w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: Standards

and prospects

Gideon Oron a,*, Mike Adel b, Vered Agmon c, Eran Friedler d,

Rami Halperin e, Ehud Leshem f, Daniel Weinberg g
a
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, B. Institutes for Desert Research, Kiryat Sde-Boker 84990, Israel
b
Adel Consulting, Zichron Yaakov, Israel
c
The Ministry of Health, State of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel
d
Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Technion e Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
e
Environment and Health, Herzlia, Israel
f
Environment and Health, Raanana, Israel
g
The Standards Institute of Israel, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel

article info abstract

Article history: Water shortage around the world enhanced the search for alternative sources. Greywater
Received 19 October 2013 (GW) can serve as a solution for water demands especially in arid and semi-arid zones.
Received in revised form However, issues considered which include acceptability of GW segregation as a separate
3 March 2014 water treated stream, allowing its use onsite. Consequently, it is the one of next forth-
Accepted 14 March 2014 coming water resources that will be used, primarily in the growing mega-cities. It will be
Available online 22 March 2014 even more rentable when combined with the roof runoff water harvesting and condensing
water from air-conditioning systems. Reuse of GW is as well beneficial in the mega-cities
Keywords: subject to the high expenses associated with wastewater and fresh water conveyance in
Greywater the opposite direction. The main problem associated with GW reuse is the quality of the
Reuse water and the targeted reuse options. At least two main options can be identified: the
Criteria public sector that is ready to reuse the GW and the private sector which raises extra issues
Private sector related to the reuse risks. These risk stems from the on yard use of GW, relatively close to
Public sector the household location.
The main focus of the Israeli guidelines for GW use is on the private and single house.
The problem is less rigorous in public facilities, where the amounts are relatively large and
the raw GW is relatively diluted. The two main principles adopted for reuse are: (i) grey-
water can be minimally treated since it differs from the black wastes, and; (ii) no contact
exists with the resident around. The aggravated standards are an indication of the sensi-
tivity issues related to the problem.
ª 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 (0)8 647 2200; fax: þ972 (0)8 647 2958.
E-mail addresses: gidi@bgu.ac.il (G. Oron), mikiadel@gmail.com (M. Adel), vered.agmon@gmail.com (V. Agmon), eranf@tx.technion.
ac.il (E. Friedler), ramyhal@gmail.com (R. Halperin), ehud.leshem@gmail.com (E. Leshem), daniw@sii.org.il (D. Weinberg).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.032
0043-1354/ª 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
1. Introduction
1.1. General
Water scarcity is one of the biggest challenges which are faced
in arid and semi-arid regions however, is slowly approaching
also the mega-cities (Guidelines, 2002; Al-Jayyousi, 2003;
Government of Western Australia, 2009; Allen et al., 2010).
Greywater (GW) is part of the household wastewaters
(Mcllwaine and Redwood, 2010; Al-Mashaqbeh et al., 2012).
Accordingly, household wasted water consists of two major
components: (i) black wastewater which consists of the toilet
wastes that contains feaces, urine and the streams generated
by the kitchen sink and the dishwashing machine, and; (ii)
greywater wastes that originates from residential clothes
washers, bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks and laundry
machines. In Australia the GW (also referred to as sullage)
under the regulations, consists of all non-toilet wastewater.
Actually, the GW consists of the “dirty water” excluding the
kitchen sink and the dish-washing machine. According to the
different sources the amount of GW is between 50% and 70%
of all the water disposed by every household [regardless of
total amount] (Gerba et al., 1995). The main differences of GW
from black wastewater are as follows: (i) greywater contains
only about a tenth of the nitrogen (ammonia, nitrite and ni-
trate), since it is the major urine source; (ii) since black water
(containing feacal material) is excluded from GW there is a
decreased load of feacal pathogenic organisms; (iii) the
organic content of GW decomposes more rapidly than black
water and assimilation is assisted even further biodegraded
when GW is reused by direct application in the root zone. This
water, after adequate treatment can be reused close to the
house for lawn irrigation mainly, preventing the long-range
distance transportation in the expanding mega-cities (Al-
Hamaiedeh and Bino, 2010). However, there are several
works that recommends the use of GW even for agricultural
crops irrigation, although for different water qualities (Finley
et al., 2009; Misra et al., 2010; Pinto et al., 2010) (Fig. 1).
Greywater from single seweraged household has the po-
tential to be used for irrigation and/or toilet flushing. It can be
reused for ornamental, garden and lawn watering subject to
GW treatment and its’ quality level. In some cases the use is GW
is safe enough, due to minimal contact with the public. There
To toilet
flushing Grey
Grey water water
Grey
treatment
Water
unit
To
irrigation One way
valve Water
supply
Fig. 1 e Schematic of Greywater collection system and
reuse options.
93
are however, residents who take the risk and use GW after
settling only or applying a modification of constructed wetland.
The first permit to use GW was given in Israel during 1994
for the reuse of shower water in public Sport Centers (Ministry
of Health, State of Israel, 1994). It was realized that in public
places it will be much easier to control the effluent quality in
comparison to the private houses. The amounts of GW in
public places are large and the raw disposed water tends to be
diluted. Since then the reuse of GW went through dramatic
developments where the main issue refers to the GW quality
and the dilemma of public facilities vs. the private sector. The
issues related to the detergents content in the GW are less
problematic. Most of the detergent are now biodegraded
relatively fast (in less than an hour) and do not pose any po-
tential growth risk on ornamental plants however, some
precautions must be maintained (Al-Mashaqbeh el al., 2012). It
was previously stated clearly that one of main solution for GW
disposal in arid zones is the reuse option (Denlay and Dowsett,
1994). Scanning the literature, GW has been used to a large
extent in several main countries around the world. Australia
has developed guidelines for GW reuse, “Australian Guidelines
for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks”,
and reuse is encouraged through a program that offers
Australian $ 500.- rebates for the installation of a GW system.
The State of Arizona proposes the contractors, who will install
a GW system in new building, with a discount on the con-
struction (McCabe, 2013). There are US GW federal policy
regulations that even offer financial incentives for installing
GW reuse systems in new residential homes (Yu et al., 2013)
(mostly, they are in semi-arid to arid region and are advised of
using GW according regulations, like Arizona, California,
Texas). Several other countries also have incentive programs
for installation of GW systems, including Korea, China and
Cyprus (Zeng et al., 2013). In Tokyo, Japan, installing GW sys-
tems is mandatory for buildings with an area of over
30,000 m2, or with a potential to reuse 100 m3 per day. Several
municipalities in Spain, including Sant Cugat del Vallès near
Barcelona and several other municipalities in Catalonia, have
passed regulations to promote GW reuse in multistory build-
ings (Domènech and Saurı́, 2010). The European Council
Directive 91/271/EEC states that “treated wastewater shall be
reused whenever appropriate” however, the level and method
of treatment left ambiguous (UNEP, 2006; Somogyi et al., 2009).
Greywater is a significant water source that is always
growing linearly with the populations’ development (Simpson
and Oliver, 1996). It can be used efficiently close to the house-
yard for garden irrigation or even for tree watering. Greywater
can as well be used for golf courses, public parks and enriching
ground water. It can as well be used for the toilet flushing in
private and public places.
1.2. Health risks
Greywater might contain pathogenic bacteria, oils, fats, de-
tergents, soaps, nutrients, salts and particles of hair, food and
lint. The pathogenic microorganisms include bacteria, pro-
tozoa, viruses and parasites, where some concentrations are
high enough to enforce health risks. Therefore, a level of
caution must be exercised with GW reuse. It can be achieved
by preventing any human contact with GW. It may have an
94 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1

