate the SWMM
model in this study. However, the calibration sequence did not follow a
typical order: (1) surface runoff (streamflow), (2) sediment, (3)
pollutant/nutrient, commonly used in the calibration of watershed-scale
hydrologic and urban water quality models [3,25] since flow metering
and multiple storm event data at the site was unavailable. Nonetheless,

Table 6
Summary of the length of conduits at different spore washoff pollution levels in the A and B scenario.
Pollution level aggregated length of contaminated conduits

Log CFU meter

Scenario A A1 Fraction†(%) A2 Fraction (%) A3 Fraction (%)

≤0 899,189.7 99.9931 898,514.4 99.9181 897,436.0 99.7981
0.01 – 3.00 0 0.0000 67.3 0.0075 582.6 0.0648
3.01 – 5.00 4.5 0.0005 89.7 0.0100 279.3 0.0311
5.01 – 7.00 41.3 0.0046 303.1 0.0337 551.7 0.0614
> 7.01 15.8 0.0018 276.8 0.0308 401.7 0.0447
Scenario B B1 Fraction (%) B2 Fraction (%) B3 Fraction (%)
≤ 1.00 771,797.4 85.8267 576,271.7 64.0835 547,918.7 60.9305
1.01 – 3.00 13,774.4 1.5318 5898.9 0.6560 8691.0 0.9665
3.01 – 5.00 48,286.7 5.3697 67,741.2 7.5331 33,436.8 3.7183
5.01 – 7.00 564,65.9 6.2792 197,542.2 21.9674 185,612.2 20.6407
> 7.01 8926.9 0.9927 51,797.3 5.7600 123,592.6 13.7439
Total 89,9251.3 100 899,251.3 100 899,251.3 100
†
Calculation was based on the total length of all conduits (underground pipes and 2D open conduits).
Fraction = (aggregated conduit length / the total length) * 100.

11
L. Yuan et al.
Fig. 7. Spatial distribution and comparison of total number of spores that flowed through surface and underground conduits originating from the asphalt, grass, and
concrete areas for simulation scenarios A1, A2, and A3.
Fig. 8. Spore transport pathways and total number of spores that flowed
through conduits during simulation of scenarios B1, B2, and B3.
12
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
we directly adjusted washoff coefficients to obtain SWMM-simulated
spore concentration data that matched the observed spore time series
in order to demonstrate the utility of this type of model for emergency
planning and response. Considering these data limitations, it is recog­
nized that additional calibration (e.g., flow data from multiple model
outfalls and washoff from a range of storm sizes) is desirable to increase
confidence in model predictions, but these data were not available as
part of this project. Additionally, the calibration range for the washoff
coefficients was small to maintain relevancy with washoff data in the
literature [19,41,44] and did not yield stellar goodness-of-fit values.
This limitation is likely due to the exponential function structure not the
parameter range [24]. On the other hand, taking the high
temporal-spatial resolution of this model into account, the model results
exceeded expectations in terms of being able to match the time and
magnitude of the spore concentrations with observed data. Others have
found water quality calibration to yield low goodness-of-fit values due to
high spatial and temporal model resolution [10,25]. This was addi­
tionally in spite of the lack of an autocalibration algorithm or parallel
processing available in SWMM limiting the number of model calibration
runs that are practical to run with typical computing resources to give
decision makers data in a timely fashion. Moreover, compared to the
importance of time-consuming sensitivity analysis, calibration and
validation, an initial pollution model with order of magnitude accuracy
is useful during the initial stages of environmental emergency response
with further refinement expected as the remediation goals become more
clearly defined.
Washoff parameters used for asphalt, grass, and concrete surfaces in
the SWMM model were determined to be sensitive parameters (Fig. 6),
which has been verified by Shireman et al. [41], Mannina and Viviani
[20], and Mikelonis, Anne et al. [22]. It was possible to match the timing
and magnitude of simulated values to observations by adjusting the
washoff coefficients and exponents for each type of surface, although
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

Fig. 9. Total runoff generated during B1, B2, and B3, and corresponding fraction of spores washed from the surface during the simulation (Note: Fraction lost
(Washoff %) = Total washoff/Initial buildup).

