Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Review

Nutrient treatment of greywater in green wall systems: A critical review of

removal mechanisms, performance efficiencies and system
design parameters
Moeen Gholami a, Aisling D. O’Sullivan a, b, **, Hamish R. Mackey a, *
a
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand
b
Centre for Ecological Technical Solutions (CELTS.org.nz), University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Dr. Lixiao Zhang Greywater has lower pathogen and nutrient levels than other mixed wastewaters, making it easier to treat and to
reuse in nature-based wastewater treatment systems. Green walls (GWs) are one type of nature-based solutions
Keywords: (NBS) that are evolving in design to support on-site and low-cost greywater treatment. Greywater treatment in
Decentralized treatment GWs involves interacting and complex physical, chemical, and biological processes. Design and operational
Nature-based technologies
considerations of such green technologies must facilitate these pivotal processes to achieve effective greywater
Nitrogen removal
treatment. This critical review comprehensively analyses the scientific literature on nutrient removal from
Phosphorus removal
greywater in GWs. It discusses nutrient removal efficiency in different GW types. Total nitrogen removal ranges
from 7 to 91% in indirect green facades (IGF), 48–93% for modular living walls (MLW), and 8–26% for
continuous living walls (CLW). Total phosphorus removal ranges from 7 to 67% for IGF and 2–53% for MLW. The
review also discusses the specific nutrient removal mechanisms orchestrated by vegetation, substrates, and
biofilms to understand their role in nitrogen and phosphorus removal within GWs. The effects of key GW design
parameters on nutrient removal, including substrate characteristics, vegetation species, biodegradation, tem­
perature, and operating parameters such as irrigation cycle and hydraulic loading rate, are assessed. Results show
that greater substrate depth enhances nutrient removal efficiency in GWs by facilitating efficient filtration,
straining, adsorption, and various biological processes at varying depths. Particle size and pore size are critical
substrate characteristics in GWs. They can significantly impact the effectiveness of physicochemical and bio­
logical removal processes by providing sufficient pollutant contact time, active surface area, and by influencing
saturation and redox conditions. Hydraulic loading rate (HLR) also impacts the contact time and redox condi­
tions. An HLR between 50 and 60 mm/d during the vegetation growing season provides optimal nutrient
removal. Furthermore, nutrient removal was higher when watering cycles were customized to specific vegetation
types and their drought tolerances.

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are generally effective to meet

1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization results from economic and social growth and is
accelerating the key global environmental issues including air, water
and waste pollution, decreased vegetative land cover, and urban heat
island effects (Liang et al., 2019). One of the most challenging impacts of
urbanization is voluminous wastewater generation (Zheng and Kamal,
2020), which is anticipated to rise by 51% by 2050 (Qadir et al., 2020).
Treatment of this wastewater in centralized treatment plants in towns
and cities requires substantial infrastructure, land, and energy. Although
local standards, they are expensive capital and operational assets and
incur high carbon footprints. For example, in the United States, WWTPs
and drinking water treatment accounts for up to 3–4% of the country’s
electricity consumption (Glover et al., 2021). Furthermore, aging
wastewater infrastructure is propelling the need to consider alternative
options including nature-based solutions that are decentralized.
Nature-based wastewater treatment systems, such as treatment wetlands
(TWs), green walls (GWs), and green roofs (GRs), offer many advantages
over centralized WWTPs.
Municipal wastewater is mainly produced by households (and other

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
E-mail addresses: aisling.osullivan@canterbury.ac.nz (A.D. O’Sullivan), hamish.mackey@canterbury.ac.nz (H.R. Mackey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118917
Received 8 June 2023; Received in revised form 28 August 2023; Accepted 29 August 2023
Available online 7 September 2023
0301-4797/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Gholami et al.
Abbreviation list/nomenclature
AFP Air-filled porosity
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CEC Cation exchange capacity
CLR Contaminant loading rate
CLW Continuous living wall
COD Chemical oxygen demand
DO Dissolved oxygen
DON Dissolved organic nitrogen
EC Electrical conductivity
GRs Green roofs
GWs Green walls
HDI Human Development Index
HLR Hydraulic loading rate
HRT Hydraulic retention time
IGF Indirect green façade
LECA Light expanded clay aggregate
MLW Modular living wall
tenanted buildings) and can be split into two key forms: blackwater and
greywater. Blackwater comes from toilets and contains urine, toilet
paper, and faecal matter; while greywater comes from baths, showers,
hand basins, washing machines and dishwashers. Kitchen sinks may be
directed to greywater or blackwater due to their high organic, nutrient
and microbial load. Greywater has a relatively lower pathogenic risk and
lower nutrient concentration (median TN: 11.0 and TP: 7.5 mg/L)
compared to blackwater or to mixed domestic sewage, making it easier
to treat and reuse in a decentralized manner (Patil et al., 2022; Paulo
et al., 2013). Up to 70% of total household water use ends up as grey­
water (Shaikh and Ahammed, 2020). While usually mixed with black­
water, separating greywater from it offers a number of reuse
opportunities including irrigation, toilet flushing, and laundry that can
also help reduce household water use by up to 50% in arid regions
(Radingoana et al., 2020). On-site greywater treatment could also lower
the risk of relying on centralized WWTPs and/or on centralized water
supply systems. Areas of most relevance are those that experience water
shortages (Paulo et al., 2013) or in regions at risk of natural disasters
such as earthquakes, flooding and tsunamis, which can lead to infra­
structure failures, including pipe damage, treatment plant disruptions,
and contamination of water sources. Furthermore, a decentralized
wastewater treatment-reuse approach can negate high energy and other
costs associated with conveyance and treatment at centralized systems
(Li et al., 2022). The NBS approach can also sequester carbon through
vegetation, offer biodiversity enhancements and reduce heat island ef­
fects (Castellar et al., 2022).
Successful removal of nutrients in NBS for low-cost greywater reuse
has been demonstrated primarily in TWs (Lakho et al., 2020), although
there has been growing interest in the use of GWs for greywater treat­
ment (Gattringer et al., 2016; Masi et al., 2016). GWs are constructed
with vegetation grown in substrate-filled containers suspended on the
side of buildings with a vertical support frame. They require little hor­
izontal footprint, can improve the aesthetics of residential and office
buildings, and provide thermal regulation through shading and insu­
lation (Bakhshoodeh et al., 2022). Additionally, GWs can mitigate
external noise, improve local air quality and are reportedly relatively
easily maintained (Perini and Rosasco, 2013). Compared to TWs, GWs
require lightweight substrates, they convey (waste)water through
shorter vertical (as opposed to horizontal) unsaturated flow paths, and
vegetation is typically ornamental species. It has recently been demon­
strated that greywater can be safely applied as ‘fertigation’ (fertilizer
and irrigation) to green wall vegetation without negative effects on
vegetation growth (Chung et al., 2021). Compared to horizontal-flow
2
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
N Nitrogen
NBS Nature-based solutions
NH3 Ammonia
NH+4 Ammonium
NLR Nitrogen loading rate
NO−2 Nitrite
NO−3 Nitrate
OrgN Organic nitrogen
P Phosphorus
PAOs Polyphosphate-accumulating organisms
PLR Phosphorus loading rate
PO34 Phosphate
WSI Water Stress Index
TDN Total dissolved nitrogen
TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TN Total nitrogen
TP Total phosphorus
TWs Treatment wetlands
WWTPs Wastewater treatment plants
TWs that typically command substantial land footprints not readily
available, or affordable, in urban environments, and which require
vegetation to be hydrophytic (water-loving) to withstand their water­
logged conditions, GW have minimal land requirements and can support
non-hydrophytic vegetation that can align to the native ecosystem and
be more aesthetic.
Most studies of greywater treatment by GWs have focused on the
pollutant removal performance by different vegetation species and/or
substrate composition, along with some design aspects (e.g. planter di­
mensions, biofilter units, or irrigation method). Specifically, only four
review papers related to greywater treatment by GWs, GRs, and/or TWs
are published (Arden and Ma, 2018; Boano et al., 2020b; Mahmoudi
et al., 2021; Pradhan et al., 2019a). Boano et al. (2020b) reviewed
greywater treatment performance in TWs, GWs, and GRs (until August
2019) as a function of their hydraulics, as well as assessing some envi­
ronmental impact considerations using life cycle assessments. Pradhan
et al. (2019a) assessed the social, cultural, health, and cost consider­
ations of GWs and GRs (until August 2018) for greywater treatment,
providing a brief description of the roles of substrate and vegetation in
nutrient removal. Arden and Ma (2018) focused only on greywater
treatment in TWs while Mahmoudi et al. (2021) reviewed GRs only.
While these studies summarised the performance of different substrate
and vegetation types, they lacked detailed explanation of how specific
nutrient removal processes, such as vegetative uptake and biofilm
degradation, contribute to nutrient removal. Moreover, these studies did
not specifically assess nutrient removal from greywater in GWs with
regards to green wall type and configurations. Furthermore, specific
operational criteria, such as pollutant and hydraulic loading rates, sea­
sonality, and irrigation cycle have not been investigated in relation to
nutrient treatment. Removal of nutrients becomes crucial in internal
greywater reuse scenarios (e.g. toilet flushing) to prevent the growth of
biofilms within pipes. Additionally, when utilizing greywater for out­
door irrigation purposes, effective nutrient removal is essential to
minimize the risks of nutrient leaching into surface and groundwater
sources. Green walls treating greywater can therefore help mitigate the
potential for nutrient-related water quality pollution, ensuring envi­
ronmentally responsible and sustainable water management practices.
With the growing number of published studies trialling GWs to treat
greywater, it’s apt timing to critically assess the nutrient removal effi­
ciencies and treatment mechanisms at play with respect to different
substrate properties, vegetation species and operational conditions of
the various studies.
The main objectives of this critical review are to (i) assess the
M. Gholami et al.
variations in greywater source characteristics suitable for treatment in
GWs; (ii) synthesize the literature on nutrient removal efficiencies from
greywater by different types of GWs; (iii) summarize the nutrient
removal mechanisms and fate of the nutrients in GWs; (iv) assess the
effects of key operating parameters (hydraulic loading rates, nutrient
loads, temperature, seasonal changes, irrigation cycle, and biofilter
design) on nutrient removal; (v) explain the critical physicochemical
characteristics of the GW substrates and; (vi) highlight research gaps/
limitations related to the success of GW greywater treatment systems to
remove nutrients.
2. Methodology
This study searched Scopus and Google Scholar databases for sci­
entific literature on greywater treatment in green walls, green roofs, and
treatment wetlands. The TW and GR considered in this search included
only vertical-flow systems, which share common nutrient removal
mechanisms with GWs. By including all three NBS in the literature
search, a richer data-set was obtained to understand the effects of
common operating parameters on nutrient removal. Furthermore, pub­
lications on substrate properties, vegetation species, biofilm character­
istics, and their role in nutrient removal from greywater or wastewater,
were captured.
A detailed methodology was developed for the literature review
process as illustrated in Fig. 1, which outlines the search criteria and
publication selection process. Eligible research papers were initially
screened based on a high-level review of their title, keywords, and ab­
stract (Step 1). To be accepted, a study was required to satisfy at least
Fig. 1. Summary of data gathering and analysis methodology.
3
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
one of the three predefined inclusion-exclusion criteria established
during the screening process; otherwise, it was excluded (Step 2). The
criteria were: (2.1) Does the study provide information on nutrient
removal from greywater by green walls? (2.2) Does the complementary
(i.e. if not specifically GW) study discuss nutrient removal mechanisms
and operating parameter effects in vertical-flow TWs and GRs treating
greywater? (2.3) Does the study investigate the role of substrate, mi­
croorganisms, or vegetation in nutrient removal from greywater? The
most relevant studies meeting the criteria were further examined in Step
3, from which key data relevant to the research objectives (Step 4) were
retrieved, organized into summary figures and tables, and then assessed
and discussed (Step 5).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Discipline and region-specific studies on green walls to treat
greywater
The total number (n) of scientific reports published on different as­
pects of green walls are mainly in the engineering (225), environmental
science (190), social science (101), and energy disciplines (89) as pre­
sented in Fig. 2(a). Since 2016 (Gattringer et al., 2016; Masi et al.,
2016), there have been an increasing number of studies on using GWs to
treat greywater (Fig. 2(b)). This trend is expected to continue because
the more recent studies have focused on the development and optimi­
zation of GWs by examining their substrates, vegetation, system design,
operational parameters, and removal of emerging pollutants (Abd-ur-­
Rehman et al., 2022). Moreover, GWs are becoming more prominent as
M. Gholami et al. Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

