Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Review

Greywater recycling in buildings using living walls and green roofs:

A review of the applicability and challenges
Snigdhendubala Pradhan, Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Hamish R. Mackey ⁎
Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Living wall and green roof assessment

for eco-sustainability
• Review of greywater generation, quality
and treatment
• Feasibility analysis of greywater treat-
ment by living walls and green roofs
• Plant and media considerations for the
integrated vegetation building system
• Overview of cultural, health, social and
energy operational aspects and
tradeoffs

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

Article history: Living walls and green roofs offer numerous benefits to densely populated urban areas such as cooling, air filter-
Received 8 August 2018 ing and improved aesthetics. However, plants in these two systems are high water consumers making such sys-
Received in revised form 15 October 2018 tems particularly unsuitable for water-scarce arid environments most at need of passive cooling and urban
Accepted 16 October 2018
greening. Integrated greywater treatment in these structures provides a possible solution, providing plants not
Available online 17 October 2018
only with water but other required nutrients and organics. However, greywater treatment by living wall and
Editor: Jay Gan green roof systems is still lacking. This review summarizes the few studies exploring this new integrated technol-
ogy and provides an in-depth analysis of existing literature on vegetated building structures and greywater treat-
Keywords: ment to reveal benefits and potential pitfalls of this technology. Appropriate selection of plants and media are
Water reuse essential to successful system design and must meet competing demands compared to those used in existing
Green building technologies vegetated building structures for cooling/greening and constructed wetlands for greywater treatment. A variety
Phytoremediation of operational and user-interaction issues are also explored and will be key areas of future research to enable full-
Urban water management scale implementation. Integrated greywater treatment using green building vegetated structures appears a
Urban greening
promising method for dual purpose water recycling and urban cooling, and various future research needs are em-
Building cooling
phasized to realize this.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction and background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

1.1. Heat Island effect and urban cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: spradhan@hbku.edu.qa (S. Pradhan), salghamdi@hbku.edu.qa (S.G. Al-Ghamdi), hmackey@hbku.edu.qa (H.R. Mackey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.226
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344 331

1.2. Urban wastewater generation and treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

1.3. Living walls and green roofs for greywater treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
1.4. Green building technology philosophy and greywater-vegetated system interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
1.5. Objectives and review outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
2. Living walls and green roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.1. Aesthetics and livability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.2. Indoor air quality and health improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
2.3. Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
2.4. Water efficiency and greywater recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
3. Feasibility of greywater treatment by living walls and green roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
3.1. Quantity of greywater generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
3.2. Qualitative analysis of greywater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
3.3. Pollutant removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
3.3.1. Mechanism of pollutant removal by media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
3.3.2. Mechanism of pollutant removal by plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
3.4. Ensuring longevity of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
3.5. Challenges in the implementation of greywater treatment living walls and green roofs in arid regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
3.6. Building interaction considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
3.7. Social and cultural considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
3.8. Health considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
3.9. Cost considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
4. Conclusion and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

1. Introduction and background
Urbanization is largely influenced by the movement of people from
rural communities to existing urban centers due to better urban infra-
structure, social and economic development, lifestyle, or combinations
of these factors (Gong et al., 2012). According to the United Nations
(UN), two-thirds of the global population will reside in urban centers
by 2050, while 86% of global population growth going forward is
expected to occur in urban rather than rural environments
(Montgomery, 2008). This concentration of population leads to large
transformations of urban and suburban landscapes with associated en-
vironmental impacts such as urban heat island effect, increases in en-
ergy demand, water demand and waste generation, as well as
deterioration of air quality. Therefore, urbanization has significant im-
pacts on both local atmospheric and hydrological systems. Moreover,
worldwide the growth of urbanization is a major factor causing the re-
duction of vegetative land cover. The effects of these changes are briefly
outlined in the following subsections.
1.1. Heat Island effect and urban cooling
buildings (Dawood and Vukovic, 2017). The waste heat generated
from energy use becomes a secondary contributor to heat island. The
energy consumption to cool different types of buildings was analyzed
in different countries and is reported in Fig. 1 (Zangheri et al., 2014). It
is evident that single housing units have the highest areal power re-
quirement and therefore efforts to reduce their cooling requirements
in particular are justified.
To reduce urban HIE effects, cooling approaches including the use of
shading, plants, and building materials, in addition to orientation, have
been used satisfactorily as a replacement for energy-demanding air-
conditioning facilities (Rehan, 2016; Aruninta et al., 2018). Vegetation
in living walls and green roofs are passive methods for energy savings
in buildings that aim to replicate the natural environment which was
present prior to urbanization. Factors such as evaporative cooling from
evapotranspiration, shading, high-reflectance of the infrared wave-
length range and insulation all contribute to the natural cooling abilities
of living wall and green roof systems. For an example, evapotranspira-
tion unaided or in combination with shading can reduce peak summer
temperatures by 1–5 °C (Laaidi et al., 2012).

