Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

Physical treatment of greywater for reuse in landscape irrigation: A case of the

University of Zimbabwe.
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: JPCE-D-21-00012R3

Article Type: SI:21st WaterNet Symposium_closed for new submission

Keywords: Greywater; irrigation; pilot; sand-filters; treatment; water-security

Abstract: Water shortages have affected daily operations of institutions in most developing
countries including Zimbabwe. Consequently, there is growing interest on reuse of
wastewater including for landscape irrigation especially by institutions. This study
investigated opportunities for application of low-cost physical processes for greywater
treatment for reuse in irrigation at the University of Zimbabwe. First, the greywater from
the halls of residence at the university (Manfred) was characterised to assess quality in
order to inform the design of pilot treatment system. A pilot treatment system
comprising of a sedimentation tank and an upflow slow sand filter (USSF) was then
designed and constructed near Manfred halls of residence.  It was then fed by
greywater from the hostel and operated for two weeks. Grab samples were collected
from the inlet and outlet of key stages of the pilot treatment system to investigate
system performance. The samples were then analysed for pH, Electrical Conductivity
(EC), turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Total Coliforms (TC) according to standard methods.
After running the pilot system for two weeks, the overall removal efficiencies reached
80.1% (EC), 72.6% (turbidity), 27% (phosphates), 68.8% (COD), 71.2% (BOD5) and
32% (TC). A t-test between the influent and effluent values showed significant
differences (p<0.05) for all parameters. After treatment, all parameters except TC and
turbidity met the FAO and WHO recommended limits for irrigation suggesting suitability
of effluent for landscape irrigation. However, further treatment of effluent is needed to
reduce coliforms and turbidity to acceptable limits.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Response to Reviewers

Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

Paper Title: Greywater treatment pilot studies at the University of Zimbabwe
Responses to reviewer comments
Section Line(s) Review comment Author response
Title Consider replacing ‘Application of physical The reviewer’s suggestion has been
processes for treatment of…..’ with ‘Physical accepted. The title now reads
treatment of’ greywater for reuse in landscape “Physical treatment of greywater for reuse
irrigation: A case of University of Zimbabwe. in landscape irrigation: A case of the
University of Zimbabwe.”
Abstract It is stated that ‘A t-test between the influent 1. In Line 444/445 (now line 356/357)
and effluent values showed significant was correct that nitrates had a
differences (p<0.05) for all parameters except significant difference
for nitrates and TC’. However, line 444/445 2. For Lines 490-498 (now lines 401-
states that there was a significant difference 411), There was a significant
for nitrates and lines 490 - 498 do not state difference for TC. A statement (in
whether the difference for TC was significant line 407/408) has been included
or not. stating significant difference for TC
Turbidity, instead, is the one which showed no values.
significant difference (p>0.05) between 3. Turbidity showed a significant
influent and effluent values (line 405/406). difference, thus conclusion in Line
405/406 was corrected Turbidity
has been concluded to have had a
significant difference (line 316/317)
4. After addressing the comments and
reviewer’s observation the
statement in the abstract now reads
‘A t-test between the influent and
effluent values showed significant
differences (p<0.05) for all
parameters’

Introduction 5 Population growth? The word growth had been omitted from
the sentence. It has since been added

Explain/define light (lines 21, 273, 307, 316, The light and heavy greywater have been
327, 500), heavy (228) or heaviest (line 206) defined by the statement in lines 22 to 24
greywater that reads “According to Albalawneh and
Chang (2015) light greywater refers to
wastewater with low pollutants
concentrations like bathroom and
washbasin wastewater whilst wastewater
with high pollutants strength such as
laundry and kitchen sink wastewater is
heavy greywater”
The word heaviest has been removed as it
was not relevant.
Materials and 60 Rephrase sentence. The statement which read “Figure 1 shows
Methods University of Zimbabwe (UZ) located
17.8252° S, 31.0335° E and 1480 meters
elevation (https://earth.google.com/web) in
the northern part of Harare, Zimbabwe has
been facing water shortages (Makurira and
Tumbare, 2014)” now reads “The
University of Zimbabwe (UZ) shown in
 Fig. 1 is located in the northern part of
Harare on coordinates 17.8252°S,
31.0335°E and elevation 1480 meters
respectively (Google, n.d). Most parts
of Zimbabwe have been facing water
shortages including the University of
Zimbabwe (Makurira and Tumbare,
2014).”

79 Consider writing Fig in full (i.e. Figure) We have checked sample articles from the
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, the journal adopts Fig. and not
Figure for names of figures. Therefore, this
was not changed.

114/144 What is the difference between Depth (with Depth (D) in Table 1 with M (now
(Tables 1 & unit of M in Table 1), Depth (with unit of m in corrected to “m’’) is the overall depth. It is
3) Table 3) and Effective depth (with unit of m also similar with the Depth (D) in Table 3.
in Table 3) Effective depth (d) in Table 3 is the filter
media depth
216/217 Specify the photometer. Is it a flame The specific photometer used in the study
(Table 5) photometer or spectrophotometer? Is it a UV- is the UV-Visible spectrophotometer. This
Visible spectrophotometer? has now been highlighted in Table 5 row 4
and 5
Water and water should be water and waste The error has been corrected
water.
Results and 240-331 Improve presentation. Consider including a To improve the presentation, the
Discussion column, in Table 6, for guideline values for paragraphs that were summarizing the
irrigation water, then just summarize the stuff characterization results have now been
in section 3.1, to indicate parameters within removed. These have now been
or above the guidelines and that the summarized in a new Table (Table 7) and a
greywater requires treatment before it can be new paragraph (lines 243-250). Table 7
used for irrigation. summaries the mean, literature range and
sources along with the guideline values for
Otherwise there is repetition of some general characteristic of light greywater
information. For example, information in suitable for irrigation. The author desisted
lines 249 & 250 (given in Table 6) is from adding a column on Table 6 as it
repeated in lines 359 & 360. would have clustered the Table and distort
the presentation.

243/244 How was average pH calculated? The value
in Table 6 looks like an arithmetic mean.
Average pH is supposed to be a geometric
mean.
The geometric mean was calculated to be
7.38 (≈7.4) for pH for influent and
7.098796 (≈7.1) for effluent. This has also
been corrected in the paper on line 270 and
273 respectively

361 In Tables 6 & 7, Are phosphates values in The phosphate values are in terms of
terms of phosphate (PO43-) or phosphate - phosphate with a symbol (PO43-) which
phosphorus (PO43- - P)? Please specify. has also been included in the table

In Tables 6 & 7, Are nitrates values in terms The nitrates values are in terms of nitrates
of nitrate (NO3-) or nitrate - nitrogen (NO3- - with a symbol (NO3-) which has also been
N)? Please specify. included in the table
 Insert section 3.2. 'Assessment of performance A subheading 3.2 for the section has been
of the greywater pilot system' should be added.
section 3.2.
332 Specify the effluent, i.e. USSF effluent. USSF effluent has been specified where
necessary throughout the research.

`361/362 Effluent from pilot system to be effluent from Effluent from the pilot systems is effluent
sedimentation tank? collected after it has passed through both
units (Sedimentation and USSF)

368,395, In Figure Titles consider replacing ‘quality’ The word level has replaced the word
415, 437, with ‘level’. For example, Fig 3 should be quality throughout the paper were
456, ‘Influent and effluent pH level of greywater applicable as suggested.
475,494, …..2018’.
497 Also replace quality with level in lines 494
and 497.
408

383/384 For irrigation water, should the WHO For irrigation, WHO (2006) standard
standard value for turbidity be >10 NTU or value for turbidity is <10 NTU. This has
<10 NTU? since been corrected in table 7 and table 8.
The implication of correcting the sign is as
458 follows: Pilot system effluent turbidity
level will not be within the range
468 stipulated by WHO for irrigation. This
statement has thus been updated on the
conclusion (line 413-420), abstract and the
pilot system performance assessment
turbidity paragraph (319-324)

Several Rephrase the sentence. Is 110 comparable to
values from other studies, 11 to 108 µs/cm? It
is above the range, but within the FAO
guidelines.
The statement has been rephrased to
“Other studies done by Fedo (2017) found
effluent values of 11 to 108 µS/cm. The EC
values for final effluent found in this study
were slightly above the range found by
Fedo (2017) although they were within the
stipulated guideline by FAO”

Put COD in brackets after the title Chemical The recommendation has been effected
oxygen demand.
 Is ‘The high COD value’ for raw greywater, The high COD value are for both raw
influent or effluent of the pilot system? greywater and effluent. The statement
which read “The high COD value has
been assumed to be a result of surfactants
in laundry and washing powders (Morel
and Diener, 2006)” now reads
“The high levels of COD for raw
greywater and effluent were likely the
effects of surfactants in laundry and
washing power (Morel and Diener,
2006)”

443 Consider writing Fig in full (Figure) for charts We have checked sample articles from the
(lines 91, 368, 395, 415, 437, 456, 475). Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, the journal adopts Fig. and not
Figure for names of figures. Therefore,
this was not changed.

Several Effluent has an average nitrate of 0.04 mg/L. This was an error it should be 0.4 mg/L.
How can 0.04 be an average for a range of This has now been corrected
0.05 to 0.75 mg/L?. Should it be 0.4 mg/L?

In titles for Figures, consider replacing The recommendation to change quality to

‘quality’ with ‘level’. For example, title for level has been welcomed. In addition to the
Figure 6 (line 437) should be ‘Effluent changes we have also rephrased the figure
phosphate level of greywater…2018’ instead captions to read “Fig 4 Pilot system
of ‘Effluent phosphate quality of influent and effluent EC level for the period
488 greywater…2018’. 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018” instead of
“Fig 4 Influent and effluent EC quality of
greywater from the pilot system for 03 May
2018 to 17 May 2018”. This is applicable
to all parameters

The sub-section on TC has been numbered as
1.1.1. Why? All the other sub-sections have
not been numbered.
Conclusion 500-502 For better clarity, consider rephrasing the two
sentences.
Recommendation 518 ‘The long term effects may include
accumulation of nitrates and phosphates ‘.
Really? Nitrates are very soluble. Do the
soluble nitrates leach or accumulate in
irrigated fields?
This was an oversite. The appropriate
subheading has been inserted.
The two statement have been reviewed and
now read “Effluent from the University of
Zimbabwe, Manfred halls of residence is
predominantly light greywater as
suggested by literature ranges, thus
physical processes can be applied to treat
it.
The reviewer observation is true. Nitrate do
leach instead of accumulating. Therefore
the statement has been corrected
appropriately to read “The long terms
effects may include leaching of nitrates and
phosphates in the irrigations field which
may ultimately cause negative
environmental consequences”
References Some years of publication are in brackets (line All references have been corrected to have
548, 556,etc.) while others are not (551, 553, brackets on the dates
etc.).

In some places & (or and) is alone (lines 556, The references now only have “and”
561, 564, etc.) while in other places it is instead of & as per the Journal of Physics
together with and (or &) (lines 548, 558, 577, and Chemistry of the Earth.
etc.).
Some journals are italicized (e.g. lines 549, All references are no longer italicized as
560, etc.) while others are not in italics (552, per the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of
etc.). the Earth.
Entire Paper. Some sections have pilot (eleventh row in We have chosen to be consistent with “pilot
Issues of abstract), some have pilot system (lines 55, 89, system”. This has since been updated
consistency 186, 379, 406, 410, 425, etc.) and others have throughout the document.
pilot plant (88, 167, 390, 433). Choose one.

Some sections have hall of residence (e.g.
lines 91, 97) while others have halls of
residence (e.g. lines 98, 500) or halls of
residents (sixth row in abstract). Which is the
right one?
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2003) versus Metcalf
and eddy In.c (2003); both in Table 1 (line
114).
Two different symbols for Hydraulic retention
time, HRT, (line 115) versus t (lines 125,
126)?
Biological oxygen demand (lines 148, 149,
etc.) versus biochemical oxygen demand
(lines 53, 172, 217, 477, etc.).
BOD (144, 152, 172, 174, etc.) versus BOD5
(148, 217, 479, 480, 486, etc.).
The correct phrase is “halls of residence”.
This has since been updated in all sections
highlighted by the reviewer
The citation in table one has been corrected
to Metcalf and Eddy (2003) instead of
Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2003) and Metcalf
and eddy In.c (2003).
We have chosen to be consistent with HRT
instead of t. The sections which t appeared
have since been edited.
We have maintained biochemical oxygen
demand in place of biochemical oxygen
demand throughout the paper.
We have chosen to be consistent with
“BOD5”. This has since been updated
throughout the document.

Some Figure titles are beginning with capital All figure titles throughout the paper have
letters (e.g. lines 79, 368) while others are been corrected to begin with a capital letter
beginning with small letters (e.g. line 91).

Some Table titles are beginning with capital All table titles throughout the paper have
letters (e.g. lines 114, 136, 144, 162) while been corrected to begin with a capital
others are beginning with small letters (e.g. letter
lines 216, 243).

Phosphate (283, 355, 419, 427, 428, 433, 435, The correct word is phosphate. This has
437) versus phosphorus (285, 421). since been updated in all sections
highlighted by the reviewer

Table, with capital letter T, (lines 126, 215, The word table throughout the paper been
225, 240, 283, 335) versus table, with small corrected to begin with a capital letter T.
letter t, (line 161).
 Fig., with capital letter F, (lines 102, 372, 443, The word Fig throughout the paper been
459) versus fig, with small letter f, (line 447). corrected to begin with a capital letter F
Entire Paper. Many Check, for example, lines 3, 4, 25, 26, 29, 30, The grammatical , tenses, typos and
Grammatical or 33, 47, 54, 71, 72, 74, 76, 82, 87, 88, 100, 105, punctuation errors in the lines highlighted
tense 130, 131, 149. 162, 172, 173, 205, 206, 216, have been tracked and corrected
(past/present) or 217, 231, 276/277, 302, 323, 325, 384, 389,
typographical or 405, 430, 447, 493, 498, 508, 511, 513
punctuation
errors
Revised Manuscript with Changes Marked Click here to view linked References

Physical treatment of greywater for reuse in landscape irrigation: A case of the

University of Zimbabwe.Application of physical processes for treatment of
greywater for reuse in landscape irrigation.

Vincent S.Simbarashe Kahondo*, Zvikomborero Hoko,

Department of Construction and Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167 Mt Pleasant,
Harare, Zimbabwe
*
Correspondence: E-mail: kahondov@gmail.com ,Tel :+263774922725

Abstract
Water shortages have affected daily operations of industry and institutions in most developing
countries including Zimbabwe. Consequently, there is growing interest on reuse and recycling
of wastewater including for landscape irrigation especially by industry and institutions. This
study investigated opportunities for application of low-cost physical processes offor greywater
treatment for reuse in irrigation at the University of Zimbabwe. First, the greywater from one
of the halls of residencetsresidents at the university (Manfred) was characterised to assess
quality in order to inform the design of pilot treatment system design. A pilot treatment system
comprising of a sedimentation tank and an Upflow Slow Sand Filter (USSF) was then designed
and constructed near Manfred halls of residence. It was then Hostel and fed by greywater
from the hostel and then operated for two weeks. Grab samples were collected from the inlet
and outlet of key stages of the pilot treatment system to investigate system performance. The
samples were then analysed for pH, eElectrical cConductivity (EC), turbidity, nitrates,
phosphates, cChemical oOxygen dDemand (COD), bBiochemical oOxygen dDemand (BOD5)
and tTotal cColiforms (TC) according to standard methods. After running the pilot system for
two weeks, the overall removal efficiencies reached 80.19% (EC), 72.6070.23% (turbidity),
27525% (phosphates), 68.87% (COD), 71.2070% (BOD5) and 3210% (TC). A Tt--test between
the influent and effluent values showed significant differences (p<0.05) for all parameters.
except for nitrates and TCT. After treatment, all parameters except TC and turbidity met the
FAO and WHO recommended limits for irrigation suggesting suitability of effluent for
landscape irrigation. However, further treatment of effluent is needed to reduce coliforms and
turbidity to acceptable limits.

