Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology

Chania, Crete, Greece, 3 5 September 2009

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON GREY WATER REUSE

J.Q. JIANG*, Q.L. HE, B. ACHEAMPONG, T. BALAZS and T. BANCROFT

CEHE, C5, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences,

University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK
*e-mail: j.jiang@surrey.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

The awareness of greywater recycling varies across the world, with a noticeable intensity
and understanding of the subject in areas encountering sustained pressures on the water
supply. The reuse of treated greywater helps to ease the increasing burdens on global
water supplies. Legislation in relation to greywater enables governments to regulate the
effluent quality as well as protecting the public from the health risks associated with
greywater. Many countries are beginning to realise the immediate demands on water
supplies, and are slowly developing guidelines for the reuse of greywater amongst
alternative water saving methods. Currently, there are two major uses for treated
greywater; toilet flushing and irrigation. Increasing the number of domestic uses would
enable more greywater to be saved, especially in large developments, such as hotels and
leisure centres. To produce effluents of potable quality on a domestic scale would be
expensive and inefficient, however, there is potential to treat greywater enough for use as
bath or shower water. Research into high quality treatment would be required in order to
produce odourless, harmless and colourless effluent.

KEYWORDS: Climate change, greywater reuse, sustainable development, technologies

for the treatment of grey water, wastewater reclamation

1. INTRODUCTION

With a rapidly increasing world population, it is important that all natural resources are
management effective. The solution to this problem is to create a sustainable
development.
Water reuse is becoming a feature of most new developments across the world. It is the
process whereby wastewater is treated and then recycled and used for various purposes.
The standard to which the water is treated varies substantially in relation to the proposed
use. The following list gives a summary of the various types of water reuse available.
Rainwater harvesting involves the collection of rainwater, often from the roof of a building.
The rainwater is then usually treated using a method of filtration before it is utilised for
irrigation, toilet flushing, heating and cooling, and water features. Many rainwater
harvesting systems are currently designed in conjunction with Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SUDS). The main advantage of rainwater harvesting is that very little treatment
is required before use which amongst other things keeps the cost low. The main limitation
of this method of water reuse is that it is very dependant on the weather which means the
reliability of the system is questionable.
Greywater reuse is the treatment and reuse of wastewater from showers, baths, sinks
and washing machines. Reuses include garden watering, irrigation and toilet flushing. A
comprehensive review on the greywater regulations and guidelines and treatment
technologies are the objectives of this paper.

A-497
Blackwater reuse is defined as all wastewater from domestic appliances and fittings
including WCs and bidets, which constitutes around 95% of domestic usage (WSP
Development and Transportation, 2005).
Key drivers of water cycling and wastewater reuse are relate largely to the water scarcity
due to the climate change and population growth. it is estimated that in 50 years time,
more than 40% of the worlds population will live in water scarce countries (WHO, 2006).
Also, the worlds population is increasing rapidly, and it is expected to continue to do so,
especially in urban areas. There will therefore be a greater demand for both food and
water. In 2000, 47% of the worlds population lived in urban settlements, experts predict
this figure to rise substantially over the next 30 years (United Nations Secretariat, 2001).
The driving forces behind greywater reuse are often location specific. For example in
Australia they have experienced droughts for the past decade with record high
temperatures. This combined with a continuously growing water demand has put
pressure on water resources and water availability in both urban and rural settlements
(DTI, 2006). Where as, in comparison, the driving forces behind water reuse in Singapore
are politically motivated. Singapore currently imports much of their water from Malaysia;
however, a new agreement between the two governments cannot be made, due to issues
over the price. Singapore must strive to make improvements with further efficient use of
their own water supplies.

2. GREYWATER

2.1. Greywater composition and reuse scheme

Greywater is defined as wastewater streams from baths, showers, basins, laundries and
kitchens but not wastes from toilet flushing which has been termed as black water. In
various studies, per capita consumption (PCC), as litres water per person per day, has
been used to quantify the water consumption. The PCC in the UK in 2001 was 149 based
on the UK OFWAT 2001 report. In the same year the French average was 125. In the
US, the water consumption is higher than most European countries, the PCC reaches
382 (Lazarova et al, 2003).

