Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com Current Opinion in
ScienceDirect
Greywater: Limitations and perspective
Adi Maimon and Amit Gross
Abstract
Onsite separation of black water from greywater (GW) and the
latter’s onsite reuse have gained popularity in the last three
decades. The potential benefits of GW reuse are wide, ranging
from direct benefits for the user to large-scale benefits for the
whole water sector. However, along with its benefits, GW reuse
may pose some risks and challenges that must be mitigated for
safe reuse. The challenges are generally divided into health
risks, mainly from the presence of pathogenic microorganisms,
and environmental risks from the presence of various pollut-
ants, such as sodium, pH and surfactants. This short review
highlights the potential benefits of GW reuse along with its
major associated challenges, and suggests means to sus-
tainably ensure safe GW reuse.
Addresses
Department of Environmental Hydrology and Microbiology, Zuckerberg
Institute for Water Research, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert
Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boqer Campus,
84990, Israel
Corresponding author: Gross, Amit (amgross@bgu.ac.il)
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6
This review comes from a themed issue on Wastewater and reuse
Edited by Paola Verlicchi and Paolo Roccaro
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.005
2468-5844/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
Greywater, Health risk, Environmental risk, Treatment.
Introduction
Global trends such as population growth, urbanization
and climate change emphasize the need for new water
sources and the vulnerability of water sources to pollu-
tion [1]. In this context, the 2017 United Nations
Global Water Report focuses on wastewater reuse as an
‘untapped’ source to face both water availability and its
pollution [1]. Onsite separation of black water, the
waste stream from toilets, from greywater (GW),
representing the other waste streams (such as showers,
laundry and wash basins) and the latter’s reuse have
gained popularity in the last three decades [2]. As GW is
the less polluted stream of domestic wastewater, its
onsite treatment and reuse has the potential to benefit
users (e.g., water saving and water availability), and on a
national scale, to create a new source of water and
www.sciencedirect.com
Environmental Science & Health
reduce investment in infrastructure [3e5]. However,
along with its benefits, GW reuse carries potential risks
and challenges that cannot be ignored, and must be
mitigated for safe reuse [3,6e8]. This short review
summarises recent studies that highlight the potential
benefits and major challenges associated with GW reuse,
and suggests means to sustainably ensure its safety.
Opportunities
The potential benefits from GW reuse are wide, ranging
from direct benefits to the user to large-scale benefits
for the entire water sector. The most prominent benefit
to GW users is found where water availability is low and/
or water tariffs are high. In these cases, GW reuse en-
ables sustaining home garden/agriculture year-round,
even in times of drought, at reduced water expenses
[9]. In addition, the irrigated soil and plants may benefit
from the organic matter and nutrients available in the
GW [7]. Since high water tariffs are not always a result of
water scarcity but also represent high investments in
water management, financial savings may benefit users
in water-abundant regions as well [2,4]. Moreover,
where environmental awareness is high, the water-
saving potential is evaluated as more than merely an
opportunity for financial benefit, but also as a contri-
bution to the common good [10,11].
Vast implementation of GW-reuse schemes may make a
significant contribution to the water sector. It has been
estimated that urban reuse of GW for toilet flushing
alone may reduce ca. 30% of a building’s water con-
sumption [12,13]. Adel et al. [14] estimated that about
30% penetration of GW reuse in multi-story buildings in
Israel would lead to an annual reduction of 150 MCM of
freshwater use. This equals the savings of one desali-
nation plant with all of its environmental implications,
such as land use, electricity demand, treatment of brine,
long-distance water conveyance and greenhouse-gas
emissions. Combinations of toilet flushing and land-
scaping constitute another suggested path to maxi-
mizing the potential value of treated GW in urban areas
[5]. These reductions in domestic water use are ex-
pected to reduce the pressure on municipal wastewater-
treatment plants by postponing their expansion and
enabling the usage of a smaller diameter pipeline [5].
Another possible effect is increased organic matter
concentration in the waste water which may lead to a
shift in wastewater treatment toward anaerobic biogas-
production treatments [15]. Some scholars see the
implementation of GW-reuse schemes in urban build-
ings as part of a paradigm shift in water management
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6
2 Wastewater and reuse

Table 1

GW characteristics and representative standards for reuse. Concentrations are in mg/L unless otherwise stated.

