You are on page 1of 15

Water Management Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 167 Issue WM8 Water Management 167 September 2014 Issue WM8
Pages 467481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/wama.12.00093
Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater Paper 1200093
recycling systems Received 01/08/2012 Accepted 26/06/2013
Published online 08/11/2013
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers Keywords: energy/environment/water supply

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Carbon costing for mixed-use


greywater recycling systems
Sara M. Zadeh MSc D. Rachel Lombardi PhD
PhD Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Director of Business Development, International Synergies Limited,
Edgbaston, UK Birmingham, UK
Dexter V. L. Hunt PhD, MEng Christopher D. F. Rogers Eur Ing, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIHT
Research Fellow/Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK Edgbaston, UK

Urbanisation in the twenty-first century is accompanied by higher water demands per unit area of available space.
The ability of water providers to meet these demands long term will require sustainable innovations in terms of
water supply. Previous research by the authors has shown that urban mixed-use systems that share greywater (GW)
between high-rise domestic dwellings (where GW production exceeds non-potable demands) and high-rise offices
(where non-potable demands exceed GW production) could overcome these difficulties. This paper explores the
carbon costs (embodied and operational) of such an urban arrangement by investigating the influence of membrane
bioreactors (MBRs), constructed wetlands (CWs), building heights, floor plate areas and cross-connection distances.
Five water supply scenarios are considered: scenario 1 (conventional mains treated offsite); scenarios 2a and 2b
(individual GW treatment via CW/MBR); scenarios 3a and 3b (shared GW treatment via CW/MBR). Over a 15-year
period it is shown that shared CW treatment had the lowest carbon dioxide emissions, saving up to 11% compared
with conventional mains, whereas a shared MBR increased carbon dioxide emissions by up to 27%. Furthermore, most
carbon dioxide savings occur when the ratio (height or floor area) of office building to residential building is 2:3.

1. Introduction efficiency measures at the expense of increasing carbon dioxide


Household water consumption in the UK has been growing emissions. While the impacts of reducing future water demands
since the 1950s, as a result of rapid population growth, through changes in efficiency of water use (i.e. technological
increased availability of clean water and a change towards more efficiency and improved user behaviour) can have a significant
consumerist lifestyles (Ofwat, 2008). The UK government impact on water demand (Hunt et al., 2012a), so too can the
continues to draw up ambitious new housing plans to meet adoption of new supply sources. These include non-potable
requirements for increased housing in the places where people (non-drinkable) supply sources such as greywater (GW) (Lazar-
want to live. However, in most cases, these places coincide ova et al., 2003; Leggett and Shaffer, 2002; Liu et al., 2010;
with areas where there is already considerable pressure on Revitt et al., 2011).
available water resources (Defra, 2008). In addition, they are
located within dense urban areas where high-rise buildings and Greywater is defined as urban wastewater from baths, showers
a mix of uses (e.g. offices and domestic) are required. This and hand basins; it excludes water streams from toilets, washing
story resonates well in both developed and developing countries machines, dishwashers and kitchen sinks as they correspond to
worldwide. more heavily polluted sources (Eriksson et al., 2002; Jefferson
et al., 2004). In most UK domestic dwellings, this water is
The UK government, water companies and the water regulators disposed of to the wastewater infrastructure system, but research
view water conservation and management as an essential over many years has shown its potential to meet internal water
contributing element towards ensuring that future water supplies demands such as toilet flushing (Eriksson et al., 2002; Jeffrey
can meet demands. This is accompanied by a greater awareness and Jefferson, 2003; Lindstrom, 2000; Otterpohl et al., 1997).
that preserving (or even enhancing) future quality of life As such, its adoption in the UK is currently accredited for
within the UK requires actions to be taken today. Allied to this, domestic properties as part of the Building Research Establish-
the Environment Agency and the Energy Saving Trust recognise ment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and the
the need for urban dwellers to use resources in a more Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) produced by the Department
sustainable manner and, in so doing, reduce the impact of for Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2010). Gener-
climate change through emissions reductions. This is facilitated ally, toilet flushing is the most frequently cited application for
through improved methods of carbon costing (DECC, 2010). In urban GW recycling. Unfortunately, its application for office use
pursuing both these avenues it is important to understand is discouraged due to the relatively low GW production
potential trade-offs, such as endorsing a range of resource accompanied with high non-potable water requirements in such

467
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

situations (Environment Agency, 2010; Leggett and Shaffer, j Step 1. Office and domestic building dimensions, their cross-
2002; Memon et al., 2005). However, it has previously been connection distances and occupancy rates are described in
shown (via net present value assessments) that the economic detail (Section 2.1).
efficiency and water saving potential of a shared domestic/office j Step 2. Water demands within these buildings are investigated
GW system far outperforms any individual GW supply system (per resident and per employee) in order that the GW
(Zadeh et al., 2010, 2013). This could have significant implica- availability and likely consumption can be calculated (Section
tions for new and existing UK building stock (much of which is 2.2).
older than 20 years) where non-potable demands can account for j Step 3. Five water treatment scenarios (one baseline and four
approximately 30% of domestic water use, reaching over 60% GW options) are introduced and respective water flow
for commercial users (Karpiscak et al., 1990). Accounting for balances are calculated (Section 2.3).
the operational and embodied energy of any conventional GW j Step 4. The system boundary for carbon cost calculations is
system is relatively unexplored, except for a few notable defined and the methodological approach for calculating
publications (Environment Agency, 2008, 2010; Glick et al., embodied and operational carbon is described (Section 2.4).
2009; Harnett et al., 2009; Memon et al., 2007). Moreover, for
the shared GW system suggested by Zadeh et al. (2010), this is In Section 3, the results for each of the five scenarios are
completely unexplored. There is thus a requirement to explore discussed and a parametric sensitivity analysis is performed.
in detail the related carbon dioxide emissions of this potential
new supply source within this supply configuration. 2.1 Step 1 building descriptions
To develop a generalised model, a newly constructed multi-storey
In Section 2, a methodology is presented for assessing the carbon residential and office building is adopted and then analysed. The
costs (embodied and operational) of two different types of GW case study was selected from within the Eastside mixed-use urban
technologies (membrane bioreactors (MBRs) and constructed regeneration area in Birmingham, UK, an area where innovative
wetlands (CWs)) adopted on an either/or basis as part of an sustainability systems were being considered in the visioning
individual (or shared) GW urban supply system for domestic and stages of planning (Hunt et al., 2008; Porter and Hunt, 2005).
office high-rise buildings. The resulting carbon costs are pre- The various dimensions within this study were adopted directly
sented in Section 3, which shows the influence of cross-connec- from the Birmingham Eastside mixed-use development.
tion distances, building heights and floor plate areas. Conclusions
are drawn in Section 4. The high-rise residential building (Figure 1) comprises

