ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey residential building in southern Brazil
Enedir GhisiÃ, Daniel F. Ferreira
´polis-SC, 88040-900, Brazil Laboratory of Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Floriano Received 10 May 2006; received in revised form 5 July 2006; accepted 20 July 2006

Abstract Studies on the use of rainwater and greywater to promote potable water savings have been performed in different countries. The main objective of this article is to evaluate the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey residential ´ polis, southern Brazil. Water end-uses were estimated by applying questionnaires building composed of three blocks, located in Floriano and measuring water flow rates. An economic analysis was performed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater either separately or together. Results show that the average potential for potable water savings range from 39.2% to 42.7% amongst the three blocks, considering that water for toilet flushing, clothes washing and cleaning does not need to be potable. By using rainwater, the potable water savings would actually range from 14.7% to 17.7%. When greywater is considered alone, potable water savings are higher, i.e., ranging from 28.7% to 34.8%. As for the use of rainwater and greywater combined, the potable water savings range from 36.7% to 42.0%. The main conclusion that can be made from the research is that the three systems that were investigated are cost effective as the payback periods were lower than 8 years, but the greywater system was the most cost effective one, followed closely by the rainwater one. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Potable water savings; Water end-uses; Greywater; Rainwater; Multi-storey residential buildings

1. Introduction Rainwater harvesting and reuse of greywater have been studied in many countries as a way of promoting potable water savings in buildings. Some researches focused on the use of rainwater [1–7], others on greywater [8–13] and a few on the combination of rainwater and greywater [14,15]. As for Brazil, a previous study focused on the use of rainwater and greywater either separately or together in two houses in the city of Palhoc - a, state of Santa Catarina [16]. It was reported that the use of rainwater would promote potable water savings of 33.6–35.5%; the use of greywater would promote potable water savings of 25.6–30.4%; and the combination of rainwater and greywater would promote potable water savings of 33.8–36.4%. Although the potential for potable water savings is very significant, none of the three systems were cost effective.
ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +55 48 3331 5185; fax: +55 48 3331 5191.

This was due to the fact that the local water utility charges for a water consumption of 10 m3 when the consumption is lower than that. This article contributes with further progress on the subject as it assesses the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey ´ polis, southern Brazil. residential building in Floriano 2. Objectives The main objective of this article is to estimate the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and reusing greywater in a multi-storey residential building ´ polis, southern Brazil. An located in the city of Floriano economic analysis is performed in order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater either separately or together. 3. Location ´ polis, which is a small island in The city of Floriano southern Brazil, is located at the latitude 271360 south and

E-mail address: enedir@labeee.ufsc.br (E. Ghisi). 0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.019

Main fac . Ghisi. Fig.F. D. ranging from about 80 mm in June to about 200 mm in February.ARTICLE IN PRESS E. 2. 1. Fig. use of computer simulation and economic analysis. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 2513 ´ polis. and 17 in B block. Fig. longitude 481330 west. . 2 shows a view of A and B blocks. 1 shows a map of Brazil ´ polis. The study was performed by analysing a four-storey residential building composed of three blocks which were built in 1981. Map of Brazil and Floriano Fig. Average rainfall indicating the location of Floriano amounts to 1544 mm per year [17]. There are 16 three-bedroom flats in A and C blocks.ade of A and B blocks. Methodology The research was based on the estimation of water enduses. 4.