<0.6), to 30 L/(p.d) in Mali with a HDI of 0.42 and low WSI (<0.3). The
variation is attributed to the different living standards and relatedly,
water availability (Khanam and Patidar, 2022). In the more ‘developed’
nations, greywater volumes and average daily per person water con­
sumption were reported at median per capita rates of between 62 and
223 L/(p.d) and 78–343 L/(p.d) by Shaikh and Ahammed (2020). The
figures for low income countries were 14–140 L/(p.d) and 35–234 L/(p.
d). Not surprisingly, Yemen, one of the least developed countries with
low water availability (WSI>1), produces an average of only 35 L/(p.d)
greywater (Ghaitidak and Yadav, 2013).
The greywater pollution signature is very dependent on the use of
chemical products such as soaps, shampoos and body wash, toothpaste,
cosmetics, detergent, shaving cream, and other personal care and
cleaning products that contain a wide range of resulting pollutants
(Shaikh and Ahammed, 2020). Overall, greywater contains up to 30% of
the organic carbon load and 9–20% of nutrients in domestic wastewater
(Fountoulakis et al., 2016). Table 1 shows two categories of greywater
based on its pollution strength and associated source. Light greywater
includes wastewater from the bathroom washbasin, shower and floor
cleaning, while dark greywater is typically only wastewater from the
kitchen and laundry. The presence of oil and food waste from kitchen
greywater, as well as detergent from laundry greywater, leads to high
levels of organic pollution and phosphorus in dark greywater compared
to light greywater. Moreover, dark greywater has elevated suspended
solids (SS) at 35–2945 mg/L and turbidity at 50–332 NTU (Table 1),
arising from food particles from kitchen greywater, as well as hair and
fibres from laundry greywater.
Table 2 summarizes water quality across the different greywater
streams and studies. The main water quality variables measured in
greywater include BOD5, COD, pH, and nutrients in the form of various
N and P forms. The data reveal that overall concentrations of these
pollutants vary greatly from one country to another, as well between
sources within the same study (Table 2). Even within the same neigh­
bourhood, it has been found that greywater characteristics vary
depending on inhabitant water usage, lifestyle and household/personal
care product usage (Boyjoo et al., 2013).
Oxygen demands are a measure of the oxygen required by respiring

Table 1
Dark and light greywater constituents and quality characteristics (Antonopoulou
Fig. 2. (a) The total number of scientific reports published on different aspects et al., 2013; Boyjoo et al., 2013; Dal Ferro et al., 2021; do Couto et al., 2013;
of green walls; (b) Number of studies on treatment wetlands, green walls, and Eriksson et al., 2002; Khajvand et al., 2022; Khanam and Patidar, 2022; Shaikh
green roofs treating greywater between 2010 and 2023; (c) Number of studies and Ahammed, 2020; Verma et al., 2021; Vuppaladadiyam et al., 2019). Values
on greywater treatment by green walls by country. represent min-max ranges and (median) ± standard deviation.
Source/water Types
part of sustainable building design; thus the integration with greywater quality Dark greywater Light greywater
characteristics Kitchen: Dish washing Bathroom: Shampoo, soap,
treatment becomes increasingly attractive (Pradhan et al., 2019a).
detergents, oil and fats, food toothpaste, lint, traces of
Globally, Australia (n = 10 studies) and Italy (n = 7 studies) have residue, hot water, raw meat urine, body care products,
dominated the literature on greywater treatment by GWs (Fig. 2(c)), washing, fruit and vegetable hairs, skin, hair oil, body
possibly because of the significant droughts and arid conditions those peels, tea or coffee, traces of fats, hot water and sand/
regions encountered in the past decade. food preservatives, sand and clay particles a.
clay particles a.
Laundry: Chemicals from Hand basin: Toothpaste,
3.2. Greywater quantity and quality detergents, oils, solvents, soaps, body care products,
bleaches, paints, hot water, shaving waste, hairs, and
The quantity and water quality of greywater varies according to its nonbiodegradable fibres from skin cells a.
clothing a.
origin. The average daily volume of greywater generated per person
pH 6.8–10.0 (8.4) ±1.6 6.5–8.1 (7.3) ±0.8
significantly differs across countries, depending on their Human EC (μS/cm) 190-5700 (2945) ±2755 80.-250 (165) ±85
Development Index (HDI) and Water Stress Index (WSI). HDI is a Turbidity (NTU) 50–332 (191) ±141 28–240 (134) ±106
normalized indicator that measures a country’s level of development, TSS (mg/L) 35-2945 (1490) ±1455 28-120 (74) ±46
while WSI defines the availability of water resources in a particular re­ COD (mg/L) 88-5150 (2619) ±2531 72-380 (226) ±154
BOD5 (mg/L) 70-998 (534) ±464 20-200 (110) ±90
gion. Water consumption in countries, such as USA, with HDI >0.8 is TN (mg/L) 2.7–21.0 (12.0) ±9.1 5.0–17.0 (11.0) ±6.0
high, exemplifying that higher quantities of greywater are generated in Ammonium (mg/ <0.1–11.0 (5.6) ±5.5 <0.1–15.0 (7.5) ±7.4
developed countries compared to countries with a low HDI of <0.5, such L)
as Yemen, Ghana, and Mali (Khanam and Patidar, 2022; Shaikh and Nitrate (mg/L) <0.005–2.0 (1) ±0.9 <0.05–6.0 (3.1) ±2.9
TP (mg/L) 0.062–57.0 (28.5) ±28.4 0.1–15.1 (7.5) ±7.4
Ahammed, 2020). Consumption volumes ranged from 208 L/(p.d) in the
USA with a corresponding HDI of 0.92 and moderate WSI (0.3 ≤ WSI a
(Shaikh and Ahammed, 2020).

4
 M. Gholami et al.
Table 2
Kitchen, laundry, shower, bath, and mixed greywater quality characteristics from different greywater streams.
Greywater pH EC (μS/cm) Turbidity TSS (mg/L) COD (mg/L) BOD5 (mg/ N (mg/L) P (mg/L) BOD5/ Surfactants Country/Ref.
source (NTU) L) COD (mg/L)

Kitchen 7.8–9.5 (8.7) 880–1065 (992) 88–333 (139) – 455–1102 (855) 70–255 TKN: 16–45 (28) TP: (0.2) 8.9–19 (12.6) Italy (Dal Ferro et al.,
(200) NH+4 : 2.5–11 (6.9) 13.9–17.7 (15.7) 2021)
NO−3 : <0.005–0.02 P-PO3-4 : 5–7.5
(0.01) (6.5)
Laundry Household: Household: 82- Household: Laundry facility: Hospital: (280) – Hospital: TN: (2.8) Hospital: TP: – – South Korea (Kim and
8.1–9.4 250 60-240 56-230 Laundry facility: Laundry facility: TN: (9.9) Park, 2022)
Hospital: (9.6) Laundry facility: Dormitory: 20- 727-1434 6.7–12.7 Laundry facility:
Laundry facility: 2009-5747 2946 Dormitory: 792- TP: 1.8–22
7.9–9.0 Dormitory: 284- 5150
Dormitory: 740
6.1–8.5
Laundry 7-9 (8) – 40–150 90–200 400–1000 – – – – 1–15 Italy (Ciabattia et al.,
industrial 2009)
Shower (7.6) ± 0.4 (645) ± 67 (29) ± 11 – (109) ± 33 (59) ± 13 TKN: (15.2) ± 4.5 TP: (1.6) ± 0.5 (0.5) (0.3) Morocco (Merz et al.,
5

NH+
4 : (11.8) ±4.2 P-PO3-
4 : (1.0) ± 2007)
0.4
Public bath (8) ± 0.1 (811) ± 185 (68) ± 28 (40) ± 30 (72.) ±51 – TN: (7.0) ± 3.5 TP: (0.4) ± 0.2 – – Denmark (Prajapati
et al., 2019)
Bathroom 7.3–7.(7.6) 358-627 (468) 35-462 (150) 37-360 (125) 112-1001 (399) 78-670 TN: 4–16 (9.5) TP: 0.2–1.1 (0.4) (0.6) 0.3–11 (6.8) France (Chaillou et al.,
(240) 2011)
Mixed 6.9–7.4 (7.1) – 39-254 (103) 28-146 (79) 179-525 (347) 72-182 TKN: 2–13 (8.0) TP: 4–15 (9.5) (0.3) – Turkey (Baban et al.,
(119) NH+4 : 0.6–5.5 (2.2) 2010)
Mixed 5-8 (7) 1208-2530 (2044) – 333-744 (537) 270-1595 (758) 270-1595 NH+4 : 7–2 (14.8) TP: 1–3 (2) (0.3) – Ghana (Oteng-Peprah
(253) NO−3 : 0.1–5 (2.5) et al., 2018b)
Mixed (8.3) ± 0.3 – (185) ± 6 – (350) ± 23 (280) ± 16 – – (0.8) – Iran (Bahrami et al.,
2020)

Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

Laundry (8.6) – (247) (266) (1590) (260) – – (0.2) India (Patil et al.,
Kitchen (7.1) (298) (717) (1083) (998) (0.9) 2022)
Wash basin (8.1) (102) (181) (424) (252) (0.6)
Bathing (7.4) (209) (256) (366) (215) (0.6)
Mixed (7.4) (133) (216) (831) (245) (0.3)

N: Nitrogen, P: Phosphorus.
M. Gholami et al.
microorganisms (BOD5) or strong chemical oxidants (COD) to oxidize
carbon in the water. Laundry wastewater accounts for the highest con­
centration of COD (Tables 1 and 2), which is mainly generated from
surfactants and other disinfectants in cleaning or washing activities
(Verma et al., 2021). This source of greywater is not so easily treated in
biofilters because the carbon is less bioavailable to microorganisms.
When the BOD5/COD ratio is ≥ 0.5, the greywater is readily degradable
by microbial assimilation – meaning there is sufficient carbon to support
biological growth and hence wastewater treatment. Low biodegrad­
ability (when BOD5/COD is < 0.5) can sometimes be attributed to the
presence of surfactants and other more recalcitrant chemicals, which
impede biodegrading microorganisms (Khajvand et al., 2022). Where
data was reported, the BOD5/COD ratio for all types of greywater ranged
between 0.16 and 0.92 (Table 2), with a mean > 0.54 (Patil et al., 2022),
indicating there is generally sufficient biodegradable carbon to support
microbial growth during greywater treatment.
High pH values in greywater are primarily caused by alkaline sub­
stances in detergents, particularly from laundry sources (Oteng-Peprah
et al., 2018a). Strongly acidic or alkaline pH (pH < 6.0 and pH > 8.0,
respectively) can hinder the treatment processes in vegetated biofilters
(Saeed and Sun, 2012), so it is critical to achieve a balanced pH. The pH
is also important for healthy growth of vegetation in GWs, as the sub­
strate acidity/alkalinity affects the solubility and availability of mac­
ronutrients (Gentili et al., 2018). From Table 2, the pH values in
different greywater sources varied widely between 5.0 and 9.6, with
laundry greywater having the highest pH levels because of alkaline
materials in detergents (Khajvand et al., 2022). Therefore, day equal­
ization tanks or pH-buffering may be required before conveying grey­
water directly to GWs. Of all the studies that tested greywater treatment
in GWs, only Lakho et al. (2022) used real (as opposed to synthetic)
greywater, which they stored without any pre-treatment before
conveying it to the green walls.
Electrical conductivity (EC), total suspended solids (TSS), and
turbidity levels are also higher in kitchen and laundry greywater, in
comparison to bathroom and handbasin greywater, due to solid re­
siduals from food particles, oil and grease (O&G), soil, sand and dis­
solved solids (Boyjoo et al., 2013). Values for EC, TSS and turbidity in
dark greywater ranged from 190 to 5700 μS/cm, 35 to 2945 mg/L, and
50 to 332 NTU, respectively (Table 1). Specifically, EC values are higher
in mixed (1208–2530 μS/cm), laundry (2009–5747 μS/cm), and kitchen
(880–1065 μS/cm) greywater compared to other sources (Table 2). EC is
a measure of the total ionic strength (from dissolved elements or com­
pounds) of wastewater, which tends to be higher in laundry wastewater
due to the alkali salts in laundry detergents. It has been suggested that
higher EC values, representing high concentrations of dissolved ions,
may compete for substrate adsorption sites affecting nutrient removal
(Nikpay, 2022) and can hinder nutrient uptake by vegetation (at EC >
3000 μS/cm or TDS >2000 mg/L) due to an increase in the osmotic
pressure of the solution (Yuvaraj et al., 2021). Therefore, lower EC
values in greywater could help nutrient removal and vegetation survival
in GWs, though more research effort is required, particularly in the case
of long-term studies that include assessment of changes in both the
planting media and plant metabolism. However, nitrification and
denitrification process are generally not so affected by EC, while phos­
phate is typically removed by co-precipitation with solids and
adsorption.
Nutrients in greywater mainly originate in the kitchen and laundry
with TN and TP ranging from 2.75 to 21 and 0.062–57 mg/L, respec­
tively, so greywater with high proportions of kitchen and laundry
sources have higher nutrient concentrations (Oteng-Peprah et al.,
2018a). Kitchen wastewater is rich in nitrogen because of biogenic
amines present in food (Eriksson et al., 2002) while bathroom greywater
has the lowest nitrogen concentrations (Eriksson et al., 2002). The main
source of phosphorus in greywater is from frequent use of detergents
used in the kitchen and/or laundry because they typically contain so­
dium tripolyphosphates or potassium phosphates; agents that decrease
6
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
water hardness to improve cleaning performance (Turner et al., 2013).
Concentrations of TKN and TP in kitchen greywater are between 16-45
and 14–18 mg/L, respectively (Dal Ferro et al., 2021), while Kim and
Park (2022) reported that TN and TP concentrations for laundry facil­
ities varied between 7-13 and 2–22 mg/L, respectively (Table 2).
3.3. Green wall types
GWs are categorized into two major groups (Fig. 3) – green façades
and living walls. These are further subcategorized depending on how the
substrate and vegetation are supported (Cuce, 2017). Green facades
include direct green façade systems (DGF) in which climbing or
cascading vegetation grow directly on the wall (Fig. 3(a)) and indirect
green facades (IGF) which use detached vertical supporters (e.g. trellis,
steel cables and wires, rope, and mesh systems) (Fig. 3(b)) to support the
substrate and vegetation (El Menshawy et al., 2022). Living wall systems
(LWS) are categorized into modular and continuous forms, as shown in
Fig. 3(c) and (d). Modular living walls (MLW) consist of several modular
containers containing substrate and vegetation (Manso and
Castro-Gomes, 2015). These modules may take different forms such as
panels, wire cages, trays, vessels, planter tiles, flexible bags, etc,
although container pots are most common. They are attached to a spe­
cific supporting structure, one above the other, thus if the vegetation
dies in one module, the affected module can be easily replaced
(Addo-Bankas et al., 2021). In contrast, continuous living walls (CLW)
are a single sheet of mat-like material or permeable frames containing a
small amount of substrate (Al-Kayiem et al., 2020; Prodanovic et al.,
2019a). CLWs are lighter but more challenging to maintain because they
comprise one unit and therefore are less easy to replace if needed. In
comparison to green façades, LWS require more complicated planter
modules, irrigation systems, structural support, specific growing sub­
strate, and installation needs, leading to higher total construction and
maintenance costs (Vox et al., 2022). However, they do provide a rapid
coverage of large surfaces and a more uniform growth along the wall (El
Menshawy et al., 2022).
The design and operation of different green wall types differ pri­
marily according to their substrate characteristics and substrate depth.
These substrate attributes affect the specific surface area available for
pollutant exchange and transformation, effective root depth and aera­
tion capacity that influences substrate redox conditions. The number
and type of vegetation that can be supported in different GWs therefore
varies and, in turn, also influences nutrient removal from the greywater.
Green facades typically use climbing plants, while living walls pre­
dominantly use non-climbing ornamental species that require additional
supporting structures to accommodate multiple units and provide
adequate surface area for pollutant removal (El Menshawy et al., 2022).
However, weight restrictions on supporting structures may limit the
design of biofilters in MLW, particularly when implementing saturated
zone designs. Green facades can accommodate vegetation with exten­
sive roots and heavier substrate loads compared to living walls. The
number of plants and biofilter units, along with their shape, structure,
and substrate volume, play a crucial role in sustaining nutrient removal
under various operating conditions. For instance, living wall formats
with greater surface openings (e.g. CLW) can enhance substrate aeration
(Lakho et al., 2021b) compared to individual deeper modules, but may
also face increased evapotranspiration losses. For instance a study
comparing pot-based and closed-block (column) designs found no sig­
nificant difference in nutrient removal, while the block design had
higher resistance to dry periods due to its more enclosed structure
(Prodanovic et al., 2020). The optimal number of vertical treatment
units (or levels) in GWs is a crucial design consideration, as the addition
of extra units may result in higher construction costs and higher organic
leaching from the longer passage through the organic media (Proda­
novic et al., 2019a). The number of treatment units employed in GWs
should therefore consider factors such as vegetation type, removal ef­
ficiency goals, and cost-effectiveness.
M. Gholami et al. Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

Fig. 3. Schematic diagrams of different green wall types: (a) Direct green façade (DGF); (b) Indirect green façade (IGF); (c) Modular living wall (MLW); (d)
Continuous living wall (CLW).