The increase in the number of buildings and in the amount of high

thermal mass and low albedo materials such as concrete, in conjunction
with the loss of vegetative land cover and the increase in anthropogenic
heat outputs, leads to the heat island effect (HIE) (Rehan, 2016). The HIE
is an instantaneous temperature differentiation between the urban area
and nearby rural locations in a particular geographic region (Wong
et al., 2003). Many studies demonstrate that building energy consump-
tion is one of the most important factors for environmental overheating,
and it is higher at night because of reduced atmospheric convection and
radiation of absorbed heat from high thermal mass infrastructure
(Moreno-Garcia, 1994; Ihara et al., 2008). For example, a HIE as high
as 7–8 °C has been reported at the Barcelona airport at midnight
(Moreno-Garcia, 1994). A Weather Underground report from June
26th 2018 stated that Quriyat in Oman set a new nighttime world re-
cord temperature of 42.6 °C.
Urban HIE is reported to impact public health and comfort, resulting
in increased cooling requirements to counteract its effects (Moreno-
Garcia, 1994). For instance, in Saudi Arabia, ventilation and air condi- Fig. 1. Average energy requirement in different developed cities of Europe for cooling dif-
tioning accounts for 70% of the electrical energy used in residential ferent types of buildings in the month of July.
332 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
1.2. Urban wastewater generation and treatment
Increased urban wastewater generation is another negative impact
of urbanization. Upgrading the capacity of existing subsurface infra-
structure is costly and disruptive, while land for expansion of central-
ized wastewater treatment plants is also frequently limited.
Decentralized treatment systems are one of the approaches which can
be used to limit subsurface infrastructure and large single land pur-
chases, as well as reduce ongoing conveyance costs, providing poten-
tially cost effective treatment options (Maurer et al., 2005; Poustie
et al., 2015). Furthermore, localized treatment and reuse, compatible
with decentralized solutions, tend to show lower emissions and greater
resilience (Matos et al., 2014; Behzadian and Kapelan, 2015). The
amount of wastewater generation depends upon population growth,
consumption patterns, geographical location, and building type and
age (Schuetze and Santiago-Fandiño, 2013; Chang et al., 2017). For in-
stance, Fig. 2 shows the water use breakdown in various types of build-
ings across a number of different countries (Prathapar et al., 2005; Li
et al., 2009; Krozer et al., 2010; Ghunmi et al., 2011; Mandal et al.,
2011). The different water uses produce wastewater with varying
characteristics.
Greywater coming from lightly polluted yet larger volume streams,
such as showers, hand-basins and laundry, requires significantly less
treatment if separated from streams with high organic loads originating
from the kitchen and toilet. Therefore, decentralized treatment and
recycling of greywater is preferred for two reasons: because of the
simpler treatment systems required and the reduced public health
risks associated with these systems, compared to combined wastewater
treatment systems (Prathapar et al., 2005). Greywater recycling is an
attractive way to manage urban wastewater and can achieve in the
order of 10 to 50% potential savings on water use in the household
(Boyjoo et al., 2013).
1.3. Living walls and green roofs for greywater treatment
Despite the effectiveness of living walls and green roofs for passive
cooling, their use in water scarce arid regions should be considered
carefully (Carpenter, 2014). This is because such areas have high rates
of evapotranspiration and frequently rely on energy intensive desalina-
tion technologies as a primary water source, which could potentially
offset the energy saved through cooling. Many plants have high water
demands to survive and can consume 0.5–20 L/m2 of water per day
(Carpenter, 2014). Thus, plants used in such environments should be
carefully selected based on their ability to retain water in their leaves
(Asbjornsen et al., 2011). Instead of using freshwater to fulfill water re-
quirements, use of greywater, providing simultaneous treatment, could
be a cost-effective and sustainable alternative as greywater is already
being treated by natural phytoremediation at various arid locations
Fig. 2. Analysis of domestic water usage in different countries.
(Golda et al., 2014). It has previously been demonstrated that plants
in living walls and green roofs have the ability to aid in environmental
remediation through absorption of gaseous pollutants from the air and
improving storm water quality (VanWoert et al., 2005; Teemusk and
Mander, 2007; Pugh et al., 2012). However, pollutant characteristics
and loads, as well as wetting frequency, are significantly different in
the case of watering with greywater, and therefore, a careful evaluation
and optimization for each element in living walls and green roofs should
be justified (Hernandez-Soriano and Jimenez-Lopez, 2012; Koyama
et al., 2013; Siggins et al., 2016). Thus, this review looks at greywater
generation and water quality from different sources and natural treat-
ment processes that would occur if living walls and green roofs are
used for greywater treatment. This review also includes considerations
that are critical for a successful realization of this integrated wastewater
treatment and passive cooling technology utilized on the building
exterior.
1.4. Green building technology philosophy and greywater-vegetated system
interactions
The enhancement of building infrastructure in terms of sustainabil-
ity, productivity, and comfort offers great potential for urban develop-
ment. Green buildings signify an important step towards sustainability
in the evolution of building construction. Green building practices are
designed to reduce the use of non-renewable resources, protect occu-
pant health, reduce waste, and improve employee efficiency. Sustain-
able green building designs are based on six fundamental principles:
1) optimize building space and material use, 2) optimize site potential,
3) optimize energy use, 4) protect and conserve water, 5) enhance
indoor environmental quality, and 6) optimize operation and mainte-
nance practices (Lewis et al., 2010). To evaluate the sustainability
of building structures, several green rating systems such as LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) USA, CASBEE
(Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency) Japan, Green Star Australia/New Zealand, GSAS (Global
Sustainability Assessment System) Middle East and North Africa, and
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Assessment Method)
United Kingdom have been established globally (Doan et al., 2017).
Of all these building rating systems, LEED is the most widely used
worldwide USGBC (2013). Sustainable green buildings, in addition to
energy efficiency, demand water conservation which can be achieved
in part through the treatment and recycling of greywater.
1.5. Objectives and review outline
Many researchers have studied the aesthetic, energy conservation,
air quality improvement, and cooling/urban heat reduction aspects of
living walls and green roofs (Perez et al., 2011; Sutton, 2014;
Solcerova et al., 2017; Coma et al., 2017; Feitosa and Wilkinson, 2018).
However, there is lack of studies reporting the suitability and design
considerations of these potential vegetative building systems for
greywater treatment and recycling. Such a system has similarities to
greywater treatment in constructed wetlands, which has previously
been reported (Arden and Ma, 2018), but integrates many other goals
in an environment inseparable from its urban surroundings. The ques-
tion arises whether greywater recycling in living walls and green roofs
can fulfill plant requirements for nutrients, organics, and water, while
maintaining plant health and recovering sufficient quantities of suitable
quality water for potential reuse or minimal post treatment (Faruqui
and Al-Jayyousi, 2002). A further question arises as to whether the con-
ditions amenable to greywater treatment will also be compatible with
those to achieve common targets such as cooling, aesthetic appeal,
and air quality improvement. The study aims to quantitatively and qual-
itatively analyze the greywater generated in different countries and de-
termine how it relates to living wall and green roof requirements. The
goal of this study is to identify suitable plants and planting media that
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
are capable of surviving and treating greywater while meeting typical
objectives and highlighting other key operational considerations for
successful implementation.
2. Living walls and green roofs
Living walls and green roof systems have been proposed as practical
tools to provide space-efficient vegetation/greenery and improve the
environmental quality of dry climate urban areas. Several researchers
assessed multiple factors including different types of living walls and
green roofs, design and planning methods, cost analyses, plant selection,
occupational health and safety, air quality improvement and cooling of
the local area, drainage and irrigation systems, as well as merits and de-
merits of living wall and green roof systems (Dunnett and Kingsbury,
2008; Carpenter, 2014). A living wall is a vertical vegetation system gen-
erally attached to an internal or external wall. An appropriate strate-
gized living wall system will accomplish both design and practical
goals by providing a suitable selection of plant species, long lifespan,
minimal component replacement, and low maintenance (Wong et al.,
2010). Living wall design is a part of an extensive urban green landscape
and its design should ideally contribute to the goals of the adjacent land-
scape. A green roof is a horizontal vegetation system that incorporates
plants, a growing medium, a water supply, and a drainage system. How-
ever, in the case of green roof systems, the design criteria are quite dif-
ferent to that of a living wall. Fig. 3 summarizes some of the
considerations when looking to install different types of living wall or
green roof systems.
The design and feasibility of a living wall or a green roof are influ-
enced by various factors of the site such as climatic conditions on-site,
weight loading, drainage etc. For high heat climates, winds can make
the substrate surfaces that are used in living walls and green roofs ex-
tremely dry. Therefore, having a substrate with a high water-holding ca-
pacity and deep irrigation is highly recommended for vegetation. The
weight loading of a building must be known before planning a living
wall and green roof design. The plant species in green roofs should
have high water uptake capacity when used for low-impact design
Fig. 3. Details of a living wall and green roof design system in a building.
333
stormwater management or to maximize cooling and include a proper
drainage system. More generally, drought-stress tolerant plants in
water scarce areas and stable and light-weighted plant growing media
is suitable for living walls and green roofs (Teemusk and Mander,
2007; Pugh et al., 2012). In the case of a living wall for greywater treat-
ment, many of these characteristics remain important, but must con-
sider that the media will more frequently be saturated and under
some instances may at least partially remain permanently saturated.
An efficient living wall or green roof system is based on reliable plant
species that should tolerate the atmospheric temperatures, winds, and
rainfall of the local climate. The species should not be disposed to pest
infestation, disease, nutrient deficiency, or toxicity. Plant selection for
green roofs is highly related to the growing substrate. The depth of
the substrate influences the size of the plants that can be grown and,
to some extent, how much water will be available for the plants. In
highly exposed locations, species that have a high tolerance towards
wind and sun exposure should be considered. Different types of shrubs,
herbaceous perennials, herbaceous ground covers, ferns, grass-like fo-
liage forms, lilies, and irises are commonly used in living walls and
green roofs for different purposes (Table 1). It is essential to realize
that the effects of wind, sun, and shade exposure are uniquely different
for vertical surfaces compared to a roof or a surface at ground level. An
air gap between the living wall system and the wall should be designed
in such a manner that it enables plant root pruning. However, currently
there is a research gap about appropriate plant selection to achieve a
combination of purposes in an integrated building system (Eregno
et al., 2017).
2.1. Aesthetics and livability
Living walls and green roofs can play a key role in promoting a liv-
able environment, having been demonstrated to provide psychological
and health benefits, including improving patient recovery rates and
resulting in higher resistance to illness in a study of hospital patients
(Sutton, 2014). In another study, visitors' aesthetic reactions to seven
different types of green roofs were evaluated in the Northeastern
334 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
Table 1
A summary of different types of plants used in living wall and green roof systems and scientific studies.
Location Plant
Seville, Spain Sedum spp., succulent plants, ornamental grasses, herbs, turf lawn,
(Fernandez-Cañero shrubs, and small trees (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh. and Cupressus
et al., 2013) sempervirens L.)
USA (Jungels et al., Stoloniferous grasses, Sedum spp., and mixed perennial plant
2013)
Venice, Italy (Mazzali Juniperus communis, Sedum spurium, Geranium sanguineum,
et al., 2013) Geranium Johnson's blue, Anemone sp., Viva minor, Parthenocissus
tricuspidata, Heuchera micrantha Palace Purple, Salvia nemorosa,
Lonicera pileata, Pittosporum tobira, Rosmarinus officinalis,
Alchemilla mollis, Bergenia cordifolia, Oenothera missouriensis, and
Plumbago capensis.
Spain (Azkorra et al., Helichrysum thianschanicum
2015)
UK (Cameron et al., Prunus laurocerasus, Prunus stachys and Hedera
2014)
Japan (Koyama et al., Ipomoea tricolor, Canavalia gladiata, Pueraria lobata, Momordica
2013) charantia, and Apios americana
France (Musy et al., Solene-microclimat
2017)
Melbourne, Australia Carex appressa, Canna lilies, Lonicera japonica, and ornamental
(Fowdar et al., grape vine
2017)
Pune, India (Masi Abelia, Wedelia portulaca, Alternenthera, Duranta, and Hemigraphis
et al., 2016)
TSS-Total suspended solids; BOD-Biochemical oxygen demand; LECA-Light weighed expanded clay aggregate.
United States (Jungels et al., 2013). This study reported positive atti-
tudes towards green roofs with higher importance being placed on
green roof benefits than costs. Negative aesthetic reactions were, how-
ever, associated with untidiness of a green roof if not maintained or
manicured well. Study respondents also felt that the grass-dominated
roofs blended less cohesively with the building and adjacent scenery.
Such considerations are vital for cohesive integration with the urban en-
vironment and are potentially competing requirements with plant
types that may be suited for pollutant removal from, and survival in,
greywater.
2.2. Indoor air quality and health improvement
N100 plant species have been reported as effective for the removal of
pollutants from air (Soreanu et al., 2013; Cruz et al., 2014). An observa-
tion was made on a 1000 ft2 green roof in Chicago, USA, and found that
green roof plants can remove 40 lb of particulate matter from the air per
year (Peck and Kuhn, 2003). The complex filtration that occurs through
plants, media, and rhizosphere microorganisms has been shown capa-
ble of removing 90% of volatile organic carbons (VOCs), CO2, SO2, CO,
and NO2 (Wood et al., 2006). The root, microorganisms, and media
have important functions for biodegradation, and leaves absorb organic
and inorganic gases from the air (Soreanu et al., 2013). Evaluation of
these complex synergies is also necessary for the appropriate design
of greywater removal and the ability of gaseous pollutant removal
may also provide benefits for reducing odor associated with greywater
when utilized with a living wall or green roof.
2.3. Cooling
The natural cooling effect of evapotranspiration is one of the most
cost-effective approaches for mitigation of the urban heat island effect.
Wong et al. (2010) demonstrated that this effect could be observed up
to 0.6 m away from the surface of a living wall with a reduction of up
to 3.3 °C at a distance of 15 cm. The plant leaves act as insulation and
produce cool and moist air in the surrounding area that lowers the tem-
perature of the building (Fioretti et al., 2010). Vegetation in green roofs
and living walls has even greater effects on the structural surface and
System Outcomes of the study
Green roof This study demonstrated respondents' sociodemographic
characteristics towards different green roof types. Green roofs with
more vegetation structure, and more variety of colors were
preferred from an aesthetic viewpoint.
Green roof Sedum-dominated or mixed perennial roofs were preferred over
stoloniferous grasses from an aesthetic perspective.
Living wall During sunny days external surface temperature differences
between the bare wall and the covered wall ranged from a
minimum of 12 °C to a maximum of 20 °C.
Living wall Species have significant potential for sound reduction of 15 dB in
buildings.
Living wall These plants provided N7.0 °C cooling effect.
Living wall Maximum cooling was recorded as 11.3 °C.
Living wall, Decrease indoor temperature by 2 °C.
Green roof
and lawns
Living wall Removal of nitrogen was observed to be N80%, phosphorus N 99%,
TSS N 80% and BOD N 90%, respectively, by plants. This study
reported greywater treatment efficiency for a period of one year.
Living wall Treatment performances by LECA-coconut fiber and LECA-sand
media were observed, not by plant type.
can effectively reduce roof membrane temperatures by N20 °C in the
summer (Liu and Minor, 2005). It was observed building wall tempera-
tures reduced by 16 °C with Hereda sp. plant and 13 °C with
Prathenocissus tricuspidata in the summer (Sternberg et al., 2011).
Lehmann (2014) explained how types of species, soil moisture, and irri-
gation systems can increase the evapotranspiration process and opti-
mize the insulation effect. Irrigation in living walls and green roofs
increases water supply demand and this can be accommodated by
recycling greywater. For example, irrigation rates in vertical wetlands
can be approximately 5–10 L/m2 per day, which corresponds to the
peak evapotranspiration rate for plants in summer (Revell and Anda,
2014).
2.4. Water efficiency and greywater recycling
In arid and semi-arid regions where natural water resources are lim-
ited, reuse and recycling of treated greywater can be a significant substi-
tute for freshwater. As a less polluted water stream, it is simpler and
more energy efficient to treat per volume of water than mixed sewage.
Many countries have vigorously developed greywater treatment tech-
nologies and policies for residential and commercial use to reduce the
use of freshwater. For example, 13% to 65% of treated greywater is
reused for agricultural irrigation in Los Angeles, and 29% to 35% of
treated greywater is used for toilet flushing in Brazil (Ghisi and
Ferreira, 2007). In Malaysia 67% of water is consumed for domestic
usage and greywater reuse potential for toilet flushing is 30%, which
would significantly lessen water demand (Li et al., 2009; Krozer et al.,
2010). Various cost-effective treatment technologies like sand filters, bi-
ological reactors, and wetlands are used for greywater treatment as they
requires less energy and lower maintenance (Nolde, 2000). Constructed
wetlands, reed beds, and sand filtration are similar to living wall and
green roof systems for removal of contaminants by plant root and po-
rous natural media (Prodanovic et al., 2017). However, wetlands are
not applicable in compressed urban areas because of their high space
demand (Li et al., 2009). Therefore, potential exists for living walls and
green roof systems to be utilized as natural treatment technologies
with reduced capital and operational costs (Fowdar et al., 2017).
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
3. Feasibility of greywater treatment by living walls and green roofs
3.1. Quantity of greywater generation
Greywater comprises 40% to 91% of the wastewater in different
countries (Krozer et al., 2010; Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino, 2010). From
Fig. 4 it was observed that greywater from washbasins, baths, and
showers varied between 17 and 90 L/p/d with the minimum and max-
imum occurring in Yemen and the North America, respectively
(Friedler, 2004; Prathapar et al., 2005; Büsser et al., 2007; Halalsheh
et al., 2008; Revitt et al., 2011; Ilemobade et al., 2012). In many coun-
tries, greywater reuse is predominantly done on a small scale and
often with limited treatment (Halalsheh et al., 2008; Ronen et al.,
2010; Hernandez-Soriano and Jimenez-Lopez, 2012), but when consid-
ering large scale greywater recycling installations for commercial areas,
large residential developments, schools, and other buildings, proper
treatment is essential as per environmental or human health risk re-
quirement (Eriksson et al., 2009; Ghunmi et al., 2011).
3.2. Qualitative analysis of greywater
Greywater originates from different sources and therefore contains a
wide variety of nutrients, solid particles, microbes, and organic and in-
organic pollutants. The concentration of pollutants varies according to
the different sources of origin (such as bathrooms, showers, laundries,
and washbasins) and their associated activities. The evaluation of treat-
ment performance of greywater is typically based on physical, chemical,
and microbial characteristics (Eriksson et al., 2009). Greywater compo-
sition has been widely reported, typically containing low organic
concentration and elevated metals compared to mixed sewage. A sum-
mary of greywater composition from various studies conducted in dif-
ferent countries is shown in Tables 2 and 3. From these tables it is
observed that greywater from laundry has a higher chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD) than other sources.
Use of chemical products such as personal care products, detergents,
and dyes contribute to the concentration of heavy metals, residual chlo-
rine, and total organic carbon (TOC) (Tables 3 and 4). Various organic
contaminants, particularly those in personal care and cleaning products,
can also be toxic at sufficient concentrations with chronic effects, grad-
ually affecting physical, muscular, and neurological degenerative pro-
cesses (Deblonde et al., 2011). Properties of a wide variety of toxic
organics in greywater and their impact on health were experimentally
analyzed and reported in Table 4.
Fig. 4. Volume of greywater generated in different countries as reported by various
researchers (for North America no value is reported for laundry).
335
3.3. Pollutant removal
The removal of organic and inorganic pollutants by plants and root
media includes a variety of treatment mechanisms such as sedimenta-
tion, adsorption, filtration, precipitation and where applicable biodegra-
dation (Dierberg et al., 2005; da Castellar et al., 2018). Microbial
pathogens, also, are reduced through a variety of complex mechanisms
involving both media and plant, with hydraulic loading (the ratio of
flow rate per surface area) being a key factor (Wu et al., 2016). Through
the soil, atmospheric oxygen is transferred to the plant root and helps to
sustain plant microbes which assist in some of these processes. A sum-
mary of the various treatment processes is shown in Fig. 5.
3.3.1. Mechanism of pollutant removal by media
Traditionally natural porous media such as soil and sand have been
used in green roofs and living walls, although the use of modern light-
weight media is desirable due to their reduced structural support re-
quirements which significantly reduces cost. While the former natural
media are generally well studied for pollutant removal, these newer
materials are less so. Prodanovic et al. (2017) experimentally evaluated
the pollutant removal performance of a variety of lightweight media in
living walls for greywater. The materials selected were considered
based on local availability, their weight, sustainability, water distribu-
tion, nutrient and water retention capacity, porosity, and capacity to
support plant growth. Materials selected were slow filtering media
such as cococoir, rockwool, and fytofoam and fast filtering media such
as perlite, vermiculite, growstone, expanded clay, and river sand
(Table 5). Vermiculite, with low air-filled porosity (b10%), has poor aer-
ation and restricted drainage, whereas perlite, expanded clay, and grow
stone have high air-filled porosity (~30%) but low cation exchange ca-
pacity. In the case of cococoir and rockwool, the air-filled porosity is in-
termediate (13%) and the cation exchange capacity is ≤0.5 meqv/g
(Prodanovic et al., 2017; Farhan et al., 2018). Column experiments
using greywater were performed for two months without plants.
Around 90% of TSS, 50% of TN, 30% of TP, 70% of COD and 80% of
Escherichia coli were removed by slow filtering media such as cococoir,
rock wool, and fytofoam. However, slow filtering media materials were
subject to clogging due to their fine pore size and were therefore found
to be unsuitable as the sole media for living walls aimed at treating
greywater. Fast filtering media, on the other hand, exhibited on average
around 80%, 30%, 15%, 30%, and 20% of TSS, TN, TP, COD and Escherichia
coli removal, respectively, with no measurable clogging issues. Perlite
was found to have the best hydraulic and treatment performance
among the fast media, while cococoir was the most suitable of the
slow media. From this study, it was suggested that a combination of per-
lite and cococoir might be the best option for media in green walls for
greywater treatment and recycling systems.
A pilot vertical garden was installed for treating greywater for an of-
fice building in Pune, Maharashtra, India, and aimed to use extensive
natural treatment technologies in this densely populated urban area
(Masi et al., 2016). Greywater treatment by green walls, filled only
with light expanded clay aggregates (LECA), was experimentally ana-
lyzed, but satisfactory results were not observed. Therefore, LECA plus
sand and LECA plus coconut fiber fillings were developed in order to de-
crease porosity and increase surface area and residence times since flow
was by percolation, consequently improving green wall treatment per-
formance (Table 5). The increased treatment efficiency was confirmed
by the observed removal rates. For the LECA-coconut and LECA-sand
mixtures, the maximum removal efficiencies of organics were 86% and
80%, respectively. It was concluded that the treated greywater could
be utilized for flushing toilets according to local greywater regulations.
However, only the removal properties of the media, not of the plants,
were studied. No findings were given regarding the removal of heavy
metals in greywater by the media. This study also confirms the balanced
need between high porosity to avoid clogging and sufficiently high
336 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344

