See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43146805

Formulation of synthetic greywater as an

evaluation tool for wastewater recycling
technologies

Article in Environmental Technology · February 2010

DOI: 10.1080/09593330903431547 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

18 289

7 authors, including:

Pascal Jaouen Abdel Lakel

University of Nantes Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment
187 PUBLICATIONS 2,365 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pierre Le Cloirec
Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Ren…
352 PUBLICATIONS 8,121 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Microalgal biomass refining and valorisation View project

DiesAlg View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pierre Le Cloirec on 01 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
This article was downloaded by: [Fanny, Hourlier]
On: 12 February 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919247023]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Technology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t791546829

Formulation of synthetic greywater as an evaluation tool for wastewater

recycling technologies
Fanny Hourlier ab; Anthony Masse b; Pascal Jaouen b; Abdel Lakel a; Claire Gerente c; Catherine Faur d;
Pierre Le Cloirec ef
a
CSTB, 11 rue Henri Picherit, 44323 Nantes, Cedex 03, France b GEPEA, CNRS, UMR 6144, CRTT, 37
boulevard de l'Université, 44602 Saint-Nazaire, Cedex, France c EMN - GEPEA, CNRS, UMR 6144, 4 rue
Alfred Kastler, 44307 Nantes, Cedex 3, France d Université de Montpellier 2, CIRAD, UMR 016, Génie
des Procédés Eau-Bioproduits, 2 place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France e Ecole
Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Rennes, CNRS, UMR 6226, Avenue du Général Leclerc, 35708
Rennes, Cedex 7, France f Université Européenne de Bretagne,

Online publication date: 12 February 2010

To cite this Article Hourlier, Fanny, Masse, Anthony, Jaouen, Pascal, Lakel, Abdel, Gerente, Claire, Faur, Catherine and Le
Cloirec, Pierre(2010) 'Formulation of synthetic greywater as an evaluation tool for wastewater recycling technologies',
Environmental Technology, 31: 2, 215 — 223
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09593330903431547
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330903431547

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Environmental Technology
Vol. 31, No. 2, February 2010, 215–223

Formulation of synthetic greywater as an evaluation tool for wastewater recycling

technologies
Fanny Hourlierab, Anthony Masseb, Pascal Jaouenb, Abdel Lakela, Claire Gerentec, Catherine Faurd
and Pierre Le Cloirecef
a
CSTB, 11 rue Henri Picherit, BP 82341, 44323 Nantes Cedex 03, France; bGEPEA, CNRS, UMR 6144, CRTT, 37 boulevard de
l’Université, BP 406, 44602 Saint-Nazaire Cedex, France; cEMN – GEPEA, CNRS, UMR 6144, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, BP 20722,
44307 Nantes Cedex 3, France; dUniversité de Montpellier 2, CIRAD, UMR 016, Génie des Procédés Eau-Bioproduits, 2 place
Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France; eEcole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Rennes, CNRS, UMR 6226,
Avenue du Général Leclerc, CS 50837, 35708 Rennes Cedex 7, France; fUniversité Européenne de Bretagne
(Received 7 July 2009; Accepted 21 October 2009)
Taylor and Francis

10.1080/09593330903431547

On-site greywater recycling is one of the main ways of preserving water resources in urban or arid areas. This study
aims to formulate model synthetic greywater (SGW) in order to evaluate and compare the performances of several
recycling processes on a reproducible effluent. The formulated SGW is composed of septic effluent to provide
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010

indicators of faecal contamination, and technical quality chemical products to simulate organic pollution of
greywater. To ensure that the SGW developed is representative of household greywater, its analysis was compared
to real greywater collected and analysed (RGWS) and to real greywater mentioned in previous publications (RGW L).
The performance of a direct nanofiltration process with a concentration factor of 87.5% at 35 bar was then tested on
both real greywater and SGW. The laboratory experimental results are promising: fluxes and retention rates were
high, and similar for both effluents. The permeation flux was higher than 50 L h −1 m−2. Retentions greater than 97%
for biochemical oxygen demand for 5 days (BOD5) and 92% for anionic surfactants were observed. No Enterococcus
were detected in the two permeates. These results confirm that the model SGW developed in this study shows the
same behaviour as real greywater when recycled. Thus, the use of this SGW developed in this study was validated
for the evaluation of membrane efficiency to treat greywater. This new tool will be a real asset for future studies.
Keywords: synthetic greywater; greywater recycling processes; direct nanofiltration