2. Methodology j ten storeys (with 3 m floor heights), a 30 m


A four-step methodology is presented for calculating embodied j 10 240 m2 total floor area
and operational energy (and related carbon dioxide emissions) for j 1024 m2 per floor, b 32 m, c 32 m
GW recycling within two high-rise buildings in an urban mixed- j 18 flats per floor (57 m2 per flat)
use area one containing domestic dwellings (i.e. flats) and the j 432 occupants (assuming 2.4 occupants per flat)
other comprising offices. j 180 toilets (see Section 2.2.1).
1 (3750 mm) PVC pipe c
1 (2500 mm) PVC pipe b
(1875 mm) PVC pipe
(1250 mm) PVC pipe

f
e

GW in a
GW out/in

d
Inside each floor Inside each flat

MBR located in
basement
12 m Office Residential
block block
Cross connection distance A

Figure 1. Dimensions of mixed-use building(s) under analysis,


with schematic for pipework within scenario 3a shown

468
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

The area of each flat (57 m2 ) is within the range of average UK 2.2.1 Water demands in residential (domestic) dwellings
room sizes in high-rise buildings (LHDG, 2010). (The minimum The water demands for a typical domestic resident can be seen
standard space requirement for one-bedroom flats for two people in Table 1 and Figure 2. The data for predicted frequency of
is 50 m2 and 61 m2 for a two-bedroom flat for three people.) uses and volume of water per use are based on past monitoring
studies (Anglian Water, 1994; BREEAM, 2011; Butler, 1991;
The high-rise office building (Figure 1) comprises Chambers et al., 2005; DCLG, 2010; Environment Agency,
2010). The calculated water demand value of 148 litres/person
j seven storeys (with 3 m floor heights), d 21 m per day reflects the average per capita water use in the UK
j 13 860 m2 total floor area domestic sector (Environment Agency, 2010). Water demands
j 1980 m2 per floor, e 30 m, f 66 m (and GW generation) within the residential high-rise building is
j 924 employees (assuming one employee per 15 m2 ) calculated by multiplying the frequency of appliance(s) use by
j 49 toilets and 12 urinals (see Section 2.2.2). volume of water consumption (per use) by the number of
occupants. This assumes a linear relationship between fre-
It is assumed that the cross-connection distance A between office quency of water use and occupancy. Such an approach has
high-rise and residential high-rise is 100 m and, without interven- been successfully adopted by many researchers, including
tion, it is assumed that both buildings would be connected to the Butler (1991), Roebuck (2007) and Hunt et al. (2012a). For the
municipal central water supply and wastewater treatment plant. purpose of this study, it is assumed that each flat has one toilet
Sizing of pipes (Figure 1) is based on BS EN 806-4:2010 (guide- and one shower. Occupancy rates are based on UK average
lines for piping in buildings) and BS 8558:2011 (recommended values as previously adopted by Roebuck (2007), the Environ-
design flow rates). The impact of changing three important ment Agency (2010) and Hunt et al. (2012a). Operation is
variables (cross-connection distance, number of floors and floor assumed to be for 365 days/year.
area) are subsequently examined for both buildings in Section 3.

2.2 Step 2 water demands and GW production 387 135


624 1946
In order to estimate likely GW volumes produced and consumed
in domestic residencies and offices, the breakdown of total water
1254 WC
demand by end-use needs to be considered. As the focus of this Hand basin
study is on UK residential and office high-rises in urban mixed- Washing machine
624
use areas, only internal demands are included. Total daily water Shower
Bath
consumption due to garden watering is excluded. Non-potable
Kitchen sink
demands in offices and domestic dwellings are highly dependent Dishwasher
on WC type (e.g. water flush, air flush and composting), size of 1135
Other
cistern adopted (i.e. 90 litres/flush) and changes in user behav-
iour. The associated impact of changes to these input parameters
3893
on supply demand requirements and carbon costs is beyond the
focus of this paper (for further information see Hunt et al. Figure 2. Domestic water usage breakdowns in UK, %
(2012a)).

Water Duration of Frequency of Total water


consumption: use: min use: per day use: l/day
l/use

WC flushing 6 4.8 28.8


Hand basin 8 0.33 3.5 9.2
Washing machine 80 0.21 16.8
Shower 12 8 0.6 57.6
Bath 116 0.16 18.6
Kitchen sink 8 0.33 3.5 9.2
Dishwasher 24.9 0.23 5.7
Other 2 2
Total daily water consumption: l/person 148

Table 1. Water usage breakdown in residential dwellings

469
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

2.2.2 Water demands in offices WC


The water demands for a typical office resident are shown in Hand basin
Table 2 and Figure 3. The data for predicted frequency of uses Urinal
and volume of water per use are based on past monitoring studies Kitchen tap
(Hills et al., 2001; Waggett and Arotsky, 2006). The calculated Cooking and drinking
value of 15 litres/person per day for male employees and Cleaning
19.4 litres/person per day for female employees reflects the
average per capita water use in the UK offices (Waggett and 68
Arotsky, 2006). Based on the findings of Waggett and Arotsky 67
(2006), there is assumed to be one occupant for every 15 m2 with
a ratio of male to female employees of 1:1 (MTP, 2008). Hence, 53
there is a direct relationship between floor area and water demand 401
that can be used. The frequency of WC flushing in female toilets
is assumed to be two times higher than in male toilets; this is
based on the fact that male urinals are included, resulting in less
240
water demand for WC use. Urinals are assumed to operate 12 h/
day, 5 days/week (assuming water saving timers are fitted) and
not 24/7, based on data from the Water Regulations Advisory
Service (WRAS, 1999). Based on the monitoring study by
Thames Waters Watercycle project at the Millennium Dome, 171
UK (Hills et al., 2001), the frequency of hand basin use is (a)
assumed to be higher in female toilets than in male toilets. For 93
cleaning purposes, it is assumed that each toilet and urinal flushes 51
twice and hand basin tap runs for 5 s. The respective water usage
41
breakdown for both male and female employees in the UK is
presented in Table 2. The number of toilets, urinals and hand
basins for offices is assumed to be one per 25 males and one per
14 female employees, plus an extra one for persons with
197 617
disability (MTP, 2008). Offices are assumed to be in operation
261 days/year.