Keywords: Greywater, irrigation, pilot-system, sand-filters, treatment, water-security

1
 1 1 Introduction Formatted: Font: Bold
2 Water demand is increasing daily in most parts of the world due to an increased population
3 growth and , agricultural activities (Mathur and Vijay 2013). Water demand is projected tow
4 toill increase byby 55% globally by 2050 between 2000 and 2050 (Leflaive 2012). According
5 to a model-based projection by Alcamo et al. (2007), there is increased stress on freshsurface
6 water resources due to population growth, urbanization, agricultural activities and
7 industrialization. Water is supposed to be viewed as an economic good and a finite resource
8 that should be valued and managed well (Odeh 2003). There is now growing realization on the
9 need for reuse and recycling of wastewater including for both drinking and irrigation
10 (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015). As such, Globally greywater recycling is receiving increased
11 attention globally as part of water management planning (Zadeh et al., 2013), green planning
12 and urban planning (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015).

13 Water recycling projects for non-potable end-use are now a common practice with more than
14 3,300 projects registered worldwide (Zhu et al., 2019). A case study by Odeh (2003) on
15 greywater reuse in Jordan demonstrated the role of greywater in sustainable integrated water
16 resource management. Water is supposed to be viewed as an economic good and a finite
17 resource that should be valued and managed well (Odeh 2003). The study by Odeh (2003)
18 concluded that current environmental policies should aim to control pollution and to maximize
19 recycling and reuse of greywater within households, communities and institutions.
20 Decentralized greywater management systems offer more opportunities for making the most
21 of recycling opportunities as they are yet another approach to ensuring proper and effective use
22 of water (Al-Jayyousi, 2003). According to a study by Rodríguez et al. (2020), between 42%
23 to 72% of the wastewater generated from institutions comes from the washbasins, and bath
24 roomswashbasin, which represents light greywater. According to Albalawneh and Chang
25 (2015) light greywater refers to wastewater with low pollutants concentrations like bathroom
26 and washbasin wastewater whilst wastewater with high pollutants strength such as laundry
27 and kitchen sink wastewater is heavy greywater. Thus. Thus greywaterlight greywater effluent
28 from institutions can be treated and recycled for non-potable end uses such as irrigation and
29 flushing of water closets and urinals (Irvine et al., 2014). Morel (2006) highlighted treatment
30 options applicable in the low and middle income countries like Mali and South-Africa which
31 included primary treatment options incorporating course filtration and sedimentation.

32 Zimbabwe has water insecurity resulting from world climate change (Haris 2015). In 2014,
33 76% of households in Zimbabwe had access to improved sources of drinking water , with wide
34 disparities noted between 95% of the urban households and 70% of (95%) and rural (70%)the
35 household ( according to (UNICEF, , 2016). Anthropogenic activities have been noted in a
36 study A study by Nhapi et al. (2002) to be polluting freshwater sources in the Lake Chivero
37 Catchment in Zimbabwe. The, Zimbabwe highlighted that anthropogenic activities were
38 exerting a lot pressure on the limited freshwater sources due to pollution of the lakelake fromby
39 point and non-point sources. This increase in pollution has affected drinking water treatment
40 processes atthus and main drinking waterof Harare resulting in reduced plant drink water
41 output.(. for Harare (Hoko and Makado, 2011). High water losses in Harare reported to be as

2
42 high ashave reached 60% have worsenedadding to the challenges ofchallenge on water supply
43 (Ndunguru and Hoko 2016).

44 Water shortages in Harare have forced people to source water from unsafe sources such aslike
45 hand dug shallow wells, resulting in outbreaks of waterborne diseases includingsuch as the
46 Cholera in 2008-2009 (Hove and Tirimboi, 2011). During theeThe 2008 -2009 cholera
47 outbreak resulted in over 100,000 infections and 4300 deaths were reported and linked to
48 thethis poor water supply and sanitation situation were reported (Marson, 2009). In response
49 to the 2008-2009 cholera epidemic, all western suburbs were scheduled to get supplies every
50 day for twenty-four hours whereas eastern suburbs were supposed to get water for three days
51 per week (Hove and Tirimboi, 2011). TheHowever, the recent September 2018 cholera
52 outbreak has shown that the risk of another outbreak is still there (WHO 2018). There is
53 therefore need to devise strategies to reduce water pollution and conserve water including
54 through recycling and reuse.
55 Morel (2006) highlighted treatment options applicable in the low and middle income countries Formatted: Add space between paragraphs of the
56 like Mali and South-Africa which included primary treatment options like course filtration and same style

57 sedimentation. A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in Zimbabwe by

58 Nhapi (2004) further suggested the feasibility of greywater reuse in Zimbabwe as a viable water
59 demand management strategy. Madungwe and Sakuringwa (2007) highlighted the need to
60 consider institutions in greywater reuse strategies to achieve water security in Harare.
61 Therefore, University of ZimbabweThus, this research considered the University of Zimbabwe,
62 as since it one of the key institutions in Harare currently facing drinking water challenges
63 insecurity that was considered to be the research case study as it could could benefit by from
64 greywater reuse option.
65
66 The study investigated opportunities for use of low-cost physical treatment processes for
67 treatment of greywater for reuse in irrigation with a view to enhance sustainable resource use
68 and water security at the University of Zimbabwe. The study characterized the quality of
69 greywater generated from Manfred hallsone hall of residence of residence for selected
70 parameters that included pH, electricalElectrical conductivity, turbidity, nitrates, phosphates,
71 chemical oxygen demand, biochemical oxygen demand and total coliforms. Results of the
72 water quality assessment werewereas used to inform the design of a greywater treatment pilot
73 greywater treatment system. A pilot system was then designed and fabricated and its
74 performance and effluent quality assessed for suitability of irrigation assessed.
75

76 2 Materials and Method

77 2.1 2.1 Background of study area Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Line spacing: single
78 Figure 1 shows The University of Zimbabwe (UZ) is located 17.8252° S, 31.0335° E and 1480
79 meters elevation (https://earth.google.com/web) in the northern part of Harare on coordinates
80 17.8252°S, 31.0335°E (Fig. 1) and ,elevation 1480 meters respectively.
81 (https://earth.google.com/webGoogle, n.d).).). Most parts of Zimbabwe havehaves been facing
82 water shortages (Makurira and Tumbare, 2014) including the University of Zimbabwe

3
 83 (Makurira and Tumbare, 2014).. The University of Zimbabwe was previously receiving water
84 from the Harare City Council till 2014072007. Failure by the council to ensure reliable supply
85 of clean water to the university had serious impacts and was affecting business at the university.
86 The University then resorted to using groundwater for drinking water supply and other uses
87 (Makurira and Tumbare, 2014). The groundwater system was initially designed for a
88 population of about 14,600 people with an estimateda total demand of 580 m3/day (Fedo,
89 20176). 2016). However, population data acquired from the University of Zimbabwe Students
90 Affairs Department showed that the number of students enrolled during the first semester of
91 2018 at the University was around 18,000. The recent introduction of the double occupancy
92 per room in the halls of residencetsresidents has increased the resident student population to of
93 resident students to approximately 6050 (University of Zimbabwe, 2018) Formatted: Font: Not Italic
94 (www.emhare.uz.ac.zw) , accessed 16/02/18) and this has increased the water demand. The .
95 Thus the demand has risen as a result of the increase in demand has also beenthe total university
96 population (staff and students). Demand has also increased due to improvements in landscape
97 management which has triggered increased irrigationbeen trigger by landscape irrigation
98 activities being done at University. According to Gavera (2017), there are indications of rapid
99 lowering of groundwater level at the in the University due to groundwater usage. Therefore,
100 the treatment and reuse of groundwater at the Universityuniversity may reduce groundwater
101 abstraction and ensure increased water security (Fedo, 2017).
102

4
103

104

5
105 FigFigure 1 Location of the study area (Manfred halls of residence) at the University of
106 Zimbabwe in Harare, Zimbabwe
107 2.12.2 Study design
108 The study involved cluded characterization of raw greywater in order to determine critical
109 constituencies of greywater. The results of characterization then informed the selection and
110 design of suitable treatment processes. Based on the results of the greywater characterization
111 it was established that physical processes of sedimentation followed by filtration would be most
112 appropriate and adequate to treat the greywater. Morel (2006) and Fedo (2017) havehasve also
113 used physical processes including that included sedimentation and filtration for greywater
114 treatment. A pilot treatment systemplant was then design and fabricated in a laboratory and its
115 performance was evaluated. The layout of the pilot system is shown in FigFigure . 2.

116
117 FigFigure 2 Greywater greywater pilot system installed at the Manfred hallsHa of residence

118 2.22.3 Pilot systemplant design and construction Formatted: Font: Not Bold
119
120 The characteristics obtained from sampling and characterization of greywater at the University
121 of Zimbabwe hallshall of residence of residence, along with typical design loading rates from
122 the literature were used as thea basis to design the pilot system. The method suggested
123 inmethodology from the BS5252-1-2010 was used to estimateestimated the potential greywater
124 to be reclaimed from the hall of residencehalls of residence including the volume of
125 greywaterwater estimated from one outlet of the Manfred Halls of residence. The pilot system
126 design consisted of a collectingcollection tank, sedimentation tank and an upflowUpflow slow
127 sand filter (USSF). The pilot system was) designed using the typical values from literature
128 listed in Table 1 and 3 below. The pilot system componentssystems units were constructed
129 from cylindrical plastic container units which matched the pilot system calculated pilot system
130 volumes. PVC pipes were used to join the components to produceunits ultimately producing a
131 pilot system design shown in FigFigure 2.

6
132 Sedimentation tank design
133
134 The sedimentation tank design criteria and design the outputs are presented in Table 1 and
135 Table 2 respectively. The design criteria parameters were adopted from typical values from
136 literature whilst the outputs were calculated using the equations obtained from literature. The
137 calculated output parameters were then compared with the values used in other studies.
138

139

140

141

142

143 Table 1 Design criteria used in the establishment of the sedimentation tank

Parameter Units Design value Literature ranges Literature References Formatted Table

Q m3/hr 0.02 -

vsVs m/hr 1.0 0.5-1.4 Degremont (1991)

HRT hrhHr 0.7 0.5-4 Pidou et al. (2007)

Sludge slope - 1:60060000 1:600 Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (2003)

Depth(D) mmM 0.8 0.8-1.2 Metcalf and Eddy IncEeddy

In.c. (2003)

144 Q=flowrate; vsV=Surface Loading Rate; HRT =Hydraulic Retention Time Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Superscript/ Subscript
145 Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Superscript/ Subscript

146 BS code 8525.1.2010, was used to calculate the average flow of greywater Q collected from Formatted: Font: 10 pt
147 the Manfred halls of residence bathroom outlet. The dimensions of the sedimentation tank were Formatted: Justified
148 calculated adopting the method suggested by Pidou et al. (2007). The method is highlighted Formatted: Font color: Text 1
149 below: Formatted: Font color: Text 2

150 BS code 8525.1.2010, was used to calculate the average flow of greywater Q collected from
151 the Manfred Hall of residence bathroom outlet.
152 The surface area of the sedimentation tank (A) was then calculated using the equation below.
𝑄𝑄
153 𝐴=
v𝑠 𝑉𝑠
154 (1)
155 Where Q iswas the flow rate while (vs is) was the surface loading rate. Formatted: Font: Not Italic

156 The depth (D) of the sedimentation tank was calculated from Equation 2 below.
157

7
158 𝐷 = v𝑠 𝑣𝑠 × 𝐻𝑅𝑇 + 𝑡
159 (2)
160 Where HRT is the hydraulic retention time. with range also suggested by literature in Table 1

161 Using the ratio of highlighted by Davis (2010), Length (L) to): Width (W) was equated to ratio
162 of 4: 1 suggested by Davis (2010),
163 Thus the tank volume V was calculated using the formulae below. Formatted: Justified

164 𝑉 =𝐿×𝑊×𝐷 (3)

165 The diameter of outlet d forof the sedimentation tank was designed using the formulae below.
166 The provided the Vvelocity (v) of influent pipes in the formulae was set to bewas limited below Formatted: Font: Not Italic
167 0to0.2 m/s as suggested by (DWD, 1995). Formatted: Font: Italic
4Q Formatted: Font:
168 𝑑 = πv (4)

169

170

171

172 Table 2 Calculated design outputs used to fabricate the sedimentation tank

Parameters Units Design Outputs

Area m2 0.02 Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

Volume m 3
0.014 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Check spelling and
grammar
Diameter mm 50 Formatted: Check spelling and grammar

173 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Check spelling and

grammar
174 Upflow slow sand filter design Formatted: Check spelling and grammar
175 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Check spelling and
176 The parameters used for sizing of the upflowUpflow slow sand filter and design outputs are grammar
177 presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The design criteria parameters were adopted from typical
178 literature values from literature whilst the outputs were calculated using the equations from
179 literature. The calculated design output parameters were then compared with the values used
180 in other studies.