Table 1. Water consumption in various countries (re-prepared after Surendran and

Wheatley, 1998)
UK Germany US
(%) (%) (%)
Toilet 28.2 29 28
Kitchen sink 14 ----- -----
Bath/Shower/Hand basin 28.2 37 20
Laundry 12 15 10
Other (Garden tap, etc) 17.6 19 42

Table 1 compares the breakdown of water consumption ratios in US, UK and Germany.
Strong similarity can be observed within the shown values. It can be seen that water
usage for toilet flushing is set out around 1/3 of all water consumption. Laundry
operational water falls between 10 and 15% while bath/shower/basin consumptions
reveal higher variation within 20 and 37%, yet it ought to be noted that US data may
contain extensive irrigational water usage in the Other section, hence the slightly lower
values at every point. This small, farming practice is probably the cause of very high PCC
value as well. By the data analysis as shown above and considering the regional
differences it can be summarised that water used for toilet flushing is no more than 30%
of total water consumption. Projecting this ratio onto the characteristic of generated
wastewater, it can be stated that the amount of generated greywater is higher than

A-498
blackwater. Thus it could be estimated that by toilet flushing alone, at least 30% of the
total household water consumption might be saved by the grey water recycling activity.
In general, the greywater contains less total and faecal coliforms than blackwater. Solid
content is also lower than that in raw sewage. The COD:BOD ratio and possible nutrient
shortage may not fully support biological treatment process but these can be easily
improved with appropriate pre-treatment and nutrient addition.
A grey water reuse scheme as shown in Figure 1 is an opportunity to eliminate drinking
water consumption for toilet flushing by installing on-site greywater recycling systems and
thus supplying recycled greywater for this water consumption. The decreased amount of
greywater then may be mixed together with the generated blackwater as in the
conventional system and transported to a wastewater treatment plant; also there is a
possibility to construct a greywater treatment plant at a lower cost and the generated
greywater could be partially or fully recycled back to the system.

Low cost
greywater
treatment plant
Non-potable
reuse

Greywater
Wastewater
Drinking
Blackwater treatment
water plant

Blackwater
Waste
Figure 1. Alternative scheme for wastewater reuse and treatment (re-prepared after
March et al, 2004)

2.2. Guidelines and legislation of greywater reuse

There are very few countries that have implemented specific legislation on greywater
reuse; however guidelines on the subject are available for a large number of developed
countries. Less developed countries do not have such stringent guidelines on the
recycling of water. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has produced documents to
give guidance on both greywater recycling and drinking water quality.

Table 2. Water Quality Standards for Domestic Recycling (adapted from Al-Jayyousi,
2003)
Faecal
Total Coliform BOD5 Turbidity Cl2 residual
Colifor pH
Count / 100ml (mg/l) (NTU) (mg/l)
ms
Bathing Water
500 100 - - - 69
Standards
Non
USA - 10 2 1 69
Detectable
Australia <1 <4 20 2 - -
Non
UK - - - - -
Detectable
Japan <1 < 10 10 5 - 69
WHO 200 - - - - -
Germany 100 500 20 1-2 - 69

Table 2 briefly shows the water quality standards for several developed countries.

A-499
As the recycling of water becomes a more important issue due to water shortages in
recent years, globally, governments are starting to implement policy on recycling methods
such as greywater reuse and rain water harvesting. This is shown in the design of new
buildings worldwide, with an increased emphasis on sustainable development.
Not all regions in the developed countries currently have regulations or guidelines
specifically for greywater reuse but a general guideline to reuse wastewater has been set
up and implemented in some regions. Example of this is Tasmania, Australia. The
Environmental Guidelines for the use of Recycled Water in Tasmania developed by the
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment in 2002 covers information
closely related to that of greywater. Table 3 shows the wastewater uses and required
quality set out. The guidelines recommend that treated wastewater has a total suspended
solids level of less than 30 mg/l.