Parameter GW range Standards Standards Standards

(Gross et al., [2])
Britaina USAb NSW–Australiac

Low standard High standard Low High Low High

pH 6.7–8 5–9.5 5–9.5 6–9 6–9 – –

EC (mS/cm) 1400–1910
BOD 270–1056 – – 10 10 20 10
Total suspended solids 22–760 – – 10 10 30 10
Turbidity (NTU) 40–328 – 10 5 2 – –
Anionic surfactants 7.9–40
Sodium 120–199
Sodium adsorption ratio 3–7
Total nitrogen 2–35
Total phosphorus 0.4–23
Potassium 2–24
Boron 0.4–1.6
FC (CFU/100 mL) 6 × 101 –4 × 106 25 ND 14 2.2 – 10

* We divided the standards to high/low according to the level of exposure in the permitted uses. Uses with higher exposure (e.g. toilet flushing and spray
irrigation) require higher GW quality.
EC – electrical conductivity; BOD – biochemical oxygen demand; FC – faecal coliforms (including Escherichia coli and thermotolerant coliforms).
a
[25].
b
[26].
c
[27].

toward a decentralized and more sustainable water
management scheme [16,17].
Challenges and their assessment
The challenges associated with GW reuse are generally
divided into health risks, mainly from the presence of
pathogenic microorganisms, and environmental risks,
mainly from the presence of pollutants such as sodium,
pH, surfactants and micro pollutants [7,18e20]. Many
studies have demonstrated that typical raw GW quality
does not meet most of the developed world’s stan-
dards for unlimited water reuse (Table 1). Interest-
ingly, these standards are often based on our
knowledge from all domestic wastewater, which in-
cludes the toilet stream, thus making it less suitable
for GW reuse. A significant effort to develop specific
frameworks for the evaluation of health and environ-
mental risks related to GW reuse has been made in
recent years [3,21e24].
GW-related health risks and their evaluation
Microbial risks associated with GW include the presence
of pathogens originating from faecal contamination,
skin, mucus, and food preparation, such as Escherichia
coli, Rotavirus, Legionella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp. and more [18,6].
Another suggested minor health concern is related to
the presence of micro pollutants and metals in GW,
which might be a source for secondary human health
risks [28,29], but these are beyond the scope of this
review.
The main available tools to evaluate this risk are quan-
titative microbial risk assessments (QMRA) and epide-
miological studies, which have been recently conducted
for GW-reuse schemes [22,30,31,8]. QMRA is a model-
based framework that uses quantitative microbial in-
formation and specific exposure scenarios to assess
human health risks from pathogens. Since the exposure
level is necessarily influenced by legislative, techno-
logical, and behavioural settings, it is hard to detach the
risk assessment from the reuse-scheme specifications.
However, it has been shown that even low-costelow-
tech treatments in combination with simple barriers
such as subsurface irrigation and irrigating crops that are
not eaten raw, are sufficient to maintain acceptable risk,
or in other words, to allow safe GW reuse [30,31,8].
In addition to the model-based risk, direct epidemio-
logical assessments suggest that GW reuse does not pose
additional risk [21,22]. These studies have led to the
general agreement that treated GW does not pose a
significant health threat if the treatment follow estab-
lished guidelines such as demonstrated in Table 1.
GW-related environmental risks and their evaluation
Several environmental concerns have been raised with
regards to GW reuse that are related to contamination of
the surface or groundwater and soil, as well as to effects
on plant growth.
Although unlikely due to the generally low volumes
when used on site, pollutants from GW such as nitrogen,

Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6 www.sciencedirect.com

 Greywater: Limitations and perspective Maimon and Gross 3

Table 2

Selection of common GW-treatment systems.a

Treatment unit General description Advantages Potential limitations

Physical
Screens and Simple devices such as metal screens Inexpensive and easy to maintain. Good Negligible removal of GW pollutants
large-pore and nylon socks used to remove large as pre-treatment to prevent treatment-
filters particles from GW unit clogging
Micro-, ultra- and Pressure-driven membrane processes Good removal of suspended solids, Incomplete removal of dissolved
nano-filtration turbidity and pathogens. Takes up little organics (except for RO), thus might be
and reverse space. Good as polishing treatment sensitive to pathogen regrowth.
osmosis (RO) Sensitive to fouling and clogging. High
operation and maintenance costs. Brine
must be disposed of
Biological/Physical
Constructed A system in which GW is passed by Good removal of organics. Low energy Limited removal of pathogens.
wetlands gravitational flow through planted consumption, low operation and Insufficient removal of suspended solids
(CW) granular media on which microorganisms maintenance costs. Aesthetic advantage and turbidity. High hydraulic retention
grow and degrade organic matter because plants are used time. High evapotranspiration. Large
space is required. Post-treatment
required, such as physical filtration and/
or disinfection
Recirculating Pump is used to recirculate the GW via Good removal of organics, suspended Limited removal of pathogens.
CW the CW several times solids and turbidity. Fairly low operation Disinfection required
and maintenance costs. Aesthetic
advantage because plants are used
Rotating High-surface disks mounted on a shaft Good removal of organic suspended Limited removal of pathogens thus
biological that continuously rotates in the GW. solids and xenobiotic organic compounds disinfection required. High capital cost.
contactor These disks are only partially immersed (XOC) GW. Takes up little space Professional maintenance required.
in the GW. Disks are covered with Limited efficiency for high organic loads
microorganisms that degrade organic
matter
Membrane Combination of microbial degradation Very good removal of organics, High energy demand. High capital and
bioreactor and membrane filtration of GW. Typically, suspended solids, turbidity and operation and maintenance costs.
aerobic conditions are used with micro- or pathogens. Takes up little space Professional maintenance required. Use
ultra-filtration membrane of toxic chemicals for membrane cleaning
Chemical
Coagulation Use of chemicals such as alum and Efficient removal of suspended solids Limited removal of pathogens. Filtration
polymers to coagulate and settle and disinfection required. Not efficient
suspended material from the GW for high-strength GW. Makes use of
hazardous chemicals with potential
disposal problem. Economically
challenging in small treatment systems
Advanced Use of oxidants such as ozone and May efficiently remove organic matter Typically, expensive maintenance is
oxidation hydrogen peroxide or UV radiation to and eliminate pathogens required. Makes use of toxic/hazardous
processes oxidize organic matter and pathogens chemicals
Disinfection
Chlorination Use of chlorine compounds to oxidize Low efficiency for protozoon
Very efficient in removal of a large variety
and kill microorganisms of pathogenic microorganisms. Has ainactivation. High pH, turbidity and
suspended solids reduce efficiency.
residual effect. Inexpensive and easy to
store and use Reaction with organic compounds might
create toxic or carcinogenic by-
products. Might be toxic to plants
UV Use of UV light to inactivate pathogens No need to store or handle hazardous Some viruses are less sensitive to UV.
chemicals. Easy to maintain Regrowth of bacteria may occur. No
residual effect. Very sensitive to turbidity
and suspended solids
Ozonation Use of ozone gas to oxidize and kill Very efficient at removing a large variety High operational and maintenance
pathogens of pathogenic microorganisms including costs. Turbidity and suspended solids
viruses. Not sensitive to pH level. No reduce efficiency. Toxic or carcinogenic
added chemicals in the water by-products may be produced
Hydrogen Use of a stabilized hydrogen peroxide Very efficient at removing a large variety Turbidity and suspended solids reduce
peroxide plus compound to oxidize and kill pathogens of pathogenic microorganisms. Has a efficiency. Not common, making it
residual effect. Does not create known potentially harder to find and usually
harmful by-products expensive

a
Based on data from Boyjoo et al. [47], Gross et al. [2], Li et al. [48].