Table 2
Physicochemical properties of untreated greywater from different sources.
B L W S BSW BS SW
Analysis of Australia Australia (Jamrah et al., 2008; Israel Morocco UK, Spain Germany Oman
different (Christova-Boal Pinto and Maheshwari, 2010) (Ramona et al., (Kraume et al., (Winward et al., (Nolde, 2000) (Prathapar et al.,
parameters et al., 1996) 2004) 2010) 2008) 2005)

pH 6.4–8.1 8.3–9.3 7.5 7.6 6.6–7.6 – 7.1–7.4

EC (μS cm-1) 82–250 2.9–703 1241 645–855 921 – 14–15
Turbidity (NTU) 60–240 328–444 23–34 29 – – 133–375
TS (mg/L) 777 2021–2700 835 520–1090 20–42 –
SS (mg/L) 48–120 188–315 153–259 89–353 – – 353–505
TDS (mg/L) – 2140–2444 – 279–565 29–44 –
TN (mg/L) 6.6 14.28 10.4 8.7–10.92 4.1–16.4 5–10 –
TP (mg/L) 0.11–1.8 51.58 – – – 0.2–0.6 –
BOD (mg/L) 76–200 44.3–462 59–104 23 20–166 50–300 42.1–130
CODS (mg/L) – 58–1339 86–110 55 73–575 100–633 58–293.4
TOC (mg/L) – 333.6 – 203 12–58 26–95 70.2–83.5
Cl (mg/L) 166 205–450 237 147–284 – – –
Total coliforms (counts/100 mL) 500–2.4 × 107 2 × 102–4.2 × 106 9.42 × 103 2 × 102–6.8 × 103 4 × 105 10–1 × 103 N 200.5
Fecal coliforms (counts/100 mL) 170–3.3 × 103 13–4 × 106 5.6 × 105 64–4.0 × 106 – 3.42 × 105 –
E. coliforms (counts/100 mL) 79–2.4 × 103 – – 5.1 × 105 – 4.76 × 105 N 200.5

B-Bath; L-Laundry; W-Wash basin; S-Shower; TS-Total solids; TDS-Total dissolved solids; SS-suspended solids; TN-Total nitrogen; TP-Total phosphate; CODs-Soluble chemical oxygen
demand.