Table 3. Wastewater Uses and Required Water Quality (adapted from Dept Primary
Industries, Water and Environment, 2002)
Mandatory Mandatory Suggested
Use of Options for
Effluent Treatment Treatment
Wastewater Wastewater Reuse
Quality Requirement Measures
Class A < 10 median Advanced Indirect potable Treatment
Recycled thermotolerant treatment with groundwater coagulation,
Water coliforms per disinfection recharge advanced
100 ml Urban use (toilet filtration
pH 5.5 -8.0 flushing and garden Disinfection
BOD5 < 10 water) chlorination,
mg/l Crops for human UV, micro
consumption (raw) filtration

Class B < 1000 median Secondary Crops for Treatment

Recycled thermotolerant treatment with consumption (raw, high rate
Water coliforms per disinfection but not in direct process such
100 ml contact with as activated
pH 5.5 8.0 reclaimed water) sludge, trickling
BOD5 < 50 Pasture and Fodder filters, lagoon
mg/l Industrial Processes treatment
(open system) Disinfection
chlorination,
UV, ozonation
Class C < 10,000 Secondary Agriculture (non Lagoon based
Recycled median treatment human food chain) systems
Water thermotolerant Industrial processes No additional
coliforms per (closed system) disinfection
100 ml Non human food required
pH 5.5 8.0 chain aquaculture
BOD5 < 80
mg/l

3. GREYWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Greywater treatment involves the storage which can be very effective way to reduce
BOD5 level of the medium. Disadvantages of storing raw greywater are rising offensive
odours; thermotolerant coliforms have been risen before their gradual declining.
Preliminary treatment aims to remove various wastewater constituents such as rags,
floatable, grit and grease that might cause maintenance and/or operational problems with

A-500
the treatment (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Course filters are probably the most simple
filtration unit being used in the greywater treatment. The whole unit is nothing but a
coarse mesh filter bag fixed on the end of the effluent pipe. Large suspended materials
are being hold up by the bag while the liquid can easily pass through on it into a collection
basin. Major shortcoming of this technology is that it requires regular manual cleaning.
Sedimentation tanks can be used in the greywater treatment system, despite of lower
suspended solid concentrations of greywater. According to ten-years greywater
experiments of Nolde (1999) a funnel-shaped sedimentation tank with automated sludge-
removing device proved a most effective primary treatment operation. Sedimentation as
unit operation can also be located after biological treatment process as those may leave
their suspended by-products in the medium, thus requiring further clarification operations;
this post-treatment operation was implemented into the Australian Envirocycle 10NR
greywater treatment system. Rapid sand filters can be inserted as a tertiary treatment
operation so that it can remove particles that generated as a by-product of the secondary,
biological process. Disinfection process is normally used after rapid sand filtration.
The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process represents another type of the treatment
technologies which can achieve 97% BOD5, ~88% COD and nearly 100% T. Coli removal
from greywate. The use MBR is capable to operate with higher volumetric loading rate
and hence the retention time is shorter; the effluent can fulfill high water quality
requirements; and less space required than an activated sludge plus
sedimentation/clarification post-treatment unit (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). However, the
Israeli experience (Friedler and Hadari, 2006) revealed that MBR is not an economic
option even for a large scale, unless the greywater is resourced from a residential
building exceeding 37 levels.

4. FEASIBILITY OF GREYWATER REUSE

4.1. Potential for the use of greywater
The common options of the greywater reuse could be considered as garden watering,
toilet flushing and irrigation. Relative long payback period of the capital investment of
greywater recycle system has been considered as the main drawbacks, which are
influenced by two major factors; the quantity of greywater involved and the cost of the
system (unit, implementation and maintenance). In general, payback periods will start to
reduce in the near future as the operational cost of fairly recent technologies such as
membrane bioreactors decrease. The reduction in cost of greywater treatment
technologies is inevitable as with all modern technology. This is a major factor that could
see the reuse of greywater become an extremely common form of water conservation
throughout the developed and developing world. As well as the economic benefits that
can be achieved by recycling greywater, the other major benefit is that of water
conservation from an environmental perspective. Greywater reuse is a form of
sustainable development and therefore has beneficial effects on the sustainable water
management.

4.2. Design process for greywater system

According to the latest British greywater system design manual (CIRIA, C539, 2001)
evaluation of available resources and analysis of potential applications of greywater must
be undertaken before planning a greywater treatment system. The same document
presents a flow chart that describes the main steps of planning that ought to be followed
in order to ensure the system both technical and economical reliability. Detailed
investigation of the flowchart can identify three main elements:
the balanced supply and demand;
the appropriate storage tank size which can act as the basis of secure supply;
positive cost-benefit analysis.