Table 1 e Estimated water consumption in household in Table 3 e Economic assessment of Greywater use (Oron,
Israel (Water, Energy and Infrastructure site, 2005). 2005).
Water consumption in Water consumption Percent Component Component Comments
the household by needs liter/ca/day cost, US dollars
Drinking, cooking, washing 27e33 20 Treatment facility 1300e1400
Bath 45e55 31 Pump 300e350
Laundry and cleaning 8e10 7 Container/tank 125e500
Gardening 8e10 7 Piping and 350e400
Toilet flushing 50e60 35 accessories
Total w160 w100 Various, operation 200e250 Considered as a
and energy constant expense
Total 2275e2900
impact on operational performance and life of a GW irrigation Capital Recovery 0.106 At 12 years and 4%
system. If these contaminants aren’t managed properly they Factor interest rate
can degrade soil structure, clog groundwater flow paths, Cost per family 240e310 0.82e1.06 $/m3/ca;
escape to the ground surface or even alter the wetting char- per year, $/family (5 persons per family)
acteristics in garden soils.
biogas and turning it into an alternative energy source. That is
1.3. Economic considerations another well-defined example where the waste separation at
the source has mainly advantages.
The urbanization processes which are linked with expansion The mean family size in Israel is around 3.7 persons and the
of the mega-cities even sharpen the advantages of GW use. community size holds above eight million people which lead to
The needs to convey freshwater on one hand, liquid and solid about 1e1.5 million families (2013). If one assumes that only 5%
wastes on the other side over long distances into and out-of of the community is living in single dwellings, it yields around
the mega cities make it an acute issue. A positive approach 100,000 families. It can be assumed that daily consumption of
for treating and reusing the liquid waste in a location close to water is around 160 L/ca/day which yields around 100 L per
its generation is needed (Christova-Boal et al., 1996). The reuse capita per day GW that can be easily be used (0.37 m3 per family
options may also include (further to the detailed listed above) per day). A mean-size family produces around 135 m3 GW per
cooling facilities, car washing, highway flushing and concrete year (0.37  365w135 m3 per year) which sums-up into
production). Water consumption frequently depends on the 13.5 million m3 per year for about 106 families. This amount of
economic situation of the society however, one has to water is equivalent to US $ 300-to US $ 400 per year, depending
consider the integrative picture (Department of Natural on the quota of water that was used by the specific family. That
Resources and Mines, 2001); Friedler and Galil, 2003). includes, as stated, only the single houses located on private
Use of GW has also several disadvantages, besides property. All the above figures are based on the Israeli facts,
reducing the amount of effluent available for agricultural which to a large extent can be applied worldwide (Table 3).
irrigation (Table 1). However, each disadvantage can be Namely, the cost of constructing a greywater reuse system
immediately turned into an advantage. Reduced amounts of is in the range of $ 240 to $ 310 per year .If one considers a
effluent can be interpreted as if larger amounts of high quality family of 5 persons it means an annual cost of 0.82e1.06 US
waters will be available for other sensitive purposes, dollars per person [240/(0.16  5  365); Table 3]. This amount
assuming that the final water amounts are irrevocable is easily recovered by the water cost, and mainly when the
(Table 2). Taking the limitations of black wastes trans- water consumption exceeds the quota when prices for water
portation means that by intermittent addition of different are doubled or more.
quality water for flushing and transportation will improve the
transfer conditions. Moreover, future sewer systems can be
designed according to these reduced (black) flows. The 2. Highlights of grey water use criteria
increased concentration of organic matter reaching the worldwide
treatment plant will as well be advantageous. The high the
organic matter content makes anaerobic wastewater treat- A general report referring to reuse of wastewater is given by
ment a more viable choice, subject to the option of producing the EPA (EPA, 2012). It covers the use of GW for irrigation and