181 Table 3 Design criteria for the Upflow sSlow sSlow Sand filter

Parameter Units Design Value Literature Literature References

ranges

Q m3 0.02

VSLRVLR m3/m2.m/h 0.16 0.14 to 0.26 Verma et al., (2017)

8
 OSLR g/m2.d 0.0007 0.00358 Pidou et al. (2007)

HRT hr 0.26 - Metcalf and Eddy Inc (2003)

BOD5 mg/L 136 85 to 250 Ilemobade et al. (2012)

BOD5 removal % % 90 50 to 90 Chernicharo (2005)

Effective depth(d) m 0.4 0.4 to 1 Metcalf and Eddy Inc (2003)

Coefficient of 1.3 1.3 Verma et al. (2017)

Uniformity

Overal depth(D)Depth m 0.9 0.9 Pidou et al. (2007)

182 Q=Flowrateflowrate; OSLR=Organic Surface Loading Rate; VSLRVLR=Volumetric Surface Loading Rate; HRT =Hydraulic Retention

183 Time; BOD =Biochemical Oxygen Demand

5

184 The design outputs for the USSF were calculated using a method using formulae suggested by Formatted: Justified
185 Pidou et al. (2007). The method imploredsuggested utilising the use biochemicalBiological
186 oxygen demand (BOD5) mean value obtained measured during greywater from characterisation
187 of greywater to calculatecalculated the ultimate biochemicalbiological oxygen demand (BODu)
188 as shown below
𝐵𝑂𝐷5
189 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑢 = (5)
0.9

190 The BOD loading rate (SoW) for the filter was then calculated by multiplying BODu with Formatted: Subscript
191 flowrate volume (QV) of greywater collected

192 𝑆𝑜 𝑊 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑢 𝑊 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑢 × 𝑄𝑉

193 (6)

194 The volume of the filter (VfVx) was then calculated with the assumption that the filter was
195 being designed as a low rate filter having BOD removal efficiency (E) greater than 85% and
196 recirculation factor (F) equal to 1 (Pidou et al. (2007) using the equation below:
100 100
197 𝐸= 𝑊
1+0.0044√ 𝑜 1+0.0044√𝑽𝒙𝐹
𝑆 𝑊
𝑽𝒇 𝐹

198 (7)

199 The Area of tank (A) was calculated with the equation
𝑉𝑉𝑓 𝑉
200 𝐀= (8)
𝐷 𝐷

201 where D was the total filterOverall depth suggested by literature in Tabletable 3

202 Table 4 Calculated design outputs used to set up the Upflow slow Sand filter
Parameters Units Design outputs

9
 Area m2 0.027214 Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Volume (Vf) m3 0.01905 Formatted: Font: Not Bold

203

204 2.32.4 Selection of sampling points and parameters

205
206 The sampling points for raw greywater characterization were located at the hostel bathroom
207 outlet. On the pilot systemplant, sampling was carried out from the inlet to the greywater pilot
208 systemplant and from the inlet and outlet of the sedimentation and filter units. Pidou et al.
209 (2007) recommended that for the assessment of the performance of a treatment system,
210 sampling points must be located at the inlet and outlet.

211 Parameters studied included: pH, electrical conductivity (EC), turbidity, phosphates, nitrates,
212 chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and total coliforms
213 (TC). According to Albalawneh and Chang (2015), state that the electrical conductivity
214 phosphates, nitrates and organic content are greatly linked to the influent pollution of greywater
215 while BOD5 and COD are the main parameters in slow sand filter design. EC, nitrates and
216 phosphatesorusphosphorus are important for plant growth provided they are at acceptable
217 levels according to (FAO, (2012). Coliforms are a critical parameter for the quality of effluent
218 meant for irrigation as it affects the health of workers (Gross et al., 2015).

219 2.42.5 Methods of data collection

220 Sampling for greywater characterization
221
222 Jefferson et al. (2004) suggest characterisation as a necessary process to select a treatment
223 technology suitable for a particular waste.the design of a treatment system. According to
224 Bakare et al.., (2017), successful implementation of any greywater treatment process depends
225 largely on theits characteristics of greywater in terms of the pollutant strength. Thus,
226 characterisation of greywater was done to inform the selection of technology and design of the
227 pilot system as was. This has also been done by other researchers like Fedo (2017) and
228 Jefferson et al (2004) and Fedo (2017) .). Grab in their studies. To undertake the
229 characterisation, grab sampling for physical, chemical and biological parameters was done for
230 2 weeks starting from 3 April 2018 to 17 April (2018 (with the exclusion of weekend days as
231 the student population on campus is low). Therefore a total of 10 campaigns was done during Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Auto, Pattern: Clear
232 the sampling Accordingperiod. According to Rodríguez et al. (2020), at an institution the
233 critical period of water usage when the greywater iswas assumed to be of worst quality and
234 high flow iswas assumed to be in the morning (7 am-9 am),, afternoon (12 pm-2 pm) and after
235 schooling hours (5 pm to 7 pm).. The study periods were selected to capture the period of
236 bathing and laundry. TheGrab samples were collected from the greywater outlets at the hostel.
237 The sample consisted of grab samples individually collected at peak hours (3) three times a day
238 to cater forcounteract the temporal variation in the greywater quality (Gross et al., 2015). These
239 series of grab samples were analysed individually. there-by observing the worst expected
240 quality of greywater at peak flow to be between 7am and 9am. Samples were collected for
241 physical, chemical and biological parameters.

10
242 Sampling for assessment of performance of the pilot systemplant
243
244 Sampling from the pilot system was done for 2 weeks starting from 03 May 2018 to 17 May
245 2018 during weekdays as students are mostly absent from the halls of residence during the
246 weekends. Sampling was done during the semester when the population was at its maximum.
247 The Therefore, the sampling days amounted to 10 days for all parametersper sample parameter
248 with the exception of BOD5 and TC which were sampled for 4 days. The sampling was done
249 in the morning at (between 79am-910am 9am-10am) during the period which the pilot system
250 receives heavythe heaviest greywater qualitypeak flow. Sampling was done according to the
251 protocols suggestedprovided by APHA in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
252 and Wastewater (APHA, 2005). A 2 L plastic container was used to collect the sample. A
253 cooler box with ice blocks was used for storing the samples during transportation to the water
254 laboratory at the Department of Construction and Civil Engineering at the University of
255 ZimbabweUZ.

256 2.52.6 Methods of sample analysis

257 Electrical conductivity and pH were measured on-site using athe portable multi-meter. The rest
258 of the greywater parameters werehave been measured by the University of Zimbabwe ,
259 Construction and Civil Engineering water laboratory followinglabs using protocols
260 stipulatedprovided by APHA in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
261 Wastewater (APHA, 2005). The methods are summarized in Tablein as shown by Table 5
262 below.
263 Table 5 Methodsmethods and materials used to characterise the 8 parameters under
264 investigations (APHA, 2005)
Parameters Method / Instrument used Method Number

pH Portable pH meter 2310

Electrical Conductivity (EC) Portable EC meter 2510
Turbidity Turbidimeter 2130A

Phosphates (PO43-) UV-Visible spectrophotometerPhotometer 4500-PA

Nitrates (NO3) UV-Visible spectrophotometerPhotometer 4500-OA

Chemical Oxygen Demand Closed reflux method Standard Methods for Examination 5220A
(COD) of Water and WastewaterWater

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 day test, Probe method Standard Methods for 5210B
(BOD5 ) Examination of Water and WastewaterWater

Total Coliforms Standard Methods for Examination of Water and 9211D

WastewaterMembrane Filtration methodWater

265

266 2.62.7 Methods of data analysis and interpretation Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
267 The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v23) and Excel were employed for
268 statisticalfor statistical analysis ofto analyse the data. The data from the selected greywater

11
269 parameters was statistically analysed using descriptive statistics methods. Summary statistics,
270 such as minima and maxima, mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation, were
271 generated. (Table 6). The results of the characterised greywater parameters were then compared
272 with values suggested inby the literature fFor light using the one sample t-test to validate the
273 greywater. strength i.e. whether light or heavy greywater. The one sample T-test was calculated
274 at 95% confidence interval as suggested by Pidou et al. (2007). The performance of the pilot Formatted: Not Highlight
275 system was then checked through statistical analysis which compareding the by comparing the Formatted: Not Highlight
276 influent to effluent from the pilot system using two sample T-test employed to calculate the Formatted: Not Highlight
277 significant difference between influent to effluent values. from the pilot system. Thee
278 significantce of the differences between the influent the influent and the effluent values wereas Formatted: Not Highlight
279 assessed using two sample tT-test . The two sample T-test was also calculated at 95% Formatted: Not Highlight
280 confidence interval as suggested by Pidou et al. (2007). .). The effluent values were then Formatted: Not Highlight
281 compared with literature guidelines values set by [FAO (2003), WHO (2004) and WHO
282 (2006))] to determine the suitability of the greywater collected from the pilot system for
283 landscape irrigation

284 3 Results and discussion

285
286 3.1 Characterisation of raw greywater Formatted: Font: Italic
287
288 Results of the characterization of greywater are presented in Table 6. Descriptive statistics like Formatted: Not Highlight
289 range, mean, standard deviation and CV for the raw greywater sampled from the Manfred halls
290 of residence have been included in Table 6. Based on a t-test, the mean values of raw greywater Formatted: Not Highlight
291 sampled from the Manfred halls of residence showed no significant difference (p>0.05) with Formatted: Not Highlight
292 the literature ranges for light greywater suggested by numerous authors (in Table 6) . to be for
Formatted: Not Highlight
293 light greywater. Light greywater isbeing greywater with low pollutants concentration
Formatted: Not Highlight
294 (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015). Only pH, phosphates, nitrates and BOD 5 values The mean
295 values of the parameter were concluded to be not were within the range stipulated by Formatted: Not Highlight

296 FAO/WHO guidelines for irrigations reuse as show in Table 7. Thus, thus physical treatment Formatted: Not Highlight
297 was recommended for ttreatment of thehe light greywater sampled from the Manfred halls of Formatted: Not Highlight
298 residence. Formatted: Not Highlight
299
Formatted: Not Highlight
300
Formatted: Not Highlight
301 Table 6 Descriptivedescriptive statistics for raw greywater from the Manfred hallshall of
302 residence of residence for the period 3 April 2018 to 17 April 2018 (number of Formatted: Not Highlight

303 parameters=8). Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Not Highlight
Parameters Units No of Minimu Maximum Mean Std. CV Formatted: Not Highlight
campaign m Deviation (%)
Formatted: Not Highlight
s
pH - 6.90 8.01 7.383 0.47 6.35 Formatted: Font: Not Italic
840 Formatted: Font: Not Italic
EC µS/cm 10 281 600 426 102 23.9
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Turbidity NTU 10 115 133 124 6.43 5.18 Formatted Table

12
 Phosphates (PO43-) mg/L 10 1.80 2.20 2.00 0.11 5.50
-
Nitrates (NO3 ) mg/L 10 0.02 0.66 0.16 0.06 37.5 Formatted Table

COD mg/L 10 274 300 284 8.78 3.09

BOD5 mg/L 4 124 134 136 3.74 2.75

Total Coliform 104cfu/ 4 6.90 8.01 7.40 0.47 6.35

100mL
304 CV is coefficient of variation Formatted: Normal, Left, Don't keep with next, Don't
305 adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust
306 space between Asian text and numbers
307 Table 7 Comparison of mean values of descriptive statistics for raw greywaterfrom the Formatted: Font: Not Italic
308 Manfred hall of residence for the period 3 April 2018 to 17 April 201 literature ranges for
309 light greywater and guidelines for irrigation (number of parameters=8).

Parameters Units Mean Literatu Literature Guideline Guideline

re ranges Source for Source
irrigation
pH - 7.40 6.4-8.5 Ilemobade et al. (2012) 6.50 to 8.40 FAO (2003) Formatted Table

EC µS/c 426 300-1500 Morel and Diener (2006) 70-300 FAO (2003)
m
Turbidity NTU 124 +/-120 Bakare et al. (2017) <10>10 WHO Formatted: Font color: Black
(2006)WHO
Formatted: Font color: Black
(2006)
Phosphates mg/L 2.00 0.5-4 Nolde (1999) <10.0 FAO (2003)
(PO43-)
Nitrates mg/L 0.16 4-16 Nolde (1999) <5.000 FAO (2003)
(NO3-)
COD mg/L 284 150-400 Nolde (199) <240 WHO (2004)

BOD5 mg/L 136 50-600 Morel and Diener (2006) <240 WHO (2004)

Total 104cf 7.40 101-106 Bullermann et al. (2001) <103 WHO (1989)
Coliform u/100
mL
310
311
312 pH
313
314 The mean value for pH for the University of Zimbabwe, Manfred hall of residence was 7.40 ±
315 0.47. The pH values ranged from 6.90 to 8.01 showing a low variability (CV=6.35%) as shown
316 in Table 6. Based on a t-test, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the pH values
317 suggested by Ilemobade et al. (2012) and Ayers (1985). Similar studies done by Ilemobade et
318 al. (2012) in South Africa showed that institutional greywater had an average of 6.4 to 8.5. The
319 values found in this study were within the range of 6.4 to 8.5 to that found by Ilemobade et al.
320 (2012). The pH of the greywater is suitable for irrigation reuse since 6.50 to 8.40 pH is
321 suggested by Ayers et al. (1985). Thus no treatment of greywater for pH may be required.

13
322
323 Electrical Conductivity
324
325 The Electrical Conductivity (EC) values ranged from 281 µS/cm to 600 µS/cm for the Manfred
326 hall of residence while the average was 426 ± 102 µS/cm. The values showed moderate
327 variability as the Coefficient of Variation (CV) was 23.9%. Based on a t-test, there was
328 significant difference (p<0.05) in the mean EC values of 900 µS/cm suggested by Morel and
329 Diener (2006) to the one found at the hall of residence. The EC value found at UZ Manfred
330 hall of residence was within the range of 300-1500 µS/cm reported by Morel and Diener (2006)
331 for greywater in low and middle-income countries but however low than the mean. The average
332 EC value obtained was not within the range of 70-300 µS/cm stipulated by FAO for irrigations
333 reuse (2003) thus physical treatment for EC was recommended by Morel and Diener (2006).
334

335 Turbidity
336
337 The turbidity varied from 115 NTU to 133 NTU with an average of 124 ± 6.43 NTU (CV =
338 5.18%) as presented in Table 6. The turbidity found in this study was within the light greywater
339 range suggested by Albalawneh and Chang (2015) of 19 NTU and 444 NTU. Recent studies
340 done in South Africa by Bakare et al. (2017) showed that the bathroom greywater had average
341 turbidity of 120 NTU which is comparable to that obtained in this study. Since turbidity is
342 correlates with suspended solids, Gross et al. (2008) suggest treatment by sedimentation to
343 reduce the turbidity of the greywater within the range required by WHO (2006) of greater than
344 10 NTU.
345
346 Phosphates
347
348 The phosphates values ranged from 1.8 mg/L to 2.20 mg/L for the hall of residence (Table 6).
349 The values showed a low variability as the Coefficient of Variation (CV) was 5.50%. The
350 average phosphorous value was found to be 2.00 ± 0.11 mg/L. The values obtained in this study
351 are comparable with the values ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mg/L for phosphates found by Nolde
352 (1999) and Bullermann et al. (2001) in a similar study. The percentage of phosphates found in
353 the characterised greywater has been linked to the amount of washing powders and bathing
354 soaps used by students in the bathrooms. A sand filter has been recommended by Nolde (1999)
355 to treat the greywater ranging between 0.5 to 4.0 mg/L to a range of less than 10 mg/L stipulated
356 by FAO (2003) for landscape irrigation.
357

358 Nitrates
359
360 The descriptive statistics for the nitrate results found during characterisation are as follows:
361 0.02 mg/L, 0.66 mg/L, 0.16 mg/L and 0.06 mg/L minimum, maximum, mean and standard
362 respectively. The values showed a moderate variability as the Coefficient of Variation (CV)
363 was 37.5%. The values of nitrates obtained in this study were lower than the values found by
364 Nolde (1999) and Bullermann et al. (2001) of 4 to 16 mg/L. Values of nitrogen in greywater

14
365 are found within a range of 5 to 50mg/L according to Morel and Diener (2006). Morel and
366 Diener (2006) further explained that institutional greywater is predominantly bath and laundry
367 water hence the low value of nitrates. The nitrates values were less than 5 mg/L as required by
368 FAO (2003) for irrigation reuse thus no treatment for nitrates is required.
369

370 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

371
372 The COD range was 274 to 300 mg/L with an average of 284 mg/L. The values showed a low
373 variability as the Coefficient of Variation (CV) was 3.09%. COD values obtained in this study
374 were in the range of 150 to 400 mg/L suggested by Nolde (1999) for light greywater.
375 Bullermann et al. (2001) suggested using a sand filter for greywater treatment to a range
376 suggested by WHO/AFESD (2004) for irrigation of less than 240mg/L.