Introduction to a growing concern about sustainable development,

Today, water shortage is a global issue: it concerns urban
areas with very dense populations as well as arid regions.
In urban areas, wastewater reuse is one of the main ways
of reducing the demand for potable water. The prohibitive
cost of a dual reticulation system, which is required when
wastewater is reclaimed on a city scale, can be avoided
by reusing wastewater on-site. In this case, it is interesting
to recover not all domestic wastewater but only greywa-
ter. Greywater includes wastewater from bathrooms and
laundry facilities, and may also comprise wastewater
from dishwashers and kitchen sinks, but these latter are
often left aside because they are putrescible [1]. In order
to provide water that is acceptable for reuse from both a
health and aesthetic point of view, greywater has to be
treated and disinfected [2]. In fact, greywater may be
microbiologically and chemically polluted, with signif-
icant concentrations of bacteria, viruses, organic matter
and surfactants [3]. Nevertheless, interest in greywater
recycling technologies has risen recently, mainly thanks
including ecological and economic factors. Within a
household, greywater recycling and reuse can provide
enough reclaimed water to reduce potable water
consumption by 29–47% [1]. There are countless exam-
ples of on-site greywater recycling processes throughout
the world, and they are particularly numerous in Japan,
where the legislature strongly encourages greywater
reuse. This commitment is not found in every country.
Some authorities still need proof that on-site greywater
recycling technologies can be safe, technically practica-
ble and economically viable. To evaluate and compare
the performances of several recycling processes, exper-
iments were conducted on synthetic greywater (SGW),
so that the effluent was perfectly reproducible and repre-
sentative of household greywater. SGW has to be recon-
stituted so that the values of its physico-chemical and
microbiological parameters are coherent with those of
real greywater. Very few SGWs have been reported in
the literature using elementary products actually found