Table 2 e Ranges of physical properties of Greywater, in mg/L (adopted from Ericksson et al., 2002; Friedler, 2004).
Parameter Laundry Washroom/bath Kitchen sink Dishwasher
Color, Pt/Co units 50e70 60e100 e e
TS, Total solids 380e430 220e280 3900e2500 1300e1700
TSS, Total Suspended solids 70e250 40e120 130e1300 100e440
NTU, Turbidity units 50e210 60e250 e e
Temperature,  C 25e35 15e35 27e38 35e42
pH () 8.1e10.0 6.7e7.4 6.5 8.2
COD 1300e1800 95e650 650e1100 1300
Faecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) 1.0  101e2.5  105 <1e2.5  106 1.5  105e4.0  107
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
other purposes. Indeed, it is almost the last word of effluent
reuses in Arizona, issued by GW law, due to the dryness of the
region. Other states in the US such as California, Oregon,
Texas, issued use criteria for GW as well (Yu et al., 2013).
2.1. Arizona (USA)
Greywater is defined by BOD5 that must be less than 380 mg/L,
TSS<430 and the Fats, Oil, and Grease (FOG) content should be
less than 75 mg/L. The water authorities in Arizona strongly
recommended avoiding any contact between the GW and
humans which means subsurface drip irrigation. No surface
irrigation is allowed. The state of Arizona is promoting GW use
by deducting US $ 1200 from the house/apartment cost. On the
practical scale GW in Arizona is split into three categories: up
to a quota of 400 gpd per family (close to 1500 L per day) no
permission is required for GW use, between 400 and 3000 gpd
(1500 and 11,355 L per day, respectively) permission is
required and above 3000 gpd (>11,355 L per day) it is consid-
ered as conventional wastewater venture (Tier 2). Other lim-
itations include the followings, according to the Arizona law
for GW use (OASIS, 2002): (i) human contact with GW and soil
irrigated by GW has to be is avoided; (ii) surface application of
gray water should not be used for irrigation of food plants,
except for citrus and nut trees; (iii) the GW should not contain
hazardous chemicals derived from activities such as cleaning
car parts, washing greasy or oily rags, disposing of waste so-
lutions from home photo labs, similar hobbyist or home
occupational activities; (iv) greywater use should be managed
to minimize water standing on surface (socio-economic as-
pects; Domènech and Saurı́, 2010); (v) the option for direct
discharge of GW into main sewage system should always
exists; (vi) it is required to prevent cross connection; (vii)
greywater applied by surface irrigation should not contain
water used to wash diapers or similarly soiled or infectious
garments unless it is disinfected prior to irrigation, and; (viii)
spray irrigation is not allowed.
Gerba et al., 1995 examined the quality of the GW in several
locations in Arizona. Feacal coliforms concentration was in
the range of 8 logs per 100 ml and was reduced by around 3
logs per 100 ml in the storage tanks. Total coliforms was
around 8.8 logs per 100 ml and reduced as well by around 3
logs per 100 ml. Turbidity was in the range of several tens and
diminished to a single digit values. All the systems sampled
could potentially meet the Arizona standards for nitrate, pH,
TSS, and solids content (OASIS, 2002; Artiola et al., 2014).
Additional disinfection (or equivalent measures) is required to
meet the standards. However, not all the bacteria are patho-
genic, which is a topic for further research.
2.2. California (USA)
The permission in California was issued on 1994. It includes a
series of instructions however, the prominent one include the
followings regulations: (i) a minimum of 140 mesh (115
micron) to 1-inch filter (or equivalent filtration capacity)
should be used with a flow rate of 25 gallons per minute (close
to 95 L/min) is required; (ii) all the GW should be applied via
subsurface irrigation, watering non-consumable trees and
bushes; (iii) maximum emitters flow rate should not exceed
95
8 L per hour, and; (iv) a surge tank should be constructed from
solid and durable material which will provide water for irri-
gation (Graywater Guide, 1994; Yu et al., 2013).
The criteria for GW use in California are based on the use of
wastes containing low quantities of contaminants. The mean
turbidity of the applied water should not exceed 2 NTU
(maximum of 5 NTU). Mean Total coliform should be less than
2.2 MPN/100 mL and a maximum of 23 MPN/100 mL
(maximum 30 days). The detention of 30 days has negligible
meaning when discussing GW application and consequently
does not hold for private dwellings.
2.3. Australia
Domestic GW from single seweraged premises has the po-
tential to be reused onsite for ornamental garden and lawn
watering, toilet flushing and laundry use depending on the
type of GW and its level of treatment. Some people reuse
GW wisely but others use them more poorly (without any
treatment), such as bucketing bath water to the garden or
diverting laundry washing water directly to a lawn where
children and pets may be directly exposed to it. The priority
of the Department of Health and Community Services
(DHCS) is to safeguard public health and subsequently it
acts to control and minimize the public health risks asso-
ciated with GW reuse. Hence, they issued the several
guidelines. A GW diversion device must be designed and
installed according to the following criteria (Table 4): (i)
greywater treatment has to comply with the health
department requirements and the removal all clogging and
health risk factors; (ii) each installation must be for a single
domestic dwelling only; (iii) only direct reuse is permitted;
(iv) minimum maintenance requirements must be specified;
(v) greywater has to go via a filtering or sedimentation
processes; (vi) greywater has to be applied via subsurface
systems; (vii) disinfected GW can be applied via surface
systems; (viii) application systems should be colored and
location marked in the area; (ix) greywater systems must
have an automatic overflow device; (x) easy decomposing of
the GW has to be guaranteed in the soil all year around; (xi)
greywater systems installation, connections must be
designed by authorized experts to prevent sewer gases
Table 4 e Greywater reuse criteria in Australia (NSW
Health, 2000).
Treatment Greywater
application
Coarsely filtered untreated Greywater Sub-soil irrigation
(excluding kitchen Greywater) e Sub-surface irrigation
Greywater diversion device
Treated and disinfected Greywater (to a Sub-soil irrigation
standard of 20 mg/L BOD5, 30 mg/L SS Sub-surface irrigation
and 30 CFU thermo tolerant coliforms/ Surface irrigation
100 mL) e Greywater treatment system
Treated and disinfected Greywater (to a Sub-soil irrigation
standard of 20 mg/L BOD5, 30 mg/L SS Sub-surface irrigation
and 10 CFU thermo-tolerant coliforms/ Surface irrigation
100 mL) e Greywater
Treatment systems Toilet flushing;
Laundry use
96 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1