3.4. Greywater treatment in green walls areas of 14.4 m2 and 5.4 m2 were assessed for treating 100 L per day of
the same greywater. Their results showed low TN removal of 8% for the
A number of studies have examined the treatment of greywater in low (7 L m− 2 d− 1) loading rate and 26% for the higher rate (11.7 L m− 2
LWS using a variety of vegetation species (e.g. climbing, ornamental, d− 1) (Lakho et al., 2021b, 2022). The authors attributed poor nitrate
ferns, etc.) and growing substrates (e.g. perlite, sand, coir, and LECA) removal to aerobic conditions that inhibited denitrification at both the
(Table S1). From a total of 17 studies reporting GWs treating greywater, front and back side of CLW. However, more than 85% TN removal by
13 studies (76%) examined MLW designs in bench-scale and pilot-scale MLWs has been frequently reported in other studies (Fowdar et al.,
applications to evaluate the water quality treatment and suitability of 2017; Prodanovic et al., 2019a, 2020), highlighting the importance of
various substrates and vegetation. From Table S1, these studies reveal system sizing, substrate redox conditions, choice of vegetation and
that LWS are typically able to remove nitrogen (up to 93%), but not as suitable hydraulic loading rates for effective greywater treatment in
much phosphorus (67%). Only one study focused on the IGF system, GWs.
which was based on a single planter box at the base of the wall (Fowdar
et al., 2017). The MLW design was found to be more suitable for grey­
3.5. Nutrient removal mechanisms from greywater in green walls
water treatment due to its flexible design and adequate substrate volume
supporting a high root density and mixed vegetation and substrates
The different nitrogen and phosphorous removal mechanisms likely
(Prodanovic et al., 2019).
occurring in GWs involving vegetation uptake, bacterial metabolism,
The TN removal efficiency for the different types of green walls
filtration, and adsorption, are illustrated in Fig. 4(a). These mechanisms
varies between 7 and 91% for IGF, 48–93% for MLW, and 8–26% for
are summarised from the literature on greywater treatment using green
CLW, respectively, while the TP removal ranges are 7–67% for IGF and
walls and vertical-flow treatment systems and the occurrence of each
2–53% for MLW systems (Table S1). These different removal efficiencies
process is strongly dependent on specific experimental conditions and
can be attributed to the use of different substrates, vegetation species,
the design type of the system. Nitrogen removal mechanisms involve
pollutant concentrations and hydraulic loading rates across the studies
numerous N-species, ranging from inorganic (NO−3 , NO−2 , NH+ 4 , N2O, and
(Table S1). The sorption capacity of different substrates and nutrient
N2) to particulate and dissolved organic nitrogen. Vegetation uptake,
uptake of different vegetation species can vary over time due to several
biofilm encapsulation, substrate adsorption, and filtration processes of
factors, including biological activity, substrate saturation, and accu­
particulate organic nutrients, followed by hydrolysis and dissolved
mulation of phosphorus in the system. Over the operating period of
nutrient removal mechanisms, are regarded as the dominant pathways
GWs, these factors can adversely influence the effectiveness of P
in removing nitrogen in GWs (Pradhan et al., 2019a). However, their
removal. Gattringer et al. (2016) implemented a MLW design (in Spain)
individual roles in GWs are still a matter of discussion due to the com­
using mixed vegetation and expanded clay that removed 96% COD,
plex inter-dependency between these mechanisms.
>97% BOD5, 99% TSS and 97% ammonium from greywater. However,
Processes responsible for greywater treatment can also vary within
nitrate leaching was observed in their GW effluent due to intensive
the different layers of GWs. There are four main depth zones in a GW
aeration of the substrate by perforated hoses at the bottom of the con­
treatment system, namely upper, rhizosphere, middle, and bottom
tainers, thereby impeding denitrification (Table S1). In two more recent
(Fig. 4(b)). While the relationships between removal mechanisms and
studies by Lakho et al., in 2021 and in 2022, a CLW was established
specific pollutants in GWs are inconclusive, several key studies have
using individual GW panels consisting of an iron-mesh frame with a bag
hypothesized the presence of particular removal mechanisms in
of substrate enclosed within a geotextile filter. Two different GW surface
different layers of GWs (Fowdar et al., 2017; Pradhan et al., 2019b,

7
M. Gholami et al. Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

Fig. 4. (a) Potential nutrient removal mechanisms by vegetation, substrate, and biofilm interactions within GWs; (b) Targeted pollutants and potential associated
removal mechanisms listed underneath (Fowdar et al., 2017; Pradhan et al., 2019b, 2020; Prodanovic et al., 2017, 2019a, 2020).

2020; Prodanovic et al., 2017, 2019a, 2020). These are summarised in
Fig. 4 to serve as a point for readers to consider in the design and
optimization of GW systems, and as a starting point for further research
to better understand the specific contribution of each mechanism. The
intent is not to indicate dominant mechanisms or their relative
contributions.
The occurrence and effectiveness of greywater treatment processes
depend heavily on the design of the system, such as whether it is satu­
rated or unsaturated, the depth, porosity and particle size of the sub­
strate, and operational factors (e.g. temperature, pollutant loading rate,
etc.). For instance, nitrogen is mainly transformed by the action of
suspended microorganisms from the greywater accumulated on the
substrate upper surface or within its pores through biological processes
(Pradhan et al., 2019b). In vertical-flow TW treating greywater, nitrogen
is typically removed via ammonification, nitrification, denitrification
(especially in lower layers) and, biomass assimilation (e.g. dissimilatory
nitrate reduction) (Ramprasad and Philip, 2018). Conversely, in a GW
system, most organic nitrogen is removed from greywater in the upper
layers (Fig. 4(b)), where aerobic conditions support autotrophic nitri­
fying bacteria to nitrify organic nitrogen and ammonia into nitrogen
oxides (NOx) (Fowdar et al., 2017). The uppermost layer is constantly
reoxygenated because of its exposure to air (Fowdar et al., 2018) which
rarely occurs in waterlogged treatment wetland systems. Various forms
of particulates, including particulate nitrogen, can also be removed by
filtration in the upper substrate layers while suspended solids can adsorb
both organic and inorganic nutrients via exchangeable adsorption (Li

8
M. Gholami et al.
and Zuo, 2020). Ammonification may also rapidly occur in the upper
zones under aerobic conditions, converting amino acids to ammonia
(Saeed and Sun, 2012).
Under saturated (i.e. waterlogged) conditions, dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations in the middle and bottom zones may decrease from
microbial aerobic respiration, leading to anaerobic and eventually
anoxic conditions in some parts of the media where denitrifying bacteria
may be active (Fowdar et al., 2017). This could be ascertained by
measuring dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in different layers of the GW
biofilter or by identifying and studying the microbial communities
present. These approaches would offer valuable information to elucidate
the impacts of each removal mechanism. For a typical MLW-style GW, a
study by Pradhan et al. (2019b) showed that even after vegetation was
removed, nitrogen continued to be removed in the lower layers, indi­
cating the occurrence of denitrification. Sami et al. (2023) observed
significant ammonium reductions and transformations, with volatiliza­
tion and/or nitrification (aided by pumice and biochar), and possible
denitrification occuring in a green wall, resulting in lower total nitrogen
levels primarily in the form of nitrite and nitrate in the effluent. How­
ever, microbial identification using PCR techniques (DNA extraction)
would be necessary to confirm the specific activity of nitrifying and
denitrifying bacteria in nitrification and denitrification zones.
Phosphorus is mainly removed from greywater by substrate
adsorption and filtration in the upper layers (Fig. 4) (Shen et al., 2020).
Prodanovic et al. (2019a) showed that 88% particulate phosphorous and
90% TSS removal was achieved by substrates alone in GWs. For particles
with a size larger than the substrate pore size, straining filtration is
dominant, and for smaller particles, other mechanisms such as inter­
ception and diffusion are involved (Cescon and Jiang, 2020). Major
fractions of phosphorus such as inorganic (metal-bound forms), organic,
and solid-adsorbed inorganic forms, can be separated by physical
entrapment. Other adsorption mechanisms based on substrate compo­
sition such as electrostatic interactions, Lewis acid–base interaction, ion
exchange, ligand exchange, inner sphere complexation, outer sphere
complexation, and hydrogen bonding may also occur (Almanassra et al.,
2021). Soluble phosphate can be precipitated as insoluble metal com­
plexes by reacting with metal ions within the substrate, and insoluble
phosphorus can be trapped by straining or by other physical filtration
mechanisms, which depends on the pH, particle and pore size (Shen
et al., 2020). To gain a comprehensive understanding of these mecha­
nisms, several techniques can be employed, such as Fourier-transform
infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD),
energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), scanning electron micro­
scopy (SEM), zeta potential analysis, and other physicochemical ana­
lyses. These techniques can help elucidate the role of adsorption
mechanisms in pollutant removal. However, some phosphorus may also
be removed through biological activities in GWs. When anaerobic con­
ditions exist, such as in saturated pores of the lower GW layers, poly­
phosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs) are able to establish
(Prodanovic et al., 2017). Given polyphosphate storage is generally
associated with alternating redox, nutrient or substrate availability, such
a mechanism may be strongly linked to irrigation frequency and the
changing saturation of pore volumes.
Various substrate depths from 15 cm to 94 cm are reported for GWs
treating greywater (Fowdar et al., 2017; Prodanovic et al., 2019a) and
nutrient removal occurs at different depth zones (Fig. 4(b)). While it
may appear improbable to encounter anaerobic conditions at shallower
depths with traditional MLW, it is conceivable that specific areas of
agglomerated particles or biofilm situated at the bottom of the material
could generate anaerobic conditions. However, knowledge in this area
of GWs is constrained, and current literature merely speculates the
possibility based on theoretical assumptions derived from packed bed
trickling filters and similar systems (Fowdar et al., 2017; Pradhan et al.,
2019b). Microbial identification may help determine the specific groups
of aerobic or anaerobic microorganisms involved. Pradhan et al. (2020)
found that with increasing substrate depth from 15 cm to 40–60 cm, TN
9
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
and phosphate removal significantly increased from 37 to 45% and
25–35%, respectively. Similarly, Thomaidi et al. (2022) observed that
better COD, TP, and TN were removed from greywater by increasing the
substrate depth from 10 to 20 cm. Prodanovic et al. (2023) revealed that
the 700 mm depth exhibited almost complete nitrification with 93%
ammonia removal, likely attributed to favourable contact time and
efficient activity of nitrite oxidizing bacteria, whereas the 300 mm and
150 mm depths achieved average removal rates of 43% and 19%
respectively. The enhanced removal efficiency could be ascribed to the
improved specific conditions for oxic, anoxic, and anaerobic processes,
but may also be attributed to superior physicochemical capture of pol­
lutants, possibly due to the linear increase in TN and TP removal with
substrate depth. To enhance understanding of the effects of substrate
depth, nutrient removal could be measured along the entire length of the
GW biofilter. This approach allows for the assessment of nutrient con­
centrations at different wastewater treatment stages and provides
valuable information regarding the effectiveness of the biofilter in
removing nutrients throughout its depth.
3.6. Effect of substrate properties on nutrient removal in green walls
GW substrates play an essential role in nutrient removal from grey­
water, facilitating filtration and adsorption processes and supporting
vegetation and microbial development. The physical and chemical
characteristics of GW substrates affect the hydraulic, chemical and
physical interactions of the water, roots and biofilm with some sub­
strates better suited and more cost-effective than others (Shen et al.,
2020). The removal of nitrogen and phosphorus can exhibit consider­
able variation depending on the types of substrates used. Sami et al.
(2023) observed that biochar exhibited a 75% average removal rate for
TN through significant nitrification, while hemp and pumice achieved
an average TN removal of 58%; however, in terms of TP removal, hemp
outperformed pumice and biochar by creating anaerobic zones and
utilizing the contribution of PAOs, resulting in removal rates of 66%,
61%, and 57%, respectively (Table 3). Specific substrate properties to
consider include particle size, pore size, porosity, air-filled porosity
(AFP), specific surface area, cation exchange capacity (CEC),
water-holding capacity (WHC), pH, and EC, and there are complex in­
terrelationships between them. To gain a better understanding of the
specific role of each removal mechanism and their interactions, it would
be beneficial to conduct experiments under different conditions while
keeping other parameters constant. Table 3 summarizes nutrient
removal by various commercial and waste substrates with different
physicochemical characteristics for greywater treatment by GWs. The
removal of TN varied between 10% with a removal rate of 0.68 (g/m3/d)
using light-weight expanded clay aggregate (LECA), and 45% with a
removal rate of 4.72 (g/m3/d) using grow stone. For TP removal, the
range was from 10% with a removal rate of 0.57 (g/m3/d) using
fyto-foam, to 20% with a removal rate of 1.14 (g/m3/d) using perlite.
While some studies investigated the removal efficiency of a single sub­
strate, others revealed the importance of using a mixture of substrates
for numerous reasons. To simultaneously target a wide range of pol­
lutants in a green wall, a mixture of substrates with different physico­
chemical characteristics is needed. Masi et al. (2016) found that the
mixture of LECA plus coconut fibres performed better than only sand or
LECA in removing organic matter and nutrients in GWs (Table 3). The
authors attributed this predominantly to the longer hydraulic retention
time of 40 min with mixed substrates compared to only 12 min using
LECA plus sand. Moreover, the mixture of LECA-coconut showed better
TKN removal performance (23%) than LECA-sand with only 15%
removal efficiency (Table 3). Galvão et al. (2022) similarly reported that
textile fibres in a GW were more prone to clogging and decreased
vegetation health due to their high water-retention capacity compared
to a more porous mixture of ceramic tiles and coconut fibres. However,
using a mixture of substrates makes it difficult to optimize the charac­
teristics for efficient nutrient removal and concurrently the treatment of
 M. Gholami et al.
Table 3
N and P removal efficiencies from greywater treated in different green wall experimental substrates of varying physiochemical characteristics.
Substrate pH EC Air filled Porosity Water-holding CEC Bulk Particle BET surface N removal P removal Volumetric N Volumetric P
(μs/ porosity (AFP) (%) capacity (WHC) (mmol/ Density (g/ size (mm) area (m2/g) (%) (%) removal (g/m3/d) removal (g/m3/d)
cm) (%) (%) kg) cm3)