*Corresponding author. Email: fanny.hourlier@cstb.fr

ISSN 0959-3330 print/ISSN 1479-487X online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09593330903431547
http://www.informaworld.com
 216 F. Hourlier et al.
in greywater [4]: most authors have used a mixture of
chemical substances and commercial hygiene products
to simulate the greywater load [5–8]. These products have
a variable composition in time, and most of them cannot
be found all over the world; so, to ensure its reproduc-
ibility, the SGW is composed exclusively of chemical
products of technical quality.
Thanks to an increasing demand for greywater recy-
cling processes together with the decreasing cost of
membranes, membrane technologies seem today to be a
valuable solution for greywater recycling. Their advan-
tages in this context are numerous: (i) they are physical
barriers to solutes and to harmful micro-organisms
including the smallest viruses [9]; (ii) they are compact
systems that can easily be installed on-site; (iii) the
quality of the reclaimed water depends only slightly on
the polluting load of the greywater, so a variation in
contaminant concentration has a negligible influence
[10]; (iv) they have lower chemical usage than conven-
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
tional processes, which leads to reduced waste genera-
tion and lower chemical costs [9]. Nevertheless, some
problems still need to be addressed, such as fouling,
which reduces fluxes, increases energy costs and chem-
ical cleaning frequency, inducing a reduction in the
environmental and financial sustainability of the
processes [11]. Greywater recycling schemes with
membranes presented in the literature often include pre-
treatments such as sand filters or biological aerated
filters. However, direct membrane filtration is the least
constraining membrane process when considering on-
site recycling [12]. For example, tubular membranes
can operate on a high load effluent without any pre-
treatment, resulting in reduced maintenance, and which
also means that the effluent to be treated is a complex
mixture where some interactions between the different
components can occur, possibly increasing the removal
yield [13]. Direct nanofiltration (NF) of wastewater
from public showers in a sports centre in Israel has been
studied [12]. A polyamide tubular membrane (molecu-
lar weight cut-off of about 200 Da), at a pressure of
between 6 and 10 bar, enabled retentions of 93% chem-
ical oxygen demand, 83% total organic carbon and 98%
turbidity. These results are promising, thus NF seems to
be the process that offers the best compromise between
solute retention (better than ultrafiltration) and energy
consumption (lower than reverse osmosis) [14].
The aim of this study was to develop model SGW that
has the advantage of being totally reproducible in time
(no variation in the technical product quality) and in
space (these technical products can be found all over the
world). The SGW was reconstituted so that the values of
its physico-chemical and microbiological parameters
were coherent with those reported in the literature and
those measured on real greywater. To ensure that the
SGW developed in this study showed the same behaviour
as real greywater when recycled, the performance of a
direct NF process was tested on both effluents.
Materials and methods
Synthetic and real greywater
The composition of the SGW reconstituted in this study
is given in Table 1. This SGW is mainly composed of
chemical products of technical quality to simulate
organic and inorganic pollution of greywater from bath-
rooms (pollution due to the human body, body hygiene
products and make-up related products). Septic effluent
was added to provide indicators of faecal contamination
to simulate the presence of faecally-transmitted patho-
gens that have been proven to be present in greywater [1].
The real greywater that was analysed and nanofiltered
in this study was collected in five households located in
north-west France, in urban and rural areas. During the
six campaigns of analysis that are presented in this study,
the samples taken from the five families were mixed, so
that the analysed real greywater was representative of an
average family, composed of adults (80%), children
under 15 years old (10%) and babies under 2 (10%). The
samples were collected in the five households, directly
from the baths, showers or wash basins.
Nanofiltration pilot plant and membrane
NF experiments were performed on a tubular membrane
fitted onto a Microlab 40 plant provided by VMA
Industries (Meung-sur-Loire, France) (Figure 1). This
pilot plant was operated at 35 bar. The flux was measured
by a Mettler PM4600 (Mettler-Toledo, Greifensee,
Switzerland) balance linked to a computer, which
recorded the mass (±0.1 g) of permeate filtered during 1
or 2 min. Experimental error on the permeation flux
measurement was lower than 2%. The temperature was
maintained at 25.0 ± 0.3°C thanks to a heat exchanger
connected to a Mouvex RFA-30 cooling group
(Mouvex-Blackmer, Auxerre, France). The tangential
velocity of the solution over the membrane surface was
2.5 m s−1, so the Reynolds number in the membrane
module was equal to 3200 at 25°C, meaning that the flow
was turbulent. The permeate was extracted while the
concentrate was recirculated into the feed tank so that the
effluent concentration increased progressively. This
configuration was used to determine the maximal
concentration factor (CF) admissible by the membrane
for greywater filtration. This factor is given by
CF = Vp /Vi , (1)
where Vi is the initial volume of raw greywater and VP
is the final volume of permeate extracted. The trial
duration was close to 3 hours.
 Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010

Table 1. Composition of the synthetic bathroom greywater.

Pollutant simulated*
Concentration
Product CAS number Supplier Purity Function 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (mg L−1)
Lactic acid 50-21-5 Panreac >85% Acid produced by skin x x x x 100
Cellulose 9004-34-6 Serva >90% Suspended solids x 100
Sodium dodecyl sulfate 151-21-3 Merck >85% Anionic surfactant x x x 50
Glycerol 56-81-5 Panreac 99% Denaturant, solvent, moisturising agent x x x x x x x 200
Sodium hydrogen carbonate 144-55-8 Panreac >99% pH buffer x 70
Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 Panreac 99% Viscosity control agent x x 50
Environmental Technology