to learn that according to Winward (2007) one of the reuse

Table 5 e Criteria for Greywater application in Australia
(Government of Western Australia (2005)).
Treatment
Untreated Greywater
Primary treated Greywater (i.e.
treatment by either a sedimentation
tank and/or a diversion device)
Secondary treated to a 20 mg/L
BOD5, 30 mg/L SS and possible
disinfection to achieve <10 CFU
thermo tolerant coliforms/
100 mL
a
Dependent on type of filter system.
Greywater
Bucketing
Sub-soil trench or
Sub-surface drip irrigationa
Surface spray irrigation,
Sub-strata drip irrigation,
Sub-surface drip irrigation,
or Sub-soil trench
criteria is similar to California standards (Yu et al., 2013;
Tables 6 and 7).
2.5. Cyprus
The Cyprus Government has four water saving subsidies in
place: borehole installation, connection of borehole with lav-
atories, installation of a hot water recirculation and installa-
tion of systems for the recycling of GW (Charalambous et al.,
2011). The Government of Cyprus initiatives and subsidies
were the close the gap between supply and demand for water.
One direction was to push forward the installation and reuse
of GW systems.

entering from the property; (xii) all plumbing work must be

carried out by a plumber licensed under the Water Services
Coordination (plumbers licensing); (xiii) pumps and tanks
Table 7 e Pilot scale grey water treatment technologies in
(containers serving as reservoirs) in the system have to be various countries.(BS-8525-1, 2010; Charalambous et al.,
connected according to all safety factors, and; (xiv) manu- 2011).
ally irrigating with GW using a bucket (e.g. bucketing
Treatment Operation conditions
laundry Greywater) to absorptive soils is acceptable pro- technology
vided that relevant health and safety conditions are com-
Horizontal flow reed 6 m2 surface area, 0.7 m depth
plied with. bed (HFRB) Sand/soil/compost mix media (1 mm
Disinfection is the process of inactivating pathogenic diameter)
micro-organisms in wastewater is frequently required. The Planted with Phragmites australis
disinfection process efficiency is measured by the analysis of HLR: 480 L/d continuous flow; HRT:
thermo-tolerant coliforms, as an indicator of microorganism 2.1 d
Vertical flow reed 6 m2 surface area, 0.7 m depth
contamination. The dilemma of GW treatment level and use is
bed (VFRB) Sand/soil/compost mix media (1 mm
well observed in the guidelines issued by the NSW (Table 4) diameter)
and The Western Australian Government concerning the Planted with Phragmites australis
effluent distribution system (Table 5). HLR: 480 L/d in 10 batches of 48 L; HRT:
2 h per batch
Green roof water Five rows of shallow troughs
2.4. United Kingdom
recycling system (1.2m2  0.1 m depth)
(GROW) Optiroc expanded clay media (w10 mm
Graywater from single seweraged premises has the potential diameter) topped with
to be reused onsite for ornamental, garden and lawn irriga- Gravel chippings (w20 mm diameter)
tion, toilet flushing and ultimately for drinking water pro- Planted with a variety of aquatic plants
duction (Environmental Agency, 2011). The authorities in Baffles and weirs create plug flow;
Additional aeration for 1 h per day
United Kingdom issued guidelines for reuse of GW (BS 2010
HLR: 480 L/d continuous flow; HRT:
8525-1, 2010; BS 8525-2 2011). The principles of the criteria of
2.1 d
various countries are outlines in Tables 6 and 7. Interesting is Membrane Two joint 34 L reactors, each fitted with
bioreactor (MBR) two submerged A4 flat
Sheet Kubota membranes, 0.4 mm
Table 6 e Some comparative standards/guidelines for nominal pore size
wastewater for urban reuse in various countries Seeded with activated sludge biomass;
[Winward, (p-68), 2007]. Aeration: 5 L/min
Recirculation loop generated by air lift:
Urban water Water quality Microbiological, 10 L/min
reuse, standards/ CFU per 100 ml Flux: 15 L/(m2 h); HLR: 168 L/d; HRT:
guidelines 9.7 h; Solids retention time 68 d
USEPA (2004) BOD5 < 10 mg/L Fecal Coliform ¼ ND Membrane chemical 9 L reactor with four submerged 25 W
Turbidity<2 NTU; Viable pathogens ¼ ND reactor (MCR) UV-C lamps and side airlift
pH ¼ 6e9 tubular membrane, 0.05 mm nominal
USA, California Turbidity ¼ 2 NTU Total coliforms ¼ 2.2 pore size
(USEPA, 2004) Avg. (5 NTU Max.*) Avg. (23 Max. in 30 days) 5 g/L titanium dioxide; Aeration: 5 L/
Germany, BOD7<5 mg/L Total coliforms<104; min;
(Nolde, 1999) Fecal Coliforms<103; Recirculation loop generated by air lift:
Pseudomonas 10 L/min; Flux: 15 L/(m2 h)
aeruginosa < 100 HLR: 57 L/d; HRT: 3.8 h;

