Professional Documents
Culture Documents
to Dr. G. S. Raghavan 4/14/2010
By Aline Bennett, Leigh Evans, and
Kate McGregor
BREE 495 DESIGN OF A BIOLOGICAL GREYWATER TREATMENT
– DESIGN 3 SYSTEM FOR MACDONALD CAMPUS’ ECORESIDENCE
1
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our sincere thanks to a number of people in the completion of this project.
To Dr. Prasher for his help and consultation on wetland design.
To Scott Mankeltow for his advice in experimental setup.
To Helene Lalande for her timely analysis of our samples.
To Dr. Raghavan for his inspiration and guidance throughout the year.
Lastly, to our professors and classmates, who have taught and challenged us during this degree.
Executive Summary
Canadians are slowly beginning to understand the importance of our vast freshwater supplies. At 330 L per
person, per day, we currently use one of the highest amounts of water per capita. This has a significant impact,
measureable on our environment and the quality of our drinking water which is slowly beginning to become an
issue in mainstream media. Reusing water is not commonplace in our everyday lives, but we can have a significant
impact on the municipal water system by recycling greywater within our households. Replacing the water we use
to flush our toilets, with recycled greywater from showers, baths and hand basins can reduce the load on water
treatment plants and water drawn from lakes and rivers.
The design of a biological greywater treatment and recycling system for Macdonald Campus’ EcoResidence will be
presented in the following report. Of potential biological systems, the vertical flow constructed wetland is
optimal for many reasons. These systems are inexpensive to maintain and operate, reduce the need for chemicals
in wastewater treatment, and provide flexibility in sizing, making them optimal for greywater treatment.
This report gives a detailed overview of our activities during the past 8 months including the results of a survey,
an experimental procedure, an economic analysis, a social awareness campaign, as well as the final design.
2
Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction and Problem Statement.................................................................................................................... 5
2. Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Site Description......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Location ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Building Occupants ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Special Considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Assessing Water‐Consumption Characteristics of Ecoresidents .............................................................................. 8
Survey Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Survey Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 11
4. Experimental Procedure ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Objective ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Materials and Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Results .................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Greywater recipe ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Nitrogen .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Phosphorus ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
System Mechanics .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Untested Parameters of Interest ........................................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
5. Final Design ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
Flow Calculation ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Materials ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Internal Wetland Materials ................................................................................................................................ 28
External Wetland Materials ................................................................................................................................ 30
Sizing ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 37
6. Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 37
3
Economic Framework of Water Issues in Canada .................................................................................................. 37
Life Time of System and Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 38
Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
Cost Comparison .................................................................................................................................................... 42
7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 43
8. References .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix C – Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 48
What is Greywater? ................................................................................................................................................ 48
Recycled Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (RVFCW) ......................................................................................... 48
4
1. Introduction and Problem Statement
Canada is a water rich nation, with the most abundant supplies of freshwater worldwide. Approximately 20% of
the worlds freshwater is stored in Canada, where less than 0.5% of the global population lives (Environment
Canada 2008). We, as Canadians, live in a water culture. We all enjoy the conveniences of abundant water
resources, from recreation to indoor plumbing. Rarely do we consider what life might be like without this luxury.
This mentality has led to the steady increase of water consumption. We now use on average over 330 L per day
per person (Environment Canada 2008). Comparing this figure to that which the average European uses, ~150 L
per day per person (Gunther 1999), and the consumption in developing countries, ~50 L per day per person
(United Nations 2006), it can be said without hesitation that our habits are excessive.
Furthermore, the situation is more complicated than it initially appears. Freshwater is not dispursed in
accordance with the population distribution. Over 60% of Canada’s freshwater drains north, while approximately
85% of the population lives within 200 km of the Canada‐US border (Environment Canada 2008). Therefore, the
freshwater available to us is not as great as it seems. For example, many Canadian municipalities experience
water shortages during periods of summer drought. This alone provides a good argument for reducing, reusing
and recycling our water.
Reusing water might be a solution to the water quantity and quality issue; however, it is currently practiced on a
very small scale. Recycling greywater from sinks, showers and other household uses for toilet flushing and
irrigation is an option that would reduce overall freshwater demands. Generally defined, greywater is urban
wastewater from sinks, showers, laundry machines. It has low levels of contaminants and pathogens when
compared to “black water”, which comes from toilets (Nolde 1999). Greywater constitutes 50 – 80% of total
household wastewater (Eriksson et al. 2003; Friedler & Hadari 2006) and toilet flushing alone accounts for about
30% of household water use (Environment Canada 2008). Capturing greywater, treating it and using it for toilet
flushing will increase the sustainability of our sewage system. Many developed nations such as Israel, Japan and
England have invested in the development of water‐reuse technologies in order to conserve and recycle water;
however, meagre efforts have been invested into the development and implementation of water recycling
technologies in Canada.
Eco‐Residence on Macdonald Campus houses eco‐conscious McGill students looking for ways to positively impact
our environmentally challenged population. When Eco‐Residence was renovated in the 1990’s to provide student
housing, the design was forward‐thinking. Possibilities for the future implementation of sustainable projects such
as heat recovery technology and rainwater harvesting were incorporated in the design. However, due to a lack of
funding, these innovations were never realized. This provided an opportunity to address the question ‘Is
5
greywater treatment a viable option to reduce water quantity and improve water quality in Canada?’ If a socially‐
sensitive, economically viable treatment system can be employed, the answer is yes.
Reclaimed grey water should fulfill four criteria for reuse: hygienic safety, aesthetics, environmental tolerance
and economical feasibility (Nolde 1999). This design will focus on a biological treatment system. Numerous
systems were investigated before choosing to optimize a recycled vertical flow constructed wetland system
(RVFCW). This system will contribute to environmental sustainability by treating and recycling greywater in a way
that integrates ecological principles and technological expertise, drawing inspiration from nature.
2. Objective and Scope
The goals of this project are to implement an innovative water recycling technology, and to promote a culture of
reverence and appreciation for water amongst Canadians. The on‐campus housing of an environmental university
campus is an ideal location to test such an idea.
The following pages will outline the design of a greywater treatment and recycling system for the Eco‐Residence
(EcoRes) of Macdonald Campus, at McGill University in Ste‐Anne‐De‐Bellevue, Quebec. The project investigates
the specific design considerations for a 100 person community. It covers the design steps for the construction of a
biologically‐based greywater treatment system including a detailed description of experimental design and
execution, final design sizing and calculations, economic analysis and consideration of social components.
Although chemical and physical systems exist for this purpose, the biological treatment option offers several
advantages which can be explored further in Appendix C. A plant or microbial‐based system generally has a larger
buffing capability as well as potential for an increased resistance to cold temperatures. Tenants of EcoRes are
likely to have differing water use habits, and therefore, variable contaminant loads and volumes will be present. A
complex biological system will have many mechanisms to cope with such activity.
Proper design considerations are discussed to adequately handle varying flows year round. A building comprised
primarily of students will have very different flow patterns than a typical residential building. For example, on
holidays many students will leave EcoRes and flows will be drastically reduced. Summer months also pose an
interesting challenge as little or no flow will be present.
This project also covers the social impacts of such an installation. Data collected from a survey of EcoRes students
highlighting water use habits as well as general acceptance of a water recycling system is used to design an
appropriate system.
6
In the second phase of this project laboratory tests and models are developed in order to determine removal
efficiencies and performance of the system.
Finally, a detailed economic analysis investigates the possible water savings associated with such a system. Capital
costs including materials, construction, maintenance and operation are analyzed. Annual costs and system
lifetime are also considered.
The overall objective of this report is to not only promote the implementation of water‐saving technologies in
Canada, but to design a versatile, low‐maintenance greywater recycling system that is applicable to a variety of
domestic situations.
Site Description
Location
EcoResidence (EcoRes) is located on the south‐eastern edge of McGill University’s Macdonald campus in the
village of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Ste. Anne de Bellevue is a small town (15.1 km2) located on the western
tip of the island of Montreal, and has a population of approximately 5400 persons (CityofSteAnnedeBellevue
2009). Students living in EcoResidence are connected to the town’s municipal wastewater network, and the
EcoRes sewage is pumped from the town’s pumping station.
