See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317342532

Greywater characterization and loadings – Physicochemical treatment to

promote onsite reuse

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Management · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.094

CITATIONS READS

15 330

8 authors, including:

Constantinos Noutsopoulos Despoina Charchousi

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
84 PUBLICATIONS   674 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ioannis Mantziaras Elena Koumaki

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
19 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SMART-Plant View project

LIFE ADAPT2CLIMA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elena Koumaki on 03 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Greywater characterization and loadings e Physicochemical treatment

to promote onsite reuse
C. Noutsopoulos*, A. Andreadakis, N. Kouris, D. Charchousi, P. Mendrinou, A. Galani,
I. Mantziaras, E. Koumaki
Sanitary Engineering Laboratory, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University
of Athens, Iroon Polytechniou 9, Zografou, 15780, Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Greywater is the wastewater produced in bathtubs, showers, hand basins, kitchen sinks, dishwashers and
Received 15 January 2017 laundry machines. Segregation of greywater and blackwater and on site greywater treatment in order to
Received in revised form promote its reuse for toilet flushing and/or garden irrigation is an interesting option especially in water
17 May 2017
deficient areas. The objective of this study was to characterize the different greywater sources in Greek
Accepted 29 May 2017
households and to evaluate the performance of alternative physicochemical treatment systems to treat
Available online 4 June 2017
several types of greywater. Based on the results average daily greywater production was equal to 98 L per
person per day and accounts for approximately 70e75% of the total household wastewater production
Keywords:
Greywater
(135 L per person per day). Among the different sources, laundry and kitchen sink are the main con-
Emerging contaminants tributors to the total greywater load of organic carbon, suspended solids and surfactants, whereas
Physicochemical treatment dishwasher and bathroom greywater are the main sources of phosphorus and endocrine disrupting
Coagulation chemicals respectively. Depending on sources, greywater accounts for as low as 15% of the total
Sand filtration wastewater load of organic carbon (in the case of light greywater sources), to as high as 74% of the total
Activated carbon load organic load (in the case of the heavy greywater sources). On the other hand, the nutrients load of
greywater is limited. The application of a physical treatment system consisting of coagulation, sedi-
mentation, sand filtration, granular activated carbon filtration and disinfection can provide for a final
effluent with high quality characteristics for onsite reuse, especially when treating light greywater.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Household wastewater consists of greywater and blackwater.
Greywater is the wastewater produced in bathtubs, showers, hand
basins, kitchen sinks, dishwashers and laundry machines and
blackwater is the wastewater which comes from toilets (Eriksson
et al., 2002; Friedler and Hadari, 2006), although wastewater
originated from kitchen sinks is very often regarded as blackwater.
Several studies have shown that greywater accounts for around
70e75% of the total household wastewater production, while at the
same time it concentrates a rather limited portion of the total
pollutional load of wastewater (Friedler, 2004; Jefferson et al.,
2004; Li et al., 2009; Donner et al., 2010; Antonopoulou et al.,
2013). Qualitative greywater characterization studies have been
conducted and several pollutants have been identified in greywater
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cnoutso@central.ntua.gr (C. Noutsopoulos).
samples such as organic carbon (in terms of COD, BOD5 or TOC),
total and volatile solids (TS and VS), total and volatile suspended
solids TSS and VSS), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur), sur-
factants, heavy metals and emerging contaminants (Eriksson et al.,
2002; Herna ndez Leal et al., 2007; Eriksson and Donner, 2009).
However the physicochemical characteristics of the alternative
greywater sources reported by several studies along with the
contribution of each source to the total greywater pollutional load
are rather controversial (Christova e Boal et al., 1996; Almeida et al.,
1999; Nolde, 2000; Palmquist and Hanæus, 2005; Herna ndez Leal
et al., 2007; Eriksson and Donner, 2009). These differences could
be attributed to several parameters such as the quality of water
supply, the piping material, the lifestyle and the activities of the
residents, the products used and many others. Another crucial
parameter is the sampling protocol applied in each study.
Separation of greywater from blackwater and on site greywater
treatment for toilet flushing and/or garden irrigation is an inter-
esting option especially in areas facing water shortage problems. A