* Avg-Average; Max-Maximum; ND e Not Detectable. HLR: hydraulic loading rate; HRT: hydraulic retention time.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
2.6. Jordan
Intensified work is taking place in the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan of the GW use. Two main leading efforts can be iden-
tified: water savings and the socio-economic aspects (Bino and
Al-Beiruti, 2007; Al-Hamaiedeh, and Bino, 2010). The Inter-
Islamic Network on Water Resources Development and
Management based in Amman, Jordan (INWRDAM) promoted
the reuse in GW research activities in Jordan. Due to water
shortage the use of GW was boosted in Jordan, with the deep
involvement of the World Health Organization (WHO)
(Overview of greywater management: health considerations,
2006). These activities were funded mainly by the Interna-
tional Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Ottawa, Can-
ada, and are based on construction of small wetlands systems
(Table 7). The cost of the private simple system is around US $
500.- per a single household. In addition, training activities
were conducted, supported by various international organi-
zations among which were the Islamic Development Bank in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, IDRC, the Islamic Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization and others.
2.7. Canada
Even in Canada they intend to reuse GW, although it is a water
rich country. It stem probably from the large expenses asso-
ciated with the regular waste disposal systems in the mega-
cities (De-Luca, 2012). At the moment the reuse criteria are
not as strict in comparison with other countries located in arid
zones and suffer from water shortage (Canadian Standards
Association, 2010).
3. Highlights of greywater use in Israel
Pioneering work of wastewater reuse in Israel was conducted
by Halperin and Aloni (2003). The natural continuation pro-
cess of defining generic reuse criteria for wastewater was by
nominating a committee for defining the reuse criteria for GW
by the Standards Institute of the State of Israel (Leshem et al.,
2013). As defined, the purpose of the committee was to discuss
and come up with the reuse guidelines. It was due to the fact
that many private house owners took the liberty and began to
install their private systems, without any regulations and
guidelines. The private house owners did it on purpose to save
water and mainly the expenses for water. The new Israeli
standards for GW are based on the British standards (BS-8525-
1, 2010 and BS-8525-2, 2011). After numerous sessions and
discussions the final standards documents SI-6147 was is-
sued. The regulations were issued after hearing the public
opinion.
The reuse of GW was a natural process emerging from the
earlier stages. Greywater systems consist of the following
major components, namely: (i) collection system; (ii) treat-
ment system; (iii) the storage of treated GW; (iv) the pumping
component (to the collection system and to the distribution
system); (vi) maintenance of the system, and; (v) water qual-
ity. However, there is the great difference if the treated GW is
used in the private (single) or the public sector. In the private
sector the sole house owner is commonly constructing and
97
maintaining the system. All the operation of the GW system is
under the responsibility of the house owner and he has to
struggle and comply with overall national authority re-
quirements. For comparison, a public facility that is sepa-
rating the GW for reuse is frequently monitored and
controlled by a national authorized body like the National
Ministry of Health.
The rationale behind the GW treatment and reuse on
the private house is based on the following pillars: (i)
minimum treatment is required since the GW is much
better than the black waste quality; (ii) maximum storage is
up to 24 h, although 12 h retention is recommended; (iii)
the container holding both raw GW and the treated ones
(separately) will be installed separately out of the reach of
the people living there, and not above the residential area;
(iv) no contact of the GW and the people around will be
allowed, and; (v) it should be a simple system, that requires
minimum maintenance. The above guidelines lead to
defining Tables 8 and 9, which are much more stringent
than other reuse criteria.
3.1. The collection system
There are different ways of collecting the GW from the
household in Israel. Essentially, there must be a clear sepa-
ration between the conventional wastewater disposal and the
GW collection system. Commonly water flow within each
house hold is maintained by gravity, until it reaches the
treatment facility. To insure clear separation, a one way-
direction valve is installed, to allow passage of excess GW
into the central sewage system. In newly designed systems it
may raise occasionally issues of sewage flow from the resi-
dential suburbs to the main treatment facilities, out of town.
Other means include accessories with an inverted screwing
and frequently along with clear labeling and identification.
The GW collection system can as well be painted with a
different color as compared to other collection system of the
wastewater.
3.2. The treatment system
The treatment system consists commonly of a settling
element, a screening/filtering component and biological pro-
cess that can include as well membrane technology element
or constructed wetlands components. All these are aimed at
treating the GW, allowing their use for on-yard irrigation and/
or toilet flushing. Frequently, an element of disinfection (a
small UV lamp and/or chlorination) is included in the treat-
ment process.
3.3. Storage
Storage is implemented for the raw GW, prior to treat-
ment and for treated GW prior to it’s’ application. The
detention of the treated GW should not exceed several
days. The storage tanks should be positioned above or
below the ground however, not risking local residents.
The storage should be made of prefabricated materials
off-site.
98 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1