Spent coffee grounds (SCG) – 3.5 – 55 40 4.8 0.34 0.1(d10)- 0.82 TN: 37 a P-PO3-
4 : 24 TN: 2.52 a P-PO3-
4 : 1.05
a
a a a
0.24(d60) NH+
4 : 40 NH+4 : 1.2
Date seeds – 2.4 – 68 28 2.4 0.84 0.42(d10)- 0.52 TN: 37 a P-PO3-
4 : 13 TN: 2.52 a P-PO3-
4 : 0.57
a
a a a
1.98(d60) NH+
4 : 38 NH+4 : 1.14
Coco coir 6.0 1.8 13 80 32 4.1 0.08 0.15(d10)- 1.098 TN: 35 a TP: 12 b TN: 2.38 a TP: 0.68 b
a
1.00(d60) NH+
4 : 38 P-PO3-
4 : 24 NH+4 : 1.14
a
P-PO3-
4 : 1.05
a
a

Rockwool 8.0 – 13 96 – – 0.85 – 0.17 TN: 35 b TP: 20 b TN: 3.67 b TP: 1.14 b
Fyto-foam – – – 99 – – 0.017 – 2.842 TN: 20 b TP: 10 b TN: 2.10 b TP: 0.57 b
Grow stone 7.0 – – 88 – – 0.202 – 0.132 TN: 45 b TP: 19 b TN: 4.72 b TP: 1.08 b
Light expanded clay 7.0 0.05 – 80 20 0.4 0.429 1.15(d10)- 0.587 TN: 10 a P-PO3-
4: 6
a
TN: 0.68 a P-PO3-
4 : 0.26
a
a a
aggregate (LECA) 2.00(d60) NH+
4 : 15 NH+4 : 0.45
Perlite 7.0 0.1 30 75 22 0.1 0.1 0.35(d10)- 1.345 TN: 12 a TP: 20 b TN: 0.81 a TP: 1.14 b
a
1.60(d60) NH+
4 : 30 P-PO3-
4: 8
a
NH+4 : 0.90
a
P-PO3-
4 : 0.35
a

Sand – 3.8 – 35 45 0.4 1.6 0.16(d10)- 0.076 TN: 20 a TP: 3 b TN: 1.36 a TP: 0.17 b
a
1.75(d60) NH+
4 : 58 P-PO3-
4 : 32 NH+4 : 1.74
a
P-PO3-
4 : 1.40
a
a
c
Coir:perlite (3:1) – – – 93 – – 0.091 – – TN: 50 TP: 40 TN: 5.25 (3:1) TP: 2.29 (3:1) c
(3:1) c (3:1) c
NH+4 : 35 P-PO3-
4 : 15 NH+
4 : 1.05 (2:1)
a
P-PO3-
4 : 0.65 (2:1)
10

(2:1) a (2:1) a a

Date seeds:SCG (1:2) – – – – – – – – – TN: 30 a P-PO3-

4 : 17 TN: 2.04 a P-PO3-
4 : 0.74
a
a a a
NH+4 : 36 NH+4 : 1.08
Base medium (BM: 80% – – – 65 – – 0.337 – – TKN: 34 d TP: 21 d – –
coconut fiber + 20% NO−3 : 25 d
perlite)
90% BM+10% granular – – – 10 – 0.373 – – TKN: 43 d TP: 21 d – –
activated carbon (GAC) NO−3 : 37 d
80% BM+20% compost – – – 5 – 0.215 – – TKN: 41 d TP: 16.4 d
– –
NO−3 : 35 d
80% BM+20% biochar – – – 14 – – 0.284 – – TKN: 46 d TP: 16 d
– –
NO−3 : 46 d

Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917

80% BM+20% polyacrylate – – – 20 – – 0.663 – – TKN: 31 d TP: 31 d – –
NO−3 : 22 d
60% BM+20% – – – – – – – – – TKN: 40 d TP: 29 d – –
polyacrylate+20% biochar NO−3 : 38 d
Biochar – – – – – – – – – TN: 75 e TP: 57 e
TN: 3.89–10.37 e
TP: 0.48–2.23 e