contact surface area to promote treatment that can be achieved through
the use of hybrid materials.
Biochar may provide another suitable media alternative in an effort
to create a circular material cycle of the green roofs and living walls.
Waste biomass from removed plants material can be carbonized
through pyrolysis to generate highly porous carbon-rich materials.
Dalahmeh et al. (2018) have demonstrated the effectiveness of biochar
filters for the removal of pharmaceuticals and other micropollutants in
addition to bulk organics and nutrients that may be present in domestic
greywater including carbamazepine, metroprolol, ranitidine and caf-
feine. Biochar filters provide a similar performance to sand filters de-
spite having a low bulk density that is roughly one tenth that of a
sand filter. This is due to the high porosity and high surface area of
biochar.
3.3.2. Mechanism of pollutant removal by plants
The natural treatment process of greywater not only depends upon
the media material, but also the plants in the living wall and green
roof. Plants require macronutrients for different physiobiological pro-
cesses and these macronutrients can be accumulated through the root
system from greywater (Masi et al., 2016). Vegetation in a vertical
green wall or green roof will operate as a biofiltration system and will
provide treatment processes such as oxidation, filtration, sedimenta-
tion, adsorption, microbial assimilation, and microbial activity by both
the media and the plant. However, while various experiments have
been conducted to study the removal of toxic pollutants by different
plant species, few studies have looked at plants commonly applied to
living walls.
Fowdar et al. (2017) recently designed a biofilter to investigate
greywater treatment in living walls by two different groups, non-
climbing and climbing plant species, at a temperature of 45 °C in
Melbourne, Australia. Sand filter media was used as the substrate
for plant growth. Based on the results, a hydraulic loading rate of
55 mm/d or less is effective to achieve maximum (N80%) removal
efficiencies of pollutants for non-climbing and climbing plants. The
potential of various plants to treat greywater was analyzed in the
same study by intermittent irrigation of greywater by considering
their removal efficiency for different pollutants and this is reported in
Fig. 6 under a loading of 110 mm/d. The study demonstrates that the
non-climbing plant species, Carex appressa, is more effective at treating
greywater than other plant species. However, there is lack of informa-
tion about the treatment capacity of the substrate that was used for
plant growth. Further no observation was made on the removal of
COD, microorganisms, and heavy metals.
Picard et al. (2005) observed approximately 90% of the removal of
BOD, COD, TSS, TN, and TP by plant roots in constructed wetlands,
which share similarities to the proposed treatment-vegetative building
systems. Solids can be filtered using lightweight media, which acts as a
base and a surface for bacterial attachment. Nevertheless, greywater is
frequently treated by phytoremediation in wetlands and this provides

Table 3
Metals and other elements detected in greywater from different sources by various researchers.
L BSW BSW SW BSW S
Concentration of Australia India The Netherlands Oman Sweden (Palmquist Israel (Ramona
Elements (mg/L) (Christova-Boal et al., 1996) (Mandal et al., 2011) (Hernandez-Soriano and (Prathapar et al., 2005) and Hanæus, 2005) et al., 2004)
Jimenez-Lopez, 2012)

Ca 3.9–12 – 30–63.2 18.7 31.6–38 79.6

Mg 1.1–2.9 – 10–18.4 60.8 5.3–6.22 47.6
Na 49–480 43.8–48.1 123–144 667 61.4–92.4 106
K 1.1–17 15.2 12 23.4 7.69–8.85 10.4
B – 1.3–1.5 0.5–0.6 – – 0.2
Fe 0.3–1 – 0.7–0.74 – 0.18–0.57 0.19
Zn 0.1–0.32 – 0.05–13 0.14 0.05–0.08 0.18
Cu b0.05–0.27 – 0.07–0.1 0.006 0.07–0.1 –
Pb – – – 0.08 0.002–0.003 b0.02
Ni – – – 0.03 0.03 b0.02
Al b1–21 – 1.22–3.9 0.08 1.48–3.39 0.03
Ba – – ND 0.01–0.02 0.2
S 9.5–40 – 20–26.1 – 22.4–25.7 –
Cd b0.01 – – ND 6 × 10−4-16 × 10−3 –
Cl 9–88 7.4–12.9 65.4 – – –

L-Laundry; BSW-Bath, shower and wash basin; SW-Shower and wash basin; S-Shower.
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344 337

Table 4
Various organic compounds identified in greywater before treatment.

Compoundsa MW Classa Concentration log Solubility Odorc Health impactb,c Emerging

(g/mol)b,c (μg/ L)a KOW at 25 °C pollutant as
at (mg/L)c per
25 non drinking
°Cc water
standard
(μg/L)b

Galaxolide (C18H26O) 258.4 PCP 19.1 5.90 1.75 Musk Allergy ≤10
4-Nonylphenol 220.3 S 38 5.76 7 Slight phenolic Effects on fertility and newborn babies ≤7
(C15H24O)
Salicylic acid 138.1 PP 0.6 2.26 22.4 × Odorless Skin and eye redness ≤1
(C7H6CO3) 102
Acetaminhophen 151.1 PP 1.5 0.46 14 × 103 Odorless Eye redness ≤1
(C8H9NO2)
Salicylic acid 138.1 PP 0.6 2.26 22.4 × Odorless Skin and eye redness ≤1
(C7H6CO3) 102
Acetaminhophen 151.1 PP 1.5 0.46 14 × 103 Odorless Eye redness ≤1
(C8H9NO2)
Chloroform (CHCl3) 119.4 PP b0.3 1.97 7.95 Pleasant odor Skin and eye irritation b0.1
Methylene chloride 85 PP b1 1.25 13 × 103 Pleasant odor Skin and eye irritation b0.01
(CH2Cl2)
Ethylene chloride 64.5 PP b0.1 1.54 0.05 Pungent Vapor causes drunkenness, and possible lung injury –
(C2H4Cl2)
Trichloroethylene 131.4 PP b0.02–0.1 2.61 1.3 × 103 Ethereal odor Liver cancer, malignant lymphoma, skin and eye irritation b0.05
(C2HCl3)
Tetrachloroethylene 165.8 PP b0.1 3.4 206 Ethereal odor Impairment of coordination, dizziness, headache and b0.05
(C2Cl4) sleepiness
Bisphenol-A 228.3 P 1.2 3.32 300 Mild phenolic Skin and eye irritation –
(C15H16O2)
Butylbenzyl phthalate 312.3 9 4.77 2.69 Slight odor Damage reproductive system, skin allergy ≤0.014
(C19H20O4)
Di-(2-ethylhexyl) 390.5 P 160 5.03 0.27 Slight odor Damage endocrine, testicular, ovarian, neural, hepatotoxic ≤4.8
phthalate and cardiotoxic effects
(C24H38O4)
Dibutyl phthalate 278.3 P 3.1 4.50 11.2 Aromatic odor Irritate skin or eyes or to induce sensitization. 0.1–5
(C16H22O4)
Diethyl phthalate 222.2 P 38 2.47 1080 Odorless Skin allergy and DNA damage 6 to 30
(C12H14O4)
Di-isobutyl phthalate 278.3 P 8 4.11 6.2 Odorless Damage fertility system and skin
(C16H22O4)
Dimethyl phthalate 194.1 P 4.9 1.60 4 × 102 Slight aromatic Effects on fertility 0.16–1.86
(C10H10O4) odor
Diethylhexyl 222.2 P 15–39 2.47 1080 odorless Skin and eye irritation, effects on embryo or fetus b0.01
phthalate
(C12H14O4)
Tonalide (C18H26O) 258.4 PCP 5.8 5.70 1.25 Musk Gastrointestinal (including liver), chronic effects –
Benzophenone 182.2 PCP 4.9 3.18 137 Geranium odor Cancer, eye irritation –
(C3H10O)
4-Octylphenol 206.3 S 0.16 4.12 3.1 – DNA damage, eye redness, skin burns. –
(C14H22O)
Triclosan 289.5 PCP 35.7 4.76 10 Slight, faintly Abnormal endocrine system, thyroid, weakening of immune –
(C12H7Cl3O2) aromatic odor system of children, allergies, asthma and eczema
Octylphenols 206.4 – b0.1–0.5 5.5 7 – Eye damage and skin irritation b0.01
(C10H14O)
Naphthalene (C10H8) 128.1 PH b4.5 3.3 31 Aromatic odor Damage to the liver and neurological system b1.4
Anthracene (C14H10) 178.2 PAH 0.032 4.45 0.004 Weak aromatic Cause burning, itching and edema –
odor
Fluoranthene 202.2 – 0.034 5.16 0.26 – Skin and eye irritation –
(C16H10)

PCP-personal care products; S-Surfactants; PP-pharmaceutical products; P-Plasticizer; PCH-polycyclic hydrocarbon; PAH-poly aromatic hydrocarbon; MW-molecular weight.
a
(Donner et al., 2010; Etchepare and van der Hoek, 2015).
b
(Calvo-Flores et al., 2018).
c
(Sayers et al., 2009).

insight into removal mechanisms and important considerations for a
successful system design. Francis and Lorimer (2011) reported that a
variety of different species, such as Adiantum raddianum, Chrysantheium
morifolium dieffenbachia spp., Dracaena godseffiana, Epipremnum
aureum, Hedera helix, Marraya sp., Nephrolepis exaltata, Philodendron
sp., Rhododendron obtusum, Sansevieria trifasciata, Spathiphyllum
maunahoa, and Vriesea splendens are effective in treating greywater.
Lasat (2000) observed that hyperaccumulators are capable of accumu-
lating metals to concentrations N10 ppm for Hg, 100 ppm for Cd,
1000 ppm for Co, Cr, Cu, and Pb, and 10,000 ppm for Ni and Zn. The Pteris
vittata plant root has the maximum recorded capacity to uptake Arsenic
(a carcinogenic pollutant) of N0.7 mg/g. Moreover, approximately 400
plant species from 45 plant families have been reported to
hyperaccumulate metals. Fig. 7 shows some heavy metals and nutrients
accumulated by different plant roots (Lasat, 2000; Hooda, 2007). How-
ever, some elements like Cd, Cl, Hg, Pb, and Ni at high concentrations
have harmful effects on plant physiology for some specific plants (Das
et al., 1997; Gurevitch et al., 2002).
338 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344

Fig. 5. The removal mechanisms of plants, media, and microbes.