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.094
0301-4797/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
338 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346
recent study of European Commission states that the promotion of
greywater reuse and rainwater harvesting could result to a
noticeable reduction of potable water use to the order of 5% by 2050
(Bio, 2012). To apply such a reuse option, greywater needs to be
treated. The intensity and type of treatment varies with the char-
acteristics of greywater. Several greywater treatment systems have
been tested in a high number of studies including physical, chem-
ical and biological systems, producing effluents with different
quality characteristics (Pidou et al., 2008; Li et al., 2009; Ghunmi
et al., 2011; Ghaitidak and Yadav, 2013; Boyjoo et al., 2013). Based
on experimental results, it is anticipated that besides their satis-
factory performance, biological greywater treatment systems are in
some cases exhibiting several operating deficiencies on a house-
hold level due to i) nutrients deficiency of greywater, ii) the peri-
odic greywater-wastewater production in residencies of temporary
use and iii) the need for sewage sludge handling. On the other hand,
physicochemical greywater systems often present many drawbacks
such as non-satisfactory performance or increased cost for chem-
icals. However the performance of each treatment system is highly
dependent on the type and the characteristics of the greywater
being treated.
In view of the above, the objectives of this study were twofold.
First to perform a comprehensive qualitative characterization of
different greywater sources and secondly to evaluate the perfor-
mance of alternative physicochemical treatment systems to treat
several types of greywater.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Greywater quantity
In order to estimate the amount of greywater produced in Greek
households, the average daily water consumption in three resi-
dences (H1, H2 and H3) with different characteristics (number and
age of inhabitants, area) was recorded as the sum of wastewater
produced in bathtubs, showers, hand basins, kitchen sinks, dish-
washers, laundry machine and toilets. All residencies located in the
city of Athens, Greece. Residence H1 was a one person (student)
apartment, residence H2 was a two person (of middle age) apart-
ment, while H3 was a family house (parents and two children). The
estimation of the amount of greywater produced in bathtub/
shower, hand basin and kitchen sink was achieved through the
recording of the duration of the use of the corresponding tap by
each resident and for each activity on a daily basis (e.g. cooking
activities, hand cleaning, dish and glass washing, fruit and vege-
tables washing in the kitchen). As a result the amount of greywater
produced from each resident and for each activity was calculated as
the product of the duration of the use of each source tap and its
flowrate which was measured at each source in each residence at
least three times. In the case of the laundry, dishwasher and toilet,
calculation of the amount of wastewater was based on the
recording of the number of their uses per day and the amount of
water consumption per use (based on measurements in the case of
laundry and dishwasher and technical characteristics of the toilet
flush). The aforementioned measurements were taking place,
during November, for a week, in all residences in order to collect
information of the average weekly habits of all the residents.
2.2. Greywater qualitative characterization
Based on the relative contribution of each activity and each
resident to the production of each greywater source (e.g. hand
cleaning, teeth cleaning, shaving), a sampling protocol was imple-
mented to produce composite samples from the three residencies.
For example, the composite hand basin greywater sample of
residence H3 (four person house), was prepared by mixing the
hand basin greywater samples of the four residents according to
their relative contribution to the household's water consumption at
hand basin. Moreover, the greywater hand basin sample for each
resident was prepared by mixing the greywater samples of each
activity taking place in hand basin by each resident (e.g. tooth
cleaning, hand cleaning, shaving) according to the relative contri-
bution of each activity to the total water consumption by each
resident. According to the sampling protocol a total number of 60
samples were collected (3 residencies, 5 samples for each resi-
dence, 4 sampling campaigns). The duration of sampling procedure
was four months (from JanuaryeApril), with one sampling
campaign taking place in each month (one in January, one in
February, one in March and one in April). Samples were analyzed
for the parameters detailed in Section 2.4.
2.3. Greywater treatment experiments
Greywater samples from the bathtub, the handbasin, the
laundry and the kitchen were collected every two days and pro-
cessed in the experimental units. Table 1 presents the contribution
of each greywater fraction to the total untreated greywater being
processed to each experimental system. Systems 1e2 consisted of a
10 L sedimentation tank, followed by a sand filter and a granular
activated carbon (GAC) filter. Systems 3e5 were a modification of
Systems 1e2 with the incorporation of a coagulation unit ahead of
the sedimentation tank and the two filtering units (sand filter and
GAC filter). System 6 consisted of a coagulation unit, the sand filter
and the GAC filter. Every experimental system was operated for a
period of 30e40 d.
Greywater retention time in sedimentation tank of all experi-
mental systems (except System 6) was equal to 20 h. The super-
natant of sedimentation tank was fed initially to sand filter (5 cm
plexiglass column) and eventually passed through the GAC filter at
a flowrate of 2.8 L/h and a filtering velocity of 1.4 m/h.
Before the beginning of the experiments, sand and activated
carbon were washed with ultrapure water and dried at 105
C for
24 h. GAC column was filled with Filtracarb CC60, bought from
CHEMiTEC Inc. The physicochemical properties of the sorbent
material are shown in Table S1 (Supplementary Material). At the
bottom of the GAC column 4 to 5 pieces of glass wool were put to
retain activated carbon inside the column. Both columns (sand and
activated carbon columns) were operated continuously under
pressure (with a hydraulic head of 60 cm). Based on the experi-
mental protocol, when the hydraulic level above the sand filter
exceeded the maximum allowable hydraulic head of 60 cm, the
cleaning process was initiated by flushing upwards the filter with
distilled water.
For the evaluation of the optimum coagulant dose
(Al2(SO4)3  14H2O) a series of jar tests were performed. According
to the experimental protocol of the jar tests, after alum dosing,
rapid mixing was taking place for 1 min at 200 rpm, followed by
flocculation for 20 min at 70 rpm (for 7.5 min), 40 rpm (for 7.5 min)
and 25 rpm (for 5 min) and sedimentation for 50 min.
Samples from the untreated greywater, the supernatant of the
sedimentation tank and the effluent of the sand filter and the GAC
unit were collected twice a week and subsequently analyzed for
turbidity, TSS, VSS, CODt, CODs, surfactants and emerging
contaminants.
2.4. Analytical methods
Greywater samples were analyzed for pH, conductivity, TS, TSS,
VSS, total and soluble COD, BOD5, surfactants in the form of Linear
Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS), NH4eN, NO3eN, NO2eN, TKN, TN,
 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346 339

Table 1
Set up of the several experimental treatment systems and the contribution of each treatment source to the total untreated greywater used in the experiments.

Treatment system Greywater sourcea Treatment stages

Kitchen Laundry Bath/shower Handbasin Coagulation Sedimentation Sand filter GAC filter

System 1 77% 23%   

System 2 29% 55% 16%   
System 3 29% 55% 16%    
System 4 13% 48% 25% 14%    
System 5 31% 38% 20% 11%    
System 6 13% 48% 25% 14%   
a
Relative contribution of each treatment source to the total untreated greywater used in the experiments.

PO4eP, TP, heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Cr, Ni, Zn, Cu) and emerging
contaminants (nonylphenol (NP), nonylphenol mono-ethoxylate
(NP1EO), nonylphenol di-ethoxylate (NP2EO), triclosan (TCS)
bisphenol-A (BPA)). All analyses were performed according to
Standard Methods (APHA, 2005). The determination of emerging
contaminants was achieved using a chromatographic method
developed by Samaras et al. (2011). The developed procedure
included solid phase extraction, while for the qualitative and
quantitative analysis, an Agilent Gas Chromatograph 7890A con-
nected to an Agilent 5975C Mass Selective Detector (MSD) was
used.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Quantitative greywater characterization
The results of the quantitative analysis of different greywater
sources and toilet flushing are presented in Table 2 (in terms of
average values and standard deviation), along with the results of
other studies. Furthermore the contribution of several greywater
sources to the total greywater production for households H1, H2
and H3 and the daily evolution of the different sources of greywater
and blackwater for household H3 are illustrated at Fig. 1aeb. Ac-
cording to the results average greywater production was estimated
to be 98.4 ± 11 L per person per day, whereas the total household
wastewater production was 135.6 ± 11 L per person per day. These
values are very similar to the ones reported in several studies
performed in either European countries (Antonopoulou et al., 2013;
Penn et al., 2012; Krozer et al., 2010; Revitt et al., 2011) or even in
countries from other continents (Zhang et al., 2009), whereas there
are other studies mainly in Australia, USA and India, reporting on
higher greywater production (Loh and Coghlan, 2003; Roesner
et al., 2006; Mandal et al., 2011), or on lower greywater produc-
tion (Palmquist and Hanæus, 2005). Lower greywater production
has also been reported for some countries in Africa and Middle East
(Boyjoo et al., 2013). Fig. 1a presents the contribution of each source
to the total greywater production for the three households.
Based on the results it is anticipated that major sources of
wastewater are toilet flushing, bathtub and kitchen sink. The major
portion of greywater (to the order of 60%) is produced in bathrooms
(bath tub and hand basin). Furthermore wastewater production
presents a great variability throughout a week (Fig. 1b). Beyond this
variability, the ratio of greywater to the total wastewater showed
little variation throughout the week (68e77%). On average, grey-
water accounts for 72.5% of the total wastewater produced, a value
which is very similar to the respective ones reported for Israel
(Penn et al., 2012), Sweeden (Palmquist and Hanæus, 2005) and
China (Zhang et al., 2009). Although the three recorded households
presented similar greywater quantities, the contribution of several
activities to each alternative greywater source differed, in some
cases, markedly due to the different living standards and the habits
of the residents (Fig. 2).
3.2. Greywater quality characteristics
Based on the sampling protocol 60 greywater samples were
collected and subsequently analyzed. The main quality character-
istics for the several greywater sources are presented in Tables 3e6
(in terms of average values and standard deviation), along with the
quality characteristics of four greywater types (light e heavy:
GWeTypes A-D) and a mixed bathroom greywater (GW-M).
According to the results, average pH in kitchen greywater is

Table 2
Quantitative characteristics of several sources of household wastewater (all values in L/pe/d).