Septic effluent Microbiological load x 10

* Pollution due to: (1) human body; (2) shampoo and shower gel; (3) soap; (4) deodorant; (5) tooth paste; (6) shaving and moisturising cream; (7) make-up and make-up remover.
CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service from American Chemical Society.
217
 218
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
Figure 1. Simple flow diagram of the NF pilot plant Microlab 40.
The pilot plant was equipped with an AFC80 tubular
Figure 1. Simple flow diagram of the NF pilot plant Microlab 40.
membrane made of a thin-film polyamide/polyethersul-
fone composite provided by PCI Membrane Systems
(Basingstoke, UK). Its pure water flux at 25°C and 35
bar is 54.8 L h−1 m−2. This membrane retains 80% of an
NaCl solution at 5 g L−1 concentration at 20 bar. The
effective membrane surface is 0.031 m2 (0.78 m in
length and 0.0127 m in diameter). The maximal pres-
sure admitted by the AFC80 membrane is 45 bar.
Before and after being used in experimental work, the
membrane underwent a standard cleaning procedure.
According to the membrane manufacturer’s instruc-
tions, this procedure consists of alkaline cleaning (pH =
9.4) at 45°C for 60 min with 10 g L−1 of Ultrasil 53
(Henkel Ecolab, Saint-Paul, US-MN), followed by a
rinse with deionised water, acid cleaning (pH = 1.4) at
35°C for 30 min with 3 g L−1 of nitric acid and a final
rinse with deionised water.
During NF laboratory experiments, the retention of
a pollutant (R) is calculated by
R = 1 − (C P /C R ),
where CP and CR are the concentrations of the pollutant
considered in the permeate and in the raw greywater,
respectively, analysed at steady state.
Trials on SGW and real greywater were carried out
in duplicate, so the data presented in the results section
F. Hourlier et al.
are the average of two trials in similar conditions. The
results are reproducible: the error between the dupli-
cates is less than 8.5% concerning flux values, and less
than 6% for physico-chemical parameters, except for
the conductivity analysis (20% error) and pH measure-
ment on the real greywater (21% error). Microbiologi-
cal enumerations show low errors, less than 0.02 log,
except for faecal coliform enumeration on the real
greywater (0.6 log error).
Physico-chemical analyses
Conductivity and pH were determined by means of a
Consort C862 apparatus (Consort, Turnout, Belgium)
following ISO 7888:1985 and ISO 10523:1994 norms,
respectively. The results given by this apparatus have
±2% uncertainty. Turbidity was evaluated by a Lovi-
bond apparatus with ±9% uncertainty within a range of
1 to 2000 NTU in accordance with ISO 7027:1999.
Suspended solids were measured by filtration through
glass fibre filters (1.2 µm porosity) following ISO
(2) 11923:1997. Experimental error is evaluated at ±7%.
Anionic surfactants (a-surfactants) were analysed
with Spectroquant kits (0.05 to 2 mg Methylene blue
active substances (MBAS) L−1) and a Spectroquant
Multy spectrophotometer provided by Merck (White
House Station, UN-NJ). The method is similar to ISO
7875-1:1996 and gives results with an experimental
 Environmental Technology
error of ±4%. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was
analysed by means of Spectroquant kits and a Spectro-
quant Multy spectrophotometer provided by Merck.
The chemical reaction involved is similar to that used
in ISO 6060:1989. Biochemical oxygen demand for
5 days (BOD5) was measured by respirometry with an
OxiTop system from WTW (Weilheim, Germany) incu-
bated at 20 ± 0.1°C for 5 days. The detection limit of
this method is 0.5 mgO2 L−1. Dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) was analysed by a Shimadzu (Kyoto, Japan)
TOC 5000A apparatus following ISO 8245:1999 guide-
lines. The detection limit is 2 mg L−1. The experimental
errors on COD, BOD5 and DOC were 3%, 1% and 2%,
respectively.
Total coliforms, faecal coliforms and Enterococcus
were isolated using two different techniques: (i) dilution
and seeding for raw greywater and membrane filtration
concentrates, and (ii) filtration on 0.2 µm pore-size
sterile cellulose nitrate filters for permeates (ISO 9308-
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
1:2000 and 7899-2:2000). In the two methods, the same
agars and incubation periods were used: total coliforms
were incubated for 21 ± 3 hours at 36 ± 1°C on lactose