3.4. Ensuring longevity of operation
Greywater, as previously mentioned, contains a wide range of pol-
lutants that may accumulate in plants or in the growth media. These
can include oils and grease, particularly when water is dark greywater
(including kitchen sources). Oil and grease can accumulate in the
media, particularly the region of initial irrigation, by adherence to the
particles and can result in significant reductions in capillary rise and po-
rosity of up to 60% at 250 mg O&G/kg media (Travis et al., 2008). Raw
greywater, even when not including kitchen sources has been demon-
strated to increase soil hydrophobicity, impacting the movement of
water (Travis et al., 2010). Other long term changes in soil or media
properties can also occur, such as increasing pH associated with alkali
detergents (Turner et al., 2013; Siggins et al., 2016). Such changes
may be beneficial if bringing the soil/media to neutral conditions, but
excessively alkali soils greater than pH 7.5 may suffer clogging from pre-
cipitation of various carbonates, phosphates and metals and nutrient
inavailability.
3.5. Challenges in the implementation of greywater treatment living walls
and green roofs in arid regions
Vegetation in living walls and green roofs located in arid regions can
face many challenges to survival, as plants require sufficient water, nu-
trients, and very specific light conditions to grow. Specific heat tolerant
plants and continuous recycling of water with nutrients and organic
content can be considered essential for living walls or green roofs in
arid regions. Another consideration for green wall installations is air
movement around the foliage (Carpenter, 2014). This is important to
help prevent fungal growth, and additional ventilation may be needed
to ensure sufficient air movement. This is particularly important with
the use of greywater, which may promote fungal growth through nutri-
ents and fungal seeding sources. Outdoor walls usually create their own
microclimate that creates enough air movement, but in very sheltered
positions, attention should be given to this issue. Energy consumption
for air movement and water recycling could be significant depending
on the local conditions and design of the wall and is an area where

Table 5
Removal performance of different materials for greywater treatment that would be suitable for living walls.

Name pHb AFP (%)b Porosity (%)a BD (g/cm3)a BET surface area (m2/g)a Percentage removal efficiency of various pollutantsa,c

TSS TN TP COD E-coli BOD

Cococoira 6.0 13 80 0.08 1.098 81 15 12 25 20 –

Rockwoola 8.0 13 96 0.85 0.170 80 35 20 30 40 –
Fyto-foama – – 99 0.0176 2.842 67 20 10 15 15 –
Grow stonea 7.0 – 88 0.202 0.132 83 45 19 35 20 –
Expanded claya 7.0 – 80 0.429 0.587 86 50 – 40 20 –
Vermiculitea 7.0 – 94 0.103 6.465 89 20 61 76 80 –
Perlitea 7.0 30 75 0.1 1.345 91 45 20 75 30 –
River sanda Vari-es – 35 1.6 0.076 93 45 3 75 20 –
LECA-Coconut fibersc – – – – 84 – – 86 – 86
LECA-Sandc – – – – 35 – – 80 – 73
Biochard – 25 72–74 1.87 95 26 99 – –

AFP-air filled porosity; BD-bulk density; E-coli- Escherichia coliforms.

a
(Prodanovic et al., 2017).
b
(Farhan et al., 2018).
c
(Masi et al., 2016).
d
(Dalahmeh et al., 2018).
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344 339

Fig. 6. Removal efficiency of different pollutants from greywater by various types of non-climbing and climbing plants. (Carex appressa, Phragmites australis, Canna lilies, Strelitzia reginae,
Phormium and Lonicera japonica- non-climbing plants; Pandorea jasminoides, Parthenocissus tricuspidata- climbing plants) as reported by Fowdar et al. (2017).

further assessment is warranted. As arid regions tend to lie in the horse
latitudes (30° N/S), low air flow for arid living walls and green roofs may
be a particular concern.
Another important consideration is the balancing of treatment and
recovered water quality, which will be enhanced with both increasing
travel distance and time through the media and root zone and water
loss, which will also increase with these two parameters. Fowdar et al.
(2017) used a biofilter and vertical façade with a retention time of
48 h and a daily application rate of up to 110 mm/d of greywater.
Under such conditions it is expected around 10–15% could be lost
under relatively high transpiration rates (5–6 mm/d). In the study of
Prodanovic et al. (2017) much shorter retention times of only a few
hours maximum were used with media columns. In the same
researcher's optimized study using mixed media (Prodanovic et al.,
2018) application of an average of 1.4 times the pore volume per day
for short 200 mm deep columns was successfully maintained with
some non-planted media. Reasonable treatment was still achieved and
indicates sufficient quantities of greywater should be harvestable from
such systems. However, even with synthetic greywater, clogging was
evident with the finer media which provided the best performance
and may therefore require extended retention for prolonged application
under field conditions. Evapotranspiration can be partially managed
through living wall design and van de Wouw et al. (2017) have demon-
strated planter boxes have an evapotranspiration rate roughly two
thirds that of a panel based living wall system under Dutch climatic
conditions.
In development of these green infrastructures for combined cooling
and greywater treatment a key balance must be struck between maxi-
mizing cooling and maximizing greywater recovery. These are contrary
objectives since cooling capacity is increased through evapotranspira-
tion which leaves less water for reuse. However, the volume of water
produced for reuse is expected to be much greater than the demand
for greywater recycling as outlined in the previous paragraph, in
which case a balance can be struck between greywater reuse demands