The residence is adjacent to the campus’s community garden and a small plot of campus farm fields. Additionally,
there is a relatively large area of lawn separating the residence from campus faculty housing. This proximity to
highly irrigated terrain offers an attractive option if and when dealing with a greywater surplus. If possible, the
excess water may be used for campus irrigation.
Figure 2.1. EcoResidence on Macdonald Campus
7
Building Occupants
At capacity, EcoRes houses one hundred students in two apartment complexes. The primary occupants of the
EcoRes are students between the ages of 18‐25. The building offers a more independent form of on‐campus
living, and therefore, is likely to attract a more responsible, mature demographic of the student population. Pets
are not permitted to dwell in the apartments, which eliminates one factor of uncertainty when attempting to
estimate the strength of greywater being produced.
Special Considerations
It is important to note that EcoRes is primarily uninhabited during the months of May, June, July and August. This
means that little to no greywater will be produced during this time, which will have devastating effects on the
RVFCW system if the loss of water is not compensated. Additionally, the cold winters of Quebec provide a climatic
difficulty with respect to housing the system outdoors year‐round. Therefore, we are proposing an indoor system
that would be housed in the two EcoRes laundry rooms.
Additional variations in flow may take place as a result of students going away for holidays and long weekends.
The recycling action of the RVFCW helps to buffer against such disturbances in flow, by continuously rewetting
the system with recycled water. This keeps the microbes wet and well‐fed during short breaks in greywater
supply.
3. Assessing Water‐Consumption Characteristics of Ecoresidents
Survey Objectives
A survey was done of the students who live at EcoRes with the following objectives:
a. Measure approximate tenant water consumption
b. Assess residents' awareness of greywater recycling
c. Assess willingness to accept cloudy water in their toilets in their home
d. Determine if residents would be willing to pay for a greywater treatment system
e. Better understand how to change water consumption behaviours
8
Survey Results
Water consumption behaviours and water use awareness was evaluated for the EcoRes student population. A
sampling of 32 students across different departments and ages was taken. All were given the same set of nine
questions to answer. For a copy of the survey disseminated, please refer to Appendix B.
Results from the survey are as follows:
Table 3.1: Results of the Survey
Biodegradable products
Laundry (#/ per month)
Showers (#/ per week)
Unit Size (# of people)
How often do you go
Running water while
Shower length (min)
Toilet Flush (#/day)
Flush if cloudy?
brushing Teeth
$ per month?
Year of Study
home? *
Survey #
used **
Major
Age
Msc
1 25 1 2 >10 >6 1‐‐2 sometimes 10‐‐15 never b 5 /
Nutrition
4 22 Agenv Sci 3 2 2‐‐5 >6 3‐‐4 sometimes 10–15 never a,b 10 d,e
5 29 Parasitology 4 2 >10 4‐‐6 2‐‐3 never 10‐‐15 definitely b,d 10 /
6 21 Zoology 2 6 >10 2‐‐4 <1 never 10—15 never a,b,c 5 e,f
7 22 Agenv Sci 2 6 2‐‐5 4‐‐6 3‐‐4 never 10–15 never a,c 10 e,f
8 20 Dietetics 1 6 2‐‐5 >6 3‐‐4 never >15 never a,b 20 e,f
9 19 BioEng 1 6 7‐‐10 >6 2‐‐3 never 10–15 never a,b 5 c,d
10 19 Dietetics 1 6 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 1‐‐2 never 5‐‐10 definitely a,b 0 /
Phd
11 34 2 2 5‐‐7 >6 <1 sometimes 5‐‐10 maybe / 5 c,e
Nutrition
12 20 Dietetics 2 6 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 3‐‐4 never 10‐‐15 never a,b 10 a
13 19 Dietetics 2 6 2‐‐5 >6 2‐‐3 sometimes 5‐‐10 maybe a,b 5 /
14 20 Dietetics 2 6 2‐‐5 >6 2‐‐3 sometimes 5 ‐‐10 maybe a,b 5 d,e,f
15 20 Dietetics 2 6 5‐‐7 2‐‐4 1‐‐2 never >15 definitely a 0 /
16 21 BioEng 1 6 2‐‐5 4‐‐6 2‐‐3 never 5 ‐‐10 never a,b,d 20 /
17 21 Dietetics 2 6 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 >4 sometimes >15 never a,b,d 5 /
18 26 Nutrition 1 6 2‐‐5 4‐‐6 2‐‐3 never 5‐‐10 never b 5 a,b,e
19 18 Ag Econ 1 6 7‐‐10 >6 1‐‐2 Never 5 ‐‐10 definitely a,b 10 c,g
9
20 19 Dietetics 0 6 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 1‐‐2 / 10‐‐15 definitely a,b,d 10 /
21 18 Agenv Sci 1 6 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 2‐‐3 sometimes 5‐‐10 never a,b,c 10 a,b,d
22 19 Dietetics 1 6 2‐‐5 >6 3‐‐4 sometimes 10–15 never a 10 /
23 23 Agenv Sci 3 2 2‐‐5 >6 2‐‐3 never 5‐‐10 never a,b,c 5 e,f
24 21 MSc IWRM 1 6 2‐‐5 4‐‐6 1‐‐2 never 10‐‐15 never a,b 5 e,f
25 18 / 0 6 2‐‐5 >6 3‐‐4 never 5‐‐10 maybe a,c 5 a,e,f
26 19 Agenv Sci 1 6 2‐‐5 >6 1‐‐2 never 5‐‐10 maybe a 5 d,f
27 19 BioEng 1 2 2‐‐5 2‐‐4 1‐‐2 never 5‐‐10 never a,d 5 d,e,f
28 22 BioEng 3 2 2‐‐5 4‐‐6 0 never >15 maybe a,b,c 5 d,e,f
29 22 BioEng 3 2 7‐‐10 2‐‐4 2‐‐3 never 5‐‐10 never a 0 a,d,e
30 19 Agenv Sci 1 6 2‐‐5 >6 3‐‐4 Usually 10–15 maybe a,b,c 10 a,b,d
31 19 Environment 2 6 2‐‐5 >6 1‐‐2 never <5 never a,b 10 e
32 20 Wildlife Bio 2 6 5‐‐7 4‐‐6 2‐‐3 sometimes 10–15 maybe a,b,c 5 /
Averages 5 5.3 2.3 11.2 7.2
* Letters refer to the following: (a) Summer (May‐August) (b) Christmas break (c) Most weekends (3‐4 weekends per month) (d) some
weekends (1 weekend per month)
* * Letters refer to the following: (a) shampoo (b) conditioner (c) body wash (d) soap (e) laundry detergent ( f) dish soap (g) make‐up (h)
make‐up remover
The hypothesis when implementing the survey was that these students coming from an environmental
background would be more aware of their water consumption. Having compared the results above for water
consumption to values published by Environment Canada, it was found that water consumption of Ecoresidents is
the same as the average Canadian (Environment Canada 2008), and we are not as water conscious as might be
expected.
Some results that we were interested in were the likelihood that someone would flush the toilet if the water
inside were cloudy. After assessing the results, it can be seen that about 50% of respondents are likely to flush a
cloudy‐watered toile, thereby greatly increasing volumes of water used. It is also interesting to look at the types
of products most residents are using. Of all biodegradable products available, only laundry detergent and dish
soap were being used significantly by residents. If an increased awareness of how people’s behaviours impact
their water quantity consumed and quality of effluent, the load on the system could be greatly reduced.
10
Survey Conclusions
There are diverging ideas seen from the results of the survey. On one hand, we see that EcoResidents use about
the same amount of water as the national average, however, they are willing to pay extra for the implementation
of water saving technologies. Therefore, we see that a sociological issues need to be addressed along with water
recycling technology. A series of posters such as the following is proposed in conjunction with the
implementation of the VFCW in order to address the sociological challenges of greywater reuse. These posters
could be put in EcoRes bathrooms above toilets and recycling systems in order to explain the system.