high goodness of fit for both asphalt and concrete was still lacking (i.e.,
Table 7
asphalt performed better than concrete) and would require additional
Average spore washoff (fraction) on three surfaces in B scenarios.
observed data and calibration runs to improve. As such, washoff
Scenario Washoff lost (%) parametrization remains a source of uncertainty in the model and during
Asphalt Grass Concrete an actual response it is recommended to perform continual calibration
B1 4.13 0.00 23.0 with sampling data returned from the specific contaminated site, rather
B2 9.21 2.91 44.8 than rely solely on the parameters developed in this case study. On the
B3 11.9 10.4 46.9 other hand, for emergency planning purposes, many insights may still be
gained by running simulations including the parameters used here to
prepare and train for response to an event. Having a model built before
the emergency using the coefficients developed in this study and

13
L. Yuan et al.
multiple contamination and rainfall scenarios would help the location
get a sense of major surface drainage pathways and potential shapes and
magnitudes of outfall hydrographs. However, the development of a
similar model for emergency response planning can be expensive and
time-consuming for underfunded utilities even if the investment may
pale in comparison to the cost of remediation. Therefore, it is important
to prioritize areas that are critical for emergency response, such as
highly populated areas with critical infrastructure like hospitals or
government buildings or industries fueling the local economy. Also,
areas that are susceptible to frequent and severe storm events or are
large population centers may be prioritized. The decision on which areas
to focus on should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In the study, regardless of point-scale or plume scenarios, spores
were more easily removed from concrete than from asphalt as the pre­
cipitation intensity and duration increased, which is primarily attributed
to the larger washoff coefficient (2.45, Table 2) assigned to concrete and
the steeper slope (4%) of the 2D conduits in the concrete region in
comparison with the slope (0.9%) of the 2D conduits on asphalt. Other
possible reasons also include that concrete has a relatively smoother
micro-topographic surface than asphalt, which caused spores to be more
easily washed away or that runoff water volume generated at each site
was different causing different dilution factors to the spore concentra­
tion values. Ultimately, unless these factors are constant and comple­
mentary flow field data collected it is not possible to conclude if it’s the
surface or the hydraulic conditions causing these differences in
concentrations.
As expected, the rainfall amount, intensity, and duration have direct
effects on the extent spread of spores over the model extent. Generally,
greater or longer rainfall resulted in more spore washoff, but the amount
removed did not linearly correlate with the amount of rainfall exposure.
In addition, the goal of this case study was not to investigate if the model
results were mesh-independent. However, depending on the heteroge­
neity of the LULC and soil features of the model domain some scale
dependence is expected [12,46,50,53]. As was the case in this research,
mesh size and shape are often selected due to computing power avail­
able, resolution of DEM data, and user feedback (e.g., emergency re­
sponders requesting results from a rectangular grid to ease sampling
plans).
In summary, this case study highlights the process of developing a
stormwater model that incorporates spore washoff and transport pro­
cesses and shows how it is useful in identifying migration pathways and
potential hotspot areas, including a variation of contaminant concen­
tration in runoff over time in a wide area pollution event. Real field data
supports that model predictions can be calibrated to be in the same order
of magnitude of observed events, giving emergency responders and
decision makers increased confidence that investing in this type of tool
will have returns in more efficient resource allocation.
5. Summaries and conclusions
It is a challenging task for environmental emergency responders or
decision-makers to quantify wide-area biological contamination and
visualize migration pathways and hotspots under urban stormwater
settings. To our knowledge, this is the first modeling case study of spore
transport in urban stormwater coupled with field experimental data.
This case study demonstrated the process and results of modeling the
washoff behavior and overland flow transport of spores in a point scale
and a hypothetical plume wide-area scale.
In this study, we use the PCSWMM 2D mesh-generating tool to
develop a SWMM model with high spatial (~50 m2) and temporal res­
olution (1-min time step) and applied this model on three urban land use
types: asphalt, grass, and concrete in a point-scale field experiment
scenario and a hypothetical plume scenario. Both scenarios were com­
bined with a 6-hr real rainfall event and two 24-hr design storm events.
The spore concentration data from the field experiment were used to
calibrate the SWMM model. The calibrated washoff coefficient (c1) and
14
Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747
exponent (c2) were 0.01 and 1.00 for asphalt, 0.05 and 1.45 for grass,
and 2.45 and 1.00 for concrete, respectively. The calibrated SWMM
model can simulate a similar timing and a peak value of spore concen­
tration in runoff, compared with the observed spore concentration time
series. Across the five calibration parameter sets, a 55.6% higher
average spore concentration in runoff was simulated from concrete than
asphalt. Similarly, a higher spore concentration was observed from
concrete than from asphalt in the field study, along with an increase of
175% (p < 0.05). The SWMM-simulated results indicated that sites
closer to the incident point were exposed to higher average spore
contamination levels than those farther away. Spore washoff and spread
in the A scenarios were limited to close proximity areas of incident
points. Larger and longer storm events increased the migration distance
and range of spores for both the A and B scenarios. Spores were pre­
dicted to remain on the surface even after a 100-year 24-hr extreme
storm event. This study demonstrates a unique use for SWMM pollutant
models in contributing to homeland security scenarios and illuminates
the need for continual calibration data to be collected during the
response for continued refinement of the predictions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lifeng Yuan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Anne
M. Mikelonis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing
– review & editing, Project administration, Supervision, Funding
acquisition. Eugene Yan: Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be available at https://doi.org/10.23719/1528466.
Acknowledgment
Funding was gratefully provided by the Department of Homeland
Security Science and Technology Directorate in Interagency Agreement
70RSAT18KPM000084 for this work. Argonne National Laboratory’s
involvement was funded under EPA-DOE Interagency Agreement DW-
89–92439001-B. This work has been reviewed by the Agency but does
not necessarily reflect the Agency’s views. No official endorsement
should be inferred. EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any
commercial products or services. The authors would like to thank the
USCG staff at Base Elizabeth City for hosting the field study and
providing pipe data (Chris Dunn, Leilani Woods, and David Aydlett) that
produced data used in the modeling. Additionally thank you to Jeremy
Feinstein for much of the initial preparation of the GIS data and to
Robert Janke, Terra Haxton, Katherine Ratliff, Kurt Picel, and Corinna
Fleischmann who initially evaluated different USCG bases as potential
case study locations. Thank you to Ramona Sherman for providing the
EPA quality assurance review. We appreciate the EPA’s internal peer
reviews from Mark Durno and Feng Shang and three external anony­
mous reviewers.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131747.
L. Yuan et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials 458 (2023) 131747