Sources Greecea Greeceb Israelc Hollandd Indiae Australiaf USAg Denmarkh Sweedeni Chinaj

Hand basin 11.3 ± 1.1 8.6 18 4 17 66 88.2 43

Bath/shower 37.5 ± 4.3 33.9 39.2 47 30
Kitchen 29.7 ± 5.0 12.2 26.6 7 37 47 26.5 25
Laundry 19.2 ± 5.0 21.3 16.6 27 33 47 81.8 17
Dish washer 0.6 ± 0.4 6.6 e 1 e e
Total greywater 98.4 ± 11 82.6 100.4 86 117 160 196.4 85 66 90
Other e e e 23 e 81 7
Toilet flushing 37.2 ± 2.5 59.4 37.7 39 25 41 101.1 27
Total wastewater 135.6 ± 11.5 142 138.1 134 160 201 378.5 119 93 124
a
Present study.
b
Antonopoulou et al., 2013.
c
Penn et al, 2012.
d
Krozer et al., 2010.
e
Mandal et al., 2011.
f
Loh and Coghlan, 2003.
g
Roesner et al., 2006.
h
Revitt et al., 2011.
i
Palmquist and Hanæus, 2005.
j
Zhang et al., 2009.
340 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346

Fig. 1. (a) Contribution of several sources to the total greywater production for households H1, H2 and H3, (b) Daily evolution of wastewater production of several sources for
household H3.

Fig. 2. Contribution of several activities to the total greywater production from (a) kitchen sink and (b) handbasin for the three households (H1, H2 and H3).

Table 3
Results from the qualitative characterization of several greywater sources e physical characteristics, organic carbon and solids (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type pH Conductivity (mS/cm) TS (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) CODt (mg/L) CODs (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/L)

Bath/shower 7.5 ± 0.1 318 ± 30 325 ± 55 73.5 ± 38 69.2 ± 35 390 ± 125 193 ± 113 263 ± 83
Hand basin 7.6 ± 0.2 318 ± 278 373 ± 96 90.5 ± 68 58.9 ± 48 427 ± 192 272 ± 203 305 ± 129
Kitchen 6.9 ± 0.4 449 ± 341 883 ± 426 319 ± 209 314 ± 205 1119 ± 476 518 ± 225 831 ± 358
Laundry 8.3 ± 0.8 653 ± 423 1085 ± 608 169 ± 96 139 ± 90 2072 ± 1401 1165 ± 920 1363 ± 950
Dish washer 10 ± 0.2 2199 ± 753 2535 ± 1053 11 ± 1.3 10 ± 0.5 411 ± 59 307 ± 3 184.6 ± 24
GW-Type A e e 336 ± 50 77.3 ± 31 66.8 ± 27 398 ± 112 210 ± 113 272 ± 73
GW-Type B e e 548 ± 140 103 ± 31 87.4 ± 24 873 ± 346 481 ± 297 582 ± 242
GW-Type C e e 600 ± 133 101 ± 65 85 ± 60 861 ± 286 476 ± 259 571 ± 233
GW-Type D e e 684 ± 151 166 ± 70 154 ± 63 939 ± 260 489 ± 232 649 ± 213
GW-M 471 ± 57 235 ± 5 248 ± 27

Table 4
Results from the qualitative characterization of several greywater sources e surfactants and nutrients (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type LAS (mg/L) NH4eN (mg/L) NO3eN (mg/L) NO2eN (mg/L) TKN (mg/L) TN (mg/L) PO4eP (mg/L) TP (mg/L)

Bath/shower 78 ± 34 0.53 ± 0.28 <0.20 12 ± 11 2.6 ± 2.2 2.7 ± 2.2 <0.05 0.10 ± 0.14
Hand basin 42 ± 26 0.33 ± 0.50 0.24 ± 0.29 <10 2.3 ± 2.0 2.5 ± 1.9 0.60 ± 1.2 1.3 ± 2.0
Kitchen 87 ± 76 0.20 ± 0.26 1.1 ± 1.2 20 ± 17 5.5 ± 4.8 6.5 ± 5.0 1.5 ± 2.8 2.7 ± 3.1
Laundry 436 ± 288 1.4 ± 1.1 0.68 ± 0.53 75 ± 56 5.5 ± 5.2 6.2 ± 5.3 0.22 ± 0.66 1.2 ± 0.81
Dish washer 7 ± 5.6 0.11 ± 0.07 0.44 ± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.01 <0.5 <0.5 <0.05 187 ± 51
GW-Type A 70 ± 25 0.48 ± 0.28 <0.20 <10 2.5 ± 1.9 2.6 ± 1.9 0.15 ± 0.3 0.37 ± 0.61
GW-Type B 173 ± 84 0.75 ± 0.53 0.30 ± 0.1 30 ± 25 3.4 ± 2.1 3.6 ± 2.1 0.17 ± 0.3 0.61 ± 0.52
GW-Type C 169 ± 48 0.73 ± 0.43 0.29 ± 0.4 30 ± 20 3.3 ± 2.7 3.6 ± 2.7 0.17 ± 0.7 5.43 ± 1.5
GW-Type D 144 ± 38 0.57 ± 0.40 0.2 ± 0.4 30 ± 18 4.0 ± 2.6 4.4 ± 2.7 0.55 ± 0.7 4.6 ± 0.9
GW-M 60.9 ± 5 e 0.22 ± 0.1 <10 8.8 ± 0.3 e <0.05 0.82 ± 0.22

rather neutral (6.90), whereas laundry and dishwasher greywater is examples of those used in laundry and dish washer). These values
alkaline with an average pH value of 8.2 and 10 respectively. pH of are very close to the ones reported by other researchers (Merz et al.,
greywater highly depends on pH of the water supply and the 2007; Friedler, 2004; Li et al., 2009; Antonopoulou et al., 2013;
chemicals used in several activities (with more pronounced Eriksson et al., 2002). The high pH values recorded in dish
 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346 341

Table 5
Results from the qualitative characterization of several greywater sources e heavy metals (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type Cd (mg/L) Pb (mg/L) Cr (mg/L) Ni (mg/L) Zn (mg/L) Cu (mg/L)

Bath/shower <0.15 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 0.078 ± 0.069 35 ± 47

Hand basin <0.15 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 <0.05 7.3 ± 9.4
Kitchen <0.15 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 0.091 ± 0.071 27 ± 27
Laundry <0.15 3.9 ± 3.3 7.3 ± 7.1 <5.0 0.20 ± 0.16 43 ± 29
Dish washer <0.15 3.7 ± 0.9 <2.5 <5.0 0.076 ± 0.015 16.2 ± 1
GW-Type A <0.15 <2.5 <2.5 <5.0 0.07 ± 0.006 29 ± 35
GW-Type B <0.15 <2.5 3.0 ± 1.8 <5.0 0.1 ± 0.03 33 ± 28
GW-Type C <0.15 <2.5 2.9 ± 1.5 <5.0 0.1 ± 0.03 32 ± 26
GW-Type D <0.15 <2.5 2.4 ± 1.5 <5.0 0.1 ± 0.03 31 ± 26