agar with Tergitol 7 (100 mg L−1) and triphenyl-2,3,5-
tetrazolium chloride (25 mg L−1). Total coliforms
counts are given with an error of ±0.5 log. Faecal
coliforms were incubated on the same agar for 21 ± 3
hours at 44 ± 2°C. Only orange or red colonies with a
yellow halo under the membranes were considered as
faecal coliforms. The results are given with an error of
±1.0 log. The incubation of Enterococcus took place on
Slanetz and Bartley agar for 44 ± 4 hours at 36 ± 1°C.
Slightly bulging pink to dark red colonies were counted
as Enterococcus. The error on this method is ±0.3 log.
For all parameters, experimental error was deter-
mined by means of a statistical study on a standard
sample, assuming normal data distribution and using
99.5% and 90% confidence levels for physico-chemical
and microbiological parameters, respectively.
Results
Synthetic greywater parameters
The properties of the SGW were compared to real grey-
water parameters analysed in this study (RGWS) and
from the literature (RGWL) (Table 2). The three
research publications giving the composition data of
RGWL are reported in Table 2: (i) the first one [15] is a
review of numerous surveys concerning greywater
composition in several countries from 1974 to 1999; (ii)
the second one [3] reports data measured on 148
samples collected in Israel; (iii) the third one [16] gives
results of a survey carried out on 102 individuals in
England.
The comparison between RGWL and RGWS shows
that numerous parameters have the same order of
219
magnitude, such as BOD5 and DOC, although the latter
is higher in RGWS than in RGWL. Considering mean
and standard deviation values, the main differences
between RGWS and RGWL can be observed in three
parameters: COD, total coliforms and Enterococcus
loads are higher in RGWS. As greywater composition
depends on many factors, including the geographical
position of the households and their inhabitants’
culture, it is not surprising to observe significant differ-
ences between RGWL, whose data come from numer-
ous different locations, and RGWS, which all come
from the same area.
When comparing SGW and real greywater, it
appears that COD is higher in SGW than in real grey-
water while, on the contrary, conductivity and BOD5
are lower in SGW than in RGWL and RGWS. The
difference observed in BOD5 can be explained by the
fact that SGW lacks chemical products representing
the pollution due to the human body, especially
sebum, which is quite difficult to mimic. A-surfactants
are higher in SGW than in RGWS: it is thus normal to
observe an excess of COD in the presence of a high
content of a-surfactants, as these latter are organic
compounds. Microbiological loads of RGWS and
RGWL are disparate, but the addition of septic effluent
to SGW has the advantage of supplying micro-
organisms so that indicators of faecal contamination
loads are consistent with those found in RGWL and
RGWS. This is why total coliforms and Enterococcus
are more numerous in SGW than in RGWL, but less
numerous than in RGWS.
In recycling processes, real greywater is stored prior
to treatment for a time period that mainly depends on
the installation scale. During storage, some changes in
greywater quality can occur, inducing variations in the
process performances. A complete study (results not
presented) showed great similarity between the modifi-
cations that occur in SGW and real bath greywater [17]
qualities through time. COD decreases in both cases
(from 600 to 400 mgO2 L−1 in real greywater [17] and
from 421 to 204 mgO2 L−1 in SGW in 14 days) and pH
shows low fluctuations (7.4 at day 0 and 7.1 at day 14
in real greywater [17] versus 6.7 at day 0 and 7.6 at day
14 for SGW). The results concerning microbiological
content are less consistent, but the analytical methods
are dramatically different from those used in this study,
and the results given in [17] are not precise enough to
reveal a clear trend. An additional survey of real grey-
water quality evolution during storage should be
conducted to ensure that the evolutions of both effluent
qualities are analogous.
As the SGW is mainly made of chemical products,
some trace elements, which are proven to be numerous
in real greywater [16], are not present in the model
greywater. However, a trace element can be added to
 Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010