2.2.3 GW production and use


Table 1 and Figure 4 indicate that daily domestic GW production
per person (9.2 + 57.6 + 18.6 litres) is much higher than GW (b)
demands for WC flushing (28.8 litres), while daily office GW
production per male and female employee (6.4 litres) is signifi- Figure 3. Water usage breakdown for (a) male and (b) female
cantly less than GW demands (21.6 litres). However, it can also employees in UK offices, %
be seen that excess daily domestic GW generation (56.6 litres)

Water Duration of Frequency of Total water


consumption: use: min use: per day use: l/day
l/use

WC flushing 6 1 (2) 6 (12)


Urinal 3.6 1 (0) 3.6 (0)
Hand basin 8 0.2 2 (3) 2.6 (3.8)
Kitchen tap 8 1 0.1 0.8
Canteens 1 1.0
Cleaning 12.6 0.08 (0.143) 1.0 (1.8)
Total daily water consumption: l/employee 15 (19.4)

Table 2. Water usage breakdown for male and female office employees (data
in brackets represent female usage)

470
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

90
treatment performances of each are well reported within the
80 GW generation
literature (e.g. Diaper et al., 2001; Pidou et al., 2007) and
GW demand (WC/urinal) therefore will not be repeated here. Figure 5(b) shows the daily
Volume: l/person per day

70
flow rates for scenario 2a and 2b at high-rise scale, taking into
60 Ex
c account occupancy and employee numbers.
50 to ess
m can
ee b
40 td e In scenarios 3a and 3b (Figure 5(c)), GW is collected from
ef us
30 ici ed residential showers and treated at one shared treatment unit, then
t
recycled for toilet and urinal flushing in both office and
20
residential high-rises. Scenario 3a assumes that an MBR is used
10 to treat GW while a CW is used to treat GW in scenario 3b.
0 Figure 5(c) shows the respective daily flow rates for scenarios 3a
Domestic resident Office employees and 3b at high-rise scale.
(1 male 1 female)

In all scenarios it is assumed that GW is substituted only for WC


Figure 4. GW production and consumption for a domestic
flushing demand. While GW can be used for other purposes (e.g.
resident and two office employees
gardening, car washing), these are beyond the scope of this paper.
In terms of water utility infrastructure requirements, all scenarios
are consistent with the 2011 UK Building Regulations (WCCL,
can more than meet daily office GW deficits (15.2 litres). In fact, 2011), which specify metering for all new properties, 6 litres/
the excess GW produced from one domestic resident will flush for toilets and no more than 7.5 litres/bowl per hour for
approximately meet the GW demands of four office employees urinals. While evapo-transpiration has not been included here it
(two males and two females). Cross-connection therefore appears might be significant during the summer months when losses of up
to be a sensible approach based on flow volumes at individual to 15 litres/m2 per day could occur. This has important implica-
scale. The ability of supplies to meet demands at high-rise scale tions for scenarios 2a and 3a. Within the current design, supply is
will ultimately depend on domestic occupancy rates and office still able to meet demand. However, were values of evapo-
employee rates; these are considered in Section 2.3. transpiration to exceed this value (say in the case of climate
change) this may not be the case and additional mains water
2.3 Step 3 defining GW recycling scenarios would be available. Alternatively, supplementary GW supplies
The five scenarios analysed in this paper are as follows (i.e. from hand basin and baths) could be included within the
design at a marginal change in cost.
j 1 mains supply scenario (no GW)
j 2a individual GW system (MBR) 2.4 Step 4 calculating carbon dioxide emissions
j 2b individual GW system (CW) Total carbon dioxide emissions are assumed to be the summation
j 3a shared GW system (MBR) of embodied energy (Section 2.4.1), operational energy (Section
j 3b shared GW system (CW). 2.4.2) and carbon dioxide savings (Section 2.4.3). The system
analysis boundary adopted within this paper for all five scenarios
In scenario 1 (Figure 5(a)), it is assumed that current practice for is presented in Figure 6. Since the aim of this study is to compare
water supply and wastewater removal occurs; that is, centralised the performance of two GW systems, the influence of carbon
supply and treatment, with no GW recycling and/or reuse. Figure dioxide emissions related to transport, delivery, distribution,
5(a) shows the respective daily flow rates for scenario 1 at high- system assembly and site installation is not included. The water
rise scale. from the two GW technologies (MBR and CW) will ultimately
enter the wastewater system and will have different water quality
In scenarios 2a and 2b (Figure 5(b)), distinction is made between characteristics and, in theory, would require different levels of
potable and non-potable water. Within a residential building it is water treatment downstream. Detailing of the cleaning processes
assumed that GW is collected from all showers (12 litres/min) for specific wastewater management/treatment is beyond the
and used for flushing standard toilets (6 litres/flush). Initial scope of the current research.
estimations (Table 1) show that this supply source more than
meets demands and therefore GW from basins and baths is not 2.4.1 Embodied energy
required. In office buildings, the only source of GW is from hand Generic embodied carbon components and related parameters
basins, which is subsequently used to flush standard toilets used in this paper are detailed within Table 3 (MBR) and Table 4
(6 litres/flush) and urinals (7.5 litres/bowl per hour). In scenario (CW). The total embodied carbon is calculated by multiplying
2a it is assumed that an MBR is used to treat GW while in respective unit weights by volumes required. The resulting
scenario 2b a CW is adopted. Information on the physical embodied energy and carbon calculated for scenarios 2a and 3a
components of these systems is presented in Section 2.4. The (after 15 years of operation) are shown on the right-hand side of

471
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

WTP
7982
Domestic Commercial

Potable
water
WC Shower Other Other Basin WC/urinal
1244 2488 2661 297 295 997

Waste
water

WWTP
7804
(a) Scenario 1

WTP
7982
Domestic Commercial
Potable
water

WC Shower Other Other Basin WC/urinal


1244 2488 2661 297 295 997

Treated Treated
GW GW
Waste
water

WWTP
6265
(b) Scenarios 2a and 2b

WTP
7982
Domestic Commercial
Potable
water

WC Shower Other Other Basin WC/urinal


1244 2488 2661 297 295 997

Treated
GW
Waste
water

WWTP
549

(c) Scenarios 3a and 3b


3
Figure 5. Volume balance in m /day for various water supply
options. WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater
treatment plant

472
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

Transportation (EE) Construction (EE)


Distribution Site installation
Site delivery

Manufacturing (EE) Operational energy (OE) End of life (EE)


Materials Pumping requirement Material recycling
Water treatment Disposal

Maintenance (EE)
Consumables Analysis
Replacement parts boundary

Figure 6. Carbon accounting boundary for GW systems.