Table 6
Results from the qualitative characterization of several greywater sources e emerging contaminants (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type NP (mg/L) NP1EO (mg/L) NP2EO (mg/L) TCS (mg/L) BPA (mg/L)

Bath/shower 32.8 ± 13 3.2 ± 2.7 2.4 ± 1.5 0.44 ± 0.39 0.7 ± 0.5
Hand basin 3.7 ± 1.7 0.46 ± 0.4 0.2 ± 0.15 0.2 ± 0.2 0.027 ± 0.03
Kitchen 15 ± 18 1.5 ± 2. 1.3 ± 2.8 0.089 ± 0.09 0.09 ± 0.1
Laundry 62 ± 92 2.8 ± 3.4 2. 9 ± 4.5 0.099 ± 0.087 0.44 ± 0.47
Dish washer N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
GW-Type A 26 ± 10 2.6 ± 1 1.9 ± 1 0.4 ± 0.2 0.55 ± 0.2
GW-Type B 36 ± 26 2.6 ± 2 2.2 ± 2 0.3 ± 0.2 0.52 ± 0.2
GW-Type C 35 ± 25 2.6 ± 2 2.2 ± 2 0.3 ± 0.2 0.50 ± 0.2
GW-Type D 29 ± 23 2.2 ± 2 1.9 ± 2 0.2 ± 0.2 0.38 ± 0.2

washer samples are correlated to the high values of conductivity of lowest values. These values are very similar to the ones presented
the same samples. More specifically average conductivity of dish by other researchers (Eriksson et al., 2002; Antonopoulou et al.,
washer samples was more than 7 times greater than those of 2013). Besides their low TSS concentrations, dish water samples
shower and hand basin samples, 5 times greater than kitchen exhibit the highest total solids concentrations with values which
samples and more than 3 times greater that laundry samples. These are more than 2e6 times higher than the respective ones of the
high values are related not only to the cleaning products used other greywater sources, due to their high total dissolved solids
(soaps, detergents and the salt used by the dish washer to reduce content. On the contrary to the other greywater sources, hand basin
water hardness) but also to the very low water consumption of dish samples present the highest inorganic suspended solids content
washer which results in low dilution of the cations and anions in (VSS/TSS ratio equal to 65%).
greywater produced. The total nitrogen and phosphorus content of all greywater
Concentration of organic carbon exhibits a high variability sources is rather minimal when compared to that of mixed
among different sources of greywater. More specifically total COD household wastewater. Average total nitrogen concentration for all
average concentrations varied between 390 and 2072 mg/L sources (except dish water samples) range between 2.5 and 6.5 mg/
whereas BOD5 concentrations varied between 185 and 1363 mg/L L, whereas the presence of ammoniacal nitrogen was rather insig-
(Table 3). Laundry greywater exhibits the higher COD concentration nificant (NH4eN/TN ratios between 3 and 23%), as expected, given
with values equal to 2072 ± 1401 which are almost two times that urine which is the major contributor of domestic wastewater
greater than the respective ones from shower, handbasin and dish ammonia is absent in greywater samples. These values are
washer greywater samples and almost doubled of these of kitchen consistent with other reported in the literature (Almeida et al.,
samples. Soluble COD of laundry samples account for 56% of the 1999; Nolde, 2000; Eriksson et al., 2002; Friedler, 2004; Pidou
total COD and the average COD/BOD5 ratio is equal to 1.5; an et al., 2008), but higher than those of Antonopoulou et al. (2013).
indication of increased biodegradability of laundry greywater The only significant greywater source of phosphorus is the
(Table 3). Most of the organic carbon detected in laundry samples is
originated in the detergents used and the clothes’ impurities.
Kitchen greywater presents also high organic carbon concen-
trations (mainly due to the presence of drink and food residuals and
dirt from vegetables) with values of 1119 ± 476 mg/L and
831 ± 358 mg/L for COD and BOD5 respectively, presenting the
lower soluble COD fraction and the greater biodegradability among
other greywater fractions due to the presence of biodegradable
food particles (COD/BOD5 ratio equal to 1.3). On the other hand,
dish washer samples present the higher soluble COD fraction (74%)
and the lower biodegradability (COD/BOD5 ratio equal to 2.2). The
lower organic carbon concentrations were recorded in bathroom
samples (shower and handbasin) which present an average COD/
BOD5 ratio of 1.4 similar to the one reported by others (Palmquist
and Hanæus, 2005; Eriksson and Donner, 2009).
Kitchen sink samples exhibit also the highest total suspended
solids concentrations (319 ± 209 mg/L) with almost all of them Fig. 3. Contribution of several sources to the total greywater load of conventional
being volatile (98.6%), while dish washer samples present the pollutants (K: kitchen sink, B: bathroom, L: laundry, HB: handbasin, DW: dishwasher).
342 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346
dishwasher due to the use of high phosphorus detergents e soaps
(Fig. 3). The other sources show phosphorus concentrations in the
range of 0.1e2.7 mg/L which are lower than the ones presented in
mixed wastewater. These values are higher than the values re-
ported by Jefferson et al. (2004) and Chaillou et al. (2011), but lower
than the ones recorded by others (Friedler, 2004; Gross et al., 2005;
Halalsheh et al., 2008). As postulated by Eriksson et al. (2002),
higher phosphorus greywater content is expected to be recorded in
countries that have not yet banned phosphorus-containing
detergents.
The anionic detergent LAS was present in all greywater samples
with average concentrations varied between 7 and 436 mg/L, with
the higher concentrations being recorded in laundry samples and
the lower in dishwasher samples. Similar concentrations have been
reported by Eriksson et al (2002), while others present lower LAS
concentrations in greywater samples (Almqvist and Hanæus,
2006).
Heavy metals content is very low for all greywater samples and
conform to Drinking Water Directive 2015/1787/EC and WHO
(2008) drinking water quality guidelines. Cd and Ni were practi-
cally non-detectable (<2.5 mg/L and 5 mg/L respectively), whereas
Pb and Cr were detected only in laundry and dishwasher samples
(in the latter case) in very low concentrations. It is well known that
laundry detergents are a source of many heavy metals (Boyjoo et al.,
2013). These results are consistent with the ones reported by
Eriksson and Donner (2009) and Palmquist and Hanæus (2005). Zn
and Cu were detected in almost all greywater samples, with con-
centration ranging between 0.05 and 0.09 mg/L and 7e43 mg/L
respectively. The presence of Zn and Cu is very often associated
with leaching from plumbing material, pipes, fittings and coatings.
Laundry and bath present the highest concentrations of the non
anionic detergent nonylphenol and its ethoxylates, while handba-
sin exhibits the lowest concentrations for all EDCs examined (with
the exception of triclosan). Average nonylphenol concentrations
range between 3.7 and 62.8 mg/L, with these values being lower
than the reported ones by others (Palmquist and Hanæus, 2005;
Almqvist and Hanæus, 2006). High NP concentrations in laundry
and bath samples are associated with their presence in laundry
detergents and personal care products. Accordingly nonylphenol
ethoxylates average concentrations range between 0.2 and 3.2 mg/L,
values which are similar with those reported by Palmquist and
Hanæus (2005) and Almqvist and Hanæus (2006). The use of TCS
in shampoo, antibacterial soaps, dental care products (toothbrush,
mouthwash) cosmetics, deodorants is related with its presence
mainly in bath and handbasin samples. Similar TCS concentrations
have been reported by others (Eriksson et al., 2002; Almqvist and
Hanæus, 2006). BPA average concentrations range between 0.02
and 0.7 mg/L with the highest values being measured in laundry and
bath samples.
Based on the above results, four different types of greywater can
be distinguished depending on the alternative fractions included in
each type. GW-A represents the lighter type including greywater
produced in bathrooms and originating from bathtub/shower and
handbasin. GW-B is a medium polluted mixture consisting of
bathroom and laundry greywater. GW-C is a greywater type which
includes greywater originating from bathroom, laundry and dish
washer, whereas GW-D is the most polluted mixture representing
greywater originating from all the sources (practically is the same
with GW-C with the addition of kitchen).
The quality characteristics for these greywater types are pre-
sented in Tables 3e6 along with the characteristics of mixed
bathroom greywater samples (N ¼ 3) which were collected from a
household in Crete, Greece (GW-M). As can be seen from Tables 3
and 4, mixed greywater (GW-M) presents similar characteristics
with the light greywater (GW-A) as both mixtures refer exclusively
to bathroom greywater. The only difference is that the mixed
greywater presents higher nitrogen content than that of the other
greywater types. Based on these data it is anticipated that grey-
water quality characteristics are highly depended on the fractions
of greywater included in every greywater type.
Therefore it is concluded that different greywater types might
be suitable for different reuse options thus necessitating different
types or levels of treatment. For example heavy greywater type
(GW-D) exhibits more than twice the concentrations of total solids,
suspended solids, organic carbon and anionic detergents than light
greywater type (GW-A).Therefore higher treatment level is
required in the case that all greywater sources is desired to be
reused.
Tables 7e9 present the daily pollutional load produced per
population equivalent at each greywater source, whereas Figs. 3e4
illustrate the relative contribution of the several greywater sources
to the total pollutional load of greywater for all the quality pa-
rameters examined.
The daily specific mass loadings of each pollutant for each
greywater source were calculated as the product of greywater
volume of the corresponding greywater source (i.e. kitchen sink,
hand basin, shower, laundry, dish washer) of each resident and
residence and the concentration of the pollutant.
Based on these results it is concluded that kitchen sink is the
primary contributor to the total greywater mass loading of TS (41%),
TSS (58%), VSS (62%), BOD5 (41%) and TN (44%), whereas laundry is
a significant contributor of TS (32%), CODt (40%), CODs (43%),
NH4eN (52%) and LAS (57%). Bath samples account for almost
15e22% of the mass loadings of all pollutional parameters, while
hand basin's contribution is quite limited, accounting for 3e7% of
the daily mass loadings.
Accordingly bath and shower activities are by far the most
important contributors of the total daily mass of nonylphenol and
its ethoxylates (46e55%), triclosan and bisphenol-A (71e72%).
Laundry also contributes an appreciable portion of the total mass
loading of all EDCs (21e35%) with the exception of TCS (8%), while
kitchen sink's contribution is rather moderate (8e21%). On the
contrary, handbasin's contribution to the total mass loading of
nonylphenol and its ethoxylates is rather minimal (<2.5%), while
more significant in the case of TCS and BPA (9%).
Fig. 5 illustrates the comparison of alternative greywater types
(GW-A, GW-B, GW-C, GW-D) with typical household wastewater by
considering a wastewater content of 120 g/PE/d for CODt, 75 g/PE/
d for TSS, 12 g/PE/d for TN and 2 g/PE/d for TP. Based on these data it
is anticipated that greywater accounts for the 36e74% of the total
wastewater daily volume depending on the type of greywater.
Accordingly, although light greywater contributes only 15% of
the total organic carbon load of household wastewater, the heavy
greywater type accounts for more than 74% of the total COD mass
loading of wastewater. Besides its notable contribution to total
organic carbon load, greywater, irrespective of the sources
included, present a low nutrients content compared with the one of
typical household wastewater, while its contribution to the total
suspended solids content of household wastewater ranges between
5 and 22%.
In view of these findings, it is anticipated that light greywater,
although accounts for the one third of the total wastewater quan-
tity produced in a household, contains only 1e15% of the total
pollutional loads of household wastewater (with the lower values
corresponding to nutrients and the higher value to organic matter).
On the other hand, heavy greywater represents the 75% of waste-
water quantity while its contribution to the total household
wastewater load varies between 4 and 74% (with the lower values
corresponding to nitrogen and the higher ones to the organic
matter).
 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346 343