A-501
4.3. Domestic reuse
A water balance model (aquacycle) has been developed which represents water flows
through the urban water supply, stormwater, and wastewater systems (Mitchell, 2000;
Mitchell, et al., 2001; Lekkas et al., 2008). It provides temporal distribution of the flows,
and enables comparison of the different components of the urban water demand.
Aquacycle was tested and found able to satisfactorily replicate the water supply,
stormwater and wastewater flows. Based on that, the possibility to reuse domestic
greywater within buildings and small garden irrigation has been investigated. Figure 2
shows the ideal way of domestic greywater reuse. The domestic piping system is marked,
thus various water flows may be easily followed. The domestic reuse activity here is not
only toilet flushing but garden watering as well.
The CIRIA (C539) guidelines distinguish three main greywater reuse scheme that based
on domestic reuse and these are:
individual house systems;
multi-residential single building system;
communal scheme.
Individual house system is defined to collect greywater, treat on-site and being reused for
toilet flushing. The British guidelines do not mention domestic irrigational reuse. This
omission might be originated from the countrys wet climate that anticipates extensive
need of garden watering. The Environment Agency also added some more information to
the document; greywater treatment systems are not suitable for homes with single
occupancy as the volume of generated greywater is too low to make the whole effort
economically feasible.
Multi-residential single building systems are serving several flats in a single building. For
instance, a student residential hall fulfils this system category. Lastly, the communal
system scheme compromise a single greywater treatment plant that treats effluent from
various numbers of buildings and supplies treated greywater back to those buildings via
recycled water distribution network. The treatment system in this case is usually includes
more sophisticated unit operations or treatment processes than on-site systems.

Figure 2. On-site domestic greywater reuse system (after Pontos-aquacycle, accessed

on 08/08/2007)

A-502
 4.4. Irrigation with greywater
According to the latest WHO guidelines the increase of greywater reuse in agriculture is
driven by many factors as the rising water scarcity, booming population and thus
increased need of food and the growing recognition of the resource value of the medium.
Also the WHO recommends guidelines for restricted (<1/liter Nematode eggs, <105 E.
coli) and unrestricted irrigation (<1/liter Nematode eggs, <103 E. coli).
Countries and states in dryer areas have already developed their greywater reuse
guidelines on the irrigational reuse. These guidelines can show slight variances in the US
while they seem very similar in Australia. Main common point to avoid human contact
with untreated greywater irrigated areas. That is why using untreated greywater reuse
can support only sub-surface irrigation as in that scenario the possibility of human contact
is limited.
Research carried out in Jordan (Al-Jayyousi, 2003) was the use of treated greywater for
garden farming in rural areas. The experience was based on use of a two-stage
treatment system which removes coliforms in good efficiency but the effluent was high in
turbidity and organic pollutant. Research team from Israel investigated effects of
insufficiently and untreated greywater on soils. They have found that the capillary rise in
the sand that was irrigated with weak laundry detergent solution is lower than in normal
cases. The regular greywater irrigation thus may create water-repellent soils by its high
surfactant concentration, thus corrupting the soil natural productive capacity (Wiel-
Shafran et al, 2006). Following the irrigation with laundry greywater effluent Chlorosis on
lettuce also was observed through this study.

4.5. Cost effectiveness of the greywater reuse

Table 4. Payback periods at house A and B (re-prepared after Ghisi, 2007).

System House A payback time House B payback time

Rainwater 21 years and 5 months 67 years and 4 months
Greywater 17 years and 8 months 61 years and 3 months
Rainwater and greywater 28 years and 2 months 92 years and 8 months

Table 5. Economic analysis for the multi-storey buildings (re-prepared after Ghisi, 2007).
A B A B A B
rainwater rainwater greywater greywater combined combined
Potable water savings (%) 14.7 15.6 28.7 29.7 36.7 37.9
Water demand without
reuse system
(m3/month/flat) 12 10.8 12 10.8 12 10.8
Water demand with
reuse system
(m3/month/flat) 10.2 9.1 8.6 7.6 7.6 6.7
Potable water cost without
reuse system
(R$/month/flat) 41.4 34.97 41.4 34.97 41.4 34.97
Potable water cost with
reuse system
(R$/month/flat) 31.76 30.69 30.69 30.69 30.69 30.69
Total cost of the system
(R$) 4366.4 4366.4 4373.68 4373.68 6980.58 6980.58
Saving (R$/month/flat) 9.64 4.28 10.71 4.28 10.71 4.28
Number of flats 16 17 16 17 16 17
Payback period (years) 2.4 5 2.1 5 3.4 8