EE, embodied energy

Table 3 and those for scenarios 2b and 3b are shown in Table 4. system boundaries adopted within this study (Figure 6) and
In both tables, the respective total embodied carbon is shown in values adopted for Eww are compatible with those adopted by the
the bottom rows. Estimations for mass and material inventories of Environment Agency when considering the energy and carbon
system components are based upon existing literature and contact dioxide implications of domestic rainwater harvesting and GW
with un-named suppliers. Data concerning the cradle-to-gate recycling systems in the UK (Environment Agency, 2010). The
energy and carbon dioxide emissions of these materials are taken energy requirement for pumping water through the treatment
from the University of Bath Inventory of Carbon and Energy process and from the final storage tank to point of end-use was
(Hammond and Jones, 2011). The additional embodied carbon estimated using the standard pump power equation
relating to the following items, which are replaced at a time
consistent with effective service-life (listed from shortest to QH p
P2
longest), are included within the calculations 2: 

j chemicals added according to volume of GW treated


(Table 3) where P2 is the energy delivered to the pump (W); Q is the flow
j filters replaced after 5 years (Kirk and DellIsola, 1995) rate (m3 /s);  is the overall pump efficiency (i.e. mechanical and
j CW beds replaced (i.e. new sand, gravel and plants) every hydraulic), which is assumed to be 65% (Cengel and Cimbala,
6 years (CW leading companies in UK) 2005); is the specific weight of water (N/m3 ); and Hp is the
j MBR membranes replaced after 10 years of operation required head to be supplied by the pump (m). Hp is given by
(Mercoiret, 2008)
j pumps replaced after 10 years (Kirk and DellIsola, 1995). 3: H p Z H f

2.4.2 Operational energy


In the operation phase the energy requirements for pumping and where Z is the elevation difference (the maximum value is equal
treating mains water, GW and wastewater are calculated using to the height of the top floor of the building plus the depth of
Equations 15. The respective parameters used therein are buried pipe underground) and Hf is the head lost in pipes due
presented in Table 5. In all scenarios, there is an energy to friction, which is estimated using the HazenWilliams equa-
requirement related to (pipeline) delivery of mains water and tion (Cengel and Cimbala, 2005). The energy for treating GW via
removal of wastewater, as shown by MBR and CW is calculated using Equation 4 and 5 respectively

1: P1 V w Ew V ww Eww 4: P3 V GW EMBR

in which Vw is the volume of potable water delivered (m3 ), Ew is


the energy requirement per m3 of potable water delivered (Table
5: P4 V GW ECW
5), Vww is the volume of wastewater removed (m3 ) and Eww is the
energy requirement per m3 of wastewater removed (Table 5)
(note that the value of Eww refers only to wastewater distribution where VGW is the volume of GW treated (m3 ) and EMBR and ECW
(i.e. fouled water pumping) and does not include treatment). The are the energy requirements per m3 of GW treated when using

473
474
Water Management
Volume 167 Issue WM8

Generic parameters used within all MBR scenarios Application to scenario 2a Application to scenario 3a

Component Material Unit weight Energy: TJ/kg Amount Net Energy: TJ Amount Net Energy: TJ
(t CO2 /kg) required weight: kg (t CO2 ) required weight: kg (t CO2 )

Tanksa PVC 1.3 g/l 77.2 (3.1) 320 000 litres 416 0.032 (1.29) 338 461 litres 440 0.034 (1.36)
Membraneb Polypropylene 63 g/cartridge 95.89 (3.43) 95 cartridges 6.02 0.0006 (0.02) 143 cartridges 9.04 0.0009 (0.03)
Pumpscd Cast iron 24.62 (1.91) 84 0.002 (0.16) 48 0.001 (0.09)
Bronze 69.34 (6.07) 42 0.003 (0.25) 24 0.002 (0.15)
Stainless steel 56.7 (6.15) 516 0.03 (3.17) 302 0.017 (1.86)
Pipesc PVC (12.50 mm) 0.24 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 10 324 m 2458 0.165 (7.92) 8394 m 1999 0.135 (6.31)
PVC (18.75 mm) 0.47 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 390 m 110 0.007 (0.36)
PVC (25.00 mm) 0.64 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 352 m 237 0.016 (0.75) 352 m 167 0.011 (0.53)
PVC (31.25 mm) 0.76 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 180 m 115 0.008 (0.37) 125 m 80 0.005 (0.25)
PVC (50.00 mm) 1.01 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 33 m 33 0.002 (0.11) 33 m 33 0.002 (0.11)
PVC (62.5 mm) 1.59 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 97 m 154 0.01 (0.5) 97 m 154 0.010 (0.5)
PVC (100.0 mm) 2.99 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 58 m 73 0.005 (0.24)
Total 3182 0.214 (10.27) Total 2434 0.164 (7.86)
Chemicalsb NaOH 39.99 g/mol 11.87 (3.38) 27.7 0.0004 (0.11) 41.6 0.0005 (0.14)
36.46 g/mol
recycling systems

HCl 5.89 0.0001 (0.04) 8.85 0.0001 (0.03)


Total 0.282 (15.29) Total 0.219 (11.52)
a
Sized according to GW production and demand (m3 /day).
b
Added according to design guidelines and recommendations from leading British manufacturers .
c
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

Sized according to flow rates (m3 /day) and building dimensions (BSI, 2012; ETB, 2011; Pipestock, 2012).
d
Based on a Johnsons CombiBloc Pump (JPC, 2012).
Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater

Table 3. Embodied energy (and related carbon dioxide emissions) after 15 years for MBR system by component type
Generic parameters used within all CW scenarios Application to scenario 2b Application to scenario 3b
Water Management

Component Material Unit weight Energy: TJ/kg Amount Net weight: Energy: TJ Amount Net weight: Energy: TJ
Volume 167 Issue WM8

(t CO2 /kg) required kg (t CO2 ) required kg (t CO2 )

Tanksa PVC 1.3 g/l 77.2 (3.1) 160 000 litres 208 0.016 (0.65) 169 000 litres 220 0.017 (0.68)
CW bedbc Sand (0.5 mm), 1992 kg/m3 0.008 (0.005) 401 m3 798 792 0.006 (4.07) 602 m3 1 199 913 0.01 (6.12)
00.3 m
Fine gravel (6 mm), 2002 kg/m3 0.3 (0.017) 152 m3 305 829 0.09 (5.19) 229 m3 459 405 0.14 (7.78)
0.30.4 m
Medium gravel (24.4 mm), 2002 kg/m3 0.3 (0.017) 382 m3 76 457 434 0.22 (12.99) 573 m3 1 148 511 0.34 (19.51)
0.400.65 m
Cobbles (90 mm), 2550 kg/m3 0.3 (0.017) 134 m3 340 850 0.102 (5.79) 201 m3 512 011 0.15 (8.70)
0.650.75 m
Pumpsde Cast iron 24.62 (1.91) 84 0.002 (0.16) 48 0.001 (0.09)
Bronze 69.34 (6.07) 42 0.003 (0.25) 24 0.002 (0.15)
Stainless steel 56.7 (6.15) 336 0.019 (2.06) 168 0.009 (1.03)
Pipesd PVC (12.50 mm) 0.24 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 10 324 m 2458 0.165 (7.93) 8394 m 1999 0.135 (6.45)
PVC (18.75 mm) 0.47 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 352 m 110 0.007 (0.36)
PVC (25.00 mm) 0.64 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 352 m 531 0.036 (1.72) 983 m 713 0.048 (2.31)
PVC (31.25 mm) 0.76 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 350 m 224 0.015 (0.72) 175 m 112 0.008 (0.36)
PVC (50.00 mm) 1.01 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 84 m 85 0.006 (0.28) 84 m 85 0.006 (0.28)
PVC (62.50 mm) 1.59 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 84 m 134 0.009 (0.43) 84 m 134 0.009 (0.43)
recycling systems