377 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

378
379 The average BOD for greywater at the hall of residence studied was 136 mg/L with a coefficient
380 of variation of 275%. The range of BOD for the characterised greywater was between 133
381 mg/L to 140mg/L. The average BOD found in this study of 136mg/L was within the range
382 established by Ilemobade et al. (2012) in South Africa of 85 to 253 mg/L. This was also
383 supported by the BOD values suggested by Morel and Diener (2006) for light greywater in a
384 similar study ranging between 50 to 600 mg/L. Bullermann et al. (2001) suggested using a sand
385 filter for greywater treatment to a range suggested by WHO/AFESD (2004) for irrigation of
386 less than 240mg/L.
387

388 Total Coliform

389
390 The descriptive statistics for the nitrate results found during characterisation are as follows:
391 6.90x104 CFU/100mL, 8.01x104 CFU/100mL, 7.40x104 CFU/100mL and 0.47x104
392 CFU/100mL for minimum, maximum, mean and standard respectively. The coefficient of
393 variation was 6.35%. According to Leonard (2016), concentrations of microbial indicators
394 indicate high levels of contamination occurring across all greywater sources, including light
395 greywater. The average total coliform value in this study of 7.40x104CFU/100mL was found
396 to be within the range of 101 to 106 CFU/100mL as suggested by Bullermann et al. (2001).
397 However, the greywater has to be treated to reduce coliforms to the recommended value of 103
398 for reuse in irrigation as suggested by WHO (1989).

399 3.2 Assessment of performance of the greywater pilot system

400
401 The average values for the pilot system based on samples collected for10 days are for14 days.
402 These average values have been presented in Table 87.7.
403
404
405

15
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422 Table 87 Average values across the pilot system as at 03 May 2018 after operation of Formatted: Font: Not Italic
423 10 4days 14days (number of sampling parameters=8) Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Parameter Units Number Raw Sedimentation USSF Guideline Source
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
of greywater effluent effluent value
campaigns Formatted Table
pH - 10 7.383840 7.30 7.10 6.50 to 8.40 FAO (2003)

EC µS/cm 10 426 275 82.0 70-300 FAO (2003)

Turbidity NTU 10 124.7 60.6 34.0 <10>10 WHO

(2006)WHO
(2006)
Nitrates mg/L 10 0.16 0.04 0.40 <5.00 FAO (2003)

Phosphates mg/L 10 2.00 1.80 1.46 <10.0 FAO (2003)

(PO43-)
Nitrates mg/L 10 0.16 0.04 0.40 <5.00 FAO (2003)
(NO3-) <30 WHO (2004)
COD mg/L 10 284 142 88.7 <240 WHO (2004)

BOD5 mg/L 4 136 90.0 39.6 <240 WHO (2004)

Total 104cfu/100 4 7.403,06x1 6.525.03x103 5.038.11 <1043103 WHO

Coliforms mL 04 5.03x103 x103 (19891989)
8.11x103
424
425
426 pH
427
428 The variation of pH is presented in Fig. 3. The pH of the influent greywater throughout the
429 study ranged from 6.9 to 8.0 with a geometric mean of 7.4 4n average value of 7.4 and a

16
430 Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 6.35%. On the other hand, the range of values of pH of the
431 effluent was 6.7 to 7.6 (CV=4%) with an average of 7.1. t. The effluent from the pilot system
432 had a geometric mean of 7.1 a mean value of 7.3 and a range of 6.9 to 7.9 (CV=5.4%). %) as
433 presented in Fig 3. Based on a t-test there was significant difference (p<0.05) between influent
434 and effluent of the pilot system. Therefore, the pH of the Effluent of 7.1 is within the range
435 stipulated by FAO of 6.5 to 8.4 thus the effluent was acceptable for irrigation reuse.
436

437
438 FigFigure 3 Pilot system influentInfluent and USSF effluent pH level quality of greywater
439 from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

440 Electrical conductivity (EC)

441
442 The variation of Electrical Conductivity (EC) for the influent and pilot system USSF effluent
443 is shown in FigFigure 4. The EC of the influent greywater throughout the study ranged from
444 276 to 600 µS/cm with an average value of 426 µS/cm and a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of
445 22.8%. On the other hand, the average value of EC for the effluent was 110 µS/cm (CV=
446 35.9%) with range 10 to 381 µS/cm.%). The overall removal efficiency varied from 60.8% to
447 97.5% with an average of 80.19%. For the stage removal of EC, the sedimentation tank had an
448 average effluent value of 275 µS/cm resulting in stage removal of 35.453.2% while for the
449 USSF this was 82 µS/cm and 70.1% 80.9% respectively. Based on a t-test there was a
450 significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot system.
451
452 The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range of 70-300 µS/cm stipulated
453 by the FAO for irrigation (FAO, 2003). A study Other studies such as thatdone by Fedo (2017)
454 found effluent values of 11 to 108 µS/cm. , T.hus, Tthe EC values for final effluent found in
455 this study were slightly above the range found by Fedo (2017) although they were within the
456 stipulated guideline by FAO (2003) for irrigation. are comparable to those from other studies.
457 The USSF had removal efficiency of 80.180.9% which was observed to be within the range of
458 70% to 90%%. found by Pidou et al. (2007).). of 70% to 90%. Removal of EC in the
459 sedimentation tank is mainly due to agglomeration of charged particles which promotes
460 settlement resulting in a reduction of dissolved ionic substances that contribute to electrical
461 conductivity (Gross et al., 2008). In the filter, the removal of charged particles (EC) is through

17
462 adsorption of charged particles and mechanical trapping of coagulated charged particles
463 (Bullermann et al., (2001). The final effluent quality met the recommended limits suggested by
464 FAO (2003) for irrigation. Therefore,Th the pilotpilot system plant was effective in reducing
465 EC.
466
467
468

469
470 FigFigure 4 Pilot system influent Influent and USSF effluent EC level quality of greywater Formatted: Left
471 from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

472 Turbidity
473
474 The variation of turbidity in the influent and effluent is presented in FigFigure 5. The turbidity
475 of the influent greywater ranged from 115 to 133 NTU with an average value of 124.7 NTU
476 and a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 5.1%. The range of values of turbidity of the effluent
477 was 20 to -56.6 NTU and an average value of 34 NTU (CV=32.7%). The overall removal
478 efficiency varied from 57.1% to 83.2% withhad an average of 72.68%. 8%. The sedimentation
479 tank effluent turbidity level was 60.6 NTU (51.1% -% -stage removal percentage) whilst for
480 the USSF effluent turbidity level was 34 NTU (43.972.8% -s-stage removal percentage). For
481 the stage removal, the sedimentation tank had an average effluent value of 60.6 NTU
482 translating to a stage removal of 51% while for the USSF this was 34 NTU and 72.8%
483 respectively. Based on a t-test there was a no significant difference (p<<>0.05) between
484 influent and effluent of the pilot system.
485
486 WHO (2006) suggest turbidity level to be below 10 NTU for irrigation of crops and vegetables Formatted: Font color: Auto
487 (with 2 NTU being for food crops, and <5 NTU for processed food crops). However standard
488 limit for turbidity for landscape irrigation has not been stated in literatureThe effluent from the
489 pilot system is not within the range stipulated by the WHO (2006) irrigation guideline.
490 Although a high level of turbidity has been observed to affect the performance an irrigation Formatted: Font color: Auto
491 facility (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015) hence a low turbidity level is required for landscape Formatted: Font color: Auto
492 irrigation. Further treatment for turbidity is requiredTherefore, the effluent treated by the pilot Formatted: Font color: Accent 1
493 system is suitable for landscape irrigation at the institution to reduce the turbidity.The pilot Formatted: Font color: Auto

18
494 system reduced the turbidity to a level that would not affect the efficiency of the irrigation Formatted: Font color: Auto
495 facility thus, the effluent is suitable for irrigation. Formatted: Font color: Auto

496 The values obtained in this study were still within the standard value of >10 NTU suggested Formatted: Font color: Auto

497 by WHO (2006) for the irrigation of following criteria of crops and vegetation: plenteous trees
498 and green areas, industrial crops and forestry. Therefore, the effluent treated by the pilot system
499 is suitable for landscape irrigation at the institution.
500

501

502
503 FigFigure 5 Pilot system influentInfluent and USSF effluent turbidity level quality of
504 greywater from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

505 Phosphates
506
507 Phosphates variation is shown in Fig. 6. The phosphates of the influent greywater for the study Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
508 ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 mg/L with an average value of 2.0 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation
509 (CV) of 5.5%. Phosphates% as presented in Figorous values for effluent ranged from 1.2 to1.6
510 mg/L and averaged 1.46 mg/LXXX (CV=8.3%). The overall removal efficiency had varied
511 from 57.1% to 83.2% with an average of 2772.8%. The sedimentation tank had an average
512 effluent value of 1.8 mg/L giving a stage removal of 10.0212.7% while for the USSF the stage
513 removal resulted in an effluent of 1.46 mg/L and efficiency of 18.925.9%. Based on a t-test
514 there was significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and USSF effluent of the pilot
515 system.
516
517 The reduction of phosphates in the pilot system has been associated with biomass communities
518 within the filter media removing phosphates through adsorption onto the substrate (Gross et al.
519 (2007). The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range of 0 mg/L to 10
520 mg/L stipulated by the FAO (2003) for irrigation..irrigation thus the pilot system was effective
521 in reducing phosphates. . (FAO 2003). A similar study by Fedo (2017) found effluent values
522 ranging frombetween 1.06 to 1.72 mg/L. This was comparable to the results found in this study
523 of 1.2 to 1.62 mg/L.. Therefore, final effluent quality met the recommended limits suggested
524 by FAO for irrigation thus the pilot systemsystemplant was effective in reducing phosphates.
Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, Don't add space
525 between paragraphs of the same style

19
526

527
528 FigFigure 6 Pilot system influentInfluent and USSF effluent phosphates level quality of
529 greywater from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

530 Nitrates
531
532 The nitrates variation is presented in Fig. 7. The nitrates content of the influent greywater varied
533 from 0.02 to 0.66 mg/L with an average value of 0.16 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation
534 (CV) of 37.5%. The values of nitrates for the USSF effluent of the pilot were 0.05 to 0.75 mg/L
535 (CV=8.3%) with an average of 0.0.4 mg/L (CV=8.3%) . Fieffluent value of 0.40 mg/L. A t-
536 test showed that there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of
537 the pilot system...
538
539 Fig 7 show that tThe nitrates value for the effluent from the pilot system had increased.was Formatted: Font color: Auto
540 higin Figfig 7. Eriksson et al. (2002) links the increase to be as a result oxidationseveral Formatted: Font color: Auto
541 oxygen-demanding processes that occur in greywater water treatment for instance nitrification Formatted: Font color: Auto
542 that, to increase the content of nitrates in the effluent. However, the values found in the USSF Formatted: Font color: Auto
543 effluent of the pilot system for nitrates were still satisfactory as they were less than 30 mg/L,
544 the maximum value set by WHO guidelines (2006) for wastewater reuse. The results from this
545 study were also within the range suggest by FAO (2003) of less than 5 mg/L for wastewater
546 reuse for irrigation.
547

20
548
549 FigFigure 7 Pilot system influentInfluent and USSF effluent nitrate Nitrates quality level of
550 greywater from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

551 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

552 COD values are presented in FigFigure 8. The COD of the influent greywater varied from 274
553 to 300 mg/L with an average value of 284 mg/L (CV= 3%). COD values for effluent were 61
554 to 136 mg/L (CV=26.9%). The overall removal efficiency varied from 50.4 to 78.3%% with
555 an average of 68.7%. The sedimentation tank had an average effluent value of 142.4 mg/L
556 resulting in stage removal of 49.950.2% while for the USSF this was 88.7 mg/L and 37.868.7%
557 respectively. Overally, the pilot system had an average removal efficiency of 68.8%. Based on
558 a t-test there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot
559 system.
560
561 The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range stipulated by the WHO for
562 irrigation of 0 mg/L to 240 mg/L (WHO, 2004). The high COD values in both the influent raw
563 greywater and USSF effluent havehas been assumed to be as a resultwere likely the effects of
564 surfactants in laundry and washing powders (Morel and Diener, 2006). Additional sources of
565 COD in greywater may be skin cells, fat, and leftover food (Eriksson et al., 2002).
566 TheHowever, the pilot system showedhas shown significant treatment capabilities in reducing
567 the value of COD in the greywater.

21
568

569
570 FigFigure 8 Pilot system influentInfluent and USSF effluent COD quality level of greywater
571 from the pilot system for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

572 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

573
574 The BOD5 of the influent greywater was found to vary from 133 to 140 mg/L with an average
575 value of 136.3 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 2.1%. Values of BOD5 for the
576 effluent were ranging between 18 to 63 mg/L (CV= 49.8%). The overall removal efficiency
577 varied from 54.3% to 86.4% with an average of 71.25%. The sedimentation tank had an average
578 effluent value of 90 mg/L resulting in stage removal of 3432.6% while for the USSF it was
579 39.3 mg/L and 56.371.5% respectively as presented in Table 87. 7. Based on a t-test there was
580 a significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot system. The values
581 found in the effluent for BOD5 were satisfactory since they were less than 240 mg/L, the
582 maximum value set by WHO (2004) for landscape irrigation using greywater.

583 1.1.1 Total Coliforms

584
585 Total Coliforms (TC)
586
587 The average result obtained for total coliforms (TC) of the influent greywater was 7.40x104
588 CFU/100mL. The total coliformsTC of the influent greywater ranged from 7.40×104 CFU/100
589 m/L and between 7.40×10440x104 CFU/100m/L and averaged 7.40×10440x104 CFU/100
590 mL100m/L (CV = 6.35%). The After treatment using the greywater pilot treatment system, it
591 was found out that Tthe USSF effluent from the pilot system had a minimum TC level of a
592 ranged between 3.60×104360x103 CFU/100 m100m/L and maximum of 8.11×104311x103
593 CFU/100 m100m/L (CV = 5.45%) while the%) a average TCquality level for the pilot system
594 USSF effluent was found to be of 5.03×104303x103 CFU/100 m/L100mL. There was a 3210%
595 removal of total coliforms across the treatment system whilst the sedimentation tank and USSF
596 had removal efficiencies of 11.9% and 22.9% respectively.. Based thus based on a t-test there Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
597 was a no significant difference (p<>0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot system in
598 terms of when it came to .TC removal. According to WHO (200620061989) irrigation of sports
599 fields, public parks should be done with greywater with total coliform quality level less than

22
600 103 CFU/100 mg/L. Therefore, the results from this study were not within the range suggest by
601 WHO (2006) suggested for irrigation. ThusTherefore, the greywater from the pilot system not
602 could be used for landscape irrigation at the institution as it required further treatment to reduce
603 coliforms is needed.