Poster #1:
This is a general awareness
poster which would be
used to sensitize residents
to water consumption
issues and introduce the
concept of recycling
greywater.
11
Poster #2:
This poster would be
placed in residents
bathrooms to sensitize
residents to cloudy water
in their toilets due to
wetland treatment.
Poster #3:
This poster would be placed
with the constructed
wetland units to explain their
function and the treatment
mechanism.
12
4. Experimental Procedure
In order to further understand the mechanics of the RVFCW, an experimental model was designed and
constructed. What follows is an outline of the experimental design, function, and results obtained from the
model.
Objective
The primary objective of the RVFCW is to degrade contaminants and excess nutrients through the action of
various microbial communities. However, in a constructed wetland environment, these communities take time to
develop. According to Gross et al (2006), this microbial development may take up to three months before
colonies are functioning at an adequate rate. It is with this in mind that no microbial counts or monitoring took
place throughout the experiment.
While running the model and performing laboratory tests over such a lengthy period of time was unfeasible, the
idea of constructing and running a model over the short term was still appealing for various reasons.
This experiment employs a unique substrate layering scheme (Figure 5.11 Layering Scheme) enabling the
adsorption nutrients, specifically phosphorous with respect to the slag layer. After consultation with Dr. Shiv
Prasher, it was decided that running the wetland over the short term would likely produce interesting results with
respect to phosphorous removal. The potential for the removal and or decomposition of nitrogen‐containing
compounds would also be analyzed.
Aside from analyzing the short term physico‐chemical function of the wetland, the act of layering the substrates,
monitoring the recycle flow rate and hydraulic conductivity, and observing the influent feed tube emitters for
potential clogs or disruptions would all prove informative and worthwhile in the undertaking of this experiment.
It was with these factors in mind that two relatively identical RVFCWs were constructed and operated over a 24
hour period. A handmade greywater recipe was devised, mixed, and added to the system in order to simulate
greywater from sink and shower sources.
Materials and Procedure
The model was designed after the RVFCW proposed by Sklarz et al (2009) and Gross et al (2006). Figure 4.1
highlights the primary elements of the system.
13
Figure 4.1. Recycled vertical flow constructed wetland experimental model.
All materials used in the construction of the experimental model were taken from recycled sources, aside from
the pumps and pipe fittings. The filter media (gravel, peat, slag and sand) were used with permission from Dr. Shiv
Prasher. A gravel filter was constructed out of ¾”, ½”, and ¼” gravel as the base layer of the wetland system. The
remaining substrate layers were built up according to the diagram in Design section of this paper. The final height
of the substrate totalled 12”. The distribution and wetland system tanks consisted of 14” diameter X 14” high
plastic containers; the distribution tank attached with a fitting connected to the feed tube, and the wetland
system tank equipped with a perforated bottom. The distribution tank was placed above the wetland tank in
order to facilitate adequate gravity flow through the influent feed tubes. The influent feed tubes were perforated
20 times with a drill bit at 2 inch intervals to allow for even distribution of greywater. Both models were set atop a
mesh footing, which in turn was placed within the 25 litre collection and recycle basin. A 0.5 horsepower,
14
magnetically powered, centrifugal pump was placed within each collection basin. ½” tubing connected the pump
back up to the top of the substrate.
Once the filtration layers were established and the system was in place, plain tap water was flushed through the
system in order to wash out any loose dust and debris present within the wetland. Once the water running
through the system appeared visibly clear and free of any major sediments, the system was drained over night in
preparation for the addition of the greywater cocktail.
Figure 4.2. Layering substrate in the experimental model.
15
Figure 4.3. Flushing the system of sediments.
The greywater cocktail recipe was developed with the help of Scheumann and Kraume (2009) and with intention
of replicating greywater from showers and bathroom sinks. Table 4.1 outlines the ingredients and concentration
levels.
Table 4.2. Syntheic greywater recipe
Greywater recipe
ingredients concentration (mg/L or mL/L) per 100 litres
toothpaste 6 0.6 grams
shower gel 0.05 5 mL
handsoap 0.05 5 mL
cleaner 0.1 10 mL
shampoo 0.013 1.3 mL
conditioner 0.013 1.3 mL
Once mixed and diluted with the appropriate amount of water, 20 liters of synthetic greywater were added to
each distribution tank. From there, the greywater flowed freely through the influent feed tube emitters onto the
top layer of substrate. Water samples were taken immediately after the initial passing through the system (time
zero) and continued for 24 hours. The sampling schedule is presented in table 4.2. All water samples were
analyzed for N‐NO3, N‐NH4, Total P and orthophosphate. Results of the analysis are tabulated in tables 4.3 and
4.4 and figures 4.4, 4.5,4.6 and 4.7.
16
Table 4.3. Greywater sampling schedule
Sampling Schedule
Sample number Residence Time (hrs) Time of day
1 0 08:00 (day 1)
2 2 10:00
3 4 12:00
4 6 14:00
5 8 16:00
6 10 18:00
7 12 20:00
8 24 08:00 (day 2)
The pump was started after the first sample was taken. The pumping rate was adjusted to avoid overflow from
either the wetland tank or the collecting basin. The optimal flow rate was 19.3L/min and was maintained
throughout the entire 24 hour period.
Results
All water samples were filtered through 0.45µm paper and analyzed by the Lachat ionic analysis system following
Environment Canada recommendations for testing. All results are presented in the following tables and graphs.
Table 4.4. Nutrient analysis results, Tank A
Tank A
Residence time Sampling Time (hrs) mg orthoP/L mg Total P/L mg N‐NO3/L mg N‐NH4/L
(hrs)
0 Raw Greywater 0.1916 0.2045 0.463 0.10
0 8:00am 0.1271 0.1674 0.484 0.06
2 10:00am 0.0119 0.0270 0.442 0.21
4 12:00pm 0.1143 0.1354 0.425 0.17
6 2:00pm 0.1424 0.1542 0.437 0.17
8 4:00pm 0.1491 0.1700 0.435 0.17
10 6:00pm 0.1654 0.1802 0.442 0.20
12 8:00pm 0.0929 0.1560 0.438 0.20
24 8:00am 0.0275 0.1229 0.453 0.20
17
Table 4.5. Nutrient analysis results, Tank B
Tank B
Residence time Sampling Time (hrs) mg orthoP/L mg Total P/L mg N‐NO3/L mg N‐NH4/L
(hrs)
0 Raw Greywater 0.1916 0.2045 0.463 0.10
0 8:00am 0.0234 0.0269 0.445 0.77
2 10:00am 0.1282 0.1574 0.441 0.31
4 12:00pm 0.1758 0.1886 0.438 0.33
6 2:00pm 0.2141 0.2245 0.448 0.30
8 4:00pm 0.2158 0.2343 0.432 0.01
10 6:00pm 0.2211 0.2424 0.447 0.33
12 8:00pm 0.0348 0.1589 0.460 0.33
24 8:00am 0.0164 0.0322 0.441 0.81
N‐NO3
0.490
0.480
0.470
mg N‐NO3/L
0.460
Tank A
0.450
0.440 raw greywater
0.430 Tank B
0.420
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.4. Nitrate Levels
18
N‐NH4
0.90
0.80
mg N‐NH4/L 0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40 Tank A
0.30 raw greywater
0.20
Tank B
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (hrs)
Figure 4.5. Ammonium Levels
Orthophosphate
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
mg P/L
Tank A
0.1000
raw greywater
0.0500 Tank B
0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time
Figure 4.6. Orthophosphate Levels
19
Total Phosphorus
0.3000
0.2500
0.2000
mg P/L
0.1500 Tank A
0.1000 raw greywater
0.0500 Tank B
0.0000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time
Figure 4.7. Total Phosphorus Levels
Discussion
Greywater recipe
The recipe chosen for the experiment was based on influence from Scheumann and Kraume (2009) and from
results obtained in the survey (Table 3.1: Results of the Survey). Learning that many students do not use
biodegradable products prompted the input of conventional personal care products and cleaners. The
phosphorus content of the raw greywater concocted for this experiment was 0.2045mg P/L. However, when
comparing the literature values for P levels in raw household grey water (Health Canada, 2007, Jefferson, 2004),
which averaged at 0.5 mg P/L, perhaps the recipe should have been altered to achieve a slightly higher initial
concentration of P. It was also interesting to note that the water within the system continued to froth and foam
slightly throughout the entire experimental period.