PVC (100.0 mm) 2.99 kg/m 67.5 (3.23) 58 m 343 0.002 (1.11) 82 m 492 0.033 (1.59)
Total 3886 0.26 (12.55) Total 3536 0.238 (11.42)
Chemicalsf Chlorine 0.003 kg/m3 11.87 (3.29) 2095 0.024 (6.89) 3825 0.045 (12.58)
Total 0.75 (50.6) Total 0.959 (68.12)
a
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

Sized according to GW production and demand (m3 /day).


b
Based on Memon et al. (2007) and Stefanakis and Tsihrintzis (2009).
c
A CW bed area of 1 m2 /person is required for effective water treatment (Frazer-Williams, 2007).
d
Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater

Sized according to flow rates (m3 /day) and building dimensions (BSI, 2012; ETB, 2011).
e
Based on a Johnsons CombiBloc Pump (JPC, 2012).
f
Added according to design guidelines and recommendations from leading British manufacturers.

Table 4. Embodied energy (and related carbon dioxide emissions) by component type for a CW system

475
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

Operational kWh/m3 (t CO2 /Ml) Assumption Source


energy

Mains water Ew 0.73 (0.41)b Median carbon intensities of 410 kg CO2e /Ml for Environment Agency (2010)
delivery delivered mains water. It is assumed that 0.547 kg CO2 Defra (2011)
(Equation 1) represents 1 kWh of mains electricity usage
Mains wastewater Eww 0.19 (0.10)c Median carbon intensities of 104.3 kg CO2e /Ml for foul Environment Agency (2010)
removala water pumping (this excludes treatment) Water UK (2009)
(Equation 1)
It is assumed that 0.547 kg CO2 represents 1 kWh of Defra (2011)
mains electricity usage
On-site water Varies with building Pumping is required for redistribution of treated GW Cengel and Cimbala (2005)
pumping dimensions and GW collection is assumed gravity fed
(Equations 2 and 3) cross-connection
distances
On-site MBR EMBR 1.5 (0.825)d Based on previous studies and related to volumes of Nolde (2000)
treatment GW treated Friedler and Hadari (2006)
(Equation 4) Mercoiret (2008)
On-site CW ECW 0.014 (0.0077) Based on previous studies and related to volumes of Dillon (2003)
treatment GW treated. Energy use is associated with use of Personal communications
(Equation 5) blowers for aeration of system. This is particularly true with leading CW companies
for vertical flow wetlands within UK
a
Wastewater removal refers to sewage or foul water pumping alone and does not include the additional cost of treatment.
b
A value of 0.30 t CO2 /Ml for water supply is reported by Water UK (2009).
C
A value of 0.75 t CO2 /Ml for wastewater treatment is reported by Water UK (2009).
d
For direct comparison, Environment Agency (2010) reports a range of values from 3.5 to 2.5 kWh/m3 when considering the operational energy
of small- to larger-scale domestic MBR systems respectively this highlights the economies of scales.

Table 5. Operational energy parameters used within analyses

MBR or CW respectively (Table 5). The total operational energy highest growth rates (and hence sequestration potential) will occur
is the summation of P1 , P2 and P3 (for MBR) and P1 , P2 and P4 from spring through to summer and decomposition of organic
for CW. Carbon dioxide emissions are subsequently calculated matter will result in the release of carbon dioxide at different rates
using a UK emissions factor from energy generation rated at throughout the year. While energy recovery from GW is possible
0.55 kgCO2 /kWh of energy used (Defra, 2011). This is based on and could be used as an additional carbon saving option (i.e. to
the mix of UK fuel supplies of 35.7% coal, 48.9% natural gas, preheat mains water), it is beyond the scope of this paper.
5.2% nuclear, 6.5% renewable and 3.7% other fuels (DECC,
2012). In Section 3, an operational life of 15 years, as consistent
3. Results and discussion
with findings from the literature, is assumed for all systems
(Friedler and Hadari, 2006; Memon et al., 2005). 3.1 Initial analysis: influence of scenario choice on
carbon dioxide emissions
2.4.3 Carbon dioxide savings Table 6 shows embodied carbon dioxide emissions for all five
Carbon dioxide savings will be achieved where a reduction in scenarios over 15 years of operation. When considering the total
treated mains water and wastewater distribution requirements carbon dioxide emissions, in the absence of any carbon dioxide
occur. Additionally, for scenario 2b (CW) and scenario 3b (CW) it savings ((iv) in Table 6), the order of scenarios (highest to lowest
is assumed that growing reeds act as a carbon sink, thereby emissions) is scenario 3a (+25% compared with scenario 1) .
reducing carbon dioxide emissions by locking away atmospheric scenario 2a (+21%) . scenario 3b (+9%) . scenario 2b (+7%)
carbon dioxide in their structure. The average rate at which they . scenario 1 (0%). In other words, MBR systems are the most
do this is estimated to be 3.3 kg/m2 per year, with an accuracy of carbon-impacting option at this scale (shared and individual high-
15% (Dixon et al., 2003; Vanyarkho and Arkebauer, 1995). It rise basis) followed by CW systems. The least carbon-impacting
should be noted that this is an average yearly value for carbon option is conventional mains supply. However, when carbon
sequestration in reed beds. Although reed beds can act as a carbon savings are included within the analysis ((vi) in Table 6), the
sink, this should not be considered as an ultimate process; the ordering and therefore carbon impact changes significantly:

476
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

Scenario (after 15 years of operation)

1 2a 2b 3a 3b

Residential Office Residential Office Residential Office Sharing Sharing

(i) Embodied carbona N/A N/A 9.13 6.16 37.83 12.81 11.52 68.12
.
15 29 (combined) .
50 6 (combined)
(ii) Operational carbon: mains 179.25 31.59 144.27 25.65 144.27 25.65 154.37 154.37
water delivery and .
210 84 .
169 92 (combined) .
169 92 (combined)
wastewater removalb
(iii) Operational carbon: GW 59.42 10.49 4.08 0.91 97.85 6.88
treatment and distribution .
69 91 (combined) .
4 99 (combined)
(iv) Total (i) + (ii) + (iii) 210.84 255.14 225.54 263.74 229.36
(v) Carbon saving 0.0 00. 0.0 .
21 38 5.08 0.0 39.76
(vi) Total (iv)  (v) 210.84 .
255 14 .
199 08 263.74 189.61
a
This represents additional embodied carbon (i.e. as compared with scenario 1).
b
Wastewater removal refers to sewage or foul water pumping and does not include the additional cost of treatment.