and c is the volume of water consumed over each operation of washing machines (litres per cycle). This was done for the flats with the highest and lowest water consumption. each flat. Estimated water consumption From the information obtained from the interviews. The interviews were performed from December 2003 to February 2004. toilet flushing. 1=2 þ N (1) where Cpc is the average daily water consumption per capita for each block (litres per person per day). Daily potable water consumption per capita was calculated by using Eq. (3).2. C dc ¼ F  q. (3) where Cd is the daily water consumption of each plumbing fixture (litres per day). each block and for the whole building.7 l/s as recommended by the Brazilian Standard NBR 5626 [19]. 4. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 The methodology applied to accomplish the objectives of this research is as follows. C d ¼ F  T  Q. and also in flats occupied either by families or students. F is the daily frequency of use of water for cooking (times per day). which is the equation recommended by Barbetta [18] to estimate a population-based representative sample. Ghisi. 4. Data survey In order to estimate the water end-uses in the building.1. and Q is the water flow rate of each plumbing fixture (litres per second).1. C dwm ¼ F  c. Nr is the average number of residents per flat in each block (person per flat). flat. The sample error chosen to be applied in this research was 12%. and Nd is the number of days in a month (days). The number of residents to be interviewed was estimated by using Eq. N is the population size. where n is the sample size. a sensitivity analysis was performed.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2514 E. As for the water consumption of washing machines. C pc C  1000 ¼ . and q is the amount of water used for cooking (litres).1.F. A weighted average was performed to obtain the frequency of use and amount of time for each resident.3. Water end-uses From the estimated water consumption. D. kitchen taps and laundry trough. Such a sensitivity analysis has already been used by Ghisi and Oliveira [16] and Kammers and Ghisi [20]. (4). as given by the residents.4. T is the average time of use of each plumbing fixture (seconds per time of use). nX ð1=2 ÞN . measuring water flow rates and obtaining the water consumption from the local water utility. The users were requested to give information on the frequency of use of the plumbing fixtures and amount of time the water is used over the working days and weekends. the specific water consumption of each plumbing fixture could be calculated. Sensitivity analysis In order to account for discrepancies between the water consumption estimated from the interviews and the actual water consumption. F is the daily frequency of use of each plumbing fixture (times per day). (1). which are all with wall flushing valves. water end-uses were calculated (in litres and also in percentage) for each resident. 4. (2). 4. e is the sample error (from 1% to 20%). Interviews Interviews were needed in order to obtain the frequency of use of the plumbing fixtures as well as the amount of time such fixtures are used. As for the toilets. lavatory. (4) where Cdc is the daily water consumption for cooking (litres per day). Water flow rate Due to the difficulty of access to the flats. F is the daily frequency of use of washing machines (times per day). These were obtained by interviewing the residents. the water flow rate was assumed to be 1. it was estimated by using Eq. 4. 1000 is the conversion factor from m3 to litre. N r  N flats  N d (2) .2. The amount of water used for cooking was estimated from Eq. Nflats is the number of flats in each block (flats). 4. block and the whole building.1. the water flow rates were measured in one flat only. (5). The volume of water used in the washing machines was determined by asking the residents about the amount of water used per cycle. this was done by using Eq. Actual water consumption The monthly potable water consumption of each block was obtained from the water utility for the period March 2002–November 2003. The water flow rate of taps and showers was estimated by measuring the time for a container with a capacity of 350 ml to fill with water. figures were obtained for each resident.1. (5) where Cdwm is the daily water consumption of washing machines (litres per day). C is the average monthly water consumption for each block (m3/month). some data had to be collected. 4. From these. The interviews were performed on different floors and in the three blocks. For showers. as well as for each block average.3. Table 1 shows the parameters considered for this analysis.

As for the upper tanks. Then the ideal tank capacity was taken as the one in which the potential for potable water savings increased 0. In case there were any discrepancies. the daily water consumption for toilet flushing.6. Therefore. (8). it is proposed that it can be treated by going through a wetland system. the actual annual water costs were estimated by using Eq. for Floriano The input data needed to run the programme were potable water demand.5. The rainwater tanks. The procedure to estimate their capacities is the same as described previously. Pgw ¼ Psh þ Plv þ Pcw . 