Figure 4.8. Foaming of greywater in the active system
20
Nitrogen
While the feat of nitrogen removal from wastewaters in a constructed wetland system is predominantly due to
the action of microbes (Kadlec 2009), it remained interesting to observe the action of nitrogen compounds in the
non‐established system. As depicted in figures 4.4 and 4.5, the action of both NO3 and NH4 in systems A and B
displayed very different behavior which was difficult to categorize. Ammonia is subject to cation exchange and is
capable of sorption to both inorganic and organic substrates. However, the bonds formed are relatively weak and
can be released easily in conjunction to changes in overall water chemistry (Kadlec 2009). Additionally, due to the
heterogeneous nature of the substrate, each layer possessed a different cation exchange capacity, from relatively
low in the gravel and sand to higher in the slag and peat. With respect to the oxidized nitrogen compounds, it
would be unlikely to expect any depletion over the 24 hour period, as this would indicate the presence of
established microbial communities. Oxidized nitrogen does not form bonds with solid substrates, and therefore,
would not be removed from the system in this way.
Additionally, this experiment was run outside, at an average temperature of 5°C. Had the system been permitted
to run for an ideal amount of time (3‐6 months) it would have to be operated at ambient conditions replicating
those found within the laundry room of EcoRes (~21°C). It would be only under these temporal conditions that an
adequate microbial population would flourish, and nitrogen removal may have been accelerated (Kadlec and
Reddy, 2001).
Phosphorus
Wetland systems generally express 3 principal methods of phosphorous removal: sorption, storage in biomass,
and storage in newly formed residues (Kadlec 2009). The mechanism expected to aid in the phosphorous removal
of this system is sorption. The act of sorption involves the exchange of phosphorous between water and
substrate, and then the eventual penetration of the phosphorus into the solid phase (Kadlec 2009). It was
anticipated that this reaction would occur within the slag layer (Xu, 2006).
Both tanks displayed similar trends over time for orthophosphate and total P content (disregarding the sample
taken from Tank A at 08:00 on day 1, which is inconsistent with the pattern appearing in both tanks). P levels in
Tank A remain below those of the raw greywater throughout the course of the experiment, however, levels in
Tank B actually exceed those of the raw sample at 14:00hrs, 16:00hrs and 18:00hrs. This is likely attributed to
uneven mixing and addition of the raw greywater solution, which was mixed by hand. Unfortunately, frothing of
the soaps in the raw solution made the even distribution of contaminants unlikely.
21
The initial drop and subsequent steady climb in P content in each tank could be attributed to the time required
for the system to equilibrate. However, between 20:00hrs and 08:00hrs (day 2) P levels diminished to levels much
below those of the raw greywater in both tanks. This is likely attributed to the sorptive capacity of the slag.
Changes in temperature were likely unrelated to the action of phosphorus in the system, as phosphorous sorption
reactions are least likely of all nutrient reaction in wetlands to be affected by temperature (Kadlec and Reddy
2001).
System Mechanics
Aside from the laboratory analysis performed on the water samples, the overall mechanics of the system were
observed.
Since the system was newly constructed and comprised of 4 substrates of varying bulk density, it is likely that
settling would have an effect at the onset of operations. However, at the risk of creating undesirable compaction
within the layers, each layer was added relatively loosely, without a great deal of force applied. Under ideal
conditions, the system would be allowed to settle naturally for a longer period of time, in order to allow for all
substrate layers to operate with the expected hydraulic conductivity.
It was imperative the water not overflow either from the wetland tanks or from the collector basins. Therefore,
the pumps had to be adjusted to an appropriate flow rate. This proved to be 19.3 L/min, but resulted in constant
ponding on top of the wetland system. Water on top of the sand maintained a depth of approximately 4cm
throughout the course of the experiment. This does nto represent ideal conditions for the functioning of a
constructed wetland in which aerobic microbial is desired. Ponding would result in a lack of oxygen to the system
and the creation of anaerobic conditions.
Untested Parameters of Interest
Aside from an elevated nutrient content, household greywater is subject to undesirable loads of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal coliforms. While unable to test all these
parameters under the time permitted, acceptable levels for each of these contaminants has recently been
released by health Canada. An operable system would have to perform to these regulations. According to the
research done by Slkarz et al (2009) and Gross et al (2006) a RVFCW is capable of providing removal rates which
conform to these standards.
22
Table 4.6. Health Canada guidelines for greywater reuse (Health Canada 2007)
Guideline values for reclaimed water used in toilet and urinal flushing
Water quality parameters
Parameter Units Median Maximum
BOD5 mg/L ≤10 ≤20
TSS mg/L ≤10 ≤20
Turbidity NTU ≤2 (alternative to TSS) ≤5 (alternative to TSS)
Escherichia coli CFU/100mL Not detected ≤200
Thermotolerant coliforms CFU/100mL Not detected ≤200
Total Chlorine residual mg/L ≤0.5
Conclusion
While few conclusions could be drawn from the chemical analysis performed on the system, certain goals were
achieved by building and running the experimental model. An appreciation was gained for the amount of time
required for a passive system such as this to settle and equilibrate. Despite certain limitations, worthwhile
observation with respect to the balance of recycle flow rate, the compaction and settling of the system, the
hydraulic conductivity of the combined substrate layers, and the potential P removal by slag were made.
5. Final Design
The schematic of the final design shows how water will flow through the system. Water flowing through the
wetland and recycle tank will be recycled through until the desired hydraulic retention time has been reached.
This is discussed further in the coming sections.
23
Figure 5.9 Schematic of final design network
The final design was obtained after an extensive literature review presented in the design 2 paper. A vertical flow
recycling constructed wetland was chosen because of its flexibility in sizing and layering as well as its simplicity
and modularity. The design has been modelled after the design proposed by Gross, Shmueli, Oron, Ronen and
Raveh in “Recycled Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (RVFCW) ‐ a novel method of recycling greywater for
landscape irrigation in small communities and households”, shown in the figure below.
Figure 5.10 Inspiration design (Gross et. al, 2007)
24
From this we modified the contents of the wetland to maximize treatment efficiency, increase the system’s ability
to handle variable loads and use locally, readily available materials.
Figure 5.11 Layering Scheme
The specific layering scheme was chosen to optimize the effectiveness of each layer. Layer 1, the sand layer acts
as the major treatment zone for BOD and nitrogen; it houses the largest population of treatment bacteria. The
second layer is comprised of blast furnace slag. This waste product of the steel industry has incredible phosphorus
sorption capabilities. This layer was included to ensure that phosphates present in soaps and cleaners are
efficiently dealt with. This layer is unique to our design compared to similar RVFCWs. One added hypothetical
advantage is that in the adsorption process the pH of effluent is raised significantly, while this does present a
treatment issue , it can also act to eliminate fecal coliforms and disinfect the water. A layer of peat was added to
neutralize the pH after the slag layer. Peat can add suspended solids to the water, increasing turbidity this was be
dealt with if aesthetically pleasing water is to be returned for toilet flushing. The second sand layer was added to
behave as a filter and remove suspended solids before entering the gravel filter on its exit to the retaining tank.
All of these materials and their particular properties are examined more closely in the Material section.
Flow Calculation
The expected incoming and outgoing flow was calculated using both published data and the results found in the
survey. Water from eco‐residence will only be collected from the bathroom sinks and showers and the water will
be recycled back for use in the toilets. The calculations are show in the table below.