604 4. Conclusion

605 Effluent from the University of Zimbabwe, Manfred institution halls of residence is to be Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
606 predominantly light greywater as with ranges suggested by literature ranges, thus physical
607 processes can be applied to treat institutional greywater can only be concluded to be light
608 greywater as the values were within for treatment. This was true provided the greywater is
609 being the effluent was only being collected from bathroom outlets which are disjointed from
610 the ranges suggestedtoilet system. Further evidence by literature for light greywater. Thus the
611 study showed physical treatment processes could be applied to treat it. Results showed that
612 physical treatment processes incorporating a technology (sedimentation tank and an upflow
613 slow sand filter was capable of treatingUSSF) contributing significantly towards the
614 improvement of the greywater to meet standardsquality ear-marked for landscaping irrigation
615 reuse. A t-test between the pilot system influent and effluent values, showed significant
616 differences (p<0.05) for all parameters except for nitrates and TC. After treatment, all
617 parameters except TC and turbidity met the FAO and WHO recommended limits for irrigation
618 suggesting suitability of effluent for landscape irrigation.
619
620 5. Recommendations
621 TheAs highlighted above the removal of total coliforms (TC) by the pilot system has beenwas
622 noted to be low thus constructionthus further treatment using of lagoon maturation ponds canto
623 reducecan be implored to coliformsreduce the TC and turbidity below 1000to less thanbelow
624 103 CFU/100 mg/L and 10 mg/L respectively. Chemical. as recommended by WHO (1989).
625 Further Cchemical treatment like i.e. chlorination can also be done to of greywater is suggested
626 ensure that all parameters meet the FAO (2003) stipulated levels for landscape irrigation. thus
627 not compromising the sustainability of the ecosystems. Significant progress has been made by
628 the study towards filling knowledge gaps related to greywater reuse. However, further research
629 is needed in some areas such as those identified as the long term effects of landscape irrigation
630 using greywater. The long terms effects may include leaching accumulation of nitrates and
631 phosphates in the irrigations field which may ultimately cause negative environmental
632 consequences.

633 6. Acknowledgements
634 The paper presents part of the research results of a final year BSc Civil Engineering thesis by
635 Vincent S. Kahondo at the University of Zimbabwe in 2018. The anonymous reviewers for this
636 work are also greatly acknowledged. Special mention is given to staff of the Construction and
637 Civil Engineering Department, and the Department of Works at the University of Zimbabwe
638 for the logistical and material support.
639
640 7. References

23
641
642 OECD 2012, The OECD Environment Directorate calls for early and strategic action: Water
643 Outlook to 2050.
644 WHO. 1989. Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Health
645 Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva, World Health Organization (Technical
646 Report Series No. 776).
647 WHO. 1989. Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Health
648 Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva, World Health Organization (Technical
649 Report Series No. 776).
650
651 World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO. (2011). Geneva. "Guidelines for drinking-water Formatted: Font: Not Italic
652 quality.".." World Health Organization 216: 303-304.
653 University of Zimbabwe. (2014).), Groundwater Project Design Manual., University of Formatted: Not Highlight
654 Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished. Formatted: Not Highlight
655 World Health Organization. 2006).. WHO guidelines for the safe use of Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
656 wastewaterwasterwater excreta and greywater. (Vol. 1). World Health Organization. Formatted: Not Highlight
657 Albalawneh, A. ., &and Chang, T. K. (2015). Review of the greywater and proposed greywater
658 recycling scheme for agricultural irrigation reuses. International Journal of Research– Formatted: Font: Not Italic
659 Granthaalayah, 3(12), 16-35.
660 Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2003). Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management.
661 Desalination, 156(1-3), 181-192. Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Check spelling and
662 American Public Health Association (APHA). (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination grammar

663 of Water and Wastewater (21st ed., 1220 p). Washington DC: American Public Health Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Check spelling and
grammar
664 Association
665 Ayers, R. S. ., &and Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture (Vol. 29, p. 174). Formatted: Font: Not Italic

666 Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

667 Bakare, B. F., Mtsweni, S.., and& Rathilal, S. (2017). Characteristics of greywater from
668 different sources within households in a community in Durban, South Africa. Journal Formatted: Font: Not Italic
669 of water reuse and desalination, 7(4), 520-528.
670 Bullermann, M, Lücke, F.K., Mehlhart, G. and Klaus, U. (2001). Greywater and Rainwater
671 use, Kassel-Hasenhecke: Hygienic and stand-alone accompanying inspections. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
672 publication series of the fbr, Volvol 7., Formatted: Font: Not Italic
673 Chernicharo, C and Sperling, M. (2005). Biological Wastewater Treatment in Warm Climate Formatted: Font: Not Italic
674 Regions Volume I. Water Intelligence Online. 4. 10.2166/9781780402734.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
675 DWD, (1995). Design and training manual for piped rural water supplies in Zimbabwe.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
676 Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Water Development. Department of Water
677 Development (DWD), Harare, Zimbabwe.
678 FAO (2010). The wealth of waste: The economics of wastewater use in agriculture. Water Formatted: Font: Not Italic
679 Report, 35, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
680 FAO. (2003). User’sUsers ManualUser’s Manual for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
681 Cairo, Egypt: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAO
682 Regional Office of the Near East.
683 Fedo, C. (2017). Greywater treatment for reuse at the University of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Thesis, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
684 University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished.

24
685 Fewtrell, L.., and Bartram, J. (Eds.). (2001).. Water quality: guidelines, standards and health. Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 11 pt
686 assessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious diseases. IWA Formatted: Font: Not Italic
687 publishing ISBN 190022228. .
688 Gavera, T. (2017). Groundwater optimisation at the University of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Thesis, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
689 University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
690 Ghaitidak, D. M., and & Yadav, K. D. (2013). Characteristics and treatment of greywater—a
691 review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20(5), 2795-2809. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
692 Ghrair, A. M., Al‐ Mashaqbeh, O. A., and& Megdal, S. B. (2015). Performance of a Grey
693 Water Pilot Plant Using a Multi‐ Layer Filter for Agricultural Purposes in the Jordan
694 Valley. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water, 43(3), 351-359. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
695 Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F., &and Van Beek, L. P. (2012). Water balance of global
696 aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature, 488(7410), 197-200. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
697 Google. (n.d.). Google map of University of Zimbabwe campus. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from
698 https://earth.google.com/web/UniversityofZimbabwe.
699 Gross, A., Maimon, A., Alfiya, Y ., &and., Friedler, Friedler, E. (2015). Greywater reuse, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
700 Water International, 40:7, 1071-1074. CRC Press. 978-1-4822-5504-1. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
701 Hoko, Z., &and Makado, P. K. (2011). Optimization of algal removal process at Morton Jaffray
702 waterworks, Harare, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
703 36(14-15), 1141-1150.
704 Hove, M., &and Tirimboi, A. (2011). Assessment of Harare water service delivery. Journal of Formatted: Font: Not Italic
705 sustainable development in Africa, 13(4), 61-84.
706 Irvine, K., Chua, L., &and Eikass, H. S. (2014).S. (2014). The four national taps of Singapore:
707 a holistic approach to water resources management from drainage to drinking water.
708 Journal of water management modelling, 1-11.
709 Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Prathapar, S., &and Al Harrasi, A. (2008). Evaluating greywater
710 reuse potential for sustainable water resources management in Oman. Environmental Formatted: Font: Not Italic
711 monitoring and assessment, 137(1-3), 315.
712 Jefferson, B., Palmer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., &and Judd, S. (2004). Grey water
713 characterisation and its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban
714 reuse. Water science and technology, 50(2), 157-164. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
715 Kundzewicz, Z. W., and Doell, P. (2009). Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under Formatted: Font: Not Italic
716 climate change. Hydrological sciences journal, 54(4), 665-675. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
717 Leflaive, X. (2012). Water Outlook to 2050.0: The OECD calls for early and strategic action. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
718 In Global Water Forum.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
719 Leonard, M., Gilpin, B., Robson, B.., and Wall, K. (2016). Field study of the composition of
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Check spelling and
720 greywater and comparison of microbiological indicators of water quality in on-site grammar
721 systems. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 188(8), 475
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
722 Madungwe, E., and Sakuringwa, S. (2007). Greywater reuse: A strategy for water demand
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
723 management in Harare.?. Physics and Chemistry of theThe Earth, Parts A/B/C, .
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
724 32(15-18),. 1231-1236. 10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.015.
725 Makurira, H. &and Tumbare, M. J. (2014). Water insecurity in Zimbabwe’s towns and cities: Formatted: Font: Not Italic

726 challenges for institutions, Journal of Science Engineering and Technology, Formatted: Font: Not Italic

727 Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers, 1(2). 48-55. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

25
728 Mateo-Sagasta, J., Raschid-Sally, L., and Thebo, A. (2015). Global wastewater and sludge
729 production, treatment and use. In Wastewater (pp. 15-38). Springer, Dordrecht. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
730 Mathur, Y.P., and Vijay, A., (2013). Non-Revenue Water Reduction- A Tool for Achieving Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 11 pt
731 24x7 Water Supply. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering7 (3): 25-28. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
732 Metcalf, E. E., and Eddy, H.Metcalf and Eddy. (. 2003).. Wastewater engineering: treatment,
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
733 disposal, reuse. 3rd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
734 Morel, A. (2006). Greywater management in low and middle-income countries (No. 628.2 Formatted: Font: Not Italic
735 G842g). Dubenforf, CH: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.
736 Ndunguru, M. G., &and Hoko, Z. (2016). Assessment of water loss in Harare, Zimbabwe.
737 Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 6(4), 519-533. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
738 Nhapi, I., &and Hoko, Z. 2004. A cleaner production approach to urban water management:
739 potential for application in Harare, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
740 Parts A/B/C, 29(15-18), 1281-1289.
741 Nhapi, I., Hoko, Z., Siebel, M. A., &and Gijzen, H. J. (2002). Assessment of the major water
742 and nutrient flows in the Chivero catchment area, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry Formatted: Font: Not Italic
743 of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 27(11-22), 783-792.
744 Nhapi, Innocent. (2004). A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in
745 Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 29. 1265-1273. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
746 10.1016/j.pce.2004.09.031.
747 Nolde, E. (1999). Grey water reuse systems for toilet flushing in multistory buildings over ten
748 years’ experience in Berlin. Urban Water, 1: 275–284. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
749 Odeh R. and Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2003). Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water Formatted: Font color: Auto
750 management. Desalination, 156(1-3), 181-192. Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Font color: Auto
751 Pidou, M., Memon, F. A., Stephenson, T., Jefferson, B. ., &and Jeffrey, P. (2007, September).
Formatted: Font color: Auto
752 Greywater recycling: treatment options and applications. In Proceedings of the
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
753 Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability. (Vol. 160, No. 3, pp. 119-
754 131). Thomas Telford Ltd.No need for the publisher
755 Radingoana, M. P., Dube, T., and Mazvimavi, D. (2020). An assessment of irrigation water
756 quality and potential of reusing greywater in home gardens in water-limited
757 environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 116, 102857. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
758 Rodríguez, C., Sánchez, R., Lozano-Parra, J., Rebolledo, N., Schneider, N., Serrano, J., &and Formatted: Font: Not Italic
759 Leiva, E. (2020). Water balance assessment in schools and households of rural areas
760 of Coquimbo Region, North-Central Chile: potential for greywater reuse. Water, Formatted: Font: Not Italic
761 12(10), 2915
762 Samusodza. J. (2013). Household greywater treatment using a constructed wetland. B.Sc. Formatted: Not Highlight
763 Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
764 Unpublished. Formatted: Not Highlight
765 Siwila, S., &and Brink, I. C. (2018).. Comparative analysis of two low-cost point-of-use water
766 treatment systems. Water Practice &and Technology, 13(1), 79-90. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
767 Irvine, K., Chua, L., and Eikass, H. S. (2014). The four national taps of Singapore: A holistic Formatted: Font: Not Italic
768 approach to water resources management from drainage to drinking water. Journal of Formatted: Font: Not Italic
769 water management modelling, 1-11. Formatted: Font: Not Italic

26
770 UNICEF. (, W. ,(2012). WHO, World Bank. Levels and trends in child malnutrition: UNICEF- Formatted: Not Highlight
771 WHO-World Bank joint child malnutrition estimates. UNICEF, New York Formatted: Not Highlight
772 Washington. Formatted: Not Highlight
773 UNICEF-Zimbabwe. (2016). Zimbabwe Humanitarian Situation Report: Situation in Numbers,
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
774 vol. 3. pp. 129. Retrieved from: http://reliefweb.int/report/zimbabwe/ zimbabwe-
Formatted: Not Highlight
775 humanitarian-situation-report-no-3-31-march-2016, (AccessedAaccessed April 2019)
Formatted: Not Highlight
776 University of Zimbabwe., (2018), accessed 16 February 2018, (http://www.emhare.uz.ac.zw,
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
777 accessed 16/02/18)
778 University of Zimbabwe. (2018). Student accommodation. Formatted: Not Highlight

779 https://www.uz.ac.zw/index.php/current-students/student-records. (accessed 13 June Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
780 2018). Formatted: Not Highlight
781 USEPA. (2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington D.C: US Environmental Protection Formatted: Not Highlight
782 Agency; EPA/625/R-04/108. Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Not Highlight
783 Verma, A., Asadi, A., Yang, K., &and Mejabi, B. (2017). Wastewater treatment aeration Formatted: Not Highlight
784 process optimization: A data mining approach. Journal of environmental
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
785 management, 203, 630-639.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
786 Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., Salgot, M., Collado, J., Hernandez, F and Torricelli,
787 R. (2010). The wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater use in agriculture. Water Formatted: Font: Not Italic
788 Reports, (35).
789 World Bank, (2003). Private Participation in Infrastructure: Trends in Developing Countries in Formatted: Font: Not Italic
790 1990–2001. The World Bank, Washington, DC
791 World Health Organisation (WHO), (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in
792 agriculture and aquaculture. Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva,
793 World Health Organization (Technical Report Series No. 776).
794 World Health Organisation (WHO), (2006). Overview of greywater management: health
795 considerations, Regional Office of the Eastern Mediterranean, Centre for
796 Environmental Health Activities (CEHA). Geneva.(2006). Overview of greywater
797 management: health considerations, WHO, Geneva.
798 World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO .(2006). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th
799 edn. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva, World Health
800 Organization (Technical Report Series No. 776).
801 World Health Organisation (WHO). (2006). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th (Edn).
802 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva, World Health
803 Organization (Technical Report Series No. 776).
804 World Health Organisation (WHO). (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,
805 Excreta and Greywater. Volume 4: Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture. World Formatted: Font: Not Italic
806 Health Organisation, 3rd Edition, 2006, WHO, Geneva.
807 World Health Organization. (2001. Water quality: Guidelines, standards and health
808 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap2.pdf (accessed January
809 19, 2009)
810 World Health Organization. (2001). Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health. Edited Formatted: Font: Not Italic
811 by Lorna Fewtrell and Jamie Bartram. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK.
812 ISBN: 1 900222 28 0

27
813 World Health Organization. (2001). Water quality: Guidelines, standards and health.
814 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap2.pdf (accessed January
815 19, 2009)
816 World Health Organization. (2004). Report on the WHO/AFESD regional consultation to Formatted: Font: Not Italic
817 review national priorities and action plans for wastewater reuse and management,
818 Amman, Jordan, 20-22 October 2003 (No. WHO-EM/CEH/106/E). World Health
819 Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.
820 World Health Organization. (2006). Overview of greywater management health Formatted: Font: Not Italic
821 considerations (No. WHO-EM/CEH/125/E).
822 Zadeh, S.D. (2013). Sustainability Evaluation of shared greywater recycling in mixed-use Formatted: Font: Not Italic
823 regeneration areas. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Birmingham
824 University, UK,
825Zhu, J., Wagner, M., Cornel, P., Chen, H., &and Dai, X. (2018). Feasibility of on-site grey-water
826 reuse for toilet flushing in China. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 8(1), 1-13. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

28
Highlights

 Greywater reuse has the potential to improve water-security in institutions.