220

Table 2. Average composition of the SGW and the real greywater from this study and from the literature.
Real greywater, literature (RGWL)
Synthetic greywater (SGW, nine Real greywater, this study (RGWS,
samples) six samples) [15] [3] [16]
m σ min max m Σ min max m σ m σ m σ
pH 6.76 0.30 6.29 7.29 7.28 0.41 6.46 7.84 7.41 0.46 7.18 0.18 7.47 0.29
Conductivity µS cm−1 188 18 159 212 377 36 331 434 166 84 1286 425
Turbidity NTU 24 16 4 42 53 19 26 75 93 33 101 109
Suspended solids Mg L−1 72 14 41 87 59 19 23 80 108 57 174 134 100 145
COD mgO2 L−1 454 33 391 505 253 43 176 323 339 107 364 225 451 289
F. Hourlier et al.

BOD5 mgO2 L−1 65 6 58 75 110 23 85 155 142 42 240 177 146 54

DOC Mg L−1 132 14 106 149 103 23 86 154 40 20 56 28 41 44
A-surfactants mgMBAS L−1 49.1 11.5 33.5 69.8 20.2 8.4 4.5 30.8 23.1 26.2
Total coliforms CFU / 100 mL 3.8 105 2.5 105 9.6 104 8.4 105 4.9 108 4.0 108 1.7 108 1.4 109 2.6 106 4.3 106 7.4 103 9.8 103
6 6
Faecal coliforms CFU / 100 mL 9.6 103 1.4 104 1.6 102 4.1 104 1.3 106 2.1 106 4.0 103 5.7 106 1.5 103 1.9 103 3.1 10 5.7 10 2.0 103 6.0 103
Enterococcus CFU / 100 mL 2.7 103 2.6 103 5.3 101 8.2 103 2.2 105 4.2 105 8.0 103 1.2 106 1.8 104 1.7 104 1.7 103 4.5 103
m: mean, σ: standard deviation, min: minimum, max: maximum.
 Environmental Technology 221

the model SGW, which is a staple model, in order to
study the impact of its concentration on the perfor-
mances of the technology. For example, bath salts and
chlorides could be added to study the influence of
conductivity on a recycling process.
very little fouling, and this is almost always reversible:
the final water flux, which occurs after reaching a
concentration factor of 87.5%, allows the recovery of
more than 94% of the initial water flux of both effluents,
meaning that the cake layer is almost completely
removed by a simple water rinsing.
The analyses of the effluents produced during
Figure 2. Fluxes obtained during NF of SGW and real greywater on an AFC80 membrane at 35 bar.

Nanofiltration treatment of real and synthetic
greywater
The fluxes obtained during trials on the AFC80 with real
and SGWs are shown in Figure 2. Permeation fluxes in
real and SGWs are very similar: the initial water fluxes
are comparable (70.3 versus 60.3 L h−1 m−2 on SGW and
real greywater, respectively) and the ratios between the
fluxes measured on greywater and the initial water
fluxes correspond pairwise. These permeation fluxes,
which are higher than 50 L h−1 m−2 on both greywater,
are very satisfactory. The filtration of greywater induces
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
filtration of SGW and RGWS on AFC80 at 35 bar are
given in Table 3. The retentions are very satisfactory
with, for both effluents, a residual turbidity lower than
1 NTU, a maximum of 2 mg MBAS L−1 of a-surfac-
tants and 2 mgO2 L−1 of BOD5 found in the permeate.
Retentions and permeate quality are similar for all
pollutants except COD. This is probably due to a
difference in particle size distribution in the two efflu-
ents. This residual pollution is not considered as harm-
ful because the majority of COD that remains in the
permeate is not biochemically degradable (BOD5 ≤ 2

Figure 2. Fluxes obtained during NF of SGW and real greywater on an AFC80 membrane at 35 bar.