Fig. 7. Removal of different types of heavy metals and other nutrients by various plants.
340 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
and maximizing remaining water for cooling. Moreover, where compe-
tition between cooling and water recycling exists it should be noted that
the majority of cooling comes from shading rather than evapotranspira-
tion (Hoelscher et al., 2016).
3.6. Building interaction considerations
The physical properties of plants and the way they interact with the
building is an important consideration. Different living wall structures
will be better for different types of plant growing patterns. Some species
like Hedera helix or scrambling shoots damage the building fabric.
Therefore, it is important to select plant species that have root spread
and height characteristics that will not damage the material of the
wall and be amenable to the media and water circulation system pro-
posed (Fowdar et al., 2017). A combined knowledge of horticulture
and living wall design is needed to choose site-specific species suitable
for the levels of light available, temperature range, and humidity/water
requirements. Spacing and volume of containers are critical conditions
for establishing suitable vegetation coverage in living walls whilst min-
imizing weight. The material of the planting containers is also critical,
especially in the case of greywater where increased watering is ex-
pected with enhanced microbial activity. For instance, wooden con-
tainers, while cost effective and strong, can be damaged rapidly by
weathering and plant growth. Plastics, ideal for their light weight and
low cost, can become brittle from prolonged exposure to UV light, as
well as extremes in heat and cold (Carpenter, 2014). Stainless steel is
the strongest and most durable material, but cost must be considered
in its selection. The physical properties of plants and the way they inter-
act with the building is also important. Plants may grow in a variety of
patterns as shown in Fig. 8 and these growth patterns will suit different
living wall structures better than others. For instance, creeping and
scrambling growth work well with single planted bed at the base of
the wall with support wiring for directing growth, whilst clumping
and cascading require different style modular units to ensure even veg-
etation coverage of the wall.
The various types of plant growth patterns also have different
pipework infrastructure requirements. Creeping and scrambling
modes of growth allow for limited media beds and therefore reduced
pipework, while cascading and clumping (if used in planter boxes) re-
quires more extensive pipework which adds significant costs to the de-
sign. For a residential unit, it is expected that a wall area of roughly
25 m2 would be required to support a family of four based on a per
capita greywater production of 100 L/p.d and reported treatment and
application rates (Fowdar et al., 2017; Prodanovic et al., 2017). This
equates to roughly one to two walls of a typical residential building.
Moreover, for an anticipated use of greywater recycling separate
plumbing in the house for both greywater separation and treated
Fig. 8. Types of growth patterns of plant in living wall.
greywater return for toilet flushing is required along with a storage
tank and pump to meet toilet flushing demands.
Choice of soil or growing media is one of the most important chal-
lenges for living walls and particularly for green roofs due to its impact
on load and building structural requirements. For less impact on the
building structure the media should be light and have a suitable balance
of porosity and water-holding capacity for plant growth. It should be
noted that high porosity does not necessarily mean light weight if the
area of the wall will be under saturated flow conditions by the irrigation.
Before installation of plants a proper drainage system should be consid-
ered to achieve effective plant growth, aesthetics, and ensure public
health. Planning for maintenance is also required for the life of the
asset. An important part of maintenance is plant nutrition in the living
wall and green roof. Plants require nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium,
organic carbon, and other nutrients for their growth. Therefore, while
fresh water alone cannot support the necessary requirements of plant
nutrition, greywater should be sufficient.
3.7. Social and cultural considerations
Due to the offensive nature of untreated greywater, implementation
of treatment systems that are incorporated into the building structure
may be a challenge, particularly in areas where wide-held cultural or re-
ligious customs and beliefs may reinforce the rejection of greywater
reuse. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, Islamic tradi-
tion places a high emphasis on the purity of water which is used for ab-
lutions/purification. Many MENA countries have adopted limited reuse
of greywater following fatwas (religious rulings) permitting its reuse
under strict treatment, but it is likely that contact of raw greywater
with external components of the building structure may face resistance,
no matter how well separated from human contact (McIlwaine and
Redwood, 2009; Alhumoud and Madzikanda, 2010; Alataway et al.,
2011). On the other hand, the religious and cultural importance of
water conservation in Islam is also commonly used to promote
greywater reuse in many MENA countries.
Other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism strive to achieve
purity that includes physical cleanliness and spiritual welfare to focus
worship. In both religions water plays a key role. In Hinduism bathing
in the holy river water such as Ganges, Yamuna, Godavari and Brahma-
putra etc. is performed for both physical cleanliness and spiritual well-
being (Ferdaush et al., 2015). However, due to the heavy discharge of
untreated waters to the rivers from nearby residential buildings, hotels,
and guesthouses pollution levels have decreased river water quality. Ac-
cording to Amery and Haddad (2015), this does not diminish the holi-
ness of the river unless the river can no longer clean itself, while the
need for engineered remediation can signify to some believers that
the river has lost its holy cleansing power. Therefore greywater
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
treatment before discharge through a natural treatment system may or
may not be deemed appropriate.
In Buddhism water symbolizes peace, prosperity and human wel-
fare. Moreover, in Vinaya tradition monks are forbidden to pollute
grass with bodily fluids, due to aesthetic pollution and contamination
feed for animals (Ferdaush et al., 2015). How these beliefs would trans-
late to vegetated building walls remains to be seen.
In New Zealand, the Maori, the indigenous inhabitants, consider that
wastewater of any kind must be treated by passing through soil/rock
systems to maintain the sacredness of the water ways/sources. Such be-
liefs are in line with soil/media based treatment systems as proposed.
However, it is generally considered that the positioning of the wash-
house and bathrooms should also be separate to the main living area
to separate the dirty from the clean, and as such, integration of a treat-
ment system into the main building structure would likely be deemed
offensive (Awatere et al., 2000). Therefore, it is clear, local consider-
ations and customs must be carefully considered in each location
where the technology is considered and open consultation between de-
signers and public undertaken before any pursuit of this technology.
3.8. Health considerations
Pathogen levels within the media of the wall are expected to be
elevated. For instance, Travis et al. (2010) found when using raw
greywater to irrigate soil the pathogen soil concentration was an
order of magnitude higher than the baseline. However, in another
study in the Middle East, where 20 households used greywater for ir-
rigation against a matching population of households using potable
water, it was found that despite a higher pathogen risk identified
by quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA), no statistical dif-
ferences were observed with respect to water-related illnesses and
unrestricted irrigation for outdoor use. This was despite a range of
treatment methods including direct bucket irrigation from showers
and kitchen and use of spray irrigation from treatment systems
(Busgang et al., 2015). In the case of a QMRA for living walls the
main modes of exposure are likely to be hand-to-mouth contact if
greywater is applied at the surface and the wall is located near the
ground, and aerosols, depending on the irrigation/application
method used. In this regard exposure routes are similar to household
greywater irrigation. Such risks can be managed through drip or
flood application of greywater to the living wall and through place-
ment of the wall on higher levels of the building or through appropri-
ate covers over the media and irrigation surface. Assessment of
pathogens and indicator organisms should be appropriately selected
and Busgang et al. (2015) and Schoen et al. (2017) provide a suitable
selection of organisms for risk assessment.
Another potential health impact not commonly considered is aller-
gies and infections associated with increased pollen production and
fungal spores that may then be carried through ventilation systems
into the indoor environment (Ercilla-Montserrat et al., 2017). Risks
will depend highly on the types of plant and irrigation. For allergies
the risk is low, as most plants associated with high pollutant removal
are not high pollen producers. Additionally, allergy benefits may also
arise from filtering of other particulates and aerosols. Risks from bacte-
rial pathogen aerosols have been demonstrated insignificant (Benami
et al., 2016).
Management of public health may be appropriately controlled
through a well enclosed structure where the flow of greywater re-
mains out of possible contact, and with a design that prevents exces-
sive soil saturation. However, the potential risks of bioaerosols
associated with fungal spores remains unclear and warrant further
study. The most appropriate reuse for water from this system is
likely to be toilet flushing, which is demonstrated to have a lower
quantitative microbial risk assessment rating than irrigation (Shi
et al., 2018).
341
3.9. Cost considerations
Costs of living walls and other green façades remains a major ele-
ment of consideration and resistance towards widespread implementa-
tion of these technologies (Riley, 2017). There are limited cost analyses
presented in the literature, but those that do have indicated economics
vary considerably based on design (Perini and Rosasco, 2013), while
cost-benefits such as cooling load reduction are also highly location de-
pendent (Besir and Cuce, 2018). Reported capital costs lie in the range of
350–1200 euro per m2 (Perini and Rosasco, 2013; Riley, 2017). Effect of
building scale on living walls is not reported, but may play an important
role, especially when associated with greywater treatment. While living
walls are typically modular in their design, reducing cost-scale effects,
some components such as main supply irrigation/greywater pipework
and structural reinforcement requirements will be impacted. Structural
requirements will be dependent on the building type and may or may
not cancel cost benefits associated with pipework economies of scale.
Maintenance costs are a substantial proportion of living wall life
cycle costs and are typically 8–15% of capital investment costs per
year (Riley, 2017). Maintenance costs can be reduced through increased
detail and quality in the initial design; however, this raises initial invest-
ment costs which result in decreased uptake of the technology (Riley,
2017). Maintenance costs include plant and panel replacements,
pipework and irrigation upkeep, and pruning and plant-waste disposal.
Benefits should also be appropriately assessed and include increased
property values, reduced cooling loads, and carbon credits as well as
more intangible benefits such as aesthetics and air quality.
For a greywater recycling system a more intensive design such as a
living wall rather than a green façade is likely to be necessary to provide
sufficient media contact time increasing costs of the system. Additional
pipework is required for a greywater-based system to separate
greywater inside the house, as well as storage tanks for the treated
water. Recirculation may be necessary to achieve target performance;
although initial studies are promising that once-through treatment is
sufficient (Prodanovic et al., 2018). Cost savings are also present with
a greywater treatment-reuse system, whereby fresh water require-
ments for both the living wall watering and for household demands,
such as toilet flushing are reduced. Bussy (2009) used a living wall sys-
tem for greywater treatment and based on cost calculations demon-
strated the system was more affordable than either centralized
municipal wastewater treatment or onsite MBR treatment (most ex-