 Greywater characterised in institutions is mostly light greywater.
 Effluent from physical treatment pilot systems has improved quality.
 Physical treatment system technology is useful in recycling greywater for irrigation.
Manuscript File Click here to view linked References

Physical treatment of greywater for reuse in landscape irrigation: A case of the

University of Zimbabwe.
Vincent S. Kahondo*, Zvikomborero Hoko,
Department of Construction and Civil Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167 Mt Pleasant,
Harare, Zimbabwe
*
Correspondence: E-mail kahondov@gmail.com ,Tel +263774922725

Abstract
Water shortages have affected daily operations of institutions in most developing countries
including Zimbabwe. Consequently, there is growing interest on reuse of wastewater including
for landscape irrigation especially by institutions. This study investigated opportunities for
application of low-cost physical processes for greywater treatment for reuse in irrigation at the
University of Zimbabwe. First, the greywater from the halls of residence at the university
(Manfred) was characterised to assess quality in order to inform the design of pilot treatment
system. A pilot treatment system comprising of a sedimentation tank and an upflow slow sand
filter (USSF) was then designed and constructed near Manfred halls of residence. It was then
fed by greywater from the hostel and operated for two weeks. Grab samples were collected
from the inlet and outlet of key stages of the pilot treatment system to investigate system
performance. The samples were then analysed for pH, Electrical Conductivity (EC), turbidity,
nitrates, phosphates, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5) and Total Coliforms (TC) according to standard methods. After running the pilot
system for two weeks, the overall removal efficiencies reached 80.1% (EC), 72.6% (turbidity),
27% (phosphates), 68.8% (COD), 71.2% (BOD5) and 32% (TC). A t-test between the influent
and effluent values showed significant differences (p<0.05) for all parameters. After treatment,
all parameters except TC and turbidity met the FAO and WHO recommended limits for
irrigation suggesting suitability of effluent for landscape irrigation. However, further treatment
of effluent is needed to reduce coliforms and turbidity to acceptable limits.

Keywords: Greywater, irrigation, pilot-system, sand-filters, treatment, water-security

1
 1 1 Introduction

2 Water demand is increasing daily in most parts of the world due to population growth and
3 agricultural activities (Mathur and Vijay 2013). Water demand is projected to increase by 55%
4 globally by 2050 (Leflaive 2012). According to a model-based projection by Alcamo et al.
5 (2007), there is increased stress on fresh water resources due to population growth,
6 urbanization, agricultural activities and industrialization. Water is supposed to be viewed as an
7 economic good and a finite resource that should be valued and managed well (Odeh 2003).
8 There is now growing realization on the need for reuse and recycling of wastewater including
9 for both drinking and irrigation (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015). As such, greywater recycling
10 is receiving increased attention globally as part of water management planning (Zadeh et al.,
11 2013), green planning and urban planning (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015).
12 Water recycling projects for non-potable end-use are now a common practice with more than
13 3,300 projects registered worldwide (Zhu et al., 2019). A case study by Odeh (2003) on
14 greywater reuse in Jordan demonstrated the role of greywater in sustainable integrated water
15 resource management. The study by Odeh (2003) concluded that current environmental
16 policies should aim to control pollution and to maximize recycling and reuse of greywater
17 within households, communities and institutions. Decentralized greywater management
18 systems offer more opportunities for making the most of recycling opportunities as they are yet
19 another approach to ensuring proper and effective use of water (Al-Jayyousi, 2003). According
20 to a study by Rodríguez et al. (2020), between 42% to 72% of the wastewater generated from
21 institutions comes from the washbasins, and bath rooms which represents light greywater.
22 According to Albalawneh and Chang (2015) light greywater refers to wastewater with low
23 pollutants concentrations like bathroom and washbasin wastewater whilst wastewater with high
24 pollutants strength such as laundry and kitchen sink wastewater is heavy greywater. Thus
25 greywater effluent from institutions can be treated and recycled for non-potable end uses such
26 as irrigation and flushing of water closets and urinals (Irvine et al., 2014). Morel (2006)
27 highlighted treatment options applicable in the low and middle income countries like Mali and
28 South-Africa which included primary treatment options incorporating course filtration and
29 sedimentation.
30 Zimbabwe has water insecurity resulting from world climate change (Haris 2015). In 2014,
31 76% of households in Zimbabwe had access to improved sources of drinking water (UNICEF,
32 2016). Anthropogenic activities have been noted in a study by Nhapi et al. (2002) to be
33 polluting freshwater sources in the Lake Chivero Catchment in Zimbabwe. The pollution of
34 the lake has affected drinking water treatment processes at the main drinking water treatment
35 plant of Harare resulting in reduced plant output (Hoko and Makado, 2011). High water losses
36 in Harare reported to be as high as 60% have worsened the challenges of water supply
37 (Ndunguru and Hoko 2016).

38 Water shortages in Harare have forced people to source water from unsafe sources such as hand
39 dug shallow wells, resulting in outbreaks of waterborne diseases including Cholera (Hove and
40 Tirimboi, 2011). During the 2008 -2009 cholera outbreak over 100,000 infections and 4300
41 deaths were reported and linked to the poor water supply and sanitation situation (Marson,

2
42 2009). In response to the 2008-2009 cholera epidemic, all western suburbs were scheduled to
43 get supplies every day for twenty-four hours whereas eastern suburbs were supposed to get
44 water for three days per week (Hove and Tirimboi, 2011). The recent September 2018 cholera
45 outbreak has shown that the risk of another outbreak is still there (WHO 2018). There is
46 therefore need to devise strategies to reduce water pollution and conserve water including
47 through recycling and reuse. A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in
48 Zimbabwe by Nhapi (2004) suggested the feasibility of greywater reuse in Zimbabwe as a
49 viable water demand management strategy. Madungwe and Sakuringwa (2007) highlighted
50 the need to consider institutions in greywater reuse strategies to achieve water security in
51 Harare. Therefore, University of Zimbabwe, as one of the key institutions in Harare currently
52 facing drinking water challenges was considered to be the research case study as it could benefit
53 from greywater reuse option.
54
55 The study investigated opportunities for use of low-cost physical treatment processes for
56 treatment of greywater for reuse in irrigation with a view to enhance sustainable resource use
57 and water security at the University of Zimbabwe. The study characterized the quality of
58 greywater generated from Manfred halls of residence for selected parameters that included pH,
59 electrical conductivity, turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, chemical oxygen demand, biochemical
60 oxygen demand and total coliforms. Results of the water quality assessment were used to
61 inform the design of a greywater treatment pilot system. A pilot system was then designed and
62 fabricated and its performance and effluent quality assessed for suitability of irrigation.
63

64 2 Materials and Method

65 2.1 Background of study area

66 The University of Zimbabwe (UZ) shown in Fig. 1 is located in the northern part of Harare on
67 coordinates 17.8252°S, 31.0335°E and elevation 1480 meters respectively (Google, n.d). Most
68 parts of Zimbabwe have been facing water shortages including the University of Zimbabwe
69 (Makurira and Tumbare, 2014). The University of Zimbabwe was previously receiving water
70 from the Harare City Council till 2014 Failure by the council to ensure reliable supply of clean
71 water to the university had serious impacts and was affecting business at the university. The
72 University then resorted to using groundwater for drinking water supply and other uses
73 (Makurira and Tumbare, 2014). The groundwater system was initially designed for a
74 population of about 14,600 people with an estimated demand of 580 m3/day (Fedo, 2017).
75 However, population data acquired from the University of Zimbabwe Students Affairs
76 Department showed that the number of students enrolled during the first semester of 2018 at
77 the University was around 18,000. The recent introduction of the double occupancy per room
78 in the halls of residence has increased the resident student population to 6050 (University of
79 Zimbabwe, 2018) and this has increased the water demand. The increase in demand has also
80 been triggered by landscape irrigation activities being done at University. According to Gavera
81 (2017), there are indications of rapid lowering of groundwater level at the university due to
82 groundwater usage. Therefore, the treatment and reuse of groundwater at the University may
83 reduce groundwater abstraction and ensure increased water security (Fedo, 2017).
3
84
85 Fig 1 Location of the study area (Manfred halls of residence) at the University of Zimbabwe
86 in Harare, Zimbabwe
87 2.2 Study design

88 The study involved characterization of raw greywater in order to determine critical

89 constituencies of greywater. The results of characterization then informed the selection and
90 design of suitable treatment processes. Based on the results of the greywater characterization
91 it was established that physical processes of sedimentation followed by filtration would be most
92 appropriate and adequate to treat the greywater. Morel (2006) and Fedo (2017) have also used
93 physical processes that included sedimentation and filtration for greywater treatment. A pilot
94 treatment system was then design and fabricated in a laboratory and its performance was
95 evaluated. The layout of the pilot system is shown in Fig 2.

4
 96
97 Fig 2 Greywater pilot system installed at the Manfred halls of residence

98 2.3 Pilot system design and construction

99 The characteristics obtained from sampling and characterization of greywater at the University
100 of Zimbabwe halls of residence, along with typical design loading rates from the literature were
101 used as the basis to design the pilot system. The method suggested in the BS5252-1-2010 was
102 used to estimate the potential greywater to be reclaimed from the halls of residence including
103 the volume of greywater from one outlet of the Manfred Halls of residence. The pilot system
104 design consisted of a collecting tank, sedimentation tank and an upflow slow sand filter
105 (USSF). The pilot system was designed using the typical values from literature listed in Table
106 1 and 3. The pilot system components were constructed from cylindrical plastic container units
107 which matched the calculated pilot system volumes. PVC pipes were used to join the
108 components to produce a pilot system shown in Fig 2.

109 Sedimentation tank design

110 The sedimentation tank design criteria and design outputs are presented in Table 1 and Table
111 2 respectively. The design criteria parameters were adopted from typical values from literature
112 whilst the outputs were calculated using the equations obtained from literature. The calculated
113 output parameters were then compared with the values used in other studies.
114

115

116

117

118

5
119 Table 1 Design criteria used in the establishment of the sedimentation tank

Parameter Units Design value Literature ranges Literature References

Q m3/hr 0.02 -

vs m/hr 1.0 0.5-1.4 Degremont (1991)

HRT hr 0.7 0.5-4 Pidou et al. (2007)

Sludge slope - 1:600 1:600 Metcalf and Eddy (2003)

Depth(D) m 0.8 0.8-1.2 Metcalf and Eddy (2003)

120 Q=flowrate; vs=Surface Loading Rate; HRT =Hydraulic Retention Time

121

122 BS code 8525.1.2010, was used to calculate the average flow of greywater Q collected from
123 the Manfred halls of residence bathroom outlet. The dimensions of the sedimentation tank were
124 calculated adopting the method suggested by Pidou et al. (2007). The method is highlighted
125 below:

126 The surface area of the sedimentation tank (A) was then calculated using the equation below.
𝑄
127 𝐴=v (1)
𝑠

128 Where Q is the flow rate while vs is the surface loading rate.

129 The depth (D) of the sedimentation tank was calculated from Equation 2 below.
130

131 𝐷 = v𝑠 × 𝐻𝑅𝑇 (2)

132 Where HRT is the hydraulic retention time.
133 Using the ratio of Length (L) to Width (W) ratio of 4: 1 suggested by Davis (2010), the tank
134 volume V was calculated using the formulae below.

135 𝑉 =𝐿×𝑊×𝐷 (3)

136 The diameter of outlet d for the sedimentation tank was designed using the formulae below.
137 The velocity (v) of influent pipes in the formulae was set to be below 0.2 m/s as suggested by
138 (DWD, 1995).
4Q
139 𝑑 = πv (4)

140

141

142

6
143 Table 2 Calculated design outputs used to fabricate the sedimentation tank

Parameters Units Design Outputs

Area m2 0.02

Volume m3 0.014

Diameter mm 50

144

145 Upflow slow sand filter design

146 The parameters used for sizing of the upflow slow sand filter and design outputs are presented
147 in Table 3 and Table 4. The design criteria parameters were adopted from typical literature
148 values whilst the outputs were calculated using the equations from literature.

149 Table 3 Design criteria for the upflow slow sand filter

Parameter Units Design Value Literature Literature References

ranges

Q m3 0.02

VSLR m3/m2.h 0.16 0.14 to 0.26 Verma et al., (2017)

HRT hr 0.26 - Metcalf and Eddy (2003)

BOD5 mg/L 136 85 to 250 Ilemobade et al. (2012)

BOD5 removal % % 90 50 to 90 Chernicharo (2005)

Effective depth(d) m 0.4 0.4 to 1 Metcalf and Eddy (2003)

Coefficient of 1.3 1.3 Verma et al. (2017)

Uniformity

Overal depth(D) m 0.9 0.9 Pidou et al. (2007)

Q=Flowrate; OSLR=Organic Surface Loading Rate; VSLR=Volumetric Surface Loading Rate; HRT =Hydraulic Retention Time;
150
BOD =Biochemical Oxygen Demand
151 5

152 The design outputs for the USSF were calculated using a method suggested by Pidou et al.
153 (2007). The method implored the use biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) mean value
154 measured during greywater characterisation to calculate the ultimate biochemical oxygen
155 demand (BODu) as shown below
𝐵𝑂𝐷5
156 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑢 = (5)
0.9

157 The BOD loading (So) for the filter was then calculated by multiplying BODu with flowrate
158 (Q) of greywater collected

159 𝑆𝑜 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑢 × 𝑄 (6)

7
160 The volume of the filter (Vf) was then calculated with the assumption that the filter was being
161 designed as a low rate filter having BOD removal efficiency (E) greater than 85% and
162 recirculation factor (F) equal to 1 (Pidou et al. (2007) using the equation below:
100
163 𝐸= (7)
𝑆
1+0.0044√ 𝑜
𝑽 𝐹𝒇

164 The Area of tank (A) was calculated with the equation
𝑉𝑓
165 𝐀= (8)
𝐷

166 where D was the Overall depth suggested by literature in Table 3

167 Table 4 Calculated design outputs used to set up the upflow slow sand filter
Parameters Units Design outputs

Area m2 0.027214

Volume (Vf) m3 0.01905

168

169 2.4 Selection of sampling points and parameters

170 The sampling points for raw greywater characterization were located at the hostel bathroom
171 outlet. On the pilot system, sampling was carried out from the inlet to the greywater pilot
172 system and from the inlet and outlet of the sedimentation and filter units. Pidou et al. (2007)
173 recommended that for the assessment of the performance of a treatment system, sampling
174 points must be located at the inlet and outlet.