Table 8 e The quality level of grey water treatment and reuse in Israel.
Quality A
Required treatment to obtain quality 1 Settling and filtration
Quality B
Required treatment to obtain quality 2 Treatment attaining 20 mg/L BOD5 and 30 mg/L TSS
Quality C
Parameter Mean value Threshold value for stopping the use of GW
Fecal count Count in 100 ml Annual mean of 100 Larger than 400
GW turbidity NTU Units Annual mean of 10 Larger than 20 Continuous
Chlorination Chlorine Annual mean of 20 Less than 12 monitoring
amount(a): mg/ during 30 min
L  min.
Disinfection with Passage of UV 80 mili.Joul/cm2(*) Less than 50 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
UV radiation above 55% per day
Passage of UV 60 mili.Joul/cm2 per day Less than 40 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
above 65%
Passage of UV 40 mili.Joul/cm2 per day Less than 25 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
above 90%

Quality D
Parameter Mean value Threshold value for stopping the use of GW
Fecal count Count in 100 ml Annual mean of 10 Larger than 40
GW turbidity NTU Units Annual mean of 5 Larger than 10 Continuous
Chlorination Chlorine Annual mean of 30 Less than 18 monitoring
amount(a): mg/ during 30 min
L  min.
Disinfection with Passage of UV 100 mili.Joul/cm2 per day Less than 60 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
UV radiation above 55%
Passage of UV 80 mili.Joul/cm2 per day Less than 50 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
above 65%
Passage of UV 50 mili.Joul/cm2 per day Less than 35 mili.Joul/cm2 per day
above 90%

Membrane filtration: UF, NF or RO.

(a) Chlorine amount: Content of chlorine times the contact time with the water.
(a) Chlorine will be maintained by one of the methods.
(*) These units (Not an SI unit) were used for practical-common uses only.

Table 9 e Greywater quality, their uses options and related tests.

Amount GW The use purpose of Restriction on reuse and Required water Control
of GW quality greywater guidelines quality
Up to 1 m3 A SDI for irrigation of Irrigation under SDI* only in Level A: Table 8 e
per day ornamental plants and fruit the household yard. No
trees irrigation of fruit plants
B Irrigation of ornamental Drip irrigation on the yard. Level B: Table 8 e
plants and fruit trees No irrigation of fruit plants
C Toilet flushing Automatic system to Level C: Table 8 e
prevent cross connection
Above 1 m3 C Irrigation of ornamental No access to the public Level C: Table 8 Continuous monitoring:
per day areas, water falls, green turbidity and
wetlands, green grass and disinfection. F. Coliform
ornamental ponds every half a year
Toilet flushing Automatic systems to
prevent cross connection
D Irrigation of ornamental Allowed access to the Level D: Table 8 Continuous monitoring
areas, water falls, green public. Not allowed access turbidity and
wetlands, green grass, lawn to the ponds and the water disinfection: F. Coliform
and ornamental ponds falls every 3 months