4. then potable water was to be used. then the rainwater.3. A wetland system was dimensioned for each block considering a plan area of 0. The Neptune computer programme [21] was used to estimate the rainwater tank capacity. total water end-use from toilet flushing. The pumps were estimated to be 3 4 HP and to operate 4 h a day. Greywater treatment Although greywater is meant to be used for toilet flushing only. it enables the degradation of organic substances. the potential for potable water savings and tank capacities was determined. Economic analysis As it would be too difficult to refurbish the buildings to implement any of the three systems. an economic analysis was performed considering the use of any of the systems in similar new buildings. A two-tank system is to be used. and Pcw is the clothes washing (washing machine and laundry trough) end-use (%). Greywater tank capacity In the scope of this study. The simple payback method was used. Material costs were surveyed from three local stores and an average was adopted.5. washing machine and laundry trough. it was considered a cost of R$ 49. the percentage of greywater that can be available for each block is given by using Eq. 4. Plv is the lavatory enduse (%). on the other hand.000 litres at increments of 1000 litres. Then.337220/kW h. Rainwater tank capacity Rainwater tank capacities were estimated for each block by assuming that rainwater can be used for toilet flushing.5% or less when increasing the tank capacity in 1000 litres. just considering the appropriate percentage of potable water to be replaced by rainwater.2 l/s 1 time 2 min 2 min 2515 reused for toilet flushing.00/m2 [16]. amount of time of use and water flow rate for the sensitivity analysis Plumbing fixtures Toilet Shower Kitchen tap Parameter Water flow rate Frequency Time Time Range 70. Ptf is the toilet flushing end-use (%). Thus. the greywater tank was dimensioned to store the least volume between the available greywater and the water needed for toilet flushing. Thus.16]. at least. it was considered that water used for shower. Daily rainwater data ´ polis were available for the period 2001–2003. Ghisi. Psh is the shower end-use (%). the sensitivity analysis was applied.5. In case there was lack of any. washing machine and laundry trough (Eq. When rainwater and greywater are used together. washing machine and laundry trough. (2). 4.8 m2 per person as adopted by Ghisi and Oliveira [16]. Electricity costs to operate the water pumps were also taken into account. D.5.ARTICLE IN PRESS E. (6)). with an electricity tariff of R$ 0. the potable water demand per capita was estimated for each block by using Eq. daily rainwater data. (7) where Pgw is the percentage of greywater that can be reused (%). The greywater tank does not need to store more greywater than the amount needed daily for toilet flushing. 4. The lower greywater tank capacity was estimated by comparing the percentage of greywater that can be available for each block with the water end-use for toilet flushing. will need re-dimensioning as they will be smaller. Pwm is the washing machine end-use (%). This system is a biological filter composed of gravel or sand and swamp plants.5. Upper greywater tank capacities were also estimated following the same procedure. Such a procedure was adopted to estimate the lower rainwater tanks. their capacities were estimated to store. [7. it was deemed appropriate to use first the greywater. 4. One tank is placed on ground level (lower tank) and the other on the roof (upper tank).F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 Table 1 Variation on frequency. roof area. Tank capacities Based on the estimated water end-uses.4. As for the wetland system.2. 4. Details on the algorithm of the programme can be found in Refs. Neptune estimates the potential for potable water savings for tank capacities ranging from 1000 to 60. Prain ¼ Ptf þ Pwm þ Plt . the greywater tank capacities will be the same as described previously. (6) where Prain is the percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (%). number of residents in the block. First. by considering the potential for potable water savings obtained from the The actual water consumption obtained from the water utility was compared to the estimated water consumption. and Plt is the laundry trough end-use (%). lavatories and clothes washing could be . (7). Finally. they are stored separately and this requires four tanks.6 l/s 73 times 76 min 76 min Increment 0. Rainwater and greywater tank capacity When rainwater and greywater are used together.1. and runoff coefficient.

5 2. Table 4 shows the frequency and time of use for the activities in which all residents of each flat benefit. new annual water costs were also estimated (Eq. C 1 ¼ C wc1  N flats  1:8. the estimated sample size was 48 people.9 16. the total number of people living in the buildings is 118 instead of 147. Thus.4511 ¼ £ 0. Ci is the total costs for implementing each system in each block (Brazilian Reais).1 0. etc.9 16. are shown in Table 5.4.9 14. measurements were performed only in flat 402. It can be noticed that on average toilet flushing and washing up account for 32. respectively.9 4.7 2. C2 is the new monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais). Ghisi.1.975 4. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 Table 3 Frequency and time of use of activities and plumbing fixtures located in the bathroom Activity/fixture Below 10 11–25 Above 26 1.1 9. in A block. Results 5.1 0.3 4.7 4.4 23. Actual water consumption Actual potable water consumption was obtained from the water bills for the period March 2002–November 2003.7 19. Ci . D.3 4. Average figures obtained from the interviews are shown in Table 3. However.9 2.6 20. (9)).F.3 7. 