Table 3. Effluent analysis during filtration of SGW and real greywater on AFC80 at 35 bar.
Synthetic greywater (SGW) Real greywater, this study (RGWS)
CR CP R CR CP R
pH 6.3 6.9 7.2 7.5
Conductivity µS cm−1 163 9 382 67
Turbidity NTU 4 <1 >75.0% 31 <1 >96.8%
COD mgO2 L−1 464 77 83% 258 <25 >90.3%
BOD5 mgO2 L−1 63 2 97% 115 1 100%
DOC mgC L−1 149 47 69% 91 39 57%
A-surfactants mgMBAS L−1 50 2 97% 17 1 92%
Faecal coliforms CFU / 100 mL 7.9 103 Ud 3.90 log 3.6 106 Ud 6.55 log
Enterococcus CFU / 100 mL 2.5 103 Ud 3.40 log 2.0 104 Ud 4.30 log
CR: concentration in raw greywater, CP: concentration in permeate, R: retention, Ud: undetected.
 222 F. Hourlier et al.
mgO2 L−1 in both greywaters). From a health point of
view, disinfection is ensured by the membrane on
SGW and RGWS: neither faecal coliforms nor
Enterococcus are found in the greywater permeate.
The quality of the permeate produced by filtering
SGW at 35 bar with the AFC80 membrane meets the
most stringent regulations regarding recycled water,
such as the Japanese regulations (less than 10 CFU/
100 mL of total and faecal coliforms, less than 10
mgO2 L−1 BOD5, turbidity lower than 5 NTU and pH
between 6 and 9 [18]). Thus, the permeate produced
by filtering greywater with AFC80 membrane at 35
bar seems to be suitable for domestic use, such as
toilet flushing and even clothes washing. These trials
lead to the conclusion that the SGW developed in this
study efficiently simulates a real greywater in order to
evaluate and compare greywater recycling processes
based on membrane filtration: fluxes and retention
rates obtained on real and SGWs are similar.
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
Conclusion
Model SGW was formulated and its composition was
compared to that of real greywater analysed in this
study (RGWS) and from previous publications (RGWL).
As greywater composition is highly variable, some
noticeable differences were observed between RGWS
and RGWL, but SGW parameters were comparable to
those of real greywater.
Next, the performance of a NF membrane (AFC80)
at 35 bar was tested on both SGW and real greywater.
The results are almost identical, except for the COD
parameter. In both cases, fluxes were acceptable and
user safety was assured: neither faecal coliforms nor
Enterococcus were found in permeates, which also
contained very low loads of organic matter.
These results validate the use of the model SGW
developed in this study to evaluate the performance
of a process for greywater NF. Thus, the validation
of this synthetic effluent by comparison with real
greywater demonstrates that this new tool will be a
real asset for future studies, for example in evaluat-
ing greywater recycling processes on a reproducible
effluent.
This study also shows that greywater recycling
and reuse by direct filtration on AFC80 membrane is
feasible, with encouraging performances with regard
to flux and retention rates. Hence, direct NF of grey-
water for reuse in buildings seems to be a realistic
solution, ensuring both user safety (NF membranes
constitute a physical barrier to pathogenic micro-
organisms) and environmental sustainability (this
process can significantly reduce the potable water
requirement of a household without using any
chemical products, except for membrane cleaning).
Additional long-term operations should be conducted
in future studies to ensure that the behaviours of
SGW and of real greywater are similar when NF is
conducted over several days, and that no perfor-
mance drift of the NF membrane will occur. The
robustness of the process to pollution peaks should
also be studied, by adding specific pollutants to the