Table 7
Greywater loadings for solids and organic carbon (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type TS (g/PE/d) TSS (g/PE/d) VSS (g/PE/d) CODt (g/PE/d) CODs (g/PE/d) BOD5 (g/PE/d)

Bath/shower 12 ± 2.5 2.6 ± 1.2 2.5 ± 1.2 14 ± 4.8 73.8 9.6 ± 3.6
Hand basin 4.1 ± 1.4 1.0 ± 0.8 0.65 ± 0.6 4.9 ± 2.9 3.2 ± 2.9 3.5 ± 1.9
Kitchen 26 ± 12 9.4 ± 6.3 9.3 ± 6.1 34 ± 16 16 ± 8.9 25 ± 13
Laundry 20 ± 10 3.1 ± 1.6 2.5 ± 1.3 35 ± 21 20 ± 15 23 ± 14
Dish washer 4.5 ± 1.5 0.02 ± 0.002 0.02 ± 0.001 0.73 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.01 0.33 ± 0.05
GW-Type A 16 ± 3 3.6 ± 1.0 3.1 ± 1.0 19 ± 6 10 ± 5.6 13 ± 4.3
GW-Type B 36 ± 9.5 6.7 ± 1.9 5.6 ± 1.6 55 ± 22 30 ± 19 36 ± 15
GW-Type C 41 ± 8.2 6.7 ± 2.1 5.7 ± 1.6 55 ± 22 30 ± 18 37 ± 15
GW-Type D 67 ± 18.5 16.±6.9 15 ± 5 89 ± 29 47 ± 26 62 ± 24

Table 8
Greywater loadings for surfactants and nutrients (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type LAS (g/PE/d) NH4eN (mg/PE/d) TKN (mg/PE/d) TN (mg/PE/d) TP (mg/PE/d)

Bath/shower 2.8 ± 1.2 20 ± 12 89 ± 66 92 ± 66 3.4 ± 4.7

Hand basin 0.45 ± 0.29 3.1 ± 3.9 25 ± 24 27 ± 23 16 ± 28
Kitchen 2.5 ± 2 6.0 ± 7.4 157 ± 137 192 ± 147 77 ± 79
Laundry 7.5 ± 4.7 31 ± 30.6 110 ± 99 123 ± 103 22 ± 13
Dish washer 0.01 ± 0.002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 332 ± 85
GW-Type A 3.3 ± 1.1 23 ± 1. 114 ± 74 120 ± 72 19 ± 28
GW-Type B 10.8 ± 2.4 54 ± 29 224 ± 145 243 ± 148 41 ± 32
GW-Type C 10.8 ± 2.4 53.7 ± 28.7 224.3 ± 145 243 ± 148 373 ± 82
GW-Type D 13.3 ± 2.5 59.7 ± 28.4 381 ± 252 435 ± 260 451 ± 81

Table 9
Greywater loadings for heavy metals and emerging contaminants (average values ± standard deviation).