25
Table 5.7 Flow Calculation
As can be seen in the table there is a large surplus of water coming in from the showers and baths compared to
the water needed for toilet flushing. This results in Eco‐Residence becoming a net exporter of clean water. This
water could be used for several functions. As regulations change, the water could be used for irrigation. The
MacDonald Campus garden is located very close to the building and this water would serve as an excellent supply
of clean water for the irrigation of student and faculties vegetable gardens, it could also be used to water the
expansive greens on campus. This would further reduce the need for fresh treated water from the wastewater
treatment plant and contribute to ground water recharge. Government regulation is still strict on the issue of the
application of non‐drinking water to the environment from fear of algal blooms and contaminated ground water.
Until greywater recycling systems gain in popularity and regulations change, this clean water could be combined
with outgoing wastewater to reduce the load on municipal water treatment facilities.
The incoming contamination loads were found based on data provided by Health Canada and standards set out by
a UK study investigating only greywater collected from showers, baths and hand basins.
Table 5.8 Incoming Greywater Contamination Concentrations
(Health Canada, 2007) (Jefferson et. al, 2004)
26
By using averaged concentrations we can create a “worst‐case scenario” design and also offer flexibility if kitchen
or laundry greywater would one day like to be collected, the system has the capabilities to cope.
Incoming bacterial concentrations were also quantified by Health Canada, while these were not included in the
design of our experiment they are crucial to the successful implementation of the design. Because the water is
being recycled into people’s homes where contact is possible this is likely the most important parameter as it can
be a risk to human health.
Table 5.9 Bacterial concentrations of incoming greywater (Health Canada, 2007)
Health Canada has also set out a set of guidelines for greywater quality to be returned for toilet flushing.
Table 5.10 Required Outgoing Concentrations (Health Canada, 2007)
27
The recycle rate was based on the suggested residence time. Literature values recommended that waste
greywater spend an average of 8 hours of treatment. It is suggested that initially half of the water be recycled and
then calibrated as needed. (Brix et. al., 2005). This is further discussed in the coming sections.
Materials
Internal Wetland Materials
Sand
Sand was chosen as the main component of the wetland. Its purpose serves not only as the main growth surface
for microbes and the treatment substrate but also as a filter, particularly in the second layer. Sand has been used
as a substrate for microbial growth in many settings. It is readily available to most sites and relatively inexpensive.
Compared to other growth media such as sorption beads, it is low cost and low impact, an important parameter
for a project promoting sustainability.
According to Calaway et. al, 1952, the most common bacteria types housed in the sand filter are protozoa and
metazoa. They are further described in that article. These bacteria are similar to those found in activated sludge
and biofilm but are likely more diverse (Baghat et. al, 1998). The actual size distribution of the sand to be used is
contestable although it is generally accepted in literature that the effective size should be between 0.2‐ 2mm with
a uniformity coefficient less than 3 (Prochaska et. al, 2006). Washed sand can only be used with clay and silt
content less that 0.5%Therefore for use in the final design sand which meets these parameters should be used, a
sand with a d10 = 0.25 mm and a d60 = 1.2mm would meet this criteria and will be used to calculate retention
times. The recommended grain size distribution is shown below. However the sand used can change with
availability as long as it meets the criteria mentioned above.
Figure 5.12 Recommended grain size distribution (Brix et. al., 2005)
28
Most research conducted has used the sand filter in the treatment of raw sewage, where organic matter content
is not a concern because of the great carbon supply in the sewage. It is our hypothesis that the carbon content in
the greywater from Eco‐Rez would be sufficient to sustain the growth of microbes because of shed skin cells and
other particles washed down the drain.
The hydraulic conductivity of the sand is a very important parameter for determining the retention time of the
system. For sand between 0.2 and 1mm the hydraulic conductivity can be averaged at 0.044 cm/s.
Slag
After finding that many sand based systems had insufficient phosphorus treatment we decided that the inclusion
of an additional phosphorus treatment step was important. While the treatment of phosphorus is not essential
for recycling back into toilets, if the water is to be used for irrigation purposes sufficient phosphorus treatment is
crucial. We investigated the P‐sorption characteristics of many materials. This is shown in Appendix A.
After careful examination, blast furnace slag was determined to have the best cost‐benefit ratio, and was used in
the design.
Slag is a waste product from the steel industry it has been well studied for its sorption capacity for phosphorus. It
has been used and implemented in many treatment wetlands as an additional treatment step. According to
literature, many biological treatment wetlands are highly efficient at treating BOD, and N content but because
phosphorus is mainly removed through sorption and incorporation processes it is often not treated as efficiently.
For this reason it has been suggested that an additional step for the treatment of phosphorus be included. (Arias
et al., 2001, Del Bubba et al., 2003 and Arias and Brix, 2005). To incorporate this step in the treatment process for
the vertical flow wetland we have added a layer of blast furnace slag to the wetland.
Slag, while an excellent sorption surface for phosphorus, does pose some treatment issues, mainly it raises the pH
significantly, often to over 10. In order to preserve the integrity of the plumbing and system components and
because the water could be handled by residents during the recycle process it is crucial that the pH be neutralized
after its pass through the slag. We expect however that this drastic change in pH could address one other concern
for the wetland. It has the potential to act as a disinfection process by killing bacteria and fecal coliforms present
in the greywater.
The hydraulic conductivity of slag is comparable to that of gravel as they have very similar properties. Therefore
the conductivity can be estimated between 10 and 100 cm/s, for the purpose of calculating the retention time 40
cm/s will be used.
29
Peat
The main role of the peat is to neutralize the pH after its pass through the slag. It is an essential component of the
system because of this function. Because of peats physical properties, mainly its low density, it floats in water.
While for the actual system this in not an issue because of the significant weight of the slag and sand on the
surface, it is a concern in terms of water quality. The suspended solids content is likely to increase after the water
has passed through the system. This has been mitigated by the addition of another smaller sand filter. The
intention of this sand layer is to act purely in the physical capacity to filter out particles present in the water.
Another concern of the addition of peat is its significantly lower conductivity, usually in the range 10‐2 to 10‐3
cm/s. This will undoubtedly significantly increase the retention time of the system and slow the treatment
process.
External Wetland Materials
Receiving Tank
As a result of the sheer volume of water, underground storage is required. An example of this is shown below.
Figure 13.5 6’ tank for receiving tank (Canwest, 2010)
The unit shown above is fibreglass reinforced plastic and has a capacity of approximately 15,500L it is fully
capable of handling the daily supply of shower and bath water from eco‐rez. The unit will be equipped with an
over flow valve connected to the regular water treatment plant pipes. Because there is so much incoming water,
indoor above ground storage is impossible to implement. Obviously this is a great cost which is perhaps more
practically implemented in a new construction.
30
It is also crucial to the success of the wetland that a filter be placed in this layer to remove hair and other large
particles. This will reduce clogging of the wetland. A basic metal mesh screen filter placed over the inlet would
suffice. This could be removed and cleaned as needed.
Wetland Container
Two containers were investigated for use of the project, a cone tank and a flat vertical tank. These are shown
below.
Figure 5.14 Vertical Container (L) and Cone container (R) (Canwest, 2010)
Both containers are made of polyethylene and their dimensions are discussed later in the infiltration calculation
section.
It has been suggested that the containers should be wrapped to not only maintain temperatures but to limit light
thereby reducing algae growth within the system.
These tanks should be properly sized in order for easy placement within the laundry rooms in Eco‐Rez.
Recycle Tank
The required size of the recycle tank it to be determined by the recycle rate, but at minimum it should be able to
hold at least 8h worth of water as that is the desired average residence time. In the interest of saving costs, 1
tank per laundry room will be used. The tank needs to be able to hold about 2200 L in order to meet the needs of
31
the system. One 48 inch in diameter, 90 inch tall, above ground vertical storage tank for each laundry room
should be used. This also simplifies the connections to the redistribution tanks or could hypothetically replace
them.