175 Parameters studied included: pH, electrical conductivity (EC), turbidity, phosphates, nitrates,
176 chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and total coliforms
177 (TC). According to Albalawneh and Chang (2015), electrical conductivity phosphates, nitrates
178 and organic content are greatly linked to the influent pollution of greywater while BOD5 and
179 COD are the main parameters in slow sand filter design. EC, nitrates and phosphates are
180 important for plant growth provided they are at acceptable levels (FAO, 2012). Coliforms are
181 a critical parameter for the quality of effluent meant for irrigation as it affects the health of
182 workers (Gross et al., 2015).

183 2.5 Methods of data collection

184 Sampling for greywater characterization

185 Jefferson et al. (2004) suggest characterisation as a necessary process to select a treatment
186 technology suitable for a particular waste. According to Bakare et al. (2017), successful
187 implementation of any greywater treatment process depends largely on the characteristics of
188 greywater in terms of the pollutant strength. Thus, characterisation of greywater was done to
189 inform the selection of technology and design of the pilot system as was done by Jefferson et

8
190 al (2004) and Fedo (2017). Grab sampling for physical, chemical and biological parameters
191 was done for 2 weeks from 3 April 2018 to 17 April 2018 (with the exclusion of weekend days
192 as the student population on campus is low). Therefore, a total of 10 campaigns was done
193 during the sampling period. According to Rodríguez et al. (2020), at an institution the critical
194 period of water usage when the greywater is assumed to be of worst quality and high flow is
195 assumed to be in the morning (7 am-9 am), afternoon (12 pm-2 pm) and after schooling hours
196 (5 pm to 7 pm). The study periods were selected to capture the period of bathing and laundry.
197 The samples were collected from the greywater outlets at the hostel. The sample consisted of
198 grab samples individually collected at peak hours (3) three times a day to cater for the temporal
199 variation in the greywater quality (Gross et al., 2015).

200 Sampling for assessment of performance of the pilot system

201 Sampling from the pilot system was done for 2 weeks starting from 03 May 2018 to 17 May
202 2018 during weekdays as students are mostly absent from the halls of residence during the
203 weekends. Sampling was done during the semester when the population was at its maximum.
204 The sampling days amounted to 10 days for all parameters with the exception of BOD5 and TC
205 which were sampled for 4 days. The sampling was done in the morning between 7am-9am
206 during the period which the pilot system receives peak flow. Sampling was done according to
207 the protocols suggested by APHA in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
208 Wastewater (APHA, 2005). A 2 L plastic container was used to collect the sample. A cooler
209 box with ice blocks was used for storing the samples during transportation to the water
210 laboratory at the Department of Construction and Civil Engineering at the University of
211 Zimbabwe.
212 2.6 Methods of sample analysis

213 Electrical conductivity and pH were measured on-site using a portable multi-meter. The rest of
214 the greywater parameters were measured by the University of Zimbabwe, Construction and
215 Civil Engineering water laboratory following protocols stipulated by APHA in the Standard
216 Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, 2005). The methods are
217 summarized in Table 5.

9
218 Table 5 Methods used to characterise the 8 parameters under investigations (APHA, 2005)
Parameters Method / Instrument used Method Number

pH Portable pH meter 2310

Electrical Conductivity (EC) Portable EC meter 2510
Turbidity Turbidimeter 2130A

Phosphates (PO43-) UV-Visible spectrophotometer 4500-PA

Nitrates (NO3) UV-Visible spectrophotometer 4500-OA

Chemical Oxygen Demand Closed reflux method 5220A

(COD)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 day test, Probe method 5210B

(BOD5 )

Total Coliforms Membrane filtration method 9211D

219

220 2.7 Methods of data analysis and interpretation

221 The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v23) and Excel were employed for statistical
222 analysis of the data. The data from the selected greywater parameters was statistically analysed
223 using descriptive statistics methods. Summary statistics, such as minima and maxima, mean,
224 standard deviation and coefficient of variation, were generated. The results of the characterised
225 greywater parameters were then compared with values suggested in literature for light
226 greywater. The performance of the pilot system was then checked through statistical analysis
227 which compared the significant difference between influent to effluent values. The significant
228 differences between the influent and the effluent values were assessed using two sample t-test
229 at 95% confidence interval as suggested by Pidou et al. (2007) The effluent values were then
230 compared with literature guidelines values set by FAO (2003), WHO (2004) and WHO (2006)
231 to determine the suitability of the greywater from the pilot system for landscape irrigation

232 3 Results and discussion

233 3.1 Characterisation of raw greywater

234 Results of the characterization of greywater are presented in Table 6. Based on a t-test, the
235 mean values of raw greywater sampled from the Manfred halls of residence showed no
236 significant difference (p>0.05) with the literature ranges for light greywater suggested by
237 numerous authors (Table 6). Light greywater is greywater with low pollutants concentration
238 (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015).Only pH, phosphates, nitrates and BOD5 values were within
239 the range stipulated by FAO/WHO guidelines for irrigation reuse as show in Table 7. Thus
240 physical treatment was recommended for treatment of the greywater from the Manfred halls of
241 residence.
242

10
243 Table 6 Descriptive statistics for raw greywater from the Manfred halls of residence for the
244 period 3 April 2018 to 17 April 2018 (number of parameters=8).

Parameters Units No of Minimu Maximum Mean Std. CV

campaign m Deviation (%)
s
pH - 6.90 8.01 7.38 0.47 6.35

EC µS/cm 10 281 600 426 102 23.9

Turbidity NTU 10 115 133 124 6.43 5.18

Phosphates (PO43-) mg/L 10 1.80 2.20 2.00 0.11 5.50

Nitrates (NO3-) mg/L 10 0.02 0.66 0.16 0.06 37.5

COD mg/L 10 274 300 284 8.78 3.09

BOD5 mg/L 4 124 134 136 3.74 2.75

Total Coliform 104CFU 4 6.90 8.01 7.40 0.47 6.35

/100mL
245 CV is coefficient of variation
246
247 Table 7 Comparison of mean values of raw greywater to literature ranges for light greywater
248 and guidelines for irrigation

Parameters Units Mean Literature Literature Guideline Guideline

ranges Source irrigation Source
pH - 7.40 6.4-8.5 Ilemobade et al. (2012) 6.50 to FAO (2003)
8.40
EC µS/cm 426 300-1500 Morel and Diener (2006) 70-300 FAO (2003)

Turbidity NTU 124 +/-120 Bakare et al. (2017) <10 WHO (2006)

Phosphates mg/L 2.00 0.5-4 Nolde (1999) <10.0 FAO (2003)

(PO43-)
Nitrates mg/L 0.16 4-16 Nolde (1999) <5.0 FAO (2003)
(NO3-)
COD mg/L 284 150-400 Nolde (199) <240 WHO (2004)

BOD5 mg/L 136 50-600 Morel and Diener (2006) <240 WHO (2004)

Total 104CFU 7.40 101-106 Bullermann et al. (2001) <103 WHO (1989)
Coliform /100mL
249
250 3.2 Assessment of performance of the greywater pilot system

251 The average values for the pilot system based on samples collected for10 days are presented
252 in Table 8.
253
254

11
255 Table 8 Average values across the pilot system as at 03 May 2018 after operation of 10 days
Parameter Units Number Raw Sedimentation USSF Guideline Source
of greywater effluent effluent value
campaigns
pH - 10 7.38 7.30 7.10 6.50 to 8.40 FAO (2003)

EC µS/cm 10 426 275 82.0 70-300 FAO (2003)

Turbidity NTU 10 124.7 60.6 34.0 <10 WHO (2006)

Phosphates mg/L 10 2.00 1.80 1.46 <10.0 FAO (2003)

(PO43-)
Nitrates mg/L 10 0.16 0.04 0.40 <5.00 FAO (2003)
(NO3-) <30 WHO (2004)
COD mg/L 10 284 142 88.7 <240 WHO (2004)

BOD5 mg/L 4 136 90.0 39.6 <240 WHO (2004)

Total 104CFU/100 4 7.40 6.52 5.03 <104 WHO (1989)

Coliforms mL
256
257
258 pH

259 The variation of pH is presented in Fig. 3. The pH of the influent greywater throughout the
260 study ranged from 6.9 to 8.0 with a geometric mean of 7.4 and a Coefficient of Variation (CV)
261 of 6.35%. On the other hand, the effluent from the pilot system had a geometric mean of 7.1
262 and a range of 6.9 to 7.9 (CV=5.4%). Based on a t-test there was significant difference (p<0.05)
263 between influent and effluent of the pilot system. Therefore, the pH of the Effluent of 7.1 is
264 within the range stipulated by FAO of 6.5 to 8.4 thus the effluent was acceptable for irrigation
265 reuse.
266

267
268 Fig 3 Pilot system influent and effluent pH level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

12
269 Electrical conductivity (EC)

270 The variation of Electrical Conductivity (EC) for the influent and pilot system effluent is shown
271 in Fig 4. The EC of the influent greywater throughout the study ranged from 276 to 600 µS/cm
272 with an average value of 426 µS/cm and a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22.8%. On the
273 other hand, the average value of EC for the effluent was 110 µS/cm (CV= 35.9%) with range
274 10 to 381 µS/cm. The overall removal efficiency varied from 60.8% to 97.5% with an average
275 of 80.1%. For the stage removal of EC, the sedimentation tank had an average effluent value
276 of 275 µS/cm resulting in stage removal of 35.4% while for the USSF this was 82 µS/cm and
277 70.1% respectively. Based on a t-test there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between
278 influent and effluent of the pilot system.
279
280 The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range of 70-300 µS/cm stipulated
281 by the FAO for irrigation (FAO, 2003). A study done by Fedo (2017) found effluent values of
282 11 to 108 µS/cm. Thus, the EC values for final effluent found in this study were slightly above
283 the range found by Fedo (2017) although they were within the stipulated guideline by FAO (2003)
284 for irrigation. The USSF had removal efficiency of 80.1% which was observed to be within the
285 range of 70% to 90% found by Pidou et al. (2007). Removal of EC in the sedimentation tank
286 is mainly due to agglomeration of charged particles which promotes settlement resulting in a
287 reduction of dissolved ionic substances that contribute to electrical conductivity (Gross et al.,
288 2008). In the filter, the removal of EC is through adsorption of charged particles and
289 mechanical trapping of coagulated charged particles (Bullermann et al., 2001). The final
290 effluent quality met the recommended limits suggested by FAO (2003) for irrigation.
291 Therefore, the pilot system was effective in reducing EC.
292
293
294

295
296 Fig 4 Pilot system influent and effluent EC level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May 2018

297 Turbidity

298 The variation of turbidity in the influent and effluent is presented in Fig 5. The turbidity of the
299 influent greywater ranged from 115 to 133 NTU with an average value of 124 NTU and a
300 Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 5.1%. The range of values of turbidity of the effluent was 20
301 to 56.6 NTU and an average value of 34 NTU (CV=32.7%). The overall removal efficiency
13
302 had an average of 72.6%. The sedimentation tank effluent turbidity level was 60.6 NTU (51.1%
303 -stage removal percentage) whilst for the USSF effluent turbidity level was 34 NTU (43.9% -
304 stage removal percentage). Based on a t-test there was a significant difference (p<0.05)
305 between influent and effluent of the pilot system.
306
307 WHO (2006) suggest turbidity level to be below 10 NTU for irrigation of crops and vegetables
308 (with 2 NTU being for food crops, and <5 NTU for processed food crops). The effluent from
309 the pilot system is not within the range stipulated by the WHO (2006) irrigation guideline. A
310 high level of turbidity has been observed to affect the performance an irrigation facility
311 (Albalawneh and Chang, 2015) hence a low turbidity level is required for irrigation. Further
312 treatment for turbidity is required to reduce the turbidity.

313
314 Fig 5 Pilot system influent and effluent turbidity level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May
315 2018

316 Phosphates

317 Phosphates variation is shown in Fig. 6. The phosphates of the influent greywater for the study
318 ranged from 1.8 to 2.2 mg/L with an average value of 2.0 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation
319 (CV) of 5.5%. Phosphates values for effluent ranged from 1.2 to1.6 mg/L and averaged 1.46
320 mg/L (CV=8.3%). The overall removal efficiency had an average of 27%. The sedimentation
321 tank had an average effluent value of 1.8 mg/L giving a stage removal of 10.0% while for the
322 USSF the stage removal resulted in an effluent of 1.46 mg/L and efficiency of 18.9%. Based
323 on a t-test there was significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and USSF effluent of the
324 pilot system.
325
326 The reduction of phosphates in the pilot system has been associated with biomass communities
327 within the filter media removing phosphates through adsorption onto the substrate (Gross et al.
328 (2007). The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range of 0 mg/L to 10
329 mg/L stipulated by the FAO (2003) for irrigation thus the pilot system was effective in reducing
330 phosphates. A similar study by Fedo (2017) found effluent values ranging from 1.06 to 1.72
331 mg/L. This was comparable to the results found in this study of 1.2 to 1.62 mg/L.

14
332

333
334 Fig 6 Pilot system influent and effluent phosphates level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17
335 May 2018

336 Nitrates

337 The nitrates variation is presented in Fig. 7. The nitrates content of the influent greywater varied
338 from 0.02 to 0.66 mg/L with an average value of 0.16 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation
339 (CV) of 37.5%. The values of nitrates for the effluent of the pilot were 0.05 to 0.75 mg/L with
340 an average of 0.4 mg/L (CV=8.3%). A t-test showed that there was a significant difference
341 (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot system.
342
343 Fig 7 show that the nitrates value for the effluent from the pilot system had increased. Eriksson
344 et al. (2002) links the increase to be as a result oxidation processes that occur in greywater
345 water treatment for instance nitrification that increase the content of nitrates in the effluent.
346 However, the values found in the effluent of the pilot system for nitrates were still satisfactory
347 as they were less than 30 mg/L, the maximum value set by WHO guidelines (2006) for
348 wastewater reuse. The results from this study were also within the range suggest by FAO
349 (2003) of less than 5 mg/L for wastewater reuse for irrigation.
350

15
351
352 Fig 7 Pilot system influent and effluent nitrate level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May
353 2018

354 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

355 COD values are presented in Fig 8. The COD of the influent greywater varied from 274 to 300
356 mg/L with an average value of 284 mg/L (CV= 3%). COD values for effluent were 61 to 136
357 mg/L (CV=26.9%). The sedimentation tank had an average effluent value of 142.4 mg/L
358 resulting in stage removal of 49.9% while for the USSF this was 88.7 mg/L and 37.8%
359 respectively. Overally, the pilot system had an average removal efficiency of 68.8%. Based on
360 a t-test there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot
361 system.
362
363 The quality of effluent obtained in this study was within the range stipulated by the WHO for
364 irrigation of 0 mg/L to 240 mg/L (WHO, 2004). The high COD values in both the raw greywater
365 and effluent were likely the effects of surfactants in laundry and washing powders (Morel and
366 Diener, 2006). The pilot system showed significant treatment capabilities in reducing the value
367 of COD in the greywater.