Pumice – – – – – – – – – TN: 58 e TP: 61 e

Hemp – – – – – – – – – TN: 58 e TP: 66 e
a
(Pradhan et al., 2020) (without vegetation).
b
(Prodanovic et al., 2017) (without vegetation).
c
(Prodanovic et al., 2018) (without vegetation).
d
(Boano et al., 2021) (with vegetation).
e
(Sami et al., 2023) (with vegetation).
M. Gholami et al.
other pollutants in greywater due to their competing interactions and/or
different characteristics, while also meeting their hydraulic re­
quirements. For example, Abd-ur-Rehman et al. (2022) demonstrated
that carbonaceous waste materials (date seeds, coffee grinds, and coco
coir) all had higher removal performance for hydrophobic XOCs from
greywater compared to zeolite and perlite, showing the importance of
hydrophobicity of these target pollutants and their interaction with
substrates, whereas ionic nutrients are better removed by hydrophilic
substrates.
3.6.1. Substrate particle size, pore size, and porosity
Substrate particle size, pore size and porosity affect water and
nutrient movement and hence pollutant contact time in the system as
well as biofilm growth and aerobicity within different GW layers (Liu
et al., 2021). In turn, these parameters influence vegetation growth,
substrate clogging, infiltration rate and the presence and efficacy of
processes that cause pollutant transformations (i.e. water quality treat­
ment). While porous substrates can offer plenty of adsorption sites and
internal surface area available for pollutant transformations, porosity
alone does not guarantee high pollutant removal efficiency because
particle size and pore sizes are also important. For instance, low porosity
substrates (e.g. SCG) with smaller particle sizes tend to have a higher
WHC, or time the water is detained within the substrate, leading to
higher nutrient removal (Pradhan et al., 2020), when compared to
higher porosity substrates (e.g. LECA). Similarly, 99% porous fyto-foam
showed low nutrient removal efficiency because of its low contact time
and limited adsorption capacity with the polluted water (Table 3).
Pradhan et al. (2020) found that substrates consisting of smaller
particles (less than 0.5 mm) were more effective at removing phosphate,
with removal rates of 24% (1.05 g/m3/d) for SCG and 13% (0.57
g/m3/d) for date seeds, in comparison to substrates with larger particles
exceeding 1 mm diameter such as LECA, which only removed 6%. The
longer contact time between pollutants and the treating agents resulted
in improved treatment because of the smaller particle sizes. Prodanovic
et al. (2017) also observed that slow filtering substrates, including coir,
rockwool, and fyto-foam, demonstrated better TN removal rates
(ranging from 35 to 75%, with an average of 50%) compared to fast
filtering ones such as perlite, vermiculite, growstone, expanded clay,
and river sand. However, the small pore size of these slow filtering
substrates often resulted in clogging issues (Prodanovic et al., 2017).
3.6.2. Air-filled porosity (AFP)
AFP is the relative volume of substrate pore space filled by air. Air
within the substrate pores is necessary for biological aerobic respiration
and reducing compaction risks (Graceson et al., 2014). Generally, sub­
strates with larger particles can improve AFP, bulk density, and hy­
draulic conductivity, but may decrease water retention and pollutant
contact time (Vijayaraghavan and Raja, 2014). Perlite was found to
exhibit a significantly higher AFP of 30%, compared to coir and rock­
wool at 13%. High AFP promotes oxygen transfer to all layers in GWs,
which may prevent anoxic conditions necessary for denitrification and
PAOs processes (Pradhan et al., 2020). However, high AFP values can
cause lower water retention and for vegetation, water stress and rapid
moisture fluctuations (Farrell et al., 2013). These factors also lead to
lower contact time between nutrients and substrates, thus compromising
treatment performance. The TN removal from greywater in GWs that
used coir and rockwool and had an AFP of 13% was 35% while it was
only 12% using perlite with APF of 30% (Table 3). For context, a min­
imum AFP of 10% v/v is recommended by the green roof FLL guidelines
(FLL, 2018) necessary to support vegetation with no current guidelines
provided for GWs.
3.6.3. Surface area
Substrates with larger specific surface areas (e.g. BET) are expected
to adsorb substances more effectively (Liu et al., 2021), although this
positive relationship has not always held. For example, the largest BET
11
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
specific surfaces areas of fyto-foam (2.842 m2/g) and perlite (1.345
m2/g) provided TN and TP removal efficiencies of only 20 and 10%, and
12 and 20%, respectively (Table 3). Apart from surface area, other
surface characteristics of substrates, such as roughness, play a crucial
role in enhancing pollutant adsorption ability. Pradhan et al. (2020)
found that substrates with a smooth surface structure may have limited
ability to filter and adsorb pollutants, despite having a high surface area.
LECA (0.429 m2/g) and sand (1.6 m2/g), both with moderate surface
areas and roughness, and SCG (0.82 m2/g) and date seeds (0.52 m2/g)
having high degree of small roughness and pores but lower BET surface
area, outperformed other substrates in terms of nutrient removal from
greywater in GW systems (Pradhan et al., 2020). In gravity-driven sys­
tems, such as GWs, very high surface areas may not be critical as flow
travels primarily around the outer surfaces of the substrate rather than
within particles. This is in comparison to fixed bed up-flow (adsorption)
columns where saturated flow under pressure drives liquid into and
through pores providing better flow and hence pollutant dispersion.
3.6.4. Water holding capacity (WHC)
The WHC of a substrate influences the contact time between water,
pollutants in solution and the substrate surfaces. Substrates with higher
WHC retain more water, which promotes microbial activity and en­
hances nutrient uptake by plants. This increased moisture content fa­
cilitates the biological processes involved in nutrient cycling and
removal, leading to improved nutrient retention and reduced leaching
(Young et al., 2014). This is especially important to consider in NBS that
are vegetated because there may be periods when wastewater is not
produced if the building is periodically uninhabited and so vegetation
will rely on residual water held in substrate pores. For instance, the FLL
recommends a WHC range of 35–65% for extensive living roofs to
support both succulent and non-succulent plants during droughts (Cas­
cone, 2019; FLL, 2018; Koviessen et al., 2023). Spent substrates derived
from manufacturing/agriculture/forestry used in green roofs are typi­
cally within this range (12.9–51%, 23.7–54%), while construction waste
materials typically have lower WHC values (2–44%), often below the
recommended range for GRs (Koviessen et al., 2023). Particle size and
porosity are the most significant factors affecting WHC in GWs (Pradhan
et al., 2020). Generally, the WHC decreases with an increase in porosity
and AFP (Farrell et al., 2012), but adding more organic matter can in­
crease the WHC (Xue and Farrell, 2020). Furthermore, lower WHC
substrates can be mitigated by increasing the substrate depth and hence
volume providing adequate water and nutrients to vegetation, especially
during long dry periods (Farrell et al., 2012). In GWs, higher WHC
substrates like coco coir (30%), sand (40%), and SCG (45%) showed
higher nutrient removal compared to LECA with a WHC <15%
(Table 3), probably because of the longer nutrient contact time within
substrates.
3.6.5. pH
The pH influences the speciation of nutrients and the treatment
processes within a GW treating greywater (outlined in Fig. 4(a) and
discussed earlier), including the electrostatic attraction forces between
negatively charged ions and the substrate surface (Almanassra et al.,
2021). Chowdhury and Abaya (2018) showed that pH levels in the
discharge from a green roof treating greywater ranged from 7.24 to 8.95,
and in some cases even exceeded 10. The pH levels of GW substrates in
the reviewed studies range between 6 and 8 (Table 3), the variation
attributed to the differing amounts of carbonyl, nitrile, and phosphoryl
groups present in the substrate compositions. These chemical groups
promote the formation of free hydrogen (protons causing pH change)
through intermolecular reactions (Kader et al., 2022). The GR FLL
guidelines recommend a pH range of 6.0–8.5 for substrates used in
extensive living roof systems to minimize potential effluent eco-toxicity
(Chowdhury and Abaya, 2018; FLL, 2018). Substrates within this pH
range also foster semi-alkaline growth conditions that facilitate the
thriving of a wide variety of plant species (Koviessen et al., 2023;
M. Gholami et al.
Molineux et al., 2009). However, slightly acidic substrates are thought
to make nutrients more accessible for plant uptake (Xu et al., 2020).
Also, a slightly acidic substrate can buffer pH increases (alkalinity)
resulting from water from laundry detergents in greywater (Boano et al.,
2020a; Galvão et al., 2022). However, extreme acidity or alkalinity
conditions can affect macronutrient availability and solubility (Gentili
et al., 2018). In strongly alkaline conditions, NH3 predominates, while in
neutral and acidic conditions, NH+ 4 dominates. Ammonium is a posi­
tively charged ion that can be directly assimilated by plant roots and
used as a source of nitrogen for growth and development, while NH3 can
be toxic to plants at high concentrations. Moreover, different forms of
phosphate such as H2PO−4 , HPO2− 3−
4 , and PO4 are available at a pH lower
than 8, 8–12, and above 12, respectively (Chen et al., 2021), affecting
vegetation uptake and adsorption. For instance, phosphorus adsorption
by roots is hindered at low pH, because the orthophosphates react with
iron and aluminium to form ferric phosphate and aluminium phosphate
precipitates (Kader et al., 2022).
3.6.6. Electric conductivity (EC)
The effect of substrate EC is similar to the effect of the EC of grey­
water (discussed in section 3.2). Higher EC values in substrates can lead
to an increased concentration of dissolved salts, which can affect
nutrient availability and uptake by plants (Gondek et al., 2020). High EC
levels can inhibit the growth of certain plant species and disrupt nutrient
cycling processes (Yuvaraj et al., 2021). Sand and SCG with the highest
EC values of 3.5–3.8 μs/cm achieved the greatest ammonium (40–58%)
and phosphate (24–32%) removal compared to other substrates
(Table 3). These substrates have more divalent metal cations (e.g. Ca2+)
providing a larger binding capacity to remove nutrient anions, while
LECA with a much lower EC (0.05 μs/cm) was the least effective sub­
strate for removing nutrients (Pradhan et al., 2020). However, high EC
could potentially lower the photosynthesis rate due to poor water uptake
in xylem tissues. Therefore, it is essential to check whether the salinity
level of the substrate is below the maximum threshold. Nevertheless, the
impact of substrate EC on greywater effluent EC between 600 and 850
μS/cm was found to be insignificant in GW treating greywater (Boano
et al., 2020a; Galvão et al., 2022). Small variations in EC values between
the influent and effluent in such systems mostly occurred during warmer
months due to evapotranspiration effects. The EC variations can also be
strongly dependant on the design of NBS using the same substrates and
vegetation species. Chowdhury and Abaya (2018) showed that the mean
EC values in GRs treating greywater were 1990 and 2520 μS/cm for the
intensive and extensive green roof systems, respectively. The differences
were attributed to the reduced water retention and evapotranspiration
in extensive roofs, leading to elevated EC levels in the effluent.
3.6.7. Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
Substrate cation exchange capacity plays a crucial role in providing
essential nutrients for vegetation uptake by replenishing adsorbed cat­
ions as vegetation roots deplete ion concentrations in water (Solano
et al., 2012). The presence of different functional groups such as amine
groups, quaternary ammonium functional groups, and chloride ions can
make the substrate a cation or anion exchanger by which a nitrate or
phosphate ion can be exchanged with another ion from the substrate
(Gizaw et al., 2021). Substrates with higher CEC have a greater ability to
retain and exchange positively charged nutrients. This enhanced CEC
promotes nutrient retention in the substrate, reducing the likelihood of
nutrient leaching and improving nutrient availability for plant uptake
(Chowdhury et al., 2021). Cation exchange capacity can be increased in
substrates through the addition of organic matter, which can also result
in improved water retention (Pradhan et al., 2020). Table 3 shows that
highly organic substrates had the greatest CEC, such as SCG with 4.8
mmol/kg, followed by coco coir at 4.1 mmol/kg and date seeds at 2.4
mmol/kg, while more inorganic substrates (such as perlite) had lower
CEC values ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mmol/kg. Boano et al. (2021) found