Greywater source/type Zn (mg/PE/d) Cu (mg/PE/d) NP (mg/PE/d) NP1EO (mg/PE/d) NP2EO (mg/PE/d) TCS (mg/PE/d) BPA (mg/PE/d)

Bath/shower 2.7 ± 2 1172 ± 1553 1172 ± 490 107 ± 79 93 ± 78 16 ± 14 24 ± 15

Hand basin 0.5 ± 0.4 93 ± 134 38 ± 13 5.3 ± 4.9 2 ± 1.3 2 ± 1.7 0.3 ± 0.3
Kitchen 2.6 ± 1.9 858 ± 918 430 ± 512 41 ± 56 36.4 ± 79 2.5 ± 2.6 2.7 ± 3.5
Laundry 3.2 ± 2.1 713 ± 391 919 ± 1238 42.9 ± 45.8 43 ± 59 1.8 ± 1.7 7.1 ± 6.7
Dish washer 0.0001 0.03 ± 0.001 NA NA NA NA NA
GW-Type A 3.3 ± 1.1 4.1 ± 1.03 1210 ± 546 112 ± 86.8 95 ± 86 18 ± 16.8 24.7 ± 17.0
GW-Type B 10.8 ± 2.4 35 ± 28 2129 ± 1684 155 ± 101 138 ± 146 19.8 ± 18.5 31.8 ± 20.3
GW-Type C 10.8 ± 2.4 35 ± 28 2129 ± 1684 155 ± 101 138 ± 146 19.8 ± 18.5 31.8 ± 20.3
GW-Type D 13.3 ± 2.5 41 ± 28.4 2559 ± 1927 196 ± 129 174 ± 231 22.3 ± 21.0 34.5 ± 21.3

3.3. Greywater treatment
Tables S2 and S3 (Supplementary Material) presents the average
concentrations and their standard deviation of TSS, total and sol-
uble COD and surfactants (LAS) in the influent and the effluent of
each treatment stage (i.e. sedimentation tank, sand filtration col-
umn and granular activated carbon column) for the six
experimental systems. Furthermore Fig. 6 (a)-(b) illustrates effluent
turbidity and TSS concentrations for the six experimental systems,
while Fig. S1 (a)-(d) (Supplementary Material) presents the
contribution of each treatment stage on the removal of TSS, CODt,
CODs and LAS.
Based on the results turbidity decreased significantly
throughout all the experimental systems from values around
52e115 NTU (depending on the type of the untreated greywater

Fig. 4. Contribution of several sources to the total greywater load of emerging con- Fig. 5. Comparison of different greywater types with domestic wastewater with
taminants (K: kitchen sink, B: bathroom, L: laundry, HB: handbasin, DW: dishwasher). respect to their quantity and quality characteristics.
344 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346
Fig. 6. Effluent turbidity and TSS concentration for the six experimental systems.
used) to values between 0.6 and 11 NTU (depending on the
experimental system employed). Similarly total COD concentra-
tions decreased from 275 to 670 mg/L to 8e34 mg/L and LAS
decreased from values around 39e78 mg/L to values lower than
1e2 mg/L.
For the experimental systems (Systems 1e2) without coagula-
tion the removal of turbidity, TSS, organic carbon and surfactants in
the sedimentation tank was low, while this was not the case for the
systems incorporating coagulation which exhibit a significant
removal of all these pollutants. The addition of laundry greywater
in System 2 resulted in a limited increase in effluent TSS and sur-
factants concentrations compared with the respective ones of
System 1. By comparing the results of experimental Systems 3e5, it
is anticipated that the inclusion of kitchen greywater resulted in the
increase of the organic carbon load which was transferred from the
sand filter to the GAC filter while the opposite was the case for the
surfactants.
The contribution of the three treatment units to the total pol-
lutants' removal was dependent on treatment's configuration. For
example in the case of systems without coagulation (Systems 1e2)
the role of sand filter on the removal of total and soluble COD and
surfactants was rather limited and activated carbon filtration was
the primary removal mechanism for almost all pollutants (Fig. S1
(a)-(d)). On the other hand, for systems with the coagulation unit
(Systems 3e5), sedimentation was the primary mechanism for the
removal of TSS, total COD and surfactants, but not for soluble COD
which was primarily removed in the activated carbon column. In
the case of the direct filtration experimental system (System 6),
more than 60% of the TSS and soluble COD removal was taking
place in the activated carbon filter, whereas more than 60% and 80%
of the total COD and surfactants removal was achieved in the sand
filter.
Evidently in Systems 1e2 the sand filter unit exhibited a
turbidity removal to the order of 20e25% and a total COD removal
between 25 and 27%. The low performance of sand filtration to
remove turbidity and total COD has also been recorded by others
(Friedler and Hadari, 2006; Zipf et al., 2016). On the contrary,
experimental systems with coagulation (Systems 3e5) exhibited
greater turbidity removal in sand filtration unit, but this was not the
case for the removal of total COD (18e22%). However it should be
underlined that in the effluent of the sand filter of Systems 3e5
more than 85% of the COD was in the soluble form and therefore the
recorded low COD removal is not due to the low performance of the
sand filter but due to the increased removal that was achieved in
the sedimentation tank ahead of the sand filter.
Effluent turbidity values were significantly decreased from
concentrations between 10.4 and 11.4 NTU for Systems 1e2 (no
coagulation) to concentrations between 0.6 and 1.3 NTU for
Systems 3e6 (presence of coagulation). Accordingly TSS effluent
concentrations ranged between 10.9 and 12.4 mg/L for Systems 1e2
to 1e2.9 mg/L for Systems 3e6.
Fig. 7 illustrates the periodicity of sand filter cleaning re-
quirements for the six experimental systems. Based on these data it
is concluded that for systems without coagulation the cleaning
requirements of the sand filter are rather low with periodicity
ranged between 9 and 10 d (with the lower values corresponding to
the lighter greywater type). The inclusion of coagulation in the
treatment procedure, besides its beneficial effect on systems per-
formance, resulted in the increase of the cleaning requirements (i.e.
decrease of the cleaning periodicity). More specifically the cleaning
periodicity of System 3 was equal to 6 d, while the respective values
for Systems 4e5 (fed with heavier greywater types) were even
lower (4d and 2d respectively). Finally the operation of a direct
filtration unit (System 6), in the absence of sedimentation, trans-
ferred the solids loading from sedimentation tank to the sand
filtration unit, without deteriorating final effluent quality, but by
decreasing the cleaning periodicity to 1 d.
Table 10 presents the average emerging contaminants concen-
tration in the influent and the effluent of the six experimental
systems, whereas Fig. S2 (a) e (e) (Supplementary Material) illus-
trates the average concentrations of the five emerging contami-
nants at the exit of each treatment unit for System 1.
Based on these results it is anticipated that a significant removal
of emerging contaminants can be achieved for all greywater types
and irrespective of the inclusion or not of the coagulation or the
sedimentation unit.
More specifically nonylphenol and its ethoxylates removal
ranged between 84 and 98% and the same results were recorded for
Fig. 7. Average periodicity for sand filter cleaning.
 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346 345