model SGW.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Clare Diaper, from the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisa-
tion (CSIRO) of Melbourne (Australia), for the communication
of their ‘Synthetic Greywater Recipe’.
References
[1] V. Lazarova, S. Hills, and R. Birks, Using recycled
[1]
water for non-potable, urban uses: a review with
particular reference to toilet flushing, Water Sci. Tech-
nol.: Water Supply 3 (2003), pp. 69–77.
[2] G.P. Winward, L.M. Avery, R. Frazer-Williams, M.
[2]
Pidou, P. Jeffrey, T. Stephenson, and B. Jefferson, A
study of the microbial quality of grey water and an
evaluation of treatment technologies for reuse, Ecol.
Eng. 32 (2008), pp. 187–197.
[3] E. Friedler, Quality of individual domestic greywa-
[3]
ter streams and its implication for on-site treatment
and reuse possibilities, Environ. Technol. 25 (2004),
pp. 997–1008.
[4] N. Oschmann, L.D. Nghiem, and A.I. Schäfer, Foul-
[4]
ing mechanisms of submerged ultrafiltration
membranes in greywater recycling, Desalination 179
(2005), pp. 215–223.
[5] C. Diaper, M. Toifl, and M. Storey, Greywater technol-
[5]
ogy testing protocol, CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Coun-
try, National Research Flagship Report Series, 2008.
[6] R.A. Fenner and K. Komvuschara, A new kinetic model
[6]
for ultraviolet disinfection of greywater, J. Environ.
Eng. 131 (2005), pp. 850–864.
[7] G.P. Winward, L.M. Avery, T. Stephenson, and B.
[7]
Jefferson, Chlorine disinfection of greywater for
reuse: effect of organics and particles, Water Res. 42
(2008), pp. 483–491.
[8] B. Jefferson, J.E. Burgess, A. Pichon, S.J. Judd, and J.
[8]
Quarmby, Nutrient addition to enhance biological treat-
ment of greywater, Water Res. 35 (2001), pp. 2702–2710.
[9] G. Pearce, Introduction to membranes: Filtration for
[9]
water and wastewater treatment, Filtr. Sep. 44 (2007),
pp. 24–27.
[10] S.S. Madaeni, The application of membrane technol-
[10]
ogy for water disinfection, Water Res. 33 (1999),
pp. 301–308.
[11] C. Liu, S. Caothien, J. Hayes, T. Caothuy, T. Otoyo,
[11]
and T. Ogawa, Membrane chemical cleaning: from art
to science. In: Proc. of AWWA (American Water
Works Association) Membrane Technology Conf., San
Antonio, USA, 2001.
[12] G. Ramon, M. Green, R. Semiat, and C. Dosoretz, Low
[12]
strength graywater characterization and treatment by
direct membrane filtration, Desalination 170 (2004),
pp. 241–250.
 Environmental Technology
[13] H. Pignon, C. Faur-Brasquet, and P. Le Cloirec, Treat-
[13]
ment of complex aqueous solutions by the coupling of
ultrafiltration and adsorption onto activated carbon
cloth, Environ. Technol. 21 (2000), pp. 1261–1270.
[14] D. Trébouet, J.P. Schlumpf, P. Jaouen, J.P. Malériat,
[14]
and F. Quéméneur, Effect of operating conditions on
the nanofiltration of landfill leachates: pilot-scale
studies, Environ. Technol. 20 (1999), pp. 587–596.
[15] E. Eriksson, K. Auffarth, M. Henze, and A. Ledin,
[15]
Characteristics of grey wastewater, Urban Water 4
(2002), pp. 85–104.
[16]
Downloaded By: [Fanny, Hourlier] At: 20:38 12 February 2010
View publication stats
223
[16] B. Jefferson, A. Palmer, P. Jeffrey, R. Stuetz, and S.
Judd, Grey water characterisation and its impact on the
selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse,
Wat. Sci. Technol 50 (2004), pp. 157–164.
[17] A. Dixon, D. Butler, A. Fewkes, and M. Robinson,
[17]
Measurement and modelling of quality changes in
stored untreated grey water, Urban Water 1 (2000),
pp. 293–306.
[18] S. Surendran and A.D. Wheatley, Greywater recla-
[18]
mation for non-potable reuse, J. CIWEM 12 (1998),
pp. 406–413.