SDI – Subsurface Drip Irrigation

 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
3.4. Pumping incoming GW and treated water
distribution
The size of pumping equipment should be dictated by the family
size and the flow rate. It should be located in a position that does
not jeopardize the residents, mainly due to leakage and overflow.
3.5. Maintenance
Maintenance is dictated by the local authorities. It refers
mainly to regular operation of the reuse system however,
without interfering in the private properties of the single
resident. Maintenance refers to annual regular operation of
the system. The disinfection system is operated continuously
however, monitored twice a year for the proper management.
3.6. Greywater application
It is compulsory to apply the treated GW via a Subsurface Drip
Irrigation (SDI), to prevent any contact with humans. Ac-
cording to the Israeli experience the BOD5 and TSS are in low
content and are not jeopardizing the adequate system per-
formance. The national committee that defined the reuse
criteria for GW did not look too carefully at other parameters
such as SAR and EC, having in mind the idea that a relatively
high quality drinking water was the main supply to the house
(Leshem et al., 2013).
3.7. Greywater quality
The quality of the treated GW is one of the main issues related
to reuse. The reuse criteria in Israel are split into two main
categories, namely the public and the private sector. The pri-
vate sector is further split into multi-apartment houses and
single store houses, located on private properties. It is a
negligible problem in public places such as sport centers and
buildings of multi-level offices. The problem emerges pri-
marily in private locations, where the owner of the house has
to take care for his own property. The main difficulty with the
GW standards lies in a single house located on a private area.
The question is who control the water quality and what
guarantee will be given for the proper performance of the
reuse system, a private house-hold vs. a facility that serves a
large number of residents. These guidelines are mainly
designated to the single house located on a private property.
The general stages of GW treatment are based on the follow-
ings principles (Tables 8 and 9):
1) First level-course filtration and sedimentation.
2) Second level of treatment requires that the concentra-
tions of BOD5 and TSS will not exceed 20 mg/L and
30 mg/L, respectively.
3) The GW quality is subsequently split into four cate-
gories (Table 8). It is then the responsibility of the
house-holder owner which level of quality he wants to
apply.
4) The third and the fourth levels of GW treatment are
outlined in Table 8.
5) The distribution system of treated GW outside of the
house has to be marked with special signs, indicating
99
that GW is flowing in this pipe network (in Hebrew,
Arabic and English).
6) The raw GW can be stored up to 24 h although it is
strongly recommended not to exceed the 12 h. It is to
prevent odors development and regrowth of pathogens.
7) The treated GW can be stored up to 7 days, to prevent
anaerobic conditions, additional growth and develop-
ment of bacteria.
8) Attention has to be given not to connect the GW to main
tap water supply system.
9) A one direction flow valve has to be connected in front
of the system to prevent the mixing of GW and high
quality tap water.
10) When disinfection with chlorine is employed (or an
equivalent method) a residual chlorine content of
0.5 mg/L has to guarantee at the distal outlet of the
system after a residence time of at least half an
hour.
Currently the reuse standards are on probation due to the
resistance of the Ministry of Health, State of Israel. The Min-
istry of Health prefers to see actually a small treatment plant
on each private property. That issue is important since most
of the residents are trying to follow the laws.
4. Conclusions
Greywater is the imminent alternative of water resource use,
primarily in the era of mega-cities developments. The Israeli
standards are health-oriented, chemically, economic and
environmentally directed for safe reuse. However, it requires
the removal of the residual biological contaminants without
living minute by-products of the treatment process. It has a
series of benefits however, must be reuse subject to health,
environmental and economic criteria. The payback period is
in the range of 4e6 years.
The Israeli standards are one of the most critical criteria
around the world. The reuse standards for GW are now
waiting to the public reaction and the final approval by the
Standard Institutes, since extensive work is going on in the
area.
Several advantages are foreseen for GW use. In the growing
era of mega-cities that will be the trigger to transport less
water out of town, to main the larger treatment plants.
However, one has to remember that in this case the mobility
of the feces (TSS) will be reduced due to smaller amounts of
waters. The implications are wide. There is the pretension
that less water will available for reuse in agriculutre. However,
the contrary is true: more high quality water will be available
for more sensitive uses in the industry. The public will be able
to consume more water with reduced costs and adjacent to
the dwelling location. It can encourage self-production of
green health-food and indirectly had a benefit for the social
life of people, primarily for the elder and retired public. The
reduced cost of the GW will be the trigger to reuse it adjacent
to the house.
The main challenge which is still waiting for the advanced
research development is to turn the GW into drinking water
quality. That can be mainly be accomplished by the UF
100 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
membrane technology. Implementing the membrane tech-
nology will allow to treat the GW to high quality water. It will
be advantageous if a follow-up the studies referring to the new
development will be maintained.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to a long list of respected referees for
their contributive comments. The authors would like as well
to thank the secretaries of the committee of the GW reuse
standards: Tali Blobokov, Itai Evyatar, Zina Grishkan and Heli
Shwarts.
references
Al-Hamaiedeh, H., Bino, M., 2010. Effect of treated greywater
reuse in irrigation on soil and plants. Desalination 256,
115e119.
Al-Jayyousi, O.R., 2003. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable
water management. Desalination 156, 181e192.
Al-Mashaqbeh, O.A., Ghrair, A.M., Megdall, S.B., 2012. Greywater
reuse for agricultural purposes in the Jordan Valley: household
survey results in Deir Alla. Water 4, 580e596.
Allen, L., Christian-Smith, J., Palaniappan, M., 2010. Overview of
Greywater Reuse: the Potential of Greywater Systems to Aid
Sustainable Water Management. Pacific Institute, 654 13th
Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612 p-40.
Artiola, J.F., Hix, G., Gerba, C., Riley, J.J., 2014. An Arizona Guide to
Water Quality and Uses. College of Agriculture and Life
Science Cooperative Extension, The University of Arizona,
USA p-10.
Bino, M.J., Al-Beiruti, S.N. (Eds.), 2007. Compilation of Greywater
Studies and Reports on Policy, Economic Feasibility, Health
Impacts and Reuse Quality Guidelines and the Aqaba