A-503
The payback duration for the installing systems of the collection and reuse of rainwater
and greywater is an important factor for us to assess the economic effectiveness of the
reuse system and the relevant study was conducted in Southern Brazil. Where the
systems in both single household and multi-storey buildings were taken into consideration
and compared for the payback period of the reuse system (Ghisi et al., 2007). Table 4
shows that payback time for a greywater reuse system varied between 17 and 61 years.
If coming with rainwater collection system, the payback period was even longer. It can be
stated that greywater reuse on a single house scale is not entirely cost feasible even with
combined with rainwater collection and reuse system.
On the other hand, larger scale systems such as those installed in the multi-storey
buildings are likely to be economical feasible. Table 5 below shows significantly short
payback period for the large scale reuse systems in the multi-storey buildings in
comparison with those in a single house; it ranges between 2 and 8 years. Also, the
overall water saving and then the water bill saving for the given number of flats studied
was between 14 and 37.9%, this explains why the payback period is relative short and
the installation and running greywater reuse system is economic feasible.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Greywater has been reused in some countries and areas for the purpose of toilet flushing
and irrigation. The awareness of greywater recycling varies across the world, with a
noticeable intensity and understanding of the subject in areas encountering sustained
pressures on the water supply. The reuse of treated greywater helps to ease the
increasing burdens on global water supplies. Legislation in relation to greywater enables
governments to regulate the effluent quality as well as protecting the public from the
health risks associated with greywater. Many countries are beginning to realise the
immediate demands on water supplies, and are slowly developing guidelines for the
reuse of greywater amongst alternative water saving methods.
The benefits of greywater treatment outweigh the limitations; the major benefit that will
ultimately influence the wide spread utilisation of greywater systems is that of economic
savings for the user. There are substantial variations in the payback period of systems
with some merely a few years, and others a number of decades. The payback period is
highly dependent on site specific parameters. Reductions in the payback period are likely
to occur as the efficiency and cost of systems improve. Currently, there are two major
uses for treated greywater; toilet flushing and irrigation. Increasing the number of
domestic uses would enable more greywater to be saved, especially in large
developments, such as hotels and leisure centres. To produce effluents of potable quality
on a domestic scale would be expensive and inefficient, however, there is potential to
treat greywater enough for use as bath or shower water. Research into high quality
treatment would be required in order to produce odourless, harmless and colourless
effluent.

REFERENCES
Al-Jayoussi, O.R. (2003). Desalination, 156, 181-192.
Dept Primary Industries, Water and Environment, (2002). Environmental Guidelines for the use of
recycled water in Tasmania. Natural Heritage Trust.
DTI (2006). Global Watch Mission Report: Water recycling and reuse in Singapore and Australia.
Friedler, E., Hadari, M. (2006). Desalination, 190, 221-234.
Lazarova, V., Hills, S., Birks, R., (2003). Water Science and Technology, 3(4), 69-77.
Leggett, D. F., R. Brown, D. Brewer, G. Stanfield, E. Holliday (2001). CIRIA C539, Construction
Industry Research and Information Association.
Lekkas D. F., Manoli E., Assimacopoulos D. (2008) ntegrated urban water modelling using
Aquacycle model. Global NEST Journal 10(3), 310-319.
March, J.G., Gual, M., Orozco, F. (2004). Desalination, 164, 241-247.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc, revised by G. Tchobanoglus, F.L. Burton, H.D. Stensel. Wastewater
Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. 4th Ed. McGraw Hill International, New York, 2003.

A-504
Mitchell V.G. (2000). Aquacycle User Manual, CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure
Technology for Catchment Hydrology. Monash University, Australia.
Mitchell V.G., Mein R.G. & McMahon T.A. (2001). Modelling the Urban Water Cycle, Journal of
Environmental Modelling & Software, 16(7), 615-629.
Nolde, E., (1999). Urban Water, 1, 275-284.
Pontos-aquacycle, www.pontos-aquacycle.com. (accessed on 08/08/2007)
Surendran, S. and A.D. Wheatley (1998). J. CIWEM, 12(6), 406-413.
UN Secretariat, (2001). United Nations. URL: http://www.un.org. (assessed 03/2008)
WSP: Development and Transportation (2005). Northstowe New Town: Water Reuse and
Recycling Options. Notes for Environmental Statement.

A-505