368

369
370 Fig 8 Pilot system influent and effluent COD level for the period 03 May 2018 to 17 May
371 2018

16
372 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

373 The BOD5 of the influent greywater was found to vary from 133 to 140 mg/L with an average
374 value of 136.3 mg/L and a Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 2.1%. Values of BOD5 for the
375 effluent were ranging between 18 to 63 mg/L (CV= 49.8%). The overall removal efficiency
376 varied from 54.3% to 86.4% with an average of 71.2%. The sedimentation tank had an average
377 effluent value of 90 mg/L resulting in stage removal of 34% while for the USSF it was 39.3
378 mg/L and 56.3% respectively as presented in Table 8. Based on a t-test there was a significant
379 difference (p<0.05) between influent and effluent of the pilot system. The values found in the
380 effluent for BOD5 were satisfactory since they were less than 240 mg/L, the maximum value
381 set by WHO (2004) for landscape irrigation using greywater.

382 Total Coliforms (TC)

383 The TC of the influent greywater ranged from 7.40×104 CFU/100 m/L and 7.40×104
384 CFU/100m/L and averaged 7.40×104 CFU/100 mL (CV = 6.35%). The effluent from the pilot
385 system had a minimum TC level of 3.60×104 CFU/100 m/L and maximum of 8.11×104
386 CFU/100 m/L (CV = 5.45%) while the average TC level for the pilot system effluent was
387 5.03×104 CFU/100 m/L. There was a 32% removal of total coliforms across the treatment
388 system whilst the sedimentation tank and USSF had removal efficiencies of 11.9% and 22.9%
389 respectively. Based on a t-test there was a significant difference (p<0.05) between influent and
390 effluent of the pilot system in terms of TC removal. According to WHO (2006) irrigation of
391 sports fields, public parks should be done with greywater with total coliform level less than 103
392 CFU/100 mg/L. Therefore, the results from this study were not within the range suggest by
393 WHO (2006) suggested for irrigation. Thus further treatment to reduce coliforms is needed.

394 4 Conclusions and recommendations

395 4.1 Conclusions

396 Effluent from the University of Zimbabwe, Manfred halls of residence is predominantly light
397 greywater as suggested by literature ranges, thus physical processes can be applied to treat it.
398 Results showed that physical treatment processes incorporating a sedimentation tank and an
399 upflow slow sand filter was capable of treating the greywater to meet standards for landscaping
400 irrigation. A t-test between the pilot system influent and effluent values, showed significant
401 differences (p<0.05) for all parameters. After treatment, all parameters except TC and turbidity
402 met the FAO and WHO recommended limits for irrigation suggesting suitability of effluent for
403 landscape irrigation.
404
405 4.2 Recommendations

406 The removal of total coliforms (TC) by the pilot system was noted to be low thus further
407 treatment using lagoon maturation ponds can be implored to reduce the TC and turbidity below
408 1000 CFU/100 mg/L and 10 mg/L respectively. Chemical treatment like chlorination can also be
409 done to ensure that all parameters meet the FAO (2003) stipulated levels for landscape
410 irrigation. However, further research is needed in some areas such as those identified as the

17
411 long term effects of landscape irrigation using greywater. The long terms effects may include
412 leaching of nitrates and phosphates in the irrigations field which may ultimately cause negative
413 environmental consequences.

414 5 Acknowledgements

415 The paper presents part of the research results of a final year BSc Civil Engineering thesis by
416 Vincent S. Kahondo at the University of Zimbabwe in 2018. The anonymous reviewers for this
417 work are also greatly acknowledged. Special mention is given to staff of the Construction and
418 Civil Engineering Department, and the Department of Works at the University of Zimbabwe
419 for the logistical and material support.
420

421 6 References

422 Albalawneh, A. and Chang, T. K. (2015). Review of the greywater and proposed greywater
423 recycling scheme for agricultural irrigation reuses. International Journal of Research–
424 Granthaalayah, 3(12), 16-35.
425 Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2003). Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management.
426 Desalination, 156(1-3), 181-192.
427 American Public Health Association (APHA). (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination
428 of Water and Wastewater (21st ed., 1220 p). Washington DC: American Public Health
429 Association
430 Ayers, R. S. and Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water quality for agriculture (Vol. 29, p. 174). Rome:
431 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
432 Bakare, B. F., Mtsweni, S. and Rathilal, S. (2017). Characteristics of greywater from different
433 sources within households in a community in Durban, South Africa. Journal of water
434 reuse and desalination, 7(4), 520-528.
435 Bullermann, M, Lücke, F.K., Mehlhart, G. and Klaus, U. (2001). Greywater and Rainwater
436 use, Kassel-Hasenhecke: Hygienic and stand-alone accompanying inspections.
437 publication series of the fbr, Vol 7.
438 Chernicharo, C and Sperling, M. (2005). Biological Wastewater Treatment in Warm Climate
439 Regions Volume I. Water Intelligence Online. 4. 10.2166/9781780402734.
440 DWD, (1995). Design and training manual for piped rural water supplies in Zimbabwe.
441 Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Water Development. Department of Water
442 Development (DWD), Harare, Zimbabwe.
443 FAO (2010). The wealth of waste: The economics of wastewater use in agriculture. Water
444 Report, 35, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
445 FAO. (2003). User’s Manual for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater. Cairo, Egypt: Food and
446 Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, FAO Regional Office of the
447 Near East.
448 Fedo, C. (2017). Greywater treatment for reuse at the University of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Thesis,
449 University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished.

18
450 Fewtrell, L. and Bartram, J. (Eds.). (2001). Water quality: guidelines, standards and health.
451 ssessment of risk and risk management for water-related infectious diseases. IWA
452 publishing ISBN 190022228.
453 Gavera, T. (2017). Groundwater optimisation at the University of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Thesis,
454 University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished.
455 Ghaitidak, D. M., and Yadav, K. D. (2013). Characteristics and treatment of greywater—a
456 review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20(5), 2795-2809.
457 Ghrair, A. M., Al‐ Mashaqbeh, O. A., and Megdal, S. B. (2015). Performance of a Grey Water
458 Pilot Plant Using a Multi‐ Layer Filter for Agricultural Purposes in the Jordan Valley.
459 CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water, 43(3), 351-359.
460 Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F., and Van Beek, L. P. (2012). Water balance of global
461 aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature, 488(7410), 197-200.
462 Google. (n.d.). Google map of University of Zimbabwe campus. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from
463 https://earth.google.com/web/UniversityofZimbabwe.
464 Gross, A., Maimon, A., Alfiya, Y and., Friedler, Friedler, E. (2015). Greywater reuse, Water
465 International, 40:7, 1071-1074.
466 Hoko, Z., and Makado, P. K. (2011). Optimization of algal removal process at Morton Jaffray
467 waterworks, Harare, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C,
468 36(14-15), 1141-1150.
469 Hove, M., and Tirimboi, A. (2011). Assessment of Harare water service delivery. Journal of
470 sustainable development in Africa, 13(4), 61-84.
471 Irvine, K., Chua, L., and Eikass, H. S. (2014). The four national taps of Singapore: A holistic
472 approach to water resources management from drainage to drinking water. Journal of
473 water management modeling, 1-11.
474 Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Prathapar, S., and Al Harrasi, A. (2008). Evaluating greywater reuse
475 potential for sustainable water resources management in Oman. Environmental
476 monitoring and assessment, 137(1-3), 315.
477 Jefferson, B., Palmer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., and Judd, S. (2004). Grey water
478 characterisation and its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban
479 reuse. Water science and technology, 50(2), 157-164.
480 Kundzewicz, Z. W., and Doell, P. (2009). Will groundwater ease freshwater stress under
481 climate change. Hydrological sciences journal, 54(4), 665-675.
482 Leflaive, X. (2012). Water Outlook to 2050: The OECD calls for early and strategic action.
483 In Global Water Forum.
484 Leonard, M., Gilpin, B., Robson, B. and Wall, K. (2016). Field study of the composition of
485 greywater and comparison of microbiological indicators of water quality in on-site
486 systems. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 188(8), 475
487 Madungwe, E., and Sakuringwa, S. (2007). Greywater reuse: A strategy for water demand
488 management in Harare. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32(15-18),
489 1231-1236.
490 Makurira, H. and Tumbare, M. J. (2014). Water insecurity in Zimbabwe’s towns and cities:
491 challenges for institutions, Journal of Science Engineering and Technology,
492 Zimbabwe Institution of Engineers, 1(2). 48-55.

19
493 Mateo-Sagasta, J., Raschid-Sally, L., and Thebo, A. (2015). Global wastewater and sludge
494 production, treatment and use. In Wastewater (pp. 15-38). Springer, Dordrecht.
495 Mathur, Y.P., and Vijay, A., (2013). Non-Revenue Water Reduction- A Tool for Achieving
496 24x7 Water Supply. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering7 (3): 25-28.
497 Metcalf, E. E., and Eddy, H. (2003). Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, reuse. 3rd
498 edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
499 Morel, A. (2006). Greywater management in low and middle-income countries (No. 628.2
500 G842g). Dubenforf, CH: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology.
501 Morel, A. 2006. Greywater management in low and middle-income countries (No. 628.2
502 G842g). Dubenforf, CH: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and
503 Technology.
504 Ndunguru, M. G., and Hoko, Z. (2016). Assessment of water loss in Harare, Zimbabwe. Journal
505 of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 6(4), 519-533.
506 Nhapi, I., and Hoko, Z. 2004. A cleaner production approach to urban water management:
507 potential for application in Harare, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
508 Parts A/B/C, 29(15-18), 1281-1289.
509 Nhapi, I., Hoko, Z., Siebel, M. A., and Gijzen, H. J. (2002). Assessment of the major water and
510 nutrient flows in the Chivero catchment area, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of
511 the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 27(11-22), 783-792.
512 Nhapi, Innocent. (2004). A framework for the decentralised management of wastewater in
513 Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 29. 1265-1273.
514 10.1016/j.pce.2004.09.031.
515 Nolde, E. (1999). Grey water reuse systems for toilet flushing in multistory buildings over ten
516 years’ experience in Berlin. Urban Water, 1: 275–284.
517 Odeh R. and Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2003). Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water
518 management. Desalination, 156(1-3), 181-192.
519 Pidou, M., Memon, F. A., Stephenson, T., Jefferson, B. and Jeffrey, P. (2007, September).
520 Greywater recycling: treatment options and applications. In Proceedings of the
521 Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability. (Vol. 160, No. 3, pp. 119-
522 131). Thomas Telford Ltd.No need for the publisher
523 Radingoana, M. P., Dube, T., and Mazvimavi, D. (2020). An assessment of irrigation water
524 quality and potential of reusing greywater in home gardens in water-limited
525 environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 116, 102857.
526 Rodríguez, C., Sánchez, R., Lozano-Parra, J., Rebolledo, N., Schneider, N., Serrano, J., and
527 Leiva, E. (2020). Water balance assessment in schools and households of rural areas
528 of Coquimbo Region, North-Central Chile: potential for greywater reuse. Water,
529 12(10), 2915
530 Samusodza. J. (2013). Household greywater treatment using a constructed wetland. B.Sc.
531 Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe.
532 Unpublished.
533 Siwila, S., and Brink, I. C. (2018). Comparative analysis of two low-cost point-of-use water
534 treatment systems. Water Practice &and Technology, 13(1), 79-90.
535 UNICEF. (2012). Levels and trends in child malnutrition: UNICEF-WHO-World Bank joint
536 child malnutrition estimates. UNICEF, New York Washington.

20
537 UNICEF-Zimbabwe. (2016). Zimbabwe Humanitarian Situation Report: Situation in Numbers,
538 vol. 3. pp. 129. Retrieved from: http://reliefweb.int/report/zimbabwe/ zimbabwe-
539 humanitarian-situation-report-no-3-31-march-2016, (Accessed April 2019)
540 University of Zimbabwe. (2014). Groundwater Project Design Manual., University of
541 Zimbabwe, Faculty of Engineering, Harare: Zimbabwe. Unpublished.
542 University of Zimbabwe. (2018). Student accommodation.
543 https://www.uz.ac.zw/index.php/current-students/student-records. (accessed 13 June
544 2018).
545 USEPA. (2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse. Washington D.C: US Environmental Protection
546 Agency; EPA/625/R-04/108.
547 Verma, A., Asadi, A., Yang, K., and Mejabi, B. (2017). Wastewater treatment aeration process
548 optimization: A data mining approach. Journal of environmental management, 203,
549 630-639.
550 Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., Salgot, M., Collado, J., Hernandez, F and Torricelli,
551 R. (2010). The wealth of waste: the economics of wastewater use in agriculture. Water
552 Reports, (35).
553 World Bank, (2003). Private Participation in Infrastructure: Trends in Developing Countries in
554 1990–2001. The World Bank, Washington, DC
555 World Health Organisation (WHO), (1989). Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in
556 agriculture and aquaculture. Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva,
557 World Health Organization (Technical Report Series No. 776).
558 World Health Organisation (WHO), (2006). Overview of greywater management: health
559 considerations, Regional Office of the Eastern Mediterranean, Centre for
560 Environmental Health Activities (CEHA). Geneva.
561 World Health Organisation (WHO). (2006). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 4th (Edn).
562 World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva, World Health
563 Organization (Technical Report Series No. 776).
564 World Health Organisation (WHO). (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater,
565 Excreta and Greywater. Volume 4: Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture. World
566 Health Organisation, 3rd Edition, 2006, WHO, Geneva.
567 World Health Organisation (WHO). (2011). Geneva. "Guidelines for drinking-water
568 quality." World Health Organization 216: 303-304.
569 World Health Organization. (2001). Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health. Edited
570 by Lorna Fewtrell and Jamie Bartram. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK.
571 ISBN: 1 900222 28 0
572 World Health Organization. (2001). Water quality: Guidelines, standards and health.
573 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap2.pdf (accessed January
574 19, 2009)
575 World Health Organization. (2004). Report on the WHO/AFESD regional consultation to
576 review national priorities and action plans for wastewater reuse and management,
577 Amman, Jordan, 20-22 October 2003 (No. WHO-EM/CEH/106/E). World Health
578 Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.
579 World Health Organization. (2006). Overview of greywater management health
580 considerations (No. WHO-EM/CEH/125/E).

21
581 World Health Organization. (2006). WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater excreta
582 and greywater. (Vol. 1). World Health Organization.
583 Zadeh, S.D. (2013). Sustainability Evaluation of shared greywater recycling in mixed-use
584 regeneration areas. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Birmingham
585 University, UK,
586 Zhu, J., Wagner, M., Cornel, P., Chen, H., and Dai, X. (2018). Feasibility of on-site grey-water
587 reuse for toilet flushing in China. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 8(1), 1-
588 13.

22
Figure Click here to access/download;Figure;Locality maps-Model JPCE
_D_12_100012R2.jpg