These are shown below:
Figure 5.15 Recycle tank, 48 inch in diameter by 90 inch height with a capacity of 2,237 L. (Canwest, 2010)
Redistribution Tank
The redistribution tank will be of the same form as the receiving tank. A tank of the same size should be used if
there is an expectation of regulation changes regarding irrigation. The valves should be placed at a level in the
tank to limit the amount stored to 9000L. In this way, excess water will not remain in the tank because of the
surcharge from extra shower and bath water. By not using smaller tanks and simply altering the overflow valve, if
regulations do change the valve can be used to provide water for irrigation or laundry. If water for use in
irrigation is not desired, than a smaller 9000L tank can be used, and the excess water automatically overflowing
into the municipal wastewater treatment system.
Connecting Pipes
The recycling pipe is the only one which will be discussed as the connection between underground storage tanks
and the treatment portion of the system is very complex and requires intensive knowledge of the location and its
underground plumbing. For the redistribution, 20mm PVC piping perforated with 5mm holes is recommended.
32
Pump Selection
A very low flow cheap garden pump will be used as the recycle pump. The requirements for the pump are that it
provide a constant flow back to the wetland.
Specifications for Ecoresidence:
‐ Effluent Flow ~ 5.75 m3 per day
‐ Head ~ 2 metres **assume pipe friction is negligible because distance travelled and water flow is low
‐ 2 pumps needed
Pump Selected: Little Giant PE‐2F water garden pump
Description: “1/4”, 300 GPH, 1/40 HP, 115V residential grade water garden pump. This small powerful workhorse
provides enough power to recirculate a small pond or power statuary and tabletop fountains. Algae build‐up does
not affect it. In fact, it may even be used in some harsh, industrial type applications. This potted pump is more
compact in size than an oil‐filled pump of equal flow capacity.”
Pump specifications:
a. 1/4” discharge size
b. Flow: 0.79 L/s
c. Power: 0.018 kW
d. Maximum head: 3.78 m
e. 0.8 amps while running
33
The following figure 6.16 shows the pump curve:
Pump Cost: 2 x $107.00 each = $214.00
Energy Costs: (4 months*4 weeks/month*7 days/week*24 h/day) x (2*0.018 kW) x ($0.05 /kWh) = $5
Figure 6.17: The Little Giant PE‐2F
Garden Pump
Figure 6.16: Pump Curve for the Little Giant Garden Pump
Sizing
The required area for treatment was done using the empirical formula:
4.3
(Kadlec & Knight, 2009)
Where the IOTR is the implied oxygen transfer rate, and is equal to 64 g O2 m2/d
From this and the influent concentrations outlined previously, we can find a required surface area of
approximately 2 m2. After determining the net required surface area several containers available on the market
were compared.
Flow and sizing calculations were done assuming a 50% recycle rate:
34
Table 5.5 Sizing Calculations with and without recycle rate
Cone Tank Regular Cylinder
Layer Conductivity Surface Height Depth of Layer (m) Q(m3/d) Surface Height Depth of Layer (m) Q(m3/d)
(m/d) Area (m) Area (m)
(m2) (m2)
Sand 33.84 0.456 1.47 0.8 15.43104 0.256 0.84 0.454 8.66304
Slag 972.9 0.456 1.47 0.2 443.6424 0.256 0.84 0.114 249.062
Peat 4.23 0.456 1.47 0.2 1.92888 0.256 0.84 0.114 1.08288
Sand 33.84 0.1 1.47 0.1 3.384 0.256 0.84 0.06 8.66304
Gravel 972.9 0.032 1.47 0.1 31.1328 0.256 0.84 0.06 249.062
1.4 0.802
Number of Units= 5.9620 Number of Units= 10.619
Number of Units 8.9430 Number of Units with 15.929
with recycle= recycle =
single pass retention time (h)= 8.3404 single pass retention time (h)= 4.7659
Sizing here was based off of sizing of available containers. The retention time based on these calculations showed
that with these surface areas, the recycling was unnecessary as the waters effective retention time was already 8
hours for the conical tank. It was found that by using the smaller tanks and a recycle factor, while it did reduce the
surface are of each unit it increased the quantity of units available as the conductivity of the system is so low only
a limited amount of water is able to pass through the system a day.
From the calculations it was found that using the conical tank offers a better solution, requiring no recycle rate it
only requires approximately 1.4 m2 surface area in the laundry room; Compared to the vertical tank which
requires recycling, and 2 m2 surface area in each laundry room.
A chart showing the relationship between surface area of the unit wetland and required surface area in each
laundry room is shown in the graph below.
35
Area required per laundry room vs.
Unit Surface Area
2
Area required/laundry room (m2)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Unit Surface Area (m2)
Figure 5.18 Relationship between surface area and space requirements
Our final unit size of 0.456 is at the bottom of that curve, suggesting it is the optimal surface area for this
scenario.
The conical tank has been chosen, it comes with the option of a closable lid. This lid could be perforated for
aeration and used to limit resident access with contaminated greywater. With the container selected the layering
scheme can be shown.
Figure 5.19 Layering Scheme for conical unit, not to scale
36
Each layering depth was determined through evaluation of literature values and approximations.
After realizing that the recycling system was redundant, the concern of how to maintain the system during dry
spells was again encountered. It was decided that by keeping the recycling option for periods of low flow, any
concerns of die off or loss of efficiency would be eliminated. The recycle system will not be used during regular
flow periods but can be turned on during holidays and extended periods of low flow.
Summary
The daily expected greywater flows will be approximately 12m3. This water will be temporarily housed in a
underground storage tank equipped with a basic screen filter to remove large particles. The final design will
consist of 6 modular conical based wetland units, 3 in each of the 2 eco‐residence laundry rooms. Accompanying
each set will be one recycle tank for use during periods of significantly reduced flows. Each unit contains 5 unique
layers, sand, slag, peat, sand and gravel. The respective depths of these layers are shown in figure 5.19. A final
underground storage tank will also be required to offer a simple pathway for water to be recycled back into the
eco‐residence bathrooms for toilet flushing.
6. Economic Analysis
Economic Framework of Water Issues in Canada
As of 1999, only about 56% (Environment Canada 2008) of Canada's urban population was metered. When tied to
price increases, metered households generally show reductions in water use, with the greatest savings occurring
during the summer months, when water use is usually much higher due to frequency of lawn watering, car
washing and other outdoor uses. In 1999, water use was 70% higher when consumers faced flat rates rather than
volume‐based rates (Environment Canada 2008).
Metering of industry has been common for some time, while metering of the residential sector is growing. What's
will be increasing is the metering of the return flow to the sewer system, particularly as it relates to the industrial
sector. Municipalities are also starting to apply sewer surcharges to domestic water bills as it creates an incentive
for greater water savings.
37
The state of water pricing in Canada is such that conservation of water is not promoted. Studies show that about
55% of Canadians are under a flat rate structure, where the charge is fixed; or a declining block rate structure,
where water prices decrease as more water is consumed.
Rate structures that are designed to create incentives to save water are constant rate structures (where the bill to
the consumer increases proportionally to the amount of water used), as well as increasing block structure, where
the price increases as higher volumes of water are used. It was found that only about 45% of the population
served was found to be under such water‐conserving rate structures (Environment Canada 2008).
Introducing conservation‐oriented pricing or raising the price has reduced water use in some areas, but it must be
accompanied by a well articulated public education program that informs the consumer of what to expect.
The following table shows typical municipal water prices in Canada compared to other developed countries.
Canadians currently pay on average $0.30 (Environment Canada 2008) per cubic metre, which is the lowest price
charged for municipally treated and distributed water compared to many other European countries who can pay
upwards of $1 per cubic metre, noting Germany who pays over $2 per cubic metre . With water treatment costs
rising, water infrastructure in sore need of replacement, and environmental awareness on the rise, it is likely that
these prices will start to rise.
Life Time of System and Maintenance
The limiting factor in the wetland design will mostly likely be adsorption limitations of the slag leading to
increased concentrations of phosphorus in the treated water. Blast furnace slag has a limited phosphorus
adsorption capacity which is highly variable based on pH, nutrients, substrate depth, temperature and other
factors (Cabañas 2009). Values of 0.42, 1.43, 8.9, and 44.25 mg of P/ g of slag for blast furnace slag are reported
in the Table 11: P‐sorp on capacity of reac ve substrates and prac cal applica ons (Cabañas 2009) which can be
found in Appendix A.