1. Water flow rate Measured water flow rates obtained from flat 402.705 2. water end-uses were estimated. Table 6 shows the average water consumption for these blocks. . and Nflats is the number of flats in each block (flats). By interviewing these people. Interviews Considering a sample error of 12% and a population of 147 residents (three people per flat). Cwc2 is the average water costs for each flat as practised by the water utility (Table 2) considering the reduction obtained by using rainwater or greywater either separately or together (R$ per flat).2 2. Ti ¼ ðC 1 À C 2 Þ Â 12 (10) Shaving 5.8 2.1 33. (8) Toilet flushing Tooth brushing where C1 is the monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais). such as clothes washing. Water end-uses From the interviews and water flow rate measurements.4 1. C1 is the monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais). 5. 1.4.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2516 E. it was found that the average number of people per flat is 2.0 4.1 2.8 25. It can be noticed that the water consumption in B block was more steady than in the other blocks.2 2.6 9.6 706.3 21.9% of the potable water consumed in the three blocks. R$ 1 ¼ US$ 0.2599).2. and Nflats is the number of flats in each block (flats). 3. These should have been measured in other flats as well.064 Block Frequency (times per day) 1.1 19.2 0.5 1.8% and 29. Table 7 shows the results.0 17.2 4. 5.4 6. These are shown in Fig. cooking. but due to the difficulty in gaining access to the flats.6 1.1 Time (s) Table 2 Potable water tariffs practised by the water utility Consumption range (m3) Costs (R$/m3) Shower Note: R$ stands for Brazilian Real (on 29 March 2006. Therefore. 5. the estimated potable water consumption ranged from –7. A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average 636.7 663.3 5. and 12 is the conversion factor from month to year.9 2. (9) Hands washing Face washing where C2 is the new monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais).1% where Ti is the payback period estimated for each block and for each system (years).5 4.9 research.6 818.8 is a multiplication factor practised by the water utility to charge for the sewage system (non-dimensional).9 16.9 7. The payback period was then calculated by using Eq.4 13.3 0. Cwc1 is the average water costs for each flat as practised by the water utility and shown in Table 2 (R$ per flat).6 24.8 14. (8).8 is a multiplication factor practised by the water utility to charge for the sewage system (nondimensional). the sample error is 11%. C 2 ¼ C wc2  N flats  1:8.3.

4 151.3 3.0 101.03 0. to 48. 3.0 220.7 1. Clothes washing end-use includes laundry trough and washing machine.0 16. Corrected water end-uses From the sensitivity analysis shown previously.8 14.7 16.3 0. whose estimated water consumption was lower than the actual water .2 409.5 1.6 12. as shown in Table 8. where a similar trend is observed.1 0.12 0. hands washing.2 0.2 0. time of use of kitchen sink tap and frequency of toilet flushing cause more variation in the water consumption. 5. C block). i.9 18.ARTICLE IN PRESS E.4 1.0 1.11 0. and for the average water consumption of each block and for the three blocks together.7 26.8 0.7 197.1 0.7 0.1 0.8 Average 32.3 B block 31.11 Note: Lavatory end-use includes tooth brushing.4 1.0 123. Ghisi.3 Laundry trough Washing machine Cleaning (bucket) Cleaning (trough) Table 7 Water end-uses for each block Activity Water end-uses (%) A block Toilet flushing Washing up Shower Lavatory Clothes washing Cleaning Cooking Total (litres/capita per day) 33.7 — — — — 1. Figs.6.1 0.2 — — — — 79.5 — — — — Cooking Fig.9 0. B block).1 — — — — — — — — 165.7 1.7 152. D.0 0.2 0.F.e.8 29.8 0. The sensitivity analysis was performed for the flat with the highest water consumption (flat 102.5 15.7 4. 4–7 show the results obtained for the sensitivity analysis performed on some fixtures of flats 102 and 303.1 14.4 0.3 12.1 1.7 1. Cleaning end-use includes bucket and trough.1 133.0 224.4 3.0 1.2 0.7 2.1 1.9 34.0 289.4 — — — — 14.3 101. a sensitivity analysis was performed.2 0.1 12.7 10.5 20.0 1. It can be observed that the water consumption is more sensitive to variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap and variation on frequency of toilet flushing.6 172.3 141. 5. Sensitivity analysis In order to make adjustments on the estimated water consumption.8 387.1 1. This enabled the pluming fixtures that influence most on the water consumption to be identified.2 0.8 C block 32.3 0. face washing and shaving.0 2. 8–11 show the sensitivity analysis for the three blocks.2 2.. Table 6 Average water consumption for each block Block Average water consumption m3 per month A B C Average 196 184 160 180 Litres/capita per day 179. In A block.3 5. Monthly water consumption for each block.9 35.9 1.1 0.6 313.1 Time (s) Consumption (l) 300 Water consumption (m3) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Month/year A Block B Block C Block 2517 Washing up A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average 526.4 166.1 0.0 1.3 0.3 Table 5 Water flow rate Fixture Shower Lavatory Kitchen sink tap Laundry trough tap Water flow rate (l/s) 0.4% when compared to the actual water consumption. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 Table 4 Frequency and time of use (or consumption) of other activities and plumbing fixtures Activity/fixture Block Frequency (times per day) 1. the water end-uses were corrected.5. Figs. for the flat with the lowest water consumption (flat 303.