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6

4 Wastewater and reuse
boron and surfactants may reach the surface water or
groundwater [28,32]. Some GW components, such as
various micro pollutants, have been found toxic or
endocrine disrupting and under certain conditions,
might have an adverse effect on soil and water biota
[33,34].
Soil is the immediate recipient of GW used for irrigation,
and it is therefore highly important to investigate its
effects. Some studies have raised the concern that GW
ingredients might change soil properties. Surfactants,
oils and grease have been suggested to impact soil water
repellence [35e37]. Elevated salinity and sodicity in
GW have been discussed as potential causes for the
destruction of soil structure [38]. Organic compounds
and suspended solids might also physically clog soil
pores and in poorly buffered soils, soil pH might rise and
interfere with proper biochemical processes [7].
Unfortunately, there is still no accepted framework for
the quantitation of environmental risk. Where used,
such frameworks are qualitative [23]. Since there are no
standards for healthy soils as a reference, a framework is
needed to assess the overall effect of GW on soil. One
potential framework that is currently being tested is the
soil-management assessment framework (SMAF) used
by the USDA to assess management effects on soil
quality in agriculture [39]. In this framework, both
beneficial and detrimental effects are weighed together
to estimate overall influence on soil quality. Preliminary
results from a study in our laboratory suggest that irri-
gation with treated GW does not significantly change
the soil quality index (unpublished data). These results
stand in line with the results presented by Gross et al.
[40] suggesting no detrimental effect of irrigation with
treated GW on various soil properties.
Studies of the effects of GW irrigation on plants have
given mixed results, from beneficial to detrimental, or
no effect at all [41e43]. The effect depends on factors
such as GW properties, plant species sensitivity and soil
characteristics. In general, plants are likely to benefit
from the nutrients and organic carbon in the GW and
suffer from salinity, high pH, and the toxicity of in-
gredients such as boron and surfactants [2].
Based on the above challenges, we suggest that raw GW
be treated before reuse.
GW treatment
Many different GW-reuse systems have been imple-
mented worldwide. These range from no treatment at
all or very low-techelow-cost filters and biofilters to
high-endehigh-tech membrane technologies [2]. There
are systems that fit and serve a single household or farm,
such as found in Jordan [44], Greece [45], Israel [40],
China [46] and many more. Others fit and serve larger
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6
scale implementations, such as those described by De
Gisi et al. [33]. As onsite GW reuse is typically operated
or maintained by a few people, mostly non-professionals,
it must be robust, reliable, and able to endure large
variations in water quality and quantity, and it must treat
the water to a safe level for reuse. An overview of some
of the main treatment options with their advantages and
limitations is presented in Table 2.
Overall, GW can be treated with low-costelow-tech
treatment systems to a very high quality that allows safe
reuse.
Summary: safe GW reuse
The success of GW-reuse schemes depends on many
factors, including technical, economic and institutional
capacity, as well as social factors such as public aware-
ness and acceptance [49]. Thus, there is no ‘one size fits
all’ therefore in different locations, GW implementation
should be adjusted to the local conditions. Moreover, it
relies on regulations or best-management practices
which are very much dependent on the perception of
risks and the specific local balance between the
perceived water stress and the need to protect public
health. This is reflected by the variation among regula-
tions in different countries [2,9].
A key factor for safe GW reuse is communication among
all stakeholdersdscientists, engineers, policy-makers,
water-sector professionals and end users. Technological
and regulatory solutions should be continuously
adjusted to the risks and difficulties that emerge with
time and accumulated experience.
References
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
* of special interest
1. United Nations: World water development report. 2017.
2. Gross A, Maimon A, Alfiya Y, Friedler E: Greywater reuse. CRC
Press; 2015.
The aim of this book is to bind together unbiased scientifically based
information on greywater and its reuse including environmental and
health risks, treatment, legislation and economics. It was demonstrated
that along with its various challenges, greywater reuse is one mecha-
nism that can contribute to significant water savings on various scales
(e.g., individual, regional, and national).
3. WHO: Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and
greywater. 2006.
4. Oviedo-Ocaña ER, Dominguez I, Ward S, Rivera-Sanchez ML,
Zaraza-Peña JM: Financial feasibility of end-user designed
rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse systems for high
water use households. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2017:1–17.
5. Penn R, Schütze M, Alex J, Friedler E: Impacts of onsite grey-
water reuse on wastewater systems. Water Sci Technol 2017,
75:1862–1872.
The authors developed a stochastic simulation system to simulate the
effect of different GW reuse scenarios on the performance of urban
sewer and wastewater treatment. This simulation system may serve as
an important tool to analyze how sewer systems subjected to changes
in flows in cases of wide implementation of GW reuse in urban areas.
www.sciencedirect.com