A value of 0.8 mg of P/ g of slag from (Johannsson 1999) will be used to determine the life time of the system
because of crystalline slag’s suitability for ecologically engineered systems, and for a conservative design life.
Therefore, using the following data we can estimate the lifetime of the designed system:
38
Table 6.1: Evaluating the Lifetime of the System
Lifetime of system based on Phosphorus adsorption capacity
Variable Amount Source
Average Phosphorus in influent 8 mg/L (HealthCanada 2007)
Required Phosphorus in effluent 1.5 mg/L (HealthCanada 2007)
Phosphorus sorption capacity of
0.8 mgP/g (Johansson 1999)
slag (mgP/g)
Volume of slag 0.091 m3
Density of slag 800 kg/m3 (Wintenborn and Green 1998)
Mass of slag 72.8 kg
Volume water treated 2000 L/day
Mass of P removed per day 13,000 mgP/day
Lifetime of System 5 years
The following equations are used to determine the lifetime of the system:
39
Cost Analysis
The following table gives a pricing breakdown for the vertical flow constructed wetland system
proposed. All the materials have been locally sourced, to keep transport fees to a minimum, be
easily replaceable, and support local industry. The costs and quantities of the materials can be
seen in table 6.2
Table 6.2: Capital Cost of Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland
System Capital Costs
Quantity Total Price
Material Mass (kg) Unit Price ($) Density
Required ($)
Wetland Substrates
1602 kg/m3
Sand 2.46 m3 3,940.92 $5.19 / 30 kg 681.62
(dry)
Blast Furnace Slag (includes
material and 0.55 m3 440 $10/1000 kg 4.4 800 kg/m3
transportation)
1682 kg/m3
Gravel 1/4” 0.12 m3 201.84 $5.49 / 30 kg 36.94
(dry)
400 kg/m3
Peat Moss 0.55 m3 220 $4.99 / 5 kg 219.56
(dry)
Tanks and System Components
Canwest 455 L, 30”d, 57”h,
6 $216 w/o stand 1,296
Polyethylene tanks
Canwest 15,500L 6ft
fibreglass‐reinforced 2 $17,598 35,196
underground storage tank
Canwest 40”d, 90”h,
1 $479 479
vertical storage tank
1/2” PVC Piping 10 m $1.20/ft $46
Little Giant water garden
2 $107 $214
Pump
Capital cost $38,174
40
The annual system costs are presented in the following table 6.3
Table6.3: Annual Costs of Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland
Annual Costs
Item # Hours or Quantity Estimated Cost
Pumping * $5
4 months part‐time ($8 per
Water Quality Monitoring (Student Job) ** $2,500
h)
Annual Costs $2,505
Costs every 5 years
Blast Furnace Slag (material and
0.55 m3 $5
transportation costs)
Costs every 5 years $85
* Pumping costs are based on the following: Little Giant PE‐2F water garden pump
** Water quality monitoring is essential as part of maintenance requirements to ensure that the
wetland is functioning properly and that effluent water is meeting toilet flushing and urinal greywater
standards as determined by Health Canada. As McGill University is an educational institute, it was
thought appropriate that these wetlands could function as a point of research. Therefore the cost is for
the proposal of a part‐time student researcher who could be a student in the Bioresource Engineering
department.
*** Wetland excavation is included to replace the slag every five years. The lifetime of the system was
based on a conservative estimate of the slag’s phosphorus adsorbing capabilities, meaning only the slag
must be replaced once every five years.
41
Cost Comparison
Looking at Table 6.4 we can see that at $0.31 per m3 Canada pays the lowest of OECD countries for
municipally treated water.
Doing an analysis of cost savings based on water savings for these different countries would be
interesting given the different economic frameworks to see where this technology becomes
economically feasible. In Canada, given the current prices of municipally treated water, and water
pricing structures, a system such as this one would take 31 years to pay off. However, as is seen in the
table, countries such as France, Belgium and Germany who all pay upwards of $1.30 per cubic metre of
water have much shorter payback rates, with 7, 6 and 4 years respectively. With awareness growing
around water quantity and quality issues in Canada, it would be surprising to see water pricing moving in
this direction. With this shift, a system such as the VFCW will become economically and
environmentally attractive. The above analysis can be seen in the following Table 6.4.
Water savings at Ecoresidence in 1 year through use of a VFCW = 4160 m3 per year
Capital cost of VFCW for Ecoresidence = $38,174
Table 6.4: Estimating the Payback period of the VFCW based on Water Prices
Payback period of the VFCW based on the Cost of Municipally Treated Water in Different Countries
Water Savings at EcoResidence in 1 year: 4,160 m3 per year
Cost per cubic metre of Total Cost per year ($)
# years to pay off
municipally Treated (=4160m3 * Cost of
system
Water ($) Municipal Water)
Canada 0.3 1248 31
US, Spain 0.5 2,080 18
Ireland 0.6 2,496 15
Sweden, Italy 0.7 2,912 13
United Kingdom 0.8 3,328 11
France 1.3 5,408 7
Belgium 1.5 6,240 6
Germany 2.2 9,152 4
42
7. Conclusion
Our triple bottom line approach, including economic, environmental and social components was applied
to every aspect of the project ensuring a holistic design throughout. By using a passive system which is
both low‐cost and low‐impact we have designed modular units applicable to many building types and
locations. The survey and experiment were crucial to the understanding and design of the project. They
not only provided specialized information about our location but a more complete understanding of the
social and engineering components essential to the successful implementation of this project. The
installation of a vertical flow constructed wetland can lead to an overall reduction in the water and
ecological footprint of EcoRes. Fresh water consumption can be reduced by over 30% and clean, safe
water returned for toilet flushing. This sustainable initiative will not only promote immediate water
savings in EcoRes, but teach long term awareness of current water issues, teaching residents the
importance of our behaviours and habits. It is through this complex network that our overall goals have
been achieved: to educate the public about water consumption and lead to national water preservation.
43
8. References
Arias, C.A. , Del Bubba, M. and H. Brix. (2001). “Phosphorus removal by sands for use as media
in subsurface flow constructed reed beds.” Water Reources. 35: 1159–1168.
Arias, C.A. and H. Brix. (2005). “Phosphorus removal in constructed wetlands: Can suitable
alternative media be identified?” Water Sci. Technol. 51(9): 267–273.
Bahgat, M., A. Dewedar, et al. (1998). "Sand‐filters Used for Wastewater Treatment: Buildup and
Distribution of Microorganisms." Water Resources 33(8): 1949‐1955.
Brix, H., and C. Arias. (2005). “The Use of Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands for On‐site
Treatment of Domestic Wastewater: New Danish Guidelines.”Ecological Engineering. 25: 491‐500.
Cabañas, V. C. (2009). Recycling Filter Substrates Used for Phosphorus Removal from
Wastewater as Soil Amendments. Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering. Stockholm,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Phd.
Canwest Tanks and Ecological Systems. (2010). “Products” Retrieved April 1 2010, from
http://canwest‐tanks.com/products.html.
Calaway, W., Carroll, W., and S. Long. (1952). “Heterotrophic Bacteria Encountered in
Intermittent Sand Filtration of Sewage.” Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 24(5): 642‐653.
Environment Canada (2008). "Metering." The Management of Water. Retrieved November 30
2009, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/effic/e_meter.htm.
Environment Canada (2008). "Water Use in Canada 2005." Retrieved November 27 2009, from
http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/use/e_wuse.htm.
Gross, A., O. Shmueli, et al. (2007). "Recycled Vertical flow constructed wetland (RVFCW) ‐ a
novel method of recycling greywater for irrigation in small communities and households." Chemosphere
66: 916‐923.