Sensitivity analysis on toilet water flow rate.F.2 0. 10.4 0. 60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -3 -2 -1 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40 Flat 303-C Block -60 Variation on frequency of toilet flushing (times) 0 1 2 3 -60 Variation on duration of shower (minutes) Fig. 60 -6 -4 -2 -20 0 2 4 Flat 102-B Block 6 A Block B Block C Block Average 40 20 0 -40 Flat 303-C Block -60 Variation on duration of shower (minutes) -6 -4 -2 -20 -40 0 2 4 6 Fig.1 166. 0 0. 60 A Block Water consumption variation (%) B Block C Block Average 40 20 0 -3 -2 -1 -20 -40 0 1 2 3 Fig.6 60 A Block B Block C Block Average Flat 303-C Block 40 20 0 -60 Variation on toilet water flow rate (litres/s) Fig.1 60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 Water consumption variation (%) Fig. As for C -60 Variation on toilet water flow rate (litres/s) Fig. 4.6 -0.6 consumption. In B block. Sensitivity analysis on duration of shower.1 B block 133. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -6 -4 -2 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40 Flat 303-C Block -60 Variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap (minutes) 0 2 4 6 Table 8 Difference between actual and estimated water consumption Consumption Water consumption (litres/capita per day) A block Actual Estimated Difference (%) 179.4 -0. Ghisi. the difference was assumed to be due to the toilet flushing. -0. 6. such a difference was distributed proportionally between toilet flushing and kitchen sink tap.8 +48.4 152. as the difference between the estimated and the actual water consumption was very high (48. 60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -0. Sensitivity analysis on frequency of toilet flushing. Sensitivity analysis on time of use of kitchen sink tap.2 0.3 197.3 À7. 8. 7.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2518 E.4 0.6 -0.4 -0. Sensitivity analysis on toilet water flow rate.2 -20 -40 0 0. 5. Sensitivity analysis on frequency of toilet flushing. 9.8 +8.4 C block 141.2 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40 Water consumption variation (%) -60 Variation on frequency of toilet flushing (times) Fig. D. .4%). Sensitivity analysis on duration of shower.

1.9 22.2 B block 324.7%).2. Table 11 shows the tank capacities and the respective potable water savings that may be obtained by using rainwater in each block.0 4.0 39.6 C block 17.7 141. As for the upper tanks. 12.5 2.2 133. Therefore.000.0 28. In order to consider the tank capacities available in the local market. range from 2250.000 3000 10. it was then possible to estimate the rainwater tank capacities for each block by using the Neptune computer programme.1 0.2–42.4 5. 10.7.8 14.9 4. 9000.85 2. lavatory and clothes washing) and the percentage of water used for toilet flushing are obtained from the estimated water end-uses. and when converted to litres.1 B block 29.7 2. 10. Corrected water end-uses are shown in Table 9. D.6 14. the rainwater tank capacities were chosen when the potential for potable water savings increased 0. Greywater tank capacities When only greywater is considered.2 23.7.7%. Sensitivity analysis on time of use of kitchen sink tap.ARTICLE IN PRESS E. 5.8 151.85 2.7 12. Table 12 shows the relevant data for this analysis. .4 Average 33. It can be noticed that the potable water savings that can be actually obtained are significantly lower (14. their capacities were estimated as a function of the percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater.9 0.1 33. 12 shows the results obtained from the simulations. As explained in the methodology. B and C blocks.000 litres were the tank capacities chosen for A.000-litre tanks were adopted for each of the three blocks.0 42. These are the potential for potable water savings as a function of the tank capacity.25 179. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 60 Water consumption variation (%) B Block C Block Average 2519 25 Potential for potable water savings (%) 20 15 10 5 0 A Block B Block C Block 0 10000 20000 30000 Rainwater tank capacity (litres) 40000 A Block 40 20 0 -6 -4 -2 -20 -40 0 2 4 6 -60 Variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap (minutes) Fig. Tank capacities 5. 5.0 0.0 1.2 19.5% or less by increasing the tank capacity in 1000 litres. the difference was assumed to be due to the kitchen sink tap.3 Fig.7 block. 11.67 133.9 0. 12) than the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the blocks (39. and 11.6 16. the percentage of water that can be reused (from shower.000 3000 10. B and C blocks.1 C block 324.0 40.4 179.7 A block B block C block A block Lower Upper 10. 3000-litre tanks are enough to store the daily demand for rainwater. Fig.0 0.000 3000 14. Rainwater tank capacities Having obtained the water end-uses. Table 9 Corrected water end-uses for each block Activity Water end-uses (%) A block Toilet flushing Washing up Shower Lavatory Clothes washing Cleaning Cooking Total (litres/capita per day) 35.1 23.2 10. Table 11 Rainwater tank capacity and potable water savings Tank position Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) B block 15. Table 10 shows the input data used to run Neptune. clothes washing and cleaning) 2 A block 324. clothes washing and cleaning.3 17. Rainwater tank capacities and potential for potable water savings for A.0 6.33 141.7.7–17. It was assumed that potable water can be replaced by rainwater for toilet flushing.9 to 2527.0 2. These are shown in the last line of Table 10.0 0.7 Table 10 Input data for the Neptune computer programme Input data Roof area (m ) Runoff coefficient (non-dimensional) Number of residents per flat Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of flats per block Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (toilet flushing.6 16. Ghisi.5 1.F.5 litres.3 C block 34. Therefore. respectively.85 2. from Fig.4 16.1 16.