pensive) for a rural case in Sweden. Moreover, unlike conventional
greywater systems, a combined greywater- living wall system achieves
combined benefits under a single system and may aid in the overall eco-
nomics. Water tariffs, as well as the actual costs of water production,
vary considerably from country to country and may play an important
role. Therefore, there is considerable need for further assessment of
life-cycle costs based on various locations. Moreover, there is a need
for open sharing of real maintenance costs associated with these sys-
tems to enable accurate life-cycle costing.
4. Conclusion and outlook
Living walls and green roofs are suitable technologies to help in en-
ergy conservation and to improve aesthetics and livability by reducing
heat in buildings, removing pollutants from air and providing urban
greening. This review presents a detailed study of green building design
and living wall systems for integrated greywater treatment. Greywater
production and its characteristics from different water fixtures/uses and
building types were summarized and show significant variation from
location to location. Various pharmaceutical and micropollutant com-
pounds are of concern, while metals are also elevated in greywater.
However, pathogens remain the largest risk. For such reasons, toilet
flushing should be the preferred reuse option, which has low water
quality requirements and low pathogen risks.
342 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
Plant types and supporting media selection are presented as key fac-
tors which have significant roles in treatment performance, water re-
quirements, aesthetics, and the hygiene and maintenance of the living
wall system. All these considerations must be carefully balanced and re-
sult in added complexity compared to traditional living wall and green
roof systems. Studies that have assessed the greywater treatment per-
formance are limited and have only considered a few selected plants
in living walls. In these studies, the greywater treatment capacity of
plants has typically been observed for a short period of one year or
less, while studies reporting long term irrigation of untreated greywater
to soil have shown significant changes to soil properties over time. In
addition, limited data is available for the removal of coliforms and
heavy metals by plant type, which is a major consideration in greywater
treatment and recycling. The role of plant growth media in living wall
and green roof systems is as important as the role of the vegetation/
plants. Coarse media such as vermiculite, perlite, and sand are effective
for the removal of organic pollutants (~75%), avoiding clogging issues of
finer porosity materials. Biochar also appears a promising material pro-
moting circular material flows. Optimum performance is likely to come
through the use of hybrid material mixtures to obtain suitable charac-
teristics of porosity, density and physical/chemical interactions with
pollutants.
This review highlights the need for further research into the feasibil-
ity of living walls and green roofs for greywater treatment and recycling.
Future investigation should include detailed long-term laboratory and
field tests of pollutant removal with various media and plants suited
to green building infrastructure to arrive at preferred options. Further
research in optimization of loading rates and media blends is necessary
to ensure maximum treatment performance of greywater while mini-
mizing evapotranspiration losses which from current literature are in
the order of 20 L/m2. Such studies are likely to integrate with building
cooling studies to ensure optimum tradeoff between cooling and
water reuse requirements for various locations. Wider interactions
with the livability of green buildings incorporating these green-
greywater systems with respect to comfort (humidity) and health (fun-
gal spores) are two key areas for successful implementation.
Due to the interdependency on the climate, urban form, and ma-
terial availability, regional-based research will be important for each
country/zone. Furthermore, it is also necessary to prepare native
media and plants that are easily available for the eventual success
of green roofs and living walls. The integrated performance of plant
and media for greywater treatment in living walls and green roofs
is an important future study, and detailed analysis of how each com-
ponent is involved in removal of various pollutants, and their associ-
ated interactions will be important to maximize treatment
performance. Finally, piloting and scale up of such systems from lab-
oratory is warranted, particularly given the influence of climatic con-
ditions and both areal and volumetric influences of various system
parameters on performance. This paper also emphasizes that further
research and interdisciplinary teamwork is required to examine this
technology more comprehensively.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Hamad Bin Khalifa University
(HBKU), under Qatar Foundation (QF), for supporting the research.
Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of HBKU or QF.
References
Alataway, A., Ness, M., Gowing, J., 2011. Public attitude towards wastewater reuse for ir-
rigated agriculture in Saudi Arabia. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 145, 759–767.
Al-Hamaiedeh, H., Bino, M., 2010. Effect of treated grey water reuse in irrigation on soil
and plants. Desalination 256, 115–119.
Alhumoud, J.M., Madzikanda, D., 2010. Public perceptions on water reuse options: the
case of Sulaibiya wastewater treatment plant in Kuwait. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 9,
141–158.
Amery, H.A., Haddad, M., 2015. Ethical and cultural dimensions of water reuse: Islamic
perspectives. In: Elsamian, S. (Ed.), Urban Water Reuse Handbook. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, pp. 275–283.
Arden, S., Ma, X., 2018. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: a review.
Sci. Total Environ. 630, 587–599.
Aruninta, A., Kurazumi, Y., Fukagawa, K., Ishii, J., 2018. The integration of human thermal
comfort in an outdoor campus landscape in a tropical climate. Int. J. Geomate 14,
26–32.
Asbjornsen, H., Goldsmith, G.R., Alvarado-Barrientos, M.S., Rebel, K., Van Osch, F.P.,
Rietkerk, M., Chen, J., Gotsch, S., 2011. Ecohydrological advances and applications in
plant–water relations research: a review. J. Plant Ecol. 4, 3–22.
Awatere, S., Ihaka, M., Harrison, D., 2000. Tangata Whenua Perspectives of Wastewater, A
Report Prepared for the Gisborne District Council, Gisborne.
Azkorra, Z., Pérez, G., Coma, J., Cabeza, L.F., Burés, S., Álvaro, J.E., Erkoreka, A., Urrestarazu,
M., 2015. Evaluation of green walls as a passive acoustic insulation system for build-
ings. Appl. Acoust. 89, 46–56.
Behzadian, K., Kapelan, Z., 2015. Advantages of integrated and sustainability based assess-
ment for metabolism based strategic planning of urban water systems. Sci. Total En-
viron. 527-528, 220–231.
Benami, M., Busgang, A., Gillor, O., Gross, A., 2016. Quantification and risks associated with
bacterial aerosols near domestic greywater-treatment systems. Sci. Total Environ.
562, 344–352.
Besir, A.B., Cuce, E., 2018. Green roofs and facades: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 82, 915–939.
Boyjoo, Y., Pareek, V.K., Ang, M., 2013. A review of greywater characteristics and treat-
ment processes. Water Sci. Technol. 67, 1403–1424.
Busgang, A., Friedler, E., Ovadia, O., Gross, A., 2015. Epidemiological study for the assess-
ment of health risks associated with graywater reuse for irrigation in arid regions. Sci.
Total Environ. 538, 230–239.
Büsser, S., Pham, T.N., Antoine, M., Nguyen, V.A., 2007. Characteristics and quantities of
domestic wastewater in urban and peri-urban households in Hanoi. Acad. Sci.
Technol. 395–397.
Bussy, E., 2009. An Innovative Way to Treat Wastewater. Strasbourg & Uppsala: Engees
(Ecole national de Genie de l'Eau et de l'Environment de Strassbourg) and Uppsala
University.
Calvo-Flores, F.G., Isac-Garcia, J., Jiménez, J.A.D., Dobado, J.A., 2018. Emerging Pollutants:
Origin, Structure, and Properties. John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim, Germany.
Cameron, R.W., Taylor, J.E., Emmett, M.R., 2014. What's ‘cool’ in the world of green fa-
çades? How plant choice influences the cooling properties of green walls. Build. En-
viron. 73, 198–207.
Carpenter, S., 2014. Growing Green Guide: A Guide to Green Roofs, Walls & Facades in
Melbourne and Victoria, Australia. (Australia: State of Victoria). p. 142.
Chang, H., Bonnette, M.R., Stoker, P., Crow-Miller, B., Wentz, E., 2017. Determinants of sin-
gle family residential water use across scales in four western US cities. Sci. Total En-
viron. 597, 451–464.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An investigation into greywater reuse
for urban residential properties. Desalination 106, 391–397.
Coma, J., Pérez, G., de Gracia, A., Burés, S., Urrestarazu, M., Cabeza, L.F., 2017. Vertical
greenery systems for energy savings in buildings: a comparative study between
green walls and green facades. Build. Environ. 111, 228–237.
Cruz, M.D., Christensen, J.H., Thomsen, J.D., Müller, R., 2014. Can ornamental potted plants
remove volatile organic compounds from indoor air?—a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 21, 13909–13928.
Castellar da Cunha, Joana América, Morató Farreras, J., Bosch González, M., Arias, C.A.,
Montserrat Canals, J., Carvalho, P., Rysulova Kósice, M., Pérez Luque, G., 2018.
“WETWALL”: an innovative design concept for the treatment of wastewater at an
urban scale. Desalin. Water Treat. 109, 205–220.
Dalahmeh, S., Ahrens, L., Gros, M., Wiberg, K., Pell, M., 2018. Potential of biochar filters for
onsite sewage treatment: adsorption and biological degradation of pharmaceuticals
in laboratory filters with active, inactive and no biofilm. Sci. Total Environ. 612,
192–201.
Das, P., Samantaray, S., Rout, G., 1997. Studies on cadmium toxicity in plants: a review. En-
viron. Pollut. 98, 29–36.
Dawood, N., Vukovic, V., 2017. Energy efficiency in residential buildings in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Building Information Modelling, Building Performance, Design and
Smart Construction. Springer, pp. 129–143.
Deblonde, T., Cossu-Leguille, C., Hartemann, P., 2011. Emerging pollutants in wastewater:
a review of the literature. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 214, 442–448.
Dierberg, F.E., Juston, J.J., Debusk, T.A., Pietro, K., Gu, B., 2005. Relationship between hy-
draulic efficiency and phosphorus removal in a submerged aquatic vegetation-
dominated treatment wetland. Ecol. Eng. 25, 9–23.
Doan, D.T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Tookey, J.,
2017. A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Build. Environ. 123,
243–260.
Donner, E., Eriksson, E., Revitt, D.M., Scholes, L., Lützhøft, H.H., Ledin, A., 2010. Presence
and fate of priority substances in domestic greywater treatment and reuse systems.
Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2444–2451.
Dunnett, N., Kingsbury, N., 2008. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. 2nd ed. Timber
press Portland, OR, Kingsbury, UK, p. 328.
Ercilla-Montserrat, M., Izquierdo, R., Belmonte, J., Montero, J.I., Muñoz, P., De Linares,
C., Rieradevall, J., 2017. Building-integrated agriculture: a first assessment of
aerobiological air quality in rooftop greenhouses (i-RTGs). Sci. Total Environ.
598, 109–120.
 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
Eregno, F.E., Moges, M.E., Heistad, A., 2017. Treated greywater reuse for hydroponic let-
tuce production in a green wall system: quantitative health risk assessment. Water
9, 454.
Eriksson, E., Andersen, H.R., Madsen, T.S., Ledin, A., 2009. Greywater pollution variability
and loadings. Ecol. Eng. 35, 661–669.
Etchepare, R., van der Hoek, Jan Peter, 2015. Health risk assessment of organic
micropollutants in greywater for potable reuse. Water Res. 72, 186–198.
Farhan, A.F.A., Zakaria, A.J., Mat, N., Mohd, K.S., 2018. Soilless media culture-a propitious
auxiliary for crop production. Asian J. Crop Sci. 10, 1–9.
Faruqui, N., Al-Jayyousi, O., 2002. Greywater reuse in urban agriculture for poverty allevi-
ation: a case study in Jordan. Water Int. 27, 387–394.
Feitosa, R.C., Wilkinson, S.J., 2018. Attenuating heat stress through green roof and green
wall retrofit. Build. Environ. 140, 11–22.
Ferdaush, J., Islam, S.N., Reinstädtler, S., Eslamian, S., 2015. Ethical and cultural dimensions
of water reuse in global aspects. In: Elsamian, S. (Ed.), Urban Water Reuse Handbook.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 299–310.
Fernandez-Cañero, R., Emilsson, T., Fernandez-Barba, C., Machuca, M.Á.H., 2013. Green
roof systems: a study of public attitudes and preferences in southern Spain.
J. Environ. Manag. 128, 106–115.
Fioretti, R., Palla, A., Lanza, L.G., Principi, P., 2010. Green roof energy and water related
performance in the Mediterranean climate. Build. Environ. 45, 1890–1904.