Table 6. Carbon dioxide emissions (in t CO2 ) in each scenario

scenario 3a (+25%) . scenario 2a (+21%) . scenario 1 (+0%) and 40 floors (120 m). The impact on total carbon dioxide
. scenario 2b (5%) . scenario 3b (10%). In other words, emissions is shown in Figure 7. Linear increases in total carbon
MBR systems would significantly increase carbon impacts at this dioxide emissions with floor number can be seen in all five
scale, whereas CW systems would marginally reduce carbon scenarios, but relative changes in carbon savings are broadly
impacts. The reduced requirement for water and wastewater similar (i.e. scenario 3b achieves 4% savings (compared with
treatment ((ii) in Table 6) is an influencing factor here; saving scenario 1) at five floors and 8% savings at 40 floors. For any
41 t CO2 (15 m3 /day, see Figure 5) in scenarios 2a and 2b and floor number, domestic GW supplies (from showers) are able to
56.47 t CO2 (22 m3 /day, see Figure 5) in scenarios 3a and 3b. The meet domestic GW demands; however, below five floors they are
introduction of a carbon sink (i.e. CW) in scenarios 2b and 3b insufficient to fully meet shared GW demands and this reduces
further reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 10 t CO2 and the carbon savings in scenarios 3a and 3b. In such cases, GW
20 t CO2 respectively (Table 6). This indicates that MBR might supplies could have been increased through incorporating hand
be considered an applicable localised solution for reducing mains basins and/or washing machines, but this is beyond the scope of
water demands, with, however, significant impacts on carbon the current study.
dioxide emissions. CW, when adopted on a shared high-rise basis,
would equally reduce mains water demand while reducing emis- The second option assumes that the height of the residential high-
sions by up to 10% (if adopted on a shared GW system basis). rise is unchanged (i.e. ten floors) and only the height of the office
However, space requirements may be an influential factor here,
particularly in urban areas where land is scarce and expensive, Scenario 3a Scenario 3b
1000
although the land requirements within the example used here are 900 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b
less than the footprint for each high-rise (i.e. 432 m2 for the 800 Scenario 1
Emissions: t CO2

residential and 103 m2 for the office when using individual 700
systems). Therefore, location of the CW on a roof space might be 600
considered (with the requirement for additional pumping). 500
400
300
3.2 Sensitivity analysis 1: influence of floor number
200
(height) on carbon dioxide emissions Baseline
100
(vi) in Table 6
The impact of floor numbers on carbon dioxide emissions was 0
considered via two analysis options. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of residential floors

In the first option, the height of the office high-rise is assumed Figure 7. Influence of residential block height on carbon dioxide
unchanged (i.e. seven floors) and only the height of the residential emissions
high-rise (a in Figure 1) is varied between five floors (15 m)

477
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

high-rise (d in Figure 1) is varied, between five floors (15 m) and shows that carbon dioxide emissions increase linearly with resi-
40 floors (120 m). The impact on total emissions is shown in dential floor area. However, when the total residential floor area is
Figure 8. There is a linear increase in carbon dioxide emissions reduced below 7000 m2 (approximately half of the office floor
as the number of office floors increases, but the slope is much area), shared GW supplies are insufficient to meet shared GW
shallower than in Figure 7. This change is related to the fact that demands (i.e. scenarios 3a and 3b); additional mains water supplies
offices have significantly lower daily flushing requirements per are therefore required and this significantly reduces carbon dioxide
employee (Table 2) than domestic residents (Table 1). In addition, emission savings. Subsequently, at 4000 m2 (point C), scenario 3b
there is still sufficient surplus domestic GW production to meet becomes more carbon impacting than scenarios 1 and 2b; at
increasing office GW demands up to 15 floors. However, when 2000 m2 , the emissions from all five scenarios are broadly similar.
the office high-rise comprises more than 15 floors, surplus GW At 30 000 m2 , the relative changes in scenario 3a (+22% compared
supply from the residential showers is insufficient to meet shared with scenario 1) and scenario 3b (10% compared with scenario
GW demands (indicated by a marginal increase in slope at this 1) are broadly comparable with that found at the baseline.
point). Once again, alternative sources of GW are not considered
and hence demands must be met through mains water top-up, In the second option, only the total office floor area is varied
thereby increasing associated carbon dioxide emissions. When between 2000 and 30 000 m2 (i.e. bc 286 to 4286 in Figure 1);
office floor numbers are increased from 5 to 9 to 40, the carbon the total residential floor area (10 240 m2 ) and building heights
dioxide savings of scenario 3b (as compared with scenario 1) are assumed unchanged. The impact on total emissions is shown
increase from 6% to 11% and then decrease to 4% respectively. in Figure 10. At 2000 m2 (office to resident floor ratio 1:5), the
The maximum saving corresponds to an office to residential carbon savings of scenarios 2b and 3b (6% compared with
height ratio of approximately 3:2. This shows significant contrast scenario 1) become broadly similar and the added advantage of a
with the first option and shows greater sensitivity between carbon mixed-use rather than single-use GW system with MBR treatment
dioxide savings and office height when adopting a mixed-use
800
system CW system. In addition, scenario 2a becomes a less Scenario 3a Scenario 3b
carbon-impacting option than scenario 3a at point A (22 floors) 700
Scenario 2a Scenario 2b
and has 27% higher carbon dioxide emissions at 40 floors. At the 600
Emissions: t CO2

Scenario 1
same number of floors (point B), scenario 2b becomes more 500
carbon impacting than scenario 1. 400
300
3.3 Sensitivity analysis 2: influence of floor area on
200
carbon dioxide emissions Baseline
100
The impact of floor area on carbon dioxide emissions was C (vi) in Table 6
0
considered via two analysis options.
2000 4000 7000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000
Total residential floor area: m2
In the first option, only the total residential floor area (hence the
number of flats) is varied between 2000 and 30 000 m2 (i.e. Figure 9. Influence of total residential floor area on carbon
ef 2003000 in Figure 1); the height of both high-rises and total dioxide emissions
office floor area (13 860 m2 ) is assumed unchanged. Figure 9

Scenario 3a Scenario 3b
500 Scenario 3a Scenario 3b 350 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b
450 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b
300 Scenario 1
400 Scenario 1
B 250
Emissions: t CO2