7 8.33 16.2 29. 5000 and 4000 litres would be needed for A.67 17. B and C blocks. 29.0 34.8 1834. Table 13 shows the greywater tank capacities selected according to market availability. clothes washing and cleaning) (%) [P2] Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater when already reusing greywater (%) [P2ÀP1] A block 179.8 Table 15 Rainwater and greywater tank capacities Source Tank Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) position A block B block C block A block B block C block 5000 3000 2000 2000 5000 3000 2000 2000 5000 3000 2000 2000 8. respectively.7 39. The rainwater tank capacities were again obtained as described previously.9 7.5 29. Costs By consulting the local stores. 5.0 28.67 17. Fig. Rainwater and greywater tank capacities When considering rainwater and greywater together. 5. D.4 2.2 B block 133. the available greywater (28. the opposite is obtained for B and C blocks.25 16.0–1850.0 28. the potential for potable water savings by using greywater are 28. Such a capacity is enough to store the volume of greywater needed for toilet flushing (1797.0 52.25 16.0 A block B block C block A block Lower Upper 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 28. 13 shows the results obtained from the simulations using Neptune.7 Table 14 Input data for Neptune when greywater and rainwater are considered together Input data Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of residents per flat Number of flats per block Potential for potable water savings by reusing greywater (%) [P1] Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (toilet flushing.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2520 E.9. B and C blocks.7% and 34.4 7.3. the rainwater demand is lower than the figures shown in Section 5. As for greywater.9 It can be observed that in A block. costs were estimated.3 2.7. Rainwater tank capacities and potential for potable water savings for A. Therefore. 13. Payback period By applying the methodology described in Section 4. 29.0 28.7%.6 34.F.1 2.5 10. rainwater tank capacities of 5000. 5. the volume of greywater to be stored in each block was estimated by considering 28.7%.7. By adopting 2000-litre tanks.5 litres).5 B block 133.8% in A.0 C block 141.1%).0 29.1 2.7 Rainwater Lower Upper Greywater Lower Upper Total 10. Ghisi. the payback period was estimated for each block and each system. Tables 16–18 show the costs for each of the three systems. B and C blocks when greywater is also considered. Therefore. and the respective potential for potable water savings.8 42. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 12 Potential for potable water savings (%) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10000 20000 30000 Rainwater tank capacity (litres) 40000 A Block B Block C Block Table 12 Data used to estimate the greywater tank capacities Input data Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of residents per flat Number of flats per block Sum of water end-uses from shower.7 35.7% and 34. .33 16.7 36.2 as rainwater is used to complement the water demand. lavatory and clothes washing (%) Water end-use from toilet flushing (%) Volume of greywater to be stored (l) A block 179.8 42. Table 15 shows the rainwater and greywater tank capacities adopted according to market availability for the scenario in which rainwater and greywater are used together. there is no change from what was shown in Section 5. respectively.8.7 1797.1 1850.2 34.7.1 C block 141.7%) is lower than the amount of water needed for toilet flushing (35.3 2.7 37.4 2.4 Fig.1.7 C block 34.8% of daily potable water consumption.7 40.0 48. Table 14 shows the relevant data needed to run Neptune to obtain the new rainwater tank capacities for this new scenario. It can be observed that the greywater system is the more cost effective. Table 13 Greywater tank capacities Tank position Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) B block 29. Table 19 shows the results and the relevant data needed to obtain the payback periods.