Fowdar, H.S., Hatt, B.E., Breen, P., Cook, P.L., Deletic, A., 2017. Designing living walls for
greywater treatment. Water Res. 110, 218–232.
Francis, R.A., Lorimer, J., 2011. Urban reconciliation ecology: the potential of living roofs
and walls. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 1429–1437.
Friedler, E., 2004. Quality of individual domestic greywater streams and its implication for
on-site treatment and reuse possibilities. Environ. Technol. 25, 997–1008.
Ghisi, E., Ferreira, D.F., 2007. Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and
greywater in a multi-storey residential building in southern Brazil. Build. Environ.
42, 2512–2522.
Ghunmi, L.A., Zeeman, G., Fayyad, M., van Lier, J.B., 2011. Grey water treatment systems: a
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 657–698.
Golda, A., Poyyamoli, G., Nandhivarman, M., 2014. Efficacy of phytoremediation potential
of aquatic macrophytes for its applicability in treatment wetlands: a review of devel-
opments and research. Int. J. Water Res. Environ. Eng. 6, 267–278.
Gong, P., Liang, S., Carlton, E.J., Jiang, Q., Wu, J., Wang, L., Remais, J.V., 2012. Urbanisation
and health in China. Lancet 379, 843–852.
Gurevitch, J., Scheiner, S.M., Fox, G.A., 2002. The Ecology of Plants. Sinauer Associates Sun-
derland, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M., Mansour, M., Safi, M.,
2008. Grey water characteristics and treatment options for rural areas in Jordan.
Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6635–6641.
Hernandez-Soriano, M.C., Jimenez-Lopez, J.C., 2012. Effects of soil water content and or-
ganic matter addition on the speciation and bioavailability of heavy metals. Sci.
Total Environ. 423, 55–61.
Hoelscher, M., Nehls, T., Jänicke, B., Wessolek, G., 2016. Quantifying cooling effects of fa-
cade greening: shading, transpiration and insulation. Energ. Buildings 114, 283–290.
Hooda, V., 2007. Phytoremediation of toxic metals from soil and waste water. J. Environ.
Biol. 28, 367.
Ihara, T., Kikegawa, Y., Asahi, K., Genchi, Y., Kondo, H., 2008. Changes in year-round air
temperature and annual energy consumption in office building areas by urban
heat-island countermeasures and energy-saving measures. Appl. Energy 85, 12–25.
Ilemobade, A., Olanrewaju, O., Griffioen, M., 2012. Greywater Reuse for Toilet Flushing in
High-density Urban Buildings in South Africa: A Pilot Study. Water Research
Comission, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 1–194 (ISBN 1790669141).
Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Prathapar, S., Al, Harrasi A., 2008. Evaluating greywater reuse po-
tential for sustainable water resources management in Oman. Environ. Monit. Assess.
137, 315–327.
Jungels, J., Rakow, D.A., Allred, S.B., Skelly, S.M., 2013. Attitudes and aesthetic reactions to-
ward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 117, 13–21.
Koyama, T., Yoshinaga, M., Hayashi, H., Maeda, K., Yamauchi, A., 2013. Identification of key
plant traits contributing to the cooling effects of green facades using freestanding
walls. Build. Environ. 66, 96–103.
Kraume, M., Scheumann, R., Baban, A., El Hamouri, B., 2010. Performance of a compact
submerged membrane sequencing batch reactor (SM-SBR) for greywater treatment.
Desalination 250, 1011–1013.
Krozer, Y., Hophmayer-Tokich, S., van Meerendonk, H., Tijsma, S., Vos, E., 2010. Innova-
tions in the water chain–experiences in The Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 439–446.
Laaidi, K., Zeghnoun, A., Dousset, B., Bretin, P., Vandentorren, S., Giraudet, E., Beaudeau, P.,
2012. The impact of heat islands on mortality in Paris during the August 2003 heat
wave. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 254–259.
Lasat, M.M., 2000. The Use of Plants for the Removal of Toxic Metals from Contaminated
Soils. US Environmental Protection Agency, p. 34.
Lehmann, S., 2014. Low carbon districts: mitigating the urban heat island with green roof
infrastructure. Cult. Sociol. 5, 1–8.
Lewis, A., Riley, D., Elmualim, A., 2010. Defining high performance buildings for opera-
tions and maintenance. Int. J. Facil. Manag. 1, 1–16.
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for grey
water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3439–3449.
Liu, K., Minor, J., 2005. Performance Evaluation of an Extensive Green Roof. Presentation at
Green Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Washington DC, p. 11.
Mandal, P., Biswas, A., Choi, K., Pal, U., 2011. Methods for rapid detection of foodborne
pathogens: an overview. Am. J. Food Technol. 6, 87–102.
Masi, F., Bresciani, R., Rizzo, A., Edathoot, A., Patwardhan, N., Panse, D., Langergraber, G.,
2016. Green walls for greywater treatment and recycling in dense urban areas: a
case-study in Pune. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 6, 342–347.
343
Matos, C., Pereira, S., Amorim, E.V., Bentes, I., Briga-Sá, A., 2014. Wastewater and
greywater reuse on irrigation in centralized and decentralized systems — an inte-
grated approach on water quality, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Sci.
Total Environ. 493, 463–471.
Maurer, M., Rothenberger, D., Larsen, T., 2005. Decentralised wastewater treatment tech-
nologies from a national perspective: at what cost are they competitive? Water Sci.
Technol. Water Supply 5, 145–154.
Mazzali, U., Peron, F., Romagnoni, P., Pulselli, R.M., Bastianoni, S., 2013. Experimental in-
vestigation on the energy performance of living walls in a temperate climate. Build.
Environ. 64, 57–66.
McIlwaine, S., Redwood, M., 2009. Greywater Use in the Middle East. Practical Action Pub-
lishing Ltd., Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development Bourton on
Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 9QZ, UK.
Montgomery, M.R., 2008. The urban transformation of the developing world. Science 319,
761–764.
Moreno-Garcia, M.C., 1994. Intensity and form of the urban heat island in Barcelona. Int.
J. Climatol. 14, 705–710.
Musy, M., Malys, L., Inard, C., 2017. Assessment of direct and indirect impacts of vegeta-
tion on building comfort: a comparative study of lawns, green walls and green
roofs. Procedia Environ Sci 38, 603–610.
Nolde, E., 2000. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings–
over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1, 275–284.
Peck, S.W., Kuhn, M., 2003. Design Guidelines for Green Roofs. Ontario Association of Ar-
chitects, CMHC, Ottawa, Canada.
Perez, G., Rincon, L., Vila, A., Gonzalez, J.M., Cabeza, L.F., 2011. Green vertical systems for
buildings as passive systems for energy savings. Appl. Energy 88, 4854–4859.
Perini, K., Rosasco, P., 2013. Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall sys-
tems. Build. Environ. 70, 110–121.
Picard, C.R., Fraser, L.H., Steer, D., 2005. The interacting effects of temperature and plant
community type on nutrient removal in wetland microcosms. Bioresour. Technol.
96, 1039–1047.
Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., 2010. Reuse of greywater for irrigation around homes in
Australia: understanding community views, issues and practices. Urban Water J. 7,
141–153.
Poustie, M.S., Deletic, A., Brown, R.R., Wong, T., de Haan, F.J., Skinner, R., 2015. Sustainable
urban water futures in developing countries: the centralised, decentralised or hybrid
dilemma. Urban Water J. 12, 543–558.
Prathapar, S., Jamrah, A., Ahmed, M., Al Adawi, S., Al Sidairi, S., Al Harassi, A., 2005. Over-
coming constraints in treated greywater reuse in Oman. Desalination 186, 177–186.
Prodanovic, V., Hatt, B., McCarthy, D., Zhang, K., Deletic, A., 2017. Green walls for
greywater reuse: understanding the role of media on pollutant removal. Ecol. Eng.
102, 625–635.
Prodanovic, V., Zhang, K., Hatt, B., McCarthy, D., Deletic, A., 2018. Optimisation of light-
weight green wall media for greywater treatment and reuse. Build. Environ. 131,
99–107.
Pugh, T.A., MacKenzie, A.R., Whyatt, J.D., Hewitt, C.N., 2012. Effectiveness of green infra-
structure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46, 7692–7699.
Ramona, G., Green, M., Semiat, R., Dosoretz, C., 2004. Low strength graywater characteri-
zation and treatment by direct membrane filtration. Desalination 170, 241–250.
Rehan, R.M., 2016. Cool city as a sustainable example of heat island management case
study of the coolest city in the world. HBRC J. 12, 191–204.
Revell, G., Anda, M., 2014. Sustainable urban biophilia: the case of greenskins for urban
density. Sustainability 6, 5423–5438.
Revitt, D.M., Eriksson, E., Donner, E., 2011. The implications of household greywater treat-
ment and reuse for municipal wastewater flows and micropollutant loads. Water Res.
45, 1549–1560.
Riley, B., 2017. The state of the art of living walls: lessons learned. Build. Environ. 114,
219–232.
Ronen, Z., Guerrero, A., Gross, A., 2010. Greywater disinfection with the environmentally
friendly Hydrogen Peroxide Plus (HPP). Chemosphere 78, 61–65.
Sayers, E.W., Barrett, T., Benson, D.A., Bolton, E., Bryant, S.H., Canese, K., Chetvernin, V.,
Church, D.M., 2009. Database resources of the national center for biotechnology infor-
mation. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, 5–16.
Schoen, M.E., Ashbolt, N.J., Jahne, M.A., Garland, J., 2017. Risk-based enteric pathogen re-
duction targets for non-potable and direct potable use of roof runoff, stormwater, and
greywater. Microbial Risk Anal. 5, 32–43.
Schuetze, T., Santiago-Fandiño, V., 2013. Quantitative assessment of water use efficiency
in urban and domestic buildings. Water 5, 1172–1193.
Shi, K., Wang, C., Jiang, S.C., 2018. Quantitative microbial risk assessment of Greywater on-
site reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 1507–1519.
Siggins, A., Burton, V., Ross, C., Lowe, H., Horswell, J., 2016. Effects of long-term greywater
disposal on soil: a case study. Sci. Total Environ. 557, 627–635.
Solcerova, A., van de Ven, F., Wang, M., Rijsdijk, M., van de Giesen, N., 2017. Do green roofs
cool the air? Build. Environ. 111, 249–255.
Soreanu, G., Dixon, M., Darlington, A., 2013. Botanical biofiltration of indoor gaseous
pollutants–a mini-review. Chem. Eng. J. 229, 585–594.
Sternberg, T., Viles, H., Cathersides, A., 2011. Evaluating the role of ivy (Hedera helix) in
moderating wall surface microclimates and contributing to the bioprotection of his-
toric buildings. Build. Environ. 46, 293–297.
Sutton, R.K., 2014. Aesthetics for green roofs and green walls. J. Living Archit. 1, 1–15.
Teemusk, A., Mander, Ü., 2007. Rainwater runoff quantity and quality performance from a
green roof: the effects of short-term events. Ecol. Eng. 30, 271–277.
Travis, M.J., Weisbrod, N., Gross, A., 2008. Accumulation of oil and grease in soils irrigated
with greywater and their potential role in soil water repellency. Sci. Total Environ.
394, 68–74.
344 S. Pradhan et al. / Science of the Total Environment 652 (2019) 330–344
Travis, M.J., Wiel-Shafran, A., Weisbrod, N., Adar, E., Gross, A., 2010. Greywater reuse for
irrigation: effect on soil properties. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2501–2508.
Turner, R.D., Will, G.D., Dawes, L.A., Gardner, E.A., Lyons, D.J., 2013. Phosphorus as a lim-
iting factor on sustainable greywater irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 456, 287–298.
USGBC (US Green Building Council), 2013. LEED Reference Guide for Building Design and
Construction. LEED v4, Washington DC.
van de Wouw, P., Ros, E., Brouwers, H., 2017. Precipitation collection and evapo (transpi)
ration of living wall systems: a comparative study between a panel system and a
planter box system. Build. Environ. 126, 221–237.
VanWoert, N.D., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., Rugh, C.L., Fernandez, R.T., Xiao, L., 2005. Green
roof stormwater retention. J. Environ. Qual. 34, 1036–1044.
Winward, G.P., Avery, L.M., Frazer-Williams, R., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P., Stephenson, T.,
Jefferson, B., 2008. A study of the microbial quality of grey water and an evaluation
of treatment technologies for reuse. Ecol. Eng. 32, 187–197.
Wong, N.H., Chen, Y., Ong, C.L., Sia, A., 2003. Investigation of thermal benefits of rooftop
garden in the tropical environment. Build. Environ. 38, 261–270.
Wong, N.H., Tan, A.Y.K., Chen, Y., Sekar, K., Tan, P.Y., Chan, D., Chiang, K., Wong, N.C., 2010.
Thermal evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build. Environ. 45,
663–672.
Wood, R.A., Burchett, M.D., Alquezar, R., Orwell, R.L., Tarran, J., Torpy, F., 2006. The potted-
plant microcosm substantially reduces indoor air VOC pollution: I. Office field-study.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 175, 163–180.
Wu, S., Carvalho, P.N., Müller, J.A., Manoj, V.R., Dong, R., 2016. Sanitation in constructed
wetlands: a review on the removal of human pathogens and fecal indicators. Sci.
Total Environ. 541, 8–22.
Zangheri, P., Armani, R., Pietrobon, M., Pagliano, L., Boneta, M.F., Müller, A., 2014. Heating
and cooling energy demand and loads for building types in different countries of the
EU. D2.3 of WP3, Entranze Project, pp. 1–86.