Declaration on Greywater Use. Outcomes of the "Greywater
Treatment and Reuse for Poverty Reduction in Jordan (Phase
II)" Conducted by the Inter-Islamic Network on Water
Resources Development and Management (INWRDAM),
funded by International Development Research Centre (IDRC),
Ottawa, Canada, p-79.
BS-8525-1, 2010. British Standards Part 1: Greywater Systems:
Code and Practices. Issued by the British Standards
Institution, London, UK, ISBN 978 0 580 63 475 8. BSI, p-54.
BS-8525-2, 2011. Greywater Systems Part 2: Domestic Greywater
Treatment Equipment, Requirements and Test Methods.
Issued by the British Standards Institution, London, UK, ISBN
978 0 580 63 476 5. BSI, p-32.
Canadian Standards Association, 2010. Draft Standards: B128.3,
Performance of Non-potable Water Treatment Systems.
Canadian Standards Association, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite
100, Mississauge, Ontario, Canada L4w 5N6 p-30.
Charalambous, K., Bruggeman, A., Lange, M.A., 2011. Policies for
Improving Water Security, The Case of Cyprus. CLICO-Climate
Change. Hydro-conflicted and Human Security. Working
Package 4, contract number: SSH-CT-2010e244443.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An
investigation into greywater reuse for urban residential
properties. Desalination 106, 391e397.
De-Luca, M.J., 2012. Appropriate Technology and Adoption of
Water Conservation Practices: Case Study of Greywater Reuse
in Guelph. A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph in
partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Engineering. Canada, p-160, Guelph, Ontario.
Denlay, J., Dowsett, B., 1994. Water Reuse the Most Reliable Water
Supply Available. A report prepared as part of the Sydney
Water Project. Friends of the Earth Inc, November, Sydney,
Australia.
Department of Natural Resources & Mines, 2001. Guidelines for
the Use and Disposal of Greywater in Unsewered Areas:
Manual. Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia.
Domènech, L., Saurı́, D., 2010. Socio-technical transitions in water
scarcity contexts: public acceptability of greywater reuse
technologies in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Resource.
Conserv. Recy 55 (1), 53e62.
Environmental Agency, 2011. Greywater for Domestic Users: an
Information Guide. Horizon House, Deanery Road, Bristol BS1
5AH p-30.
EPA, 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618, p-59.
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002.
Characteristics of grey wastewater. Urban Water 4, 85e104.
Finley, S., Barrington, S., Lyew, D., 2009. Reuse of domestic
greywater for the irrigation of food crops. Water, Air, Soil
Pollut. 199 (1e4), 235e245.
Friedler, E., Galil, N., 2003. On-site greywater reuse in multi-story
buildings: sustainable solution for water saving. In: Paper
presented at Efficient 2003 e 2nd International conference on
efficient use and management of urban water supply.
Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain.
Friedler, E., 2004. Quality of individual domestic greywater
streams and its implication on on-site treatment and reuse
possibilities. Environ. Technol 25 (9), 997e1008.
Gerba, C.P., Straub, T.M., Rose, J.B., Karpiscak, M.M., Foster, K.E.,
Brittain, R.G., 1995. Water quality study of greywater
treatment systems. Water Resour. Bull. 31 (1), 109e116.
Government of Western Australia, 2005. Code Practice for the
Reuse of Greywater in Western Australia. Department of
Environment and the Department of health. HP8122, p-56.
Greywater Guide, 1994. Using Greywater in Your Homeland
Scape. Department of Water Resources, Australia p-35.
Guidelines, 2002. Guidelines for the Use and Disposal of
Greywater in Unsewered Areas. Draft for comments.
Queensland Government, Australia. August, p-19.
Halperin, R., Aloni, U., 2003. Guidelines for effluent reuse in the
city, recreation and industry (in Hebrew). Ministry of health,
State of Israel, Jerusalem p-15.
Leshem, E., Adel, M., Agmon, V., Friedler, E., Halperin, R.,
Weinberg, D., Ziv-Av, T., Shisha, A., Weinberg, D., Oron, G.,
October 2013. SI-6147-Greywater Systems. Issued by the
Standards Institute of Israel. p-30.
McCabe, S., 2013. Breaking Down Policy Barriers for Residential
Greywater Installation and Usage in New York City. Pratt
Institute/PSPD Environmental Systems, Management
Capstone, US p-42.
Mcllwaine, S., Redwood, M. (Eds.), 2010. Greywater Use in the
Middle East: Technical, Social, Economic and Policy.
Practical Action Publishing, CSBE-Center for Study of the
Built Environment, International Development Research
Center p-178.
Ministry of Health, State of Israel, 1994. Permission to
Reuse Shower Water for Irrigation in the Petach Tikva
Sportan p-15.
Misra, R.K., Patel, J.H., Baxi, V.R., 2010. Reuse potential of laundry
greywater for irrigation based on growth, water and nutrient
use of tomato. J. Hydrol. 386, 95e102.
Health, N.S.W., 2000. Greywater Reuse in Sewered Single
Domestic Premises. Published by the Government of NSW,
Australia p-19.
OASIS, 2002. Arizona Greywater Law. Issued by the Government
of Arizona, Phoenix p-45.
Oron, G., 2005. Treatment and reuse of greywater (in Hebrew).
Agamit (J Water Wastewater Auth. March issue, 8e12.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 5 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 9 2 e1 0 1
Overview of Greywater Management: Health Considerations,
2006. WHO-EM/CEH/125/E: Jordan World Health Organization,
Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Centre
For Environmental Health Activities Amman, Jordan, Amman
p-49.
Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., Grewal, H.S., 2010. Effects of
greywater irrigation on plant growth, water use and soil
properties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl, 54,429e54,435.
Simpson, J., Oliver, P., 1996. Water Quality: From Wastewater to
Drinking Water to Even Better. Australian Water &
Wastewater Association, Artarmon p-18.
Somogyi, V., Pitas, V., Domoskos, E., Fazekas, B., 2009. On-site
wastewater treatment systems and legal regulations in the
European Union and Hungary. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae.
Agriculture and Environment 1, 57e64.
UNEP, 2006. WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater,
excreta and Greywater. In: Policy and Regulation Aspects, vol.
1. WHO, 20 Avenue Appie, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland p-100.
101
USEPA (United State Environmental Protection Agency), 2004.
Guidelines for Water Reuse. Report EPA/625/R-04/108. USEPA,
Washington D.C., USA.
Water, Energy and Infrastructure site. 2005. http://www.mni.gov.
il/mni/he-il/Water/Waterauthority/.
Winward, G. P. 2007. Disinfection of Greywater. Thesis submitted
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, Cranfield University Centre for Water
Sciences, Department of Sustainable systems, School of
Applied Sciences, p-189.
Yu, Z.L.T., Rahardianto, A., DeShazo, J.R., Stenstrom, M.K.,
Cohen, Y., 2013. Critical review: regulatory incentives and
impediments for onsite greywater reuse in the United States.
Water Environ. Res. 85 (7), 650e661.
Zeng, S., Dong, X., Chen, J., Li, P., 2013. Planning an urban
wastewater system with centralized greywater reuse: a case in
Beijing. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 30 (1), 40e55.