Gunther, F. (1999). "Wastewater Treatment by Greywater Separation: Outline for a Biologically
Based Greywater Purification Plant in Sweden." Ecological Engineering 15: 139‐146.
Health Canada (2007). Canadian Guidelines for Household Reclaimed Water for Use in Toilet and
Urinal Flushing.
Jefferson, B.,Palmer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., and S. Judd. (2004). “Grey water Characterization
and its Impact on the Selection and Operation of Technologies for Urban Reuse.” Water Science and
Technology. 50(2): 157‐164
Johansson, L. (1999). "Industrial by‐products and natural substrata as phosphorus sorbents."
Environmental Technology 20: 309‐316.
44
Kadlec, R. H. and S. D. Wallace (2009). Treatment Wetlands Taylor and Francis Group, Broken
Sound Parkway, NW.
Kadlec, R. H. and K.R. Reddy, (2001). “Temperature Effects in Treatment Wetlands.” Water
Environment Research 73(5): 543‐557.
M. Del Bubba, C.A. Arias and H. Brix. (2003). “Phosphorus absorption maximum of sands for use
as media in subsurface flow constructed reed beds as measured by the Langmuir isotherm.” Water Res.
37: 3390–3400.
Nolde, E. (1999). "Greywater Reuse Systems for Toilet Flushing in Multi‐storey Suildings: Over
ten years Experience in Berlin." Urban Water 1: 275‐284.
Prochaska, C.A and Zouboulis. (2005). “Removal of phosphates by pilot vertical‐flow constructed
wetlands using a mixture of sand and dolomite as substrate.” Ecological Engineering. 26: 293‐303.
Scheumann, R. and M. Kraume, (2009). “Influence of hydraulic retention time on the operation
of a submerged membrane sequencing batch reactor (SM‐SBR) for the treatment of greywater.”
Desalination 246(1‐3):444‐451.
Sklarz, M. Y. et al, (2009). “A recirculating vertical flow constructed wetland for the treatment of
domestic wastewater.” Desalination 246(1‐3): 617‐624.
United Nations (2006). "World Water Development Report: Water, a Shared Responsibility."
Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr2/facts_
figures/index.shtml.
Weber, K. P., A. Werker, et al. (2010). "Influence of the Microbial Community in the Treatment
of Acidic Iron‐Rich Water in Aerobic Wetland Mesocosms." Bioremediation Journal 14(1): 28‐37.
Wichmann, K and Li, F. et al. (2009). "Evaluation of Appropriate Technologies for Grey Water
Treatment and Reuse." Water Science & Technology 59(2): 249‐260.
Wintenborn, J. L. and J. J. Green (1998). Steelmaking Slag: A Safe and Valuable Product, National
Slag Association.
Xu, Defu et al. (2006). “Studies on the phosphorus sorption capacities of substrates used in
constructed wetland systems.” Chemosphere 63(2): 344‐352.
45
Appendix A
Table 11. P sorption capacity of reactive substrates and practical applications (Cabanas 2009)
(Johansson, 1999)
46
Appendix B
47
Appendix C – Literature Review
What is Greywater?
Generally defined, greywater is urban wastewater from sinks, showers, laundry machines (not toilets or
kitchen sinks). It has low levels of contaminants and pathogens which can be easily treated as compared
to blackwater which requires more intensive treatment procedures. Greywater can be treated to
regulatory standards and subsequently reused for applications such as toilet and urinal flushing, irrigation,
laundry and vehicle washing as well as for fire protection, concrete production and boiler feed water.
Generally it can be treated for reuse in any application, but treatment standards will vary.
Contaminants in greywater include COD (chemical oxygen demand), BOD (biological oxygen demand),
TKN (total kjedahl nitrogen), total phosphorus, suspended solids, faecal coliforms, turbidity and
pathogens (Health Canada 2007). These contaminants contribute to decreased water quality which leads
to health risks and environmental degradation.
However, all greywater is not made equal. Strength of greywater (pollution in greywater) varies
depending on a number of factors including usage application, tenant habits, location and quantity of
water used. Types of greywater can be broadly classified as low, medium and high strength with COD
values of less than 300 mg/L for low strength greywater and greater than 300 mg/L for medium and high
strength greywater (Li, Wichmann et al. 2009).
Recycled Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (RVFCW)
One method commonly used for the treatment of domestic greywater (GW) in single households or
small neighbourhoods is the RVFCW. The system is typically used to provide irrigation water for
landscaping or small gardens, and combines physical and biological mechanisms to treat the GW. The
system generally consists of two stacked containers, the upper known as the treatment container or
vertical flow constructed wetland, and the lower known as the reservoir (A. Gross ; Amit Gross 2007; M.
Y. Sklarz 2009). The bottom of the RVFCW is perforated to allow water to pass into the reservoir, and is
layered with a calcium‐rich gravel, a high surface area, high porosity plastic filter media, and a layer of
organic soil (peat) that may or may not be planted with macrophytes (M. Y. Sklarz 2009).
The operating mechanism of a RFVCW is a follows: after receiving primary settling treatment, GW is
poured on top of or introduced into the root zone of the organic soil layer, where it trickles through until
it reaches the plastic filter media. Trickling through the filter media, the GW is well‐aerated and makes
maximum contact with microbes housed on the media. The water then passes through the gravel, and
drips into the lower reservoir. From the reservoir, the water is then pumped through tubing (via a
48
centrifuge) and returned to the organic soil layer to repeat the treatment cycle. The water recirculates
until the desired purity level has been reached. From there, relatively clean water may be used for a
variety of purposes such as irrigation or toilet flushing.
The primary objective of the organic soil layer is to facilitate microbial growth, increase surface area
available for GW‐microbe interactions, and if planted with vegetation, to increase nutrient uptake and
provide a more aesthetically pleasing unit. While some research has shown that the addition of an
organic layer may not necessarily increase the efficiency of the system, it may contribute to a reduction
in odour, decrease the likely hood of human contact with GW, and provide a microbial buffer in the
event of a biological failure within the plastic media layer (Amit Gross 2007; M. Y. Sklarz 2009).
As previously mentioned, the purpose of the plastic filter media is to provide an adequate surface area
over which microbial communities may form, grow and degrade GW contaminants. The filter media is so
effective at housing microbes, that some research has shown the addition of an organic soil layer may
not be necessary (M. Y. Sklarz 2009). The plastic filter makes up the majority of the treatment tank
profile, and also provides a substantial source of aeration. As water trickles down through the filter
layer, it passes through large pore spaces and is in contact with a relatively large amount of oxygen. The
plastic filter may be in the form of sheets of corrugated plastic, or high surface area plastic beads (M. Y.
Sklarz 2009).
The gravel layer aids in removing phosphorous from the GW and also buffers the naturally acidic pH
level (A. Gross). Furthermore, if peat is being used as a growth medium for the vegetated layer, it may
contribute significantly to an additional decrease in pH which can be counteracted by the calcium‐rich
pebbles.
The RVFCW has proven successful in many household applications, and has met and exceeded the
removal requirements for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen,
phosphorous, and has removed up 99.9% of fecal coliforms (FC) of typical domestic GW (A. Gross 2006;
A. Gross 2007; M. Y. Sklarz 2009). While the FC removal rate is high, it may not be adequate for the
standards required by the government of Quebec, and thus may necessitate the implementation of a
disinfection unit.
There are other characteristics of the RVFCW that make it an attractive option for the Eco‐Residence
project. The system is simple, low‐tech, and will not require heavy technical know‐how to maintain and
control. Additionally, the system is modular, and therefore, several units may be built to work in series.
49
Because the GW in the RVFCW passes through the system numerous times before being pumped out for
toilet flushing, the total surface area of the treatment container need not be as large as that of a
traditional vertical flow constructed wetland.
The fact that the RVFCW has been proven to work efficiently with or without the addition of planted
vegetation is also beneficial, as it makes the system operable under a wider variety of circumstances,
and under various environmental conditions. Laboratory‐scale testing will not be difficult to conduct,
and will allow for the estimation of an appropriate recycling flow rate for the GW in circulation.
50