Table 10 of the proposed physicochemical system for filter cleaning (once

Influent and effluent emerging contaminants concentrations in the experimental every week) and the volatile solids content of the sludge produced
systems.
are low. Following this practice, the water savings are to the order
Treatment system NP (mg/L) NP1EO NP2EO TCS (ng/L) BPA (ng/ of 30e35% which are enough to provide for activities like toilet
(mg/L) (mg/L) L) flushing. If additional water quantities are required (e.g. for grey-
Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. Inf. Eff. water reuse for garden irrigation), the possibility of co-treatment of
System 1 12 1.1 0.5 0.08 0.57 0.2 1000 38 97 5 laundry greywater along with bathroom greywater is an interesting
System 2 18 0.58 1.5 0.09 0.80 0.08 350 27 105 1.5 option, although an increase in the cleaning requirements of the
System 3 30.3 1.0 2.3 0.09 1.95 0.04 300 24 490 14 filters is anticipated. Finally, the treatment of kitchen greywater
System 4 34 0.9 2.4 0.10 2.02 0.05 270 20 405 12
with all other types of greywater, although may be beneficial in the
System 5 26.4 1.10 2.1 0.12 1.81 0.05 240 19 370 10
System 6 34.3 1.12 2.5 0.11 2.09 0.05 280 21 470 6 case a biological treatment system will be adopted (in order to
provide biodegradable organic carbon and nutrients to enhance
biological activity), is not advisable when a physicochemical
treatment system is selected, as it increases significantly the
triclosan and bisphenol-A (removal to the order of 92e99%).
cleaning requirements of the sand filter along with the pollutional
Effluent concentrations of all target emerging contaminants were
load entering the activated carbon filter and therefore the opera-
very low. Especially for nonylphenol, it's effluent concentration in
tional cost of the system (due to the need for frequent replacement
all experimental systems was lower than the limit value of 2 mg/l for
of the activated carbon).
effluent NP concentration which has been set in Greece, under the
Joint Ministerial Decision 354/8-3-2011, in order to allow for
4. Conclusions
wastewater reuse. As it is evidenced from Fig. S2 (a) e (e), practi-
cally the removal of the target compounds was exclusively taking
The average daily wastewater production in the surveyed Greek
place through adsorption in the activated carbon column.
households was equal to 135 L per inhabitant, with greywater ac-
counting at most for the 72.5%. Greywater characteristics are highly
3.4. Practical issues variable as they depend on the living standards, the activities, the
income and the habits of the residents. Among the different sour-
Although there are no common guidelines or regulations ces, laundry and kitchen sink are the main contributors to the total
regarding water reuse in Europe, several European countries greywater load of organic carbon and suspended solids, whereas
(France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal) have produced their bathtub and hand basins are the less polluted sources of greywater.
own regulations and guidelines. However no specific greywater Depending on the sources, greywater accounts for as low as 15% of
reuse standards exist for most of the European countries. On the the total wastewater load of organic carbon (in the case of light
other hand, specific standards for greywater has been set in 50 greywater sources which amounts the 35% of the total wastewater
states of USA (EPA, 2012), Australia (Boyjoo et al., 2013), Japan production), to as high as 75% of the total organic carbon load (in
(Tajima, 2005), Canada (CMHC, 2002), China (Ernst et al., 2006), the case of the heavy greywater sources which amounts the 72.5%
Israel (Gross et al., 2006), Taiwan (Lin et al., 2005) and many other wastewater production). On the other hand, the nutrients load of
countries. In most of these regulations, limit values have been set greywater is limited. The application of a physical treatment system
for BOD5, TSS, turbidity and pathogens (mostly FC or EC), while the consisting of coagulation, sedimentation, sand filtration, GAC
major uses of treated greywater are toilet flushing and garden filtration and disinfection can provide for the production of a high
irrigation. quality effluent for onsite reuse purposes. The implementation of
Based on the results of the present study approximately 70e75% such a reuse practice can be economically and technically viable
of household wastewater can be characterized as greywater. when applied for the treatment of light greywater (bathroom
Greywater after treatment can be potentially used for household greywater).
activities such as toilet flushing and/or garden irrigation. According
to the data presented in Table 2, toilet flushing water demand can Acknowledgment
be met by using bathroom treated greywater. In the case that gar-
den irrigation is desirable to be satisfied through greywater reuse, This research has been co-financed by the European Union
the addition of laundry and possibly kitchen greywater (depending (European Social Fund e ESF) and Greek national funds through the
on the irrigation needs) should also be considered. Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the
In view of the results of the experimental treatment systems, it National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) (380040). Research
is anticipated that coagulation-sedimentation is required prior to Funding Program: THALES. Investing in knowledge society through
sand filtration and GAC filtration in order to comply with the the European Social Fund e Hydropolis: Urban development and
criteria set in the Greek legislation for wastewater reuse for urban water infrastructure e Towards innovative decentralized urban
use (TSS < 2 mg/L, turbidity < 2 NTU, BOD5 < 10 mg/L) and most of water management.
the international greywater standards (TSS < 5e10 mg/L,
turbidity < 2e5 NTU) for toilet flushing and irrigation. It should be Appendix A. Supplementary data
underlined that the whole treatment system, consisting of a series
of coagulation e sedimentation e sand filtration e GAC filtration Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
units, should be accompanied by a disinfection unit (UV unit) in dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.094.
order to meet the microbiological standards of the final effluent. On
the contrary, when coagulation is not practiced, compliance with References
the standards is questionable even in the case of treatment of light
greywater (bathroom greywater). Almeida, M.C., Butler, D., Friedler, E., 1999. At-source domestic wastewater quality.
Conclusively, it is anticipated that treatment of greywater can be Urban Water 1, 49e55.
Almqvist, H., Hanæus, J., 2006. Organic hazardous substances in graywater from
economically and technically viable when applied for the treatment Swedish households. J. Environ. Eng. 132 (8), 901e908.
of light greywater (bathroom greywater), as both the requirements American Public Health Association, 2005. Standard Methods for Examination of
346 C. Noutsopoulos et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 216 (2018) 337e346