40 10.33 640.941.00 770. Ghisi.2 30.97 594.68 13.00 R$ 8.04 6.40 662.69 491.69 491.04 171.00 113.00 1536.51 6980.36 3.4 B block 15.1 30.1 B block 29.8 34.7 30.00 56.7 4366. D.83 5.337220/kW h 15% from total costs Quantity 2 2 32 m2/block 80 h 4 h/day — Total (R$) 800.00/m2 R$ 8.5 30.9 6980.7 4373.0 C block 34.4 12.00 385.40 8.00 None Greywater A block 28.69 521.0 30.69 491.58 16 30 5.00 550.76 508.3 10.69 491.33 910.04 0.00 None Rainwater+Greywater A block 36.73 72.97 594.6 30.58 16 30 6.83 5.00 1280.0 6980.099.6 30.69 521.70 Table 19 Payback period for each of the three systems Data Rainwater A block Potable water savings (%) Total costs (R$) Number of flats Days per month Water demand (m3/day per block) Water demand (m3/month per flat) Potable water costs (R$/month per flat) Potable water costs (R$/month per block) New potable water demand (m3/month per flat) New potable water costs (R$/month per flat) New potable water costs (R$/month per block) Savings (R$/month per block) Payback (years) 14.00/h R$ 0.69 491.1 10.68 16 30 5.337220/kW h 15% from total costs Quantity 2 1 1 80 h 4 h/day — Total (R$) 800.73 72.40 17 30 6.7 4366. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 Table 16 Rainwater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 3000-litre tank 10.69 491.2 31.22 2.4 B block 37.00/m2 15% from total costs Quantity 4 2 1 1 160 h 8 h/day 32 m2/block — Total (R$) 1600.00 1020.48 4373.68 16 30 6.69 491.00 550.4 12.00 1750.87 569.00/h R$ 0.56 6.337220/kW h R$ 49.40 16 30 5.3 10.0 41.04 5.04 8.04 0.00/h R$ 0.68 17 30 6.36 2.18 154.73 72.58 20.83 8.1 10.7 4373.20 2521 Table 17 Greywater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 2000-litre tank Wetland system Labour Electricity to operate pumps Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.0 41.0 41.8 30.58 17 30 6.121.00 None .0 C block 42.40 7.40 662.6 30.04 171.F.74 1536.53 4366.00 1020.00 385.00 R$ 49.0 30.00 56.87 570.0 30.8 34.00 640.6 4366.8 4373.7 6980.000-litre tank Labour Electricity to operate pumps Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.40 16 30 6.97 594.00 770.1 10.ARTICLE IN PRESS E.00 550.00 1750.00 Table 18 Rainwater and greywater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 2000-litre tank 3000-litre tank 5000-litre tank Labour Electricity to operate pumps Wetland system Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.56 7.40 662.40 13.04 0.00 R$ 8.69 491.69 521.4 12.00 550.56 9.0 C block 17.3 10.8 34.

Netuno—aproveitamento de a ´ guas pluviais no [21] Ghisi E. Corrected Proof. Departamento Nacional de Meteorologia. in buildings similar to the one analysed in this research any of the three systems would be cost effective if the potable water consumption of each flat were higher than 10 m3 per month.org. Desalination 2003. Desalination 2005. Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater: an analysis over 62 cities in southern Brazil.oamento de Pessoal de Nı Superior. Sweden. in A. However. When using rainwater and greywater either separately or together. Overcoming constraints in treated greywater reuse in Oman. but still cost effective. the potential for potable water savings by using greywater for toilet flushing was 28.0% in A. 29.6% and 17. Rainwater utilisation in Germany: efficiency. none of the systems are cost effective because the water consumption is 10 m3 per month per flat. [8] Al-Jayyousi OR.000 litres.7%. 40. Desalination 2004. respectively.7%.106(1–3):391–7. When rainwater and greywater were considered together.40(9):1174–84.164(3):241–7. This differs from what was obtained for the two houses studied in Ref. 6. Tre setor residencial. dimensioning. Building and Environment 2006. the potable water consumption becomes lower than 10 m3. Ed. NBR 5626— [19] ABNT Associac -a ˜ o Brasileira de Normas Te ´ gua fria. but should be considered as the payback periods are not too high. University of London.39(5):25–32. [6] Ghisi E. Urban Water 1999. Available at /http://www. Ghisi E. Orozco F.1%. ´ polis. ´ s ACR. .186(1–3):177–86. 2000. Dixon A. 15. The system that considers rainwater and greywater together is the least cost effective. 1998 [Brazilian Instalac -a ˜ o predial de a Association for Standards. they were 36. Brası´ lia. Secretaria Nacional de Irrigac tura e Reforma Agra -a ˜ o. where none of the three systems were cost effective. D. Rainwater tank capacity and potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of southeastern Brazil. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 2512–2522 followed closely by the rainwater system. it was possible to notice that the percentage of potable water that could be replaced by rainwater in A. [11] Friedler E. UFSC. in press. respectively. 2004 [Neptune—a computer programme to evaluate potable water savings and rainwater tank capacity in the residential sector] [in Portuguese].7% and 34. Meteorology Information Agency of Brazil] [in Portuguese]. 1992 [Climatic data for 1961–1990. the potential for potable water savings was higher than the previous ones. [12] Prathapar SA. the payback period would be lower than 5 years. Building and Environment 2005. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management. Experiences on greywater re-use for toilet flushing in a hotel (Mallorca Island. Eden RE. Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of Brazil. and 42. Desalination 1996. the potential for potable water savings is reduced to 14. by performing computer simulations considering local rainfall. Desalination 2006. Greywater reuse for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings—over ten years experience in Berlin. Oliveira SM. Spain). Desalination 2003. an agency of the Brazilian Government for post-graduate education. Greywater alone would be a little more cost effective than rainwater. Bressan DL. Urban Water 1999. Usos finais de a ´ blicos ´ polis-SC [Water end-uses in public buildings localizados em Floriano ´ polis-SC]. [3] Fewkes A. PhD thesis.1(4):307–16. Conclusions The potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater either separately or together was estimated for a four-storey residential building composed ´ polis.156(1–3):181–92. Water saving potential of domestic water recycling systems using greywater and rainwater in combination.41(2):204–10. As investigation into greywater reuse for urban residential properties. Norrko ¨ ping. Al Harassi A. Butler D. B and C blocks. respectively. The use of rainwater for WC flushing: the field testing of a collection system. Water Science and Technology 1999. Montibeller A. [13] Al-Jayyousi O R. Ministe ´ rio da Agricul[17] BRASIL.br/ambientecon struido/S.7%. there will not be financial savings in C block. Jamrah A. Ahmed M. By using rainwater and greywater together. the payback period would be higher. Ghisi would like to thank CAPES—Fundac -a ˜o ´vel Coordenac -a ˜o de Aperfeic . Fewkes A. located in Floriano An economic analysis was also performed in order to evaluate which system would be more cost effective.8%. but the water utility calculates the water costs assuming a consumption of 10 m3. By performing the economic analysis. Building and Environment. [16] Ghisi E. Rio de Janeiro. Al Adawi S. Imperial College. 1(4):275–84. ´ gicas (1961–1990). Schmida U.190(1–3):221–34. Building and Environment 1999. ` s cie [18] Barbetta PA.2%. southern Brazil.9% and 42. Analysis of a rainwater collection system for domestic water supply in Ringdansen. Schmidt RW. Building and Environment 2006. Therefore. Potential for potable water savings by combining the use of rainwater and greywater in houses in southern Brazil. for the scholarship (ProDoc) that allowed him to supervise this research. B and C blocks by adopting lower greywater tank capacities of 2000 litres. B and C blocks by adopting lower rainwater tank capacities of 10. [16]. ´ gua em edifı´ cios pu [20] Kammers PC. Ambiente Construı´ do 2006.antac. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management. By estimating the water end-uses. Computer simulation of domestic water re-use systems: greywater and rainwater in Combination. Acknowledgements Dr.7%. Ghisi.156(1–3):181–92. 37. [15] Dixon A. it was shown that using either rainwater or greywater separately. McFarlane S. Al Sidairi S. Estatı´ stica aplicada a ˆ ncias sociais. Floriano ´ cnicas. [4] March JG. [5] Ghisi E. When only greywater is considered. hydraulic and environmental aspects.34(6):765–72. Therefore. in A.6(1):75–90 located in Floriano [in Portuguese]. [9] Nolde E. Available online 3 April 2006.7%.41(11): 1544–50. of three blocks. Martini M. respectively. Economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in multi-storey buildings. Normais Climatolo ´ ria. Hadari M. 2003 [Statistics Applied to Social Sciences] [in Portuguese]. [14] Dixon A. References [1] Villarreal EL. As for C block. Gual M. B and C blocks was 39. Corrected Proof. [10] Christova-Boal D. [2] Herrmann T. E.F.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2522 E. Building and Environment. [7] Ghisi E. in press. NBR 5626—Cold water building installation] [in Portuguese]. Available online 24 March 2006.