A
Emissions: t CO2

350
300 200
250
150 D
200
150 100 Baseline
Baseline (vi) in Table 6
100
(vi) in Table 6 50
50
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2000 5000 7000 10 000 13 860 150 00 20 000 25 000 30 000
Number of office floors Total office floor area: m2

Figure 8. Influence of office block height on carbon dioxide Figure 10. Influence of total office floor area on carbon dioxide
emissions emissions

478
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

(scenario 3b) is less pronounced. However, as this ratio decreases, on carbon dioxide emissions. However, a shared GW (CW
the carbon reduction advantages of scenario 3b become more treatment) system does appear to hold significant potential to
apparent. For example, at 15 000 m2 (office to resident floor ratio reduce carbon dioxide emissions, although these are significantly
of 3:2), a maximum reduction in emissions of 11% is achieved. behind the 80% required at UK levels for 2050. Future research
This reduces to 9% at 30 000 m2 : This is not surprising given that should now look to investigate the influence of inter-building
GW production from residential showers becomes insufficient to GW sharing when considering users from within other building
meet shared GW demands at 15 000 m2 and therefore mains top- types and perhaps investigate its impact at a larger city scale.
up is subsequently required. Allied to this is the influence of changes to consumer demands
through technology (e.g. water-efficient appliances) and user
3.4 Sensitivity analysis 3: influence of cross-connection behaviour (e.g. taking shorter showers). In addition, closer
distance on carbon dioxide emissions inspection of treatment and recycling systems is required (e.g. the
In this analysis, the cross-connection distance between the two adoption of moving bed bio-film reactors with heat recovery). It
buildings (A in Figure 1) was increased from 50 to 500 m and the is hoped that these alternative options could bring us closer to
remaining parameters were unchanged, thereby influencing opera- rather than further away from an 80% carbon dioxide emissions
tional energy (due to changing head losses and related energy reduction target, particularly within city centres.
requirement for pumping) and embodied energy (due to changes
in pipe length; carbon costs due to trenching are ignored here Acknowledgements
(see Hunt et al., 2012b)). A 50 m increase in cross-connection
distance produced a marginal increase in carbon dioxide emis- This study was funded by EPSRC under the current Liveable
sions of 0.01%. Cities programme (grant EP/J017698) and the previous Sustain-
able Urban Environments Urban Futures (grant EP/F007426/1).
4. Conclusions The University of Birmingham provided a postgraduate teaching
This paper has introduced five water supply scenarios for a assistantship to S. M. Zadeh.
mixed-use setting considering one residential high-rise and one
office high-rise. The following conclusions can be made based REFERENCES
upon the analyses performed. Anglian Water (1994) Survey of Domestic Consumption. Anglian
Water, Huntingdon, UK.
j Surplus domestic GW from one resident can approximately BREEAM (2011) SD5073-2.0: 2011 Technical Manual.
meet the GW demands of four office employees. Therefore, See http://www.breeam.org/ (accessed 25/06/2012).
cross-connection appears to be a sensible approach based on BSI (2012) BS EN 806-5: 2012: Specification for installations
flow volumes at individual scale. inside buildings conveying water for human consumption.
j The combined inflow/outflow for the domestic and office Operation and maintenance. See http://www.techstreet.com/
high-rise examined can be reduced by 19% when GW cgibin/detail?doc_nobs_en%7C806_5_2012;product_id
systems are adopted in isolation. This can be improved to 1827667 (accessed 18/05/2012).
28% when GW is shared. Butler D (1991) The influence of dwelling occupancy and day of
j When considering a 15-year operation period, shared CW the week on domestic appliance wastewater discharges.
treatment achieved the lowest carbon dioxide emissions, Building and Environment 28(1): 7379.
saving up to 11% compared with conventional mains. A Cengel Y and Cimbala J (2005) Fluid Mechanics. Fundamental
shared MBR increased carbon dioxide emissions by up to and Applications. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston,
27%. MA, USA.
j Most carbon dioxide savings for the shared GW system occur Chambers VK, Creasey JD, Glennie EB, Kowalski M and
when the ratio (height or floor area) of office building to Marshallsay D (2005) Increasing the Value of Domestic Water
residential building is approximately 2:3. Below this value Use Data for Demand Management Summary Report.
there is insufficient domestic GW supply to meet shared GW Swindon, UK, WRc collaborative project CP187, report no.
demands. P6805.
j The influence of cross-connection distance is less influential DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government)
carbon dioxide emissions increase by only 0.01% for each (2010) Code for Sustainable Homes. Technical Guide.
50 m increase. HMSO, London, UK.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2010)
This work shows that the choice of GW treatment system can Estimated Impacts of Energy and Climate Change Policies on
influence greatly both water savings and energy savings (and Energy Prices and Bills. See http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/
related carbon dioxide emissions), highlighting the delicate decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/236-
balance that exists between each. The worst choice an urban impacts-energy-climate-change-policies.pdf (accessed
planner could make is to seek the adoption of GW systems 27/02/2011).
(individual or multi-use) that unwittingly cause a rebound effect DECC (2012) Fuel Mix Disclosure Data Table. See http://

479
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/ the Millennium Dome. Water Science and Technology 43(10):