Waters and Wastewaters, twenty-first ed. (Washington D.C., USA).
Antonopoulou, G., Kirkou, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2013. Quantitative and qualitative
greywater characterization in Greek households and investigation of their
treatment using physicochemical methods. Sci. Total Environ. 454e455,
426e432.
BIO Intelligence Service, 2012. Water Performance of Buildings, Final Report Pre-
pared for European Commission, DG Environment.
Boyjoo, Y., Pareek, V.K., Ang, M., 2013. A review of greywater characteristics and
treatment processes. Water Sci. Technol. 67 (7), 1403e1424.
Chaillou, K., Gerente, C., Andres, Y., Wolbetr, D., 2011. Bathroom greywater char-
acterization and potential treatments for reuse. Water, Air Soil Pollut. 215,
31e42.
Christova e Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An investigation into greywater
reuse for urban residential properties. Desalination 106 (1e3), 391e397.
CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation), 2002. Final Assessment of
Conservation Co-op’s Greywater System. CHMC, Ottawa, Canada. Technical se-
ries 02e100.
Donner, E., Eriksson, E., Revitt, D.M., Scholes, L., Holten Lützhøft, H.-C., Ledin, A.,
2010. Presence and fate of priority substances in domestic greywater treatment
and reuse systems. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2444e2451.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. USEPA,
Washington, DC. Report EPA/600R-12/618, Washington D.C. [Retrieved from.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100FS7K.pdf].
Eriksson, E., Donner, E., 2009. Metals in greywater: sources, presence and removal
efficiencies. Desalination 248, 271e278.
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002. Characteristics of grey waste-
water. Urban Water 4 (1), 85e104.
Ernst, M., Sperlich, A., Zheng, X., Gan, Y., Hu, J., Zhao, X., Wang, J., Jekel, M., 2006. An
integrated wastewater treatment and reuse concept for the Olympic Park 2008.
Beijing. Desalination 202, (1e3), 293e301.
Friedler, E., 2004. Quality of Individual domestic greywater Streams and its Impli-
cation for on-site treatment and reuse Possibilities. Environ. Technol. 25,
997e1008.
Friedler, E., Hadari, M., 2006. Economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in
multi-storey buildings. Desalination 190, 221e234.
Ghaitidak, D.M., Yadav, K.D., 2013. Characteristics and treatment of greywater e a
review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20, 2795e2809.
Ghunmi, L.A., Zeeman, G., Fayyad, M., van Lier, J.B., 2011. Grey water treatment
systems: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (7), 657e698.
Gross, A., Azulai, N., Oron, G., Ronen, Z., Arnold, M., Nejidat, A., 2005. Environmental
impact and health risks associated with greywater irrigation: a case study.
Water Sci. Technol. 52 (8), 161e169.
Gross, A., Wiel-Shafran, A., Bondarenko, N., Ronen, Z., 2006. Reliability of small
commercial greywater-treatment systems: a case study. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference Protection and Restoration of the Environment VIII.
Chania Crete, page 8.
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M., Mansour, M.,
Safi, M., 2008. Grey water characteristics and treatment options for rural areas
in Jordan. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (14), 6635e6641.
Herna ndez-Leal, L., Zeeman, G., Temmink, H., Buisman, C.J.N., 2007. Characterisation
and biological treatment of greywater. Water Sci. Technol. 56 (5), 193e200.
Jefferson, B., Palmer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., Judd, S., 2004. Grey water character-
ization and its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban
View publication stats
reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 50, 157e164.
Krozer, Y., Hophmayer-Tokich, S., Van Meerendonk, H., Tijsma, S., Vos, E., 2010.
Innovations in the water chain experiences in The Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 18
(5), 439e446.
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for
grey water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3439e3449.
Lin, C.-J., Lo, S.-L., Kuo, C.-Y., Wu, C.-H., 2005. Pilot-scale electrocoagulation with
bipolar aluminium electrodes for on-site domestic greywater reuse. J. Environ.
Eng. 131 (3), 491e495.
Loh, M., Coghlan, P., 2003. Domestic Water Use Study: in Perth, Western Australia
1998-2001. Water Corporation (Perth, Australia).
Mandal, D., Labhasetwar, P., Dhone, S., Dubey, A.S., Shinde, G., Wate, S., 2011. Water
conservation due to greywater treatment and reuse in urban setting with
specific context to developing countries. Resources. Conservation Recycl. 55 (3),
356e361.
Merz, C., Scheumann, R., El Hamouri, B., Kraume, M., 2007. Membrane bioreactor
technology for the treatment of greywater from a sports and leisure club.
Desalination 215 (1e3), 37e43.
Nolde, E., 2000. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multistorey
buildings-over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1 (4), 275e284.
Palmquist, H., Hanæus, J., 2005. Hazardous substances in separately collected grey-
and blackwater from ordinary Swedish households. Sci. Total Environ. 348,
151e163.
Penn, R., Hadari, M., Freidler, E., 2012. Evaluation of the effects of greywater reuse
on domestic wastewater quality and quantity. Urban Water J. 9 (3), 137e148.
Pidou, M., Avery, L., Stephenson, T., Jeffrey, P., Parsons, S.A., Liu, S., Memon, F.,
Jefferson, B., 2008. Chemical solutions for greywater recycling. Chemosphere 71,
147e155.
Revitt, D.M., Eriksson, E., Donner, E., 2011. The implications of household greywater
treatment and reuse for municipal wastewater flows and micropollutant loads.
Water Res. 45 (4), 1549e1560.
Roesner, L., Qian, Y., Criswell, M., Stromberger, M., Klein, S., 2006. Long-term Effect
of Landscape Irrigation Using Household Graywater e Literature Review and
Synthesis. Water Environment Research Foundation.
Samaras, V.G., Thomaidis, N.S., Stasinakis, A.S., Lekkas, T.D., 2011. An analytical
method for the simultaneous trace determination of acidic pharmaceuticals
and phenolic endocrine disrupting chemicals in wastewater and sewage sludge
by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 399,
2549e2561.
Tajima, A., 2005. The behaviour of the pathogenic microbes in the treated waste-
water reuse system and the establishment of the new technical standard for the
reuse of treated wastewater. In: Proc. Of the IWA Specialty Conference on
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Sustainability, 8e11th November, Jeju,
Korea.
World Health Organization, 2008. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, fourth ed.
http://www.who.int.
Zhang, D., Gersberg, R.M., Wilhelm, C., Voigt, M., 2009. Decentralized water man-
agement: rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse in an urban area of Beijing,
China. Urban Water J. 6 (5), 375e385.
Zipf, M.S., Pinheiro, I.G., Conegero, M.C., 2016. Simplified greywater treatment
systems: Slow filters of sand and slate waste followed by granular activated
carbon. J. Environ. Manag. 176, 119e127.