that adding organic matter, such as granular activated carbon, compost,
12
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
and biochar, to an inorganic substrate containing perlite and coir, in
GWs increased the removal of TKN and NO−3 by up to 46%. However,
selecting the appropriate organic matter is important, as adding poly­
acrylate actually decreased TKN and NO−3 removal efficiency to 31 and
22%, respectively, due to its physico-chemical properties (Table 3). It
should be noted that some guidelines for GRs (FLL, 2018) suggest
limiting organic content in substrates to <10% due to effects of
compaction, associated hydraulic constraints and, fire risks.
3.6.8. Bulk density
In GRs, a minimum bulk density of 600 kg/m3 is recommended to
stabilize the substrates from wind-blown or wash-out processes (FLL,
2018). Substrates with lower bulk density allow for better root pene­
tration and aeration, promoting root growth and nutrient uptake (Cor­
rea et al., 2019). This improved root development facilitates the uptake
and assimilation of nutrients by plants, enhancing nutrient removal from
the system. It is suggested that lower bulk densities can cause challenges
with vegetation anchorage, create wider pathways in the biofilter bed,
and result in substrate flotation on the surface of the biofilter (Vijayar­
aghavan, 2016). However, in green wall substrates, a lower bulk density
may be possible due to the smaller exposed soil surface area. The bulk
density of applied substrates in GWs treating greywater ranges from
17.6 kg/m3 for fyto-foam to 1600 kg/m3 for sand (Table 3). One way to
reduce the substrate weight is to use/include low-density inorganic
materials like perlite (100 kg/m3) and fyto-foam. Low-density substrates
enable greater substrate depths in GW, which offers numerous advan­
tages. Firstly, the nutrient contact time in GWs treating greywater is
extended and hence nutrient removal improves. Also, vegetation species
with extended and hairy root systems can thrive thus greater nutrient
assimilation by vegetation is supported. Further, anaerobic conditions
are promoted at the deeper layers that promote denitrification and also
phosphate removal by PAO processes (e.g. Fig. 4(b)).
3.7. The role of vegetation in nutrient removal
Most vegetated GWs can achieve higher nutrient removal efficiencies
(TN> 90% and TP> 65%) than non-vegetated biofilters (TN~ 40% and
TP~ 10%) (Fowdar et al., 2017) and there is generally greater TN
removal than TP removal. This is attributed to vegetation influencing
nitrogen transformations and also because, on a stoichiometric basis,
more nitrogen than phosphorus is needed by plant biomass (Prodanovic
et al., 2019a). Pradhan et al. (2019b) conducted lab-studies in single GW
biofilters treating greywater and removed the vegetation. They found
that TN and phosphate removal dropped by 25% and 31–36%, respec­
tively, indicating the importance of nutrient uptake by vegetation and
removal by plant-associated biofilms. While it may be hypothesized that
more vegetation and substrate would provide concomitant nutrient
removal, a three-tiered modular system study found no significant in­
crease in removal efficiency beyond two in-series units (Prodanovic
et al., 2020). In that study, nutrient removal was highest in the upper
module and lowest in the lower levels. It was concluded that for systems
implemented in practice, adding another module would incur additional
costs and increase coloration in the discharge, so would not provide
additional gains (Prodanovic et al., 2020). Multi-stage treatment can
also result in lower vegetation growth due to partial shading effects and
limited nutrient supply for the lower plants, but it is suggested that these
effects may be resolved after approximately two years of system oper­
ation (Costamagna et al., 2022). To better understand the effects of
vegetation on longer-term nutrient removal, multi-seasonal experiments
should be undertaken.
3.7.1. Mechanisms of nutrient removal in green wall vegetation
Vegetation can directly adsorb, assimilate, and uptake macronutri­
ents on their root tissues by plasma transporters, which act as selective
passage of most mineral nutrients and metabolites through cellular and
intracellular membranes (Kiba and Krapp, 2016). Concurrently,
M. Gholami et al.
vegetation can release considerable amounts of oxygen from their roots
through radial oxygen loss, creating aerobic conditions believed to help
detoxify potentially toxic compounds. Root structures can also release
exudates as a source of carbon for denitrifying microorganisms when
there is insufficient carbon available in the wastewater feed (Zhai et al.,
2013). Isotropic tracer experiments showed that vegetation assimilation
and substrate adsorption had significant roles in nitrogen removal
(Fowdar et al., 2018). However, other studies identified nitrification and
denitrification as the major nitrogen removal processes, possibly
explained by the different vegetation species, substrate, and/or oper­
ating conditions (e.g. temperature, light exposure, organic and hy­
draulic loading rates) (Pradhan et al., 2019a) between studies.
In the rhizosphere, microorganisms also colonize vegetation roots,
leading to the formation and development of biofilms (Rudrappa et al.,
2008). Biofilms in GW systems, consisting of microorganisms and
extracellular polymetric substances, can enhance nutrient mineraliza­
tion and transformation, but excessive thickness can reduce nutrient
removal efficiency, limit oxygen diffusion, impede nutrient uptake,
obstruct substrate gas exchange, and clog the GW filter bed (Badhe et al.,
2014). Limited information on GW biofilms exists compared to con­
structed wetlands. This highlights the need for determining biofilm
characteristics and development with different substrates and greywater
loading and irrigation patterns, as well as identifying microbial species
to understand the role of nitrification-denitrification and PAOs in
nutrient removal. Pradhan et al. (2019b) replaced biologically-active
substrates in GW treating greywater with fresh uncolonized ones,
while keeping the same vegetation, and found that NOx increased in the
effluent due to reduced TN removal. They suggested that nitrifying
microorganisms, attached on roots, were still predominant in the
Fig. 5. Different N (a) and P (b) forms removed by various vegetation species in GWs. C and NC represent climbing and non-climbing species, respectively. Plants
bordered in red are the best performing from that study.
13
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
vegetated biofilter, but the denitrifying bacteria populations were low­
ered due to substrate biofilm loss, which was the main habitat for de­
nitrifiers. However, the relative dominance of various removal
mechanisms in green walls is still a topic of debate and warrants further
investigation.
3.7.2. Effects of different vegetation species in nutrient removal in green
walls
Vegetation species have varying capacities to take up phosphorus
and nitrogen, which depends on their root systems, growth cycles, and
temperature (Bonvin et al., 2015). Almost all species can absorb and
utilize orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate. However, some species
such as Phragmites australis, Strelitzia reginae, Phormium tenax, Ophiopo­
gon japonicus, and Phormium spp. offer little or no benefits in terms of
nutrient removal over non-vegetated biofilters (Fowdar et al., 2017;
Prodanovic et al., 2019a), highlighting the importance of vegetation
selection in GWs for the intended goal. Ornamental species are
frequently used in GWs to meet aesthetic requirements (Pradhan et al.,
2019a) yet vegetable crops have been considered, especially for coun­
tries threatened by immediate water stress and a related food crisis. For
instance, Eregno et al. (2017) evaluated the performance of an inte­
grated GW system for growing different lettuce species planted in
perlite. The TP (87%) and TN (60%) removal efficiencies were good,
though it should be noted that influent wastewater N and P concentra­
tions were relatively low at 4.36 mg/L and 0.53 mg/L, respectively.
Despite potential microbial and chemical health risks associated with
growing food using wastewater nutrients, the study demonstrated that
the lettuces grown met World Health Organisation (WHO) health-based
targets (Eregno et al., 2017).
M. Gholami et al.
Fig. 5(a) displays N removal by different vegetation species in GWs
from five studies. Fowdar et al. (2017) investigated climbing (C) and
non-climbing (NC) species’ performance at removing N from greywater.
The non-climbing species C. appressa, C. lilies, L. japonica, V. vinifera, and
P. jasminoides demonstrated excellent mean TN removal of 94%, 90%,
89%, and 88%, respectively (Fig. 5(a)), slightly outperforming climbing
species. Species with strong TN removal also showed strong removal of
ammonia and NOx (Fig. 5(a)). However, in slow growing species such as
S. reginae, NOx leaching was observed in the effluent (represented as
negative removal in Fig. 5(a)) under aerobic conditions (Fowdar et al.,
2017). C. appressa, V. vinifera, and C. lilies achieved the highest TDN
removal of >90%, likely due to the high NOx uptake rate compared with
the (control) non-vegetated biofilter of 20% TDN removal.
Prodanovic et al. (2019a) demonstrated that TN removal in vege­
tated columns was 7–10% higher than in unvegetated ones, with all 13
vegetation species exhibiting high TN (82–93%) and DON removal
(89–94%) (Fig. 5(a)). C. appressa showed the highest TN removal at
93%. However, DON removal was mainly attributed to microorganisms
in the soil under aerobic conditions (Prodanovic et al., 2019a). Pradhan
et al. (2019b) investigated the removal of greywater nutrients and
organic compounds in a GW using ornamental species, with Ruellia
brittoniana removing the most (> 90%) of all nitrogen species (TDN,
nitrate, nitrite, organic nitrogen, and dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen). The
best performance by R. brittoniana was attributed to its hairy-root system
which creates an extended and microporous root zone, facilitating high
contact with pollutants in the greywater. C. appressa and Cana lilies were
especially successful at removing TN from greywater in GWs, ranging
from 89 to 93%, likely due to their higher growth rates, longer root
lengths (up to 1.21 m), and extensive root growth (Schwammberger
et al., 2020). Vegetation with shallower roots and shorter life cycles (e.g.
N. officinale, O. japonicus) did not provide sufficient oxygenation to the
rhizosphere zone (Prodanovic et al., 2019a), resulting in less pollutant
removal, including NOx leaching, because of fewer hydraulic channels
within the substrate.
In all five studies, TP was removed less than TN, ranging from 7%
(Phormium spp.) to 67% (C. appressa) (Fig. 5(b)). This was attributed to
the fact that there is a significant correlation between vegetation
biomass and nitrogen concentration but not so with phosphorus (Fowdar
et al., 2017). Rather, phosphorus is removed primarily by precipitation
and filtration mechanisms (e.g. Fig. 4).
The lower TP uptake in O. japonicus and Nasturtium officinale was
explained by their slower growth rates and less efficient root systems
(Prodanovic et al., 2019a; Read et al., 2008). As for TN removal,
C. appressa provided high TP and also filterable reactive phosphorus
(FRP) removal up to 67% and 87%, respectively (Fig. 5(b)). FRP (over
85% of TP) containing soluble and inorganic phosphorus (e.g. phos­
phate) is directly taken up by vegetation, and its negative removal by
some species, such as Phormium (Fig. 5(b)), might be due to the release
of previously adsorbed inorganic phosphorus (Fowdar et al., 2017).
Fig. 5(b) shows that over 95% of phosphate was removed by
R. brittoniana which also had slightly higher N species removal than
other species. However, this does not necessarily mean that a vegetation
with high nitrogen removal has simultaneously high phosphorus
removal. For instance, V. vinifera and P. jasminoides showed high TN
removal of 82% and 87% (Fig. 5(a)), while only 19% and 14% TP
removal (Fig. 5(b)) were observed for these species, respectively.
A diversity of vegetation species with high N and P uptake rates in
GWs treating greywater can overcome the deficiency of relying on a
single species to remove TP and/or TN. This also provides other benefits
such as ecological diversity and associated risk mitigation from plant
diseases. Ramprasad et al. (2017) found that using a range of vegetation
led to higher removal rates of TN (99%) and TP (92%) from greywater
than using only one vegetation type (Canna sp.). However, some studies
using mixed vegetation species in GWs reported low TN and TP removal
ranging from 8 to 26% and 2–57% (Table S1), respectively, which may
be related to the cold temperature, GW design, and substrate type tested
14
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
in those studies (Costamagna et al., 2022; Lakho et al., 2021a, 2022).
3.8. Effects of operating parameters on nutrient removal in GWs treating
greywater
3.8.1. Hydraulic loading
Hydraulic parameters are important in the optimization of GWs
treating greywater because pollutant removal efficiency, clogging po­