fuel_mix/fuel_mix.aspx (accessed 07/02/2012). 287294.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Hunt DVL, Lombardi DR, Rogers CDF and Jefferson I (2008)
(2008) Future Water: The Governments Water Strategy for Application of sustainability indicators in decision-making
England. See http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/ processes for urban regeneration projects. Proceedings of the
water/strategy/pdf/future-water.pdf (accessed 14/11/2009). Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability
Defra (2011) Guidelines to Defra/DECCs GHG Conversion 161(1): 7791.
Factors for Company Reporting. See http:// Hunt DVL, Lombardi D, Farmani R et al. (2012a) Urban futures
archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/ and the code for sustainable homes. Proceedings of the
110819-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors.pdf (accessed 18/ Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability
11/2011). 165(1): 3758.
Diaper C, Jefferson B, Parson S and Judd S (2001) Water Hunt DVL, Nash D and Rogers CDF (2012b) Sustainable utility
recycling technologies in the UK. Journal of the Chartered placement via multi utility tunnels. Tunnelling and
Institution of Water and Environmental Management 156(4): Underground Space Technology. See http://dx.doi.org/
282286. 10.1016/j.tust.2012.02.001.
Dillon J (2003) Treatment Technology Review and Assessment for Jefferson B, Palmer A, Jeffrey P, Stuetz R and Judd S (2004)
Petroleum Process Waters. MSc thesis, Imperial College Greywater characterisation and its impact on the selection
London, London, UK. and operation of technologies for urban reuse. Water Science
Dixon A, Simon M and Burkitt T (2003) Assessing the and Technology 50(2): 157164.
environmental impact of two options for small-scale Jeffrey P and Jefferson B (2003) Public receptivity regarding in-
wastewater treatment: comparing a reed bed and an aerated house water recycling: results from a UK survey. Water
biological filter using a life cycle approach. Ecological Science and Technology: Water Supply 3(3): 109116.
Engineering 20(4): 297307. JPC (Johnson Pump Company) (2012) http://www.johnson-
Environment Agency (2008) Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Water pump.com/ (accessed 13/02/2012).
Supply and Demand Management Options. Environment Karpiscak MM, Foster KE and Schmidt N (1990) Residential water
Agency, London, UK, report SC070010/SR. conservation. Journal of the American Water Resources
Environment Agency (2010) Energy and Carbon Implications of Association 26(6): 939948.
Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling. Environment Kirk SJ and DellIsola AJ (1995) Life Cycle Costing for Design
Agency, London, UK, report SC090018. Professionals. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Eriksson E, Auffarth K, Henze M and Ledin A (2002) Lazarova V, Hills S and Birks R (2003) Using recycled water for
Characteristics of grey wastewater. Urban Water 4(7): non-potable, urban uses; a review with particular reference to
85104. toilet flushing. Water Science and Technology 3(4): 6977.
ETB (Engineering Tool Box) (2011) See http:// Leggett DJ and Shaffer P (2002) Buildings that save water
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pvc-cpvc-pipes-dimensions- rainwater and greywater use. Proceedings of the Institution of
d_795.html (accessed 12/10/2011). Civil Engineers Municipal Engineer 151(3): 189196.
Frazer-Williams RAD (2007) Constructed Wetlands for Advanced LHDG (London Housing Design Guide) (2010) See http://
Treatment and Reuse. PhD thesis, University of Cranfield, www.designforlondon.gov.uk/uploads/media/Interim_
Cranfield, UK. London_Housing_Design_Guide.pdf (accessed 19/04/2012).
Friedler E and Hadari M (2006) Economic feasibility of on-site Lindstrom CR (2000) GreyWater: Facts about Greywater What
greywater reuse in multi storey buildings. Desalination it is, How to Treat it, When and Where to Use it. Oasis
190(1): 221234. Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA. See www.graywater.com.
Glick S, Guggemos AA and Prakash S (2009) Economic and Liu S, Butler D, Memon FA et al. (2010) Impacts of residence
environmental analysis of residential greywater systems for time during storage on potential of water saving for grey
toilet use. Proceedings of Construction Research Congress, water recycling system. Water Research 44(1): 267277.
Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 655664. Memon FA, Butler D, Han W et al. (2005) Economic assessment
Hammond G and Jones C (2011) Inventory of Carbon & Energy tool for greywater recycling systems. Proceedings of the
(ICE), Version 2. Sustainable Energy Research Team (SERT), Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, 3(1): 155161.
Bath, UK. Memon FA, Zheng A, Butler D et al. (2007) Life cycle impact
Harnett LW, Nicolson JD, Tennant RJ, Dandy GC and Maier HR assessment of greywater recycling technologies for new
(2009) Sustainability trade-offs in the planning and design of developments. Journal of Environmental Monitoring
cluster scale greywater reuse systems. Proceedings of the Assessment 129(1): 2735.
18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, Mercoiret L (2008) Operating Cost Model for a Neighbourhood
33363342. Grey Water Recycling Scheme. MSc thesis, Cranfield
Hills S, Smith A, Hardy P and Birks R (2001) Water recycling at University, Cranfield, UK.

480
Water Management Carbon costing for mixed-use greywater
Volume 167 Issue WM8 recycling systems
Zadeh, Hunt, Lombardi and Rogers

MTP (Market Transformation Programme) (2008) Domestic scale vertical flow constructed wetlands treating simulated
Water Consumption in Domestic and Non Domestic municipal wastewater: effect of various design parameters.
Properties. BNWAT22, version 1.1. MTP, London, UK. Desalination 248(1): 753770.
Nolde E (2000) Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in Vanyarkho OV and Arkebauer TJ (1995) Responses of
multi-story buildings over ten years experience in Berlin. Phragmites australis and Scirpus acutus leaf and canopy gas
Urban Water 1(4): 275284. exchange to environmental conditions. Proceedings of
Ofwat (Office of Water Services) (2008) Water Companies must Ecological Society of America. Annual Meeting: The
Increase Water Efficiency Savings by 40 Per Cent. See http:// trandisciplinary nature of ecology, 30 July 2 August 1995,
www.ofwat.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressnotices2008/ Snowbird, Utah.
prs_pn3608_wateffsav (accessed 01/11/2010). Waggett R and Arotsky C (2006) Key Performance Indicators
Otterpohl R, Grottker M and Lange J (1997) Sustainable water and Benchmarks for Offices and Hotels. CIRIA, London, UK,
and waste management in urban areas. Water Science and report C657.
Technology 35(9): 121133. Water UK (2009) See http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-
Pidou M, Memon FA, Stephenson T, Jefferson B and Jeffrey P releases/sustainability-indicators-2008-09/sustainability-
(2007) Greywater recycling: treatment options and 2009.pdf (accessed 29/01/2013).
applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers WCCL (Wilkinson Construction Consultants Ltd) (2011) Effects of
Engineering Sustainability 160(3): 119131. Recent and Future Changes. See http://www.theapproved
Pipestock (2012) See http://www.pipestock.com/general_info.php inspector.com/CIOB%202011.pdf (accessed 19/05/2012).
(accessed 17/05/2012). WRAS (Water Regulations Advisory Service) (1999) Reclaimed
Porter EJ and Hunt DVL (2005) Birmingham eastside story: Water Systems: Information about Installing, Modifying or
making steps towards sustainability. Local Environment 10(5): Maintaining Reclaimed Water Systems. WRAS, Oakdale, UK,
525542. IGN 9-02-04.
Revitt DM, Eriksson E and Donner E (2011) The implications of Zadeh SM, Lombardi DR, Hunt DVL and Rogers CDF (2010)
household greywater treatment and reuse for municipal Local area greywater symbiosis approach to more
wastewater flows and micropollutant loads. Water Research sustainable urban water management. In The Sustainable
45(4): 15491560. World (Brebbia CA (ed.)). WIT Press, Southampton, UK,
Roebuck RM (2007) A Whole Life Costing Approach for pp. 193204.
Rainwater Harvesting Systems. PhD thesis, University of Zadeh SM, Hunt DV, Lombardi DR and Rogers CD (2013) Shared
Bradford, Bradford, UK. Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource
Stefanakis AI and Tsihrintzis VA (2009) Performance of pilot- Savings and Investments. Sustainability 5(7): 28872912.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?


To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers
should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.

481