References [29] NOAA, 2022b. NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY

ESTIMATES: NC. 〈https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkm
rk=nc〉. (accessed accessed Feb. 14, 2022 2022).
[1] Abbaspour, K., Vejdani, M., Haghighat, S., Yang, J., 2007. SWAT-CUP calibration
[30] Obropta, C.C., Kardos, J.S., 2007. Review of urban stormwater quality models:
and uncertainty programs for SWAT, MODSIM 2007 international congress on
deterministic, stochastic, and hybrid approaches1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour
modelling and simulation. Model Simul Soc Aust NZ 1596–1602.
Assoc 43 (6), 1508–1523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00124.x.
[2] Angulo-Martínez, M., Beguería, S., Latorre, B., Fernández-Raga, M., 2018.
[31] OCM Partners, 2022a. 2018 North Carolina NAIP Digital Ortho Photo Imagery.
Comparison of precipitation measurements by OTT Parsivel2 and Thies LPM optical
〈https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/58387〉. (accessed accessed Jul. 27,
disdrometers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22 (5), 2811–2837. https://doi.org/10.5194/
2016.
hess-22-2811-2018.
[32] OCM Partners, 2022b. North Carolina Statewide Lidar DEM 2014 Phase 1. 〈https
[3] Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J.,
://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/49411〉. (accessed accessed Sep. 15, 2020.
Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R., Van Griensven, A., Van Liew, W, M., 2012.
[33] Paule-Mercado, M.C., Salim, I., Sajjad, R.U., Memon, S.A., Sukhbaatar, C., Lee, B.
SWAT:model use, calibration and validation. Trans ASABE 55 (4), 1491–1508.
Y., Lee, C.H., 2022. Quantifying the effects of land use change and aggregate
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42256.
stormwater management practices on fecal coliform dynamics in a temperate
[4] Chen, L.-C., Carley, K.M., Fridsma, D., Kaminsky, B., Yahja, A., 2006. Model
catchment. Sci Total Environ 838 (Pt 1), 155608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
alignment of anthrax attack simulations. Decis Support Syst 41 (3), 654–668.
scitotenv.2022.155608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.06.012.
[34] Picel, K., Yan, E., Betrie, G., Feinstein, J., Mikelonis, A., 2021. AnCOR Task 2.1
[5] CHI, 2022a. Calculating subcatchment slopes from a DEM. 〈https://support.chiwat
Phase I Modeling Report Fate and Transport of Spores on Outdoor Surfaces.
er.com/79577/calculating-subcatchment-slopes-from-a-dem〉. (accessed accessed
Homeland Security Materials Management Division, Center for Environmental
Oct. 13, 2021.
Solutions and Emergency Response. EPA ORD, Research Triangle Park, NC,
[6] CHI, 2022b. Depression storage. 〈https://support.chiwater.com/77760/d
p. 27711.
epression-storage〉. (accessed accessed Oct. 19, 2021.
[35] R Core Team, 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
[7] CHI, 2022c. Manning’s n – Overland flow. 〈https://support.chiwater.com/7776
Rstudio. 〈https://www.rstudio.com/〉.
3/mannings-n–overland-flow〉. (accessed accessed Oct. 15, 2021.
[36] Richards, J., 1999. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis. Springer-Verlag,,
[8] CHI, 2022d. PCSWMM. 〈https://www.pcswmm.com/〉. (accessed accessed Aug. 22,
Berlin, German. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03978-6.
2021.
[37] Rossman, L.A., 2015. Storm water management model user’s manual version 5.1.
[9] CHI, 2022e. Soil characteristics. 〈https://support.chiwater.com/77766/soil-ch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 26 Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,
aracteristics〉. (accessed accessed Nov. 9, 2021.
OH 45268.
[10] Engel, B., Storm, D., White, M., Arnold, J., Arabi, M., 2007. A hydrologic/water
[38] Rossman, L.A., Huber, W.C., 2016. Storm Water Management Model Reference
quality model application protocol. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43 (5), 1223–1236.