6. Blanky M, Rodríguez-Martínez S, Halpern M, Friedler E:
Legionella pneumophila: from potable water to treated grey-
water; quantification and removal during treatment. Sci Total
Environ 2015, 533:557–565.
The authors modified the ISO protocol for the isolation of Legionella
pneumophila in potable water to be able to quantify its concentrations
in GW. It was found that untreated GW contains concentrations 2
orders of magnitude higher than potable water. Yet, treated and chlo-
rinated GW had similar concentrations and thus does not pose higher
riskthan potable water.
7. Siggins A, Burton V, Ross C, Lowe H, Horswell J: Effects of long-
term greywater disposal on soil: a case study. Sci Total En-
viron 2016, 557–558:627–635.
8. Schoen ME, Ashbolt NJ, Jahne MA, Garland J: Risk-based
enteric pathogen reduction targets for non-potable and direct
potable use of roof runoff, stormwater, and greywater. Microb
Risk Anal 2017, 5:32–43.
The authors presented log10 reduction targets for various enteric
pathogens in GW (and other alternative source water) using quantita-
tive microbial risk analysis. The results emphasize the need to use
specific treatment targets according to: the source water, intended
uses, and the population size contributing to the collection system.
9. Cook C: Regulating the risks of domestic greywater reuse: a
comparison of England and California. Built Environ 2016, 42:
230–242.
10. Kaufmann D, Hayoon-Davidov L, Tchetchik A: Factors influ-
encing the adoption of greywater systems among people
living in multi-family dwellings in Israel. Built Environ 2016, 42:
258–272.
11. Tchetchik A, Kaufman D, Blass V: Perceived scarcity, habits,
environmental attitudes, and price sensitivity:how do they
interact with preferences towards greywater systems? Built
Environ 2016, 42:273–293.
12. Penn R, Schütze M, Friedler E: Modelling the effects of on-site
greywater reuse and low flush toilets on municipal sewer
systems. J Environ Manage 2013, 114:72–83.
13. Memon FA, Fidar AM, Ward S, Butler D, Alsharif K: Energy and
carbon implications of water saving micro-components and
grey water reuse systems. In Alternative water supply systems.
Edited by Memon FA, Ward S, IWA Publishing London; 2015:
265–285.
14. Adel M, Shmueli L, Bas Y, Friedler E: Onsite greywater recy-
cling and its potential future impact on desalination and
wastewater reuse in Israel. In 4th international conference on
drylands, deserts and desertification. Sede Boqer, Israel: Ben
Gurion University; 2012.
15. Oron G, Adel M, Agmon V, Friedler E, Halperin R, Leshem E,
Weinberg D: Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: stan-
dards and prospects. Water Res 2014, 58:92–101.
16. Domènech L, March H, Vallès M, Sauri D: Learning processes
during regime shifts: empirical evidence from the diffusion of
greywater recycling in Spain. Environ Innov Soc Transitions
2015, 15:26–41.
17. Opher T, Friedler E: Comparative LCA of decentralized
wastewater treatment alternatives for non-potable urban
reuse. J Environ Manage 2016, 182:464–476.
18. Benami M, Gillor O, Gross A: Potential microbial hazards from
graywater reuse and associated matrices: a review. Water
Res 2016, 106:183–195.
19. Negahban-Azar M, Sharvelle SE, Stromberger ME, Olson C,
Roesner LA: Fate of graywater constituents after long-term
application for landscape irrigation. Water Air Soil Pollut 2012,
223:4733–4749.
20. Alfiya Y, Friedler E, Westphal J, Olsson O, Dubowski Y: Photo-
degradation of micropollutants using V-UV/UV-C processes;
Triclosan as a model compound. Sci Total Environ 2017,
601–602:397–404.
21. O’Toole J, Sinclair M, Malawaraarachchi M, Hamilton A,
Barker SF, Leder K: Microbial quality assessment of house-
hold greywater. Water Res 2012, 46:4301–4313.
www.sciencedirect.com
Greywater: Limitations and perspective Maimon and Gross 5
22. Busgang A, Friedler E, Ovadia O, Gross A: Epidemiological
* study for the assessment of health risks associated with
graywater reuse for irrigation in arid regions. Sci Total Environ
2015, 538:230–239.
The study is the only longterm attempt to assess the epidemiological
effect of on-site GW reuse. It found no excess water related illness in
GW users compared with potable water users. It also suggests that use
of quantitative microbial risk assessment models is conservative and
can be used to predict health risks associated with GW reuse.
23. NRMMC, EPHC: National guidelines for water recycling: man-
aging health and environmental risks (phase 1). 2006.
24. O’Toole J, Sinclair M, Fiona Barker S, Leder K: Advice to risk
assessors modeling viral health risk associated with house-
hold graywater. Risk Anal 2013, 34(5):797–802.
25. BSI: Greywater systems BS 8525-1&2:2010. 2010.
