Grey‐Water Reclamation for Non‐Potable Re‐Use

Surendran, S.; Wheatley, Andrew D.

doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.1998.tb00209.x

Cited by 71 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Problems associated with salinity are caused by the accumulation of salts in the effective crop root zone and adversely affecting plant growth. Excess salts in the effective crop root zone hinder plant roots from withdrawing water from the surrounding soil and this lowers the amount of water available to the plant, regardless of the amount of water in the effective crop root zone [31]. Mean greywater EC values obtained at the two sites (789 to 1539 S cm -2 ) are within the same range as that of greywater from other water scarce areas.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

A Comparison of the Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Greywater from Water Deficient Households in Homabay Town and Githurai Estates in Kenya

Nganga¹

2012

TOENVIEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greywater, the untreated household wastewater that has not been contaminated by toilet waste, has been touted as a reliable all year-round source of water, especially in water scarce areas. Although it is commonly reused in water scarce urban and peri-urban settlements in Kenya, information on its bacteriological and physico-chemical properties is generally limited. The present study sought to compare the physico-chemical and bacteriological quality of kitchen and laundry greywater from an urban (Githurai) and peri-urban settlement (Homabay). Compared to the source water, kitchen and laundry greywater at the two sites had higher electrical conductivity (EC) and salinity, depressed dissolved oxygen (DO) levels and a wide pH range. Although significant differences in EC, DO and salinity of greywater from kitchen and laundry were noted (P < 0.05), the two sites differed significantly only in DO (P = 0.002). Total coliforms (TC) and fecal coliforms (FC) were also higher in greywater than in source water. The greywater types differed in TC (P = 0.003) while the two sites differed in both TC and FC (P 0.03). High loads of TC and FC suggest possible fecal contamination of greywater. This coupled with the occasional presence of Salmonella, Shigella and Vibrio cholerae means that reuse of untreated greywater is not safe in both sites, and should be treated before use. Owing to the differences in the quality of the different types of greywater as well as the sites investigated, the design of greywater treatment technologies should consider both type and source.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

A Comparison of the Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Greywater from Water Deficient Households in Homabay Town and Githurai Estates in Kenya

Nganga¹

2012

TOENVIEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where GW is defined as the wastewater from baths, showers, handbasins, washing machines, dishwashers and kitchen sinks and excludes streams from toilets [12]. There are numerous case studies of installed GW systems within individual family dwellings, multiple housing dwellings, multi-storey office buildings and individual (multi-room) hotel buildings [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Toilet flushing is a frequently cited GW application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment

Zadeh

Hunt

Lombardi³

et al. 2013

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The water industry is becoming increasingly aware of the risks associated with urban supplies not meeting demands by 2050. Greywater (GW) recycling for non-potable uses (e.g., urinal and toilet flushing) provides an urban water management strategy to help alleviate this risk by reducing main water demands. This paper proposes an innovative cross connected system that collects GW from residential buildings and recycles it for toilet/urinal flushing in both residential and office buildings. The capital cost (CAPEX), operational cost (OPEX) and water saving potential are calculated for individual and shared residential and office buildings in an urban mixed-use regeneration area in the UK, assuming two different treatment processes; a membrane bioreactor (MBR) and a vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW). The Net Present Value (NPV) method was used to compare the financial performance of each considered scenario, from where it was found that a shared GW recycling system (MBR) was the most economically viable option. The sensitivity of this financial model was assessed, considering four parameters (i.e., water supply and sewerage charges, discount rate(s), service life and improved technological efficiency, e.g., low flush toilets, low shower heads, etc.), from where it was found that shared GW systems performed best in the long-term. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2013, 5 2888

show abstract

“…have fully described the structure of a greywater treatment system incorporating a three stage RBC. Total N (mg l − 1 ) 3.6-17 6-21 40-74 0.6-11 Total P (mg l − 1 ) 0.1-> 49 0.1-> 101 68-74 0.6-> 68 a Bathroom: Almeida et al, 1999, Burrows et al, 1991, Christova-Boal et al, 1996, Laak, 1974, Ledin et al, 2006, Nolde, 1999, Rose et al, 1991, Siegrist et al, 1976and Surendran and Wheatley, 1998 Laundry: Almeida et al, 1999, Christova-Boal et al, 1996, Laak, 1974, Siegrist et al, 1976and Surendran and Wheatley, 1998 c Kitchen: Almeida et al, 1999, Günther, 2000, Laak, 1974, Siegrist et al, 1976and Surendran and Wheatley, 1998 Mixed: Palmquist and Hanaeus, 2005, Casanova et al, 2001, Gerba et al, 1995, Hypes, 1974, Santala et al, 1998, Rose et al, 1991and Jeppesen, 1993 Greywater treatment and reuse offers the potential to substantially reduce domestic potable water demand, but care must be taken to ensure this is achieved without detriment to public health and the environment. To date, most studies investigating greywater reuse and associated risks have focussed on conventional water quality monitoring parameters such as those in Table 1 (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presence and fate of priority substances in domestic greywater treatment and reuse systems

Donner¹,

Eriksson²,

Revitt³

et al. 2010

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide range of household sources may potentially contribute to contaminant loads in domestic greywater. The ability of greywater treatment systems to act as emission control barriers for household micropollutants, thereby providing environmental benefits in addition to potable water savings, have not been fully explored. This paper investigates the sources, presence and potential fate of a selection of xenobiotic micropollutants in on-site greywater treatment systems. All of the investigated compounds are listed under the European Water Framework Directive as either "Priority Substances" (PS) or "Priority Hazardous Substances" (PHS). Significant knowledge gaps are identified. A wide range of potential treatment trains are available for greywater treatment and reuse but treatment efficiency data for priority substances and other micropollutants is very limited. Geochemical modelling indicates that PS/PHS removal during treatment is likely to be predominantly due to sludge/solid phase adsorption, with only minor contributions to the water phase. Many PS/PHS are resistant to biodegradation and as the majority of automated greywater treatment plants periodically discharge sludge to the municipal sewerage system, greywater treatment is unlikely to act as a comprehensive PS/PHS emission barrier. Hence, it is important to ensure that other source control options (e.g. eco-labeling, substance substitution, and regulatory controls) for household items continue to be pursued, in order that PS/PHS emissions from these sources are effectively reduced and/or phased out as required under the demands of the European Water Framework Directive.

show abstract

Grey‐Water Reclamation for Non‐Potable Re‐Use

Cited by 71 publications

References 9 publications

A Comparison of the Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Greywater from Water Deficient Households in Homabay Town and Githurai Estates in Kenya

A Comparison of the Physico-Chemical and Bacteriological Quality of Greywater from Water Deficient Households in Homabay Town and Githurai Estates in Kenya

Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment

Presence and fate of priority substances in domestic greywater treatment and reuse systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About