Manual Volume I–Hydrology (Revised). US Environmental Protection Agency,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00105.x.
Cincinnati, OH, USA.
[11] EPA, 2022. Analysis for Coastal Operational Resiliency. 〈https://www.epa.gov/
[39] Rossman, L.A., Huber, W.C., 2016. Storm Water Management Model Reference
emergency-response-research/analysis-coastal-operational-resiliency〉. (accessed
Manual Volume III- Water Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency,
accessed October 7, 2022 2022).
Cincinnati, OH, USA.
[12] Ghosh, I., Hellweger, F.L., 2012. Effects of spatial resolution in urban hydrologic
[40] Sartor, J.D., Boyd, G.B., 1972. Water pollution aspects of street surface
simulations. J Hydrol Eng 17 (1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
contaminants. U S EPA Res Monit.
HE.1943-5584.0000405.
[41] Shireman, J., Ratliff, K., Mikelonis, A.M., 2021. Modeling radionuclide transport in
[13] Green, W.H., Ampt, G.A., 1911. Studies on soil physics, part I: the flow of air and
urban overland flow: a case study. Urban Water J 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/
water through soils. J Agric Sci 4 (11–24), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/
1573062x.2021.1968007.
S0021859600001441.
[42] Sinshaw, T., Yuan, L., Forshay, K., 2019. A Review of Watershed and Water Quality
[14] Guo, Z., Salam, N.A., Hj Metali, H.M.K., Hj Mohammad Sultan, A.M.S., Shams, S.,
Tools for Nutrient Fate and Transport. EPA/600/R-19/232.
2022. Examination of the exponential wash-off function using experimental data.
[43] Soil Survey Staff, 2022. Web Soil Survey. 〈https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/〉.
J Appl Water Eng Res 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2022.2125093.
(accessed accessed Dec. 4, 2016.
[15] Higgins, S., Friedrich, K., Masters, F.J., Lopez, C.R., 2013. Articulating and
[44] Tu, M.-C., Smith, P., 2018. Modeling pollutant buildup and washoff parameters for
stationary PARSIVEL disdrometer measurements in conditions with strong winds
SWMM based on land use in a semiarid urban watershed. Water, Air, Soil Pollut
and heavy rainfall. J Atmos Ocean Technol 30 (9), 2063–2080. https://doi.org/
229 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-3777-2.
10.1175/jtech-d-12-00254.1.
[45] Tuomela, C., Sillanpaa, N., Koivusalo, H., 2019. Assessment of stormwater
[16] Huber, W.C., 2001. New options for overland flow routing in SWMM. Urban Drain
pollutant loads and source area contributions with storm water management model
Model 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1061/40583(275)3.
(SWMM. J Environ Manag 233, 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[17] Isukapalli, S.S., Lioy, P.J., Georgopoulos, P.G., 2008. Mechanistic modeling of
jenvman.2018.12.061.
emergency events: assessing the impact of hypothetical releases of anthrax. Risk
[46] Wang, Z., Li, S., Wu, X., Lin, G., Lai, C., 2022. Impact of spatial discretization
Anal 28 (3), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01055.x.
resolution on the hydrological performance of layout optimization of LID practices.
[18] Leutnant, D., Döring, A., Uhl, M., 2019. swmmr - an R package to interface SWMM.
J Hydrol 612, 128113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128113.
Urban Water J 16 (1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2019.1611889.
[47] Wicke, D., Cochrane, T., O’Sullivan, A., 2010. An innovative method for spatial
[19] Maharjan, B., Pachel, K., Loigu, E., 2017. Modelling stormwater runoff, quality,
quantification of contaminant buildup and wash-off from impermeable urban
and pollutant loads in a large urban catchment. Proc Est Acad Sci 66 (3). https://
surfaces. IWA World Water Congr Exhib (IWA 2010) Montr, Can.
doi.org/10.3176/proc.2017.3.02.
[48] Williams, G.S., Hazen, A., 1933. Hydraulic tables, 3rd ed..,. John Wiley & Sons Inc,,
[20] Mannina, G., Viviani, G., 2010. An urban drainage stormwater quality model:
USA.
model development and uncertainty quantification. J Hydrol 381 (3–4), 248–265.
[49] Xie, H., Pan, P., Shi, H., Chen, J., Wang, J., 2020. Observed Microphysical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.11.047.
Characteristics of Stratiform and Convective Precipitation over an Inland Arid
[21] Mikelonis, A., Calfee, W., 2018. Development of laboratory equipment and
Region of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Water-Sui 12 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/
protocols for the assessment of rain, water wash-down, and channelized flow for
w12082300.
removal of spores on urban surfaces. U S Environ Prot Agency, Wash D C.
[50] Yuan, L., 2008. A soil erosion model based on cellular automata. Int Arch
[22] Mikelonis, A.M., Calfee, M.W., Lee, S.D., Touati, A., Ratliff, K., 2021. Rainfall
Photogramm, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 21–25.
washoff of spores from concrete and asphalt surfaces. Water Resour Res 57 (3).
[51] Yuan, L., Forshay, K.J., 2019. Using SWAT to evaluate streamflow and lake
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028533.
sediment loading in the Xinjiang River Basin with limited data. Water 12 (1), 39.
[23] Mikelonis, A.M., Hall, J., Dunn, C., McArthur, T., Wiley, G., Hintz, C., Steenbock,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010039.
J., Serre, S., Calfee, M.W., Pirhalla, M., 2023. Monitoring Spore Washoff during a
[52] Yuan, L., Forshay, K.J., 2022. Evaluating monthly flow prediction based on SWAT
Biological Contamination Incident Response using Automated Stormwater
and support vector regression coupled with discrete wavelet transform. Water 14
Samplers and Sensors to Predict Contamination Movement. (unpublished results).
(17), 2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14172649.
[24] Mikelonis, A.M., Hawley, R.J., Goodrich, J.A., 2021. Emergency response to
[53] Yuan, L., Liu, X., Wu, S., Huo, Y., 2014. Influence of cellular size selection on
stormwater contamination: a framework for containment and treatment. J Environ
process simulation of rill erosion on loess hillslopes using CA method. Geomat Inf
Manag 280, 111838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111838.
Sci Wuhan Univ 3, 311–316.
[25] Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.
[54] Yuan, L., Sinshaw, T., Forshay, K., 2020. Review of watershed-scale water quality
L., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in
and nonpoint source pollution models. Geosciences 10 (1), 25. https://doi.org/
watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50 (3), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.13031/
10.3390/geosciences10010025.
2013.23153.
[55] Yuan, L., Zhou, Q., 2008. Complexity of soil erosion and sediment yield system in a
[26] NCDOT, 2022. GIS Data Layers. 〈https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/Pages
watershed. J Chongqing Inst Technol (Nat Sci) 4.
/GIS-Data-Layers.aspx〉. (accessed accessed Jul. 27, 2016.
[56] Zakizadeh, F., Moghaddam Nia, A., Salajegheh, A., Sañudo-Fontaneda, L.A.,
[27] Niazi, M., Nietch, C., Maghrebi, M., Jackson, N., Bennett, B.R., Tryby, M.,
Alamdari, N., 2022. Efficient urban runoff quantity and quality modelling using
Massoudieh, A., 2017. Storm water management model: performance review and
SWMM model and field data in an urban watershed of tehran metropolis.
gap analysis. J Sustain Water Built Environ 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.1061/
Sustainability 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031086.
jswbay.0000817.
[57] Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., 2017. hydroGOF: Goodness-of-Fit Functions for
[28] NOAA, 2022a. National Weather Service. 〈https://weather.gov〉. (accessed
Comparison of Simulated and Observed Hydrological Time Series Rstudio. 〈http
accessed October 1, 2022 2022).
s://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/hydroGOF/hydroGOF.pdf〉.

15