26. NSF: NSF/ANSI 350 – 2011, Onsite residential and commercial
water reuse treatment systems. 2011.
27. NSW-DEUS: NSW guidelines for greywater reuse in sewered
single household residential premises. 2007.
28. Turner RDR, Warne MSJ, Dawes LA, Vardy S, Will GD: Irrigated
greywater in an urban sub-division as a potential source of
metals to soil, groundwater and surface water. J Environ
Manage 2016, 183:806–817.
29. Etchepare R, van der Hoek JP: Health risk assessment of
organic micropollutants in greywater for potable reuse. Water
Res 2015, 72:186–198.
30. Fiona Barker S, O’Toole J, Sinclair MI, Leder K,
Malawaraarachchi M, Hamilton AJ: A probabilistic model of
norovirus disease burden associated with greywater irriga-
tion of home-produced lettuce in Melbourne, Australia. Water
Res 2013, 47:1421–1432.
31. Benami M, Busgang A, Gillor O, Gross A: Quantification and risks
* associated with bacterial aerosols near domestic greywater-
treatment systems. Sci Total Environ 2016, 562:344–352.
This is the first attempt of quantification and risk assessment of aero-
solized bacteria in domestic GW system. The study found elevated
levels of pathogens in aerosolized GW compared to background levels.
However, quantitative microbial risk assessment indicates that patho-
gens concentrations in aerosols near GW systems are low enough and
does not compormise public health.
32. Negahban-Azar M, Sharvelle SE, Qian Y, Shogbon A: Leach-
ability of chemical constituents in soil–plant systems irri-
gated with synthetic graywater. Environ Sci Process Impacts
2013, 15:760–772.
33. De Gisi S, Casella P, Notarnicola M, Farina R: Grey water in
buildings: a mini-review of guidelines, technologies and case
studies. Civ Eng Environ Syst 2016, 33:35–54.
34. Deshayes S, Eudes V, Bigourie M, Droguet C, Moilleron R:
Alkylphenol and phthalate contamination of all sources of
greywater from French households. Sci Total Environ 2017,
599–600:883–890.
35. Travis MJ, Wiel-Shafran A, Weisbrod N, Adar E, Gross A: Grey-
water reuse for irrigation: effect on soil properties. Sci Total
Environ 2010, 408:2501–2508.
36. Maimon A, Gross A, Arye G: Greywater-induced soil hydro-
phobicity. Chemosphere 2017, 184:1012–1019.
37. Peng Z, Darnault C, Tian F, Baveye P, Hu H: Influence of
anionic surfactant on saturated hydraulic conductivity of
loamy sand and sandy loam soils. Water 2017, 9:433.
38. Al-Hamaideh H, Bino M: Effect of treated grey water reuse in
irrigation on soil and plants. Desalination 2010, 256:115–119.
39. Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Cambardella CA: The soil management
assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation
method. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2004, 68:1945–1962.
40. Gross A, Alfiya Y, Sklarz M, Maimon A, Friedler E: Environ-
mental impact of irrigation with greywater treated by recir-
culating vertical flow constructed wetlands in two climatic
regions. Water Sci Technol 2014, 69:2452–2459.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6
6 Wastewater and reuse
41. Reichman SM, Wightwick AM: Impacts of standard and “low
environmental impact” greywater irrigation on soil and plant
nutrients and ecology. Appl Soil Ecol 2013, 72:195–202.
42. Lubbe E, Rodda N, Naidoo S: Effects of greywater irriga-
tion on germination, growth and photosynthetic charac-
teristics in selected African leafy vegetables. WaterSA
2016, 42:203.
43. Ouldboukhitine S-E, Spolek G, Belarbi R: Impact of plants
transpiration, grey and clean water irrigation on the thermal
resistance of green roofs. Ecol Eng 2014, 67:60–66.
44. Albalawneh A, Chang T-K, Alshawabkeh H: Greywater treat-
ment by granular filtration system using volcanic tuff and
gravel media. Water Sci Technol 2017, 75:2331–2341.
45. Fountoulakis MS, Markakis N, Petousi I, Manios T: Single house
on-site grey water treatment using a submerged membrane
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 2018, 2:1–6
bioreactor for toilet flushing. Sci Total Environ 2016, 551–552:
706–711.
46. Chen J, Liao Z, Lu S, Hu G, Liu Y, Tang C: Study on a stepped
eco-filter for treating greywater from single farm household.
Appl Water Sci 2017, 7(7):3849–3857.
47. Boyjoo Y, Pareek VK, Ang M: A review of greywater charac-
teristics and treatment processes. Water Sci Technol 2013, 67:
1403–1424.
48. Li F, Wichmann K, Otterpohl R: Evaluation of appropriate
technologies for grey water treatments and reuses. Water Sci
Technol 2009, 59:249–260.
49. Domènech L, Saurí D: Socio-technical transitions in water
scarcity contexts: public acceptance of greywater reuse
technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2010, 55:53–62.
www.sciencedirect.com