tential, wastewater application rate and the size of GWs are ultimately
dependent on hydraulic loading rate (HLR; mm/d) and the related pa­
rameters, contaminant loading rate (CLR; mg/d) and hydraulic retention
time (HRT; d). Higher HLRs may hinder anaerobic and anoxic conditions
necessary for some pollutant removal processes (e.g. denitrification) by
creating macro channels in the substrate, a conduit for oxygen to reach
the deeper layers (Panuvatvanich et al., 2009). High HLRs can also
overload a treatment system if pollutant concentrations are high leading
to compromised treatment.
Most studies on GWs treating greywater have focused on optimizing
the substrate and vegetation, with little investigation about the effects of
hydraulic parameters on nutrient removal. One study by Boano et al.
(2020b) reviewed the general effects of system hydraulics and nutrient
treatment in TWs, GRs, and GWs. Results indicated that while there was
no clear trend between HLR and TP removal, increasing HLR led to
lower TN removal (Boano et al., 2020b). The TN and TP removal re­
lationships with HLR in the studies treating greywater in GWs is shown
in Fig. 6(a) and (b), albeit the studies had different operating conditions.
It is important to note that all studies except Pradhan et al. (2020)
assessed substrates that were vegetated under various HLRs. HLRs
ranged between 15 and 237 mm/d and each study used different sub­
strates, vegetation, temperature conditions, and wastewater character­
istics (Fig. 6) so the ability to ascertain nutrient removal with HLR alone
from the published studies is complex.
Despite the variability of experimental conditions in the studies,
higher HLRs (>100 mm/d) generally resulted in lower TN (Fig. 6(a))
and TP (Fig. 6(b)) removal efficiencies. Fowdar et al. (2017) compared
TN and TP removal at an HLR of 110 mm/d (HRT 48 h) and at a lower
HLR of 55 mm/d (HRT 92 h), finding that TN and TP removal efficiency
of C. appressa (as the best-performing species) significantly increased to
over 90% at the lower HLR. Another study based on multi-stage GWs
using C. appressa reported that TN removal slightly fell at higher HLRs
(60 mm/d) by about 3%. This was associated with lower ammonifica­
tion and nitrification of DON transformed into NOx, probably from
insufficient contact time of roots and biofilm with pollutants at higher
inflow rates (Prodanovic et al., 2019a). Decreasing TP removal also
occurred at higher HLRs (110 mm/d), suggesting that TP removal is
sufficiently removed by substrate adsorption, straining, and filtration
during low and standard HLRs due to sufficient contact time and flow
rate (Fowdar et al., 2017). It should be noted that the contact time is also
influenced by air filled porosity, particle diameter, porosity, and water
holding capacity as interconnected factors that influence the behaviour
of fluid flow. When the contact between the fluid and the media is
increased at slower flow rates, it results in more effective treatment even
under the same HLRs. Sotiropoulou et al. (2022) examined the effect of
HLR on nutrient removal in a vertical flow TW treating laundry grey­
water and found that low HLRs (between 31.8 mm/d to 15.9 mm/d) had
no significant effect on removing insoluble particulate pollutants such as
microfibres, mainly removed by filtration and straining. Similarly,
Kotsia et al. (2020) found that higher HLRs (110 mm/d) in vertical TWs
treating greywater did not compromise nutrient removal, although they
used coarser substrates. Ramprasad et al. (2017) found sustained
pollutant removal in a GW treating greywater by incorporating a
mixture of vegetation that provided buffering from high HLRs (120
mm/d) over time. Interestingly, Sami et al. (2023) observed an increase
in nutrient removal with high loading rates (from 54 to 216 mm/d). The
highest TN removal (>85%) using biochar occurred at an HLR of 216
mm/d, while reducing the HLRs to 108 and 54 mm/d resulted in
M. Gholami et al.
Fig. 6. TN and TP relative removal efficiency as a function of hydraulic (HLR) (a and b), (c) N (NLR), and (d) P (PLR) loading rates. Note: Different scales for nutrient
(NLR, PLR) loading rates. Pradhan et al. (2020) data in Fig. 6 (b) report phosphate (not TP) removal.
decreased TN removal rates of 78% and 75% respectively (Sami et al.,
2023). Similarly, TP removal by biochar improved from 31% to 75%,
and hemp and pumice exhibited similar effects. The researchers pro­
posed that the improved greywater distribution during high loading
rates likely enhanced particle surface area and pore availability for
adsorption and microbial growth (Sami et al., 2023), but the conflicting
negative impact on BOD removal suggests that further investigation is
needed to understand the underlying reasons and competing pollutant
transformations.
3.8.2. Pollutant loading
Fig. 6(c) and (d) show greywater treatment in GWs as a function of
nitrogen (NLR) and phosphorus (PLR) loading rates ranging from 75 to
1166 N mg/m2/d and from 45 to 660 P mg/m2/d, respectively. Since
NLR and PLR values were not previously reported in the literature, this
study calculated these parameters to specifically demonstrate the
threshold of GWs for nutrient removal. The TP and TN removal effi­
ciencies show an increase with higher N and P loading rates, more
apparently so at the lower pollutant loads and for TP more than TN
(Fig. 6). These data may suggest that, at the pollutant loading rates
tested in these studies, GW systems are able to increase nutrient removal
accordingly so have not reached their capacities. It is probable that
higher wastewater (nutrient) loading rates also provide enhanced car­
bon (i.e. BOD) amounts which enhance microbial activity, driving
nutrient transformation (removal) processes, especially in lower sub­
strate depths. However, some species such as C. lilies have shown an
opposite behaviour during higher inflow TP concentrations, as TP
removal decreased by 10% (Fowdar et al., 2017), indicating that vege­
tation species have different tolerance thresholds to higher nutrient
loading rates.
3.8.3. Temperature and seasonal changes
Seasonal changes, primarily due to temperature differences, affect
15
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
vegetative water and nutrient uptake and thus, plant and microbial
growth. Lower temperatures slow photosynthesis, respiration, and
transpiration rates (Wang et al., 2022) that can impede nutrient uptake
rates (Fowdar et al., 2017). Low temperature (<15 ◦ C) can also inhibit
microorganisms responsible for nitrogen and organic matter removal
(Akratos and Tsihrintzis, 2007). A study of five vegetation species
(O. japonicus, C. appressa, N. obliterate, L. muscari, M. parvifolium) used in
a green wall for greywater treatment found that water uptake and
transpiration in summer was three to four times higher than in winter
conditions (Prodanovic et al., 2019b). The species which showed best N
and P removal, C. appressa and N. obliterate, also had higher annual
maximum water uptakes of 912–913 L/m2, while O. japonicus with
lower nutrient removal had only 377 L/m2 water uptake (Prodanovic
et al., 2019b). The performance of GWs treating greywater at different
temperatures indicates that a temperature range of 10–30 ◦ C only
resulted in about 3% difference in TN removal efficiency (at a low HLR
of 30 mm/d, shown in Fig. 6(a)), but a more noticeable effect occurred
on TP removal reducing by up to 20% at the same HLR (Fig. 6(b)).
Generally, temperatures in the higher range (>25 ◦ C, darker colours in
Fig. 6) coincided with better nutrient removal rates, although there are
some fluctuations in the trends, due to the different hydraulic and
pollutant loading rates used across studies, as well as effects of drying
periods between experimental runs.
The selection of vegetation which can adapt to seasonal temperature
changes should be considered in GWs designs. Temperature-resistant
vegetation can decrease the unsaturation degree of membrane lipids
under high temperature and enhance it under low temperature, enabling
them to survive in either extreme temperature conditions (Zheng et al.,
2011). In a study by Boano et al. (2020a), an outdoor GW was operated
for three winter months in which pollutant removal of TKN (61%), ni­
trate (56%), and TP (57%) was observed with temperature-resistant
vegetation (Lonicera, Carex and Hedera). It may be that vegetation
roots and insulating substrate effects can maintain the inner biofilter
M. Gholami et al.
temperature up to 3 ◦ C higher than the colder ambient air, allowing the
microbial activity to continue effectively in winter (Akratos and Tsih­
rintzis, 2007). Overlying insulating materials (e.g. gravel, sawdust, etc.)
is also reported to facilitate temperature buffering in cold seasons in TW
systems (Saeed and Sun, 2012; Wu et al., 2011).
3.8.4. Irrigation cycle
Scheduled watering and drying cycles may establish beneficial con­
ditions for the nitrification, denitrification, and anaerobic processes in
GW substrates treating greywater (Pradhan et al., 2019b) although this
depends on the duration and frequency. Prolonged drying can inhibit
biological and chemical processes, including decomposition and
mineralization, and limit bacterial and vegetation uptake, especially
when the soil moisture is lowest (Prodanovic et al., 2019a). Prolonged
dry periods also create substrate surface cracking and macropores gen­
eration, creating preferential water flow paths and hence higher infil­
tration rates and reduced HRT leading to lower nutrient removal.
However, Fowdar et al. (2017) and Prodanovic et al. (2017) found that
filtration rates decrease again after reverting to using more frequent
dosing cycles.
Researchers observed that the effect of a daily watering cycle was
detrimental to stem quality of some ornamental vegetation, but this was
rectified by implementing a regular two-day cycle with rest day in be­
tween (Pradhan et al., 2019b). In another study using longer watering
periods (e.g. 5-day wetting cycles, 2 days dry) the effects of wetting/­
drying cycle on nutrient removal efficiency varied according to how
each species responded to drought-induced stress conditions (Fowdar
et al., 2017). A two-week drying then wetting cycle was also undertaken
to simulate when greywater is not generated if, for instance, a building is
periodically uninhabited. Results showed TN leaching in some vegeta­
tion (up to 24% TN export) and 35% less TN removal for other species
such as C. appressa (Prodanovic et al., 2019a).
Like other NBS vegetated technologies, prolonged drying periods in
GWs can adversely affect the aesthetics and possibly wastewater treat­
ment efficiency, which may take time to become restored. To help
mitigate this, drought-tolerant vegetation, deeper planter modules and,
substrates with high moisture retention (i.e., WHC) capacity can be
used. Moreover, recirculating greywater within a vegetated biofilter
could help during drought conditions. This can also improve pollutant
removal. For instance, when a GR system treating greywater was oper­
ated under a recirculation ratio of 40% flow, 87% of TN was removed
compared to an initial (non-recirculated) removal efficiency of 56%
(Thomaidi et al., 2022). The improved TN removal may have resulted
from enhanced denitrification by mixing nitrified effluent with organics
in the fresh effluent. In comparison, no significant effect on TP removal
was found.
4. Conclusions and future research
Nutrient removal efficiency in different green wall types is influ­
enced by physical and chemical substrate characteristics, vegetation
species, pollutant concentration, temperature and hydraulic loading
rate. IGF and MLW GW designs are commonly employed and show
similar TN and TP removal of up to 93% TN and 67% TP. Regarding
various nutrient removal mechanisms, N is removed by vegetation
assimilation and soil and root microbial activity, while P is removed
mainly through adsorption and filtration. However, further data is
needed to better ascertain the microbial distribution and microbial in­
teractions between substrate, plant roots and greywater in GWs; in
particular to elucidate the role of nitrification-denitrification in TN
removal and microbial storage by PAOs in P removal. Higher HLRs
compromise the contact time needed for nutrients to be transformed
within the treatment system, and an optimal HLR range of 50–60 mm/
d has been suggested but based on some reports of nutrient removal
improving at higher HLRs, further research is required. Incorporating a
mixture of substrates and vegetation can enhance greywater treatment
16
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
through their complementary properties designed to withstand fluctu­
ating pollutant loads, temperature variations and drought effects.
However, studies to-date have been conducted under varying experi­
mental conditions and it is not yet conclusive which specific substrate
properties can support and sustain nutrient removal whilst maintaining
hydraulic efficiency. Based on the identified research gaps in this paper,
several potential research questions arise that can be explored in future
studies:
1. What is the composition, diversity and function of microbial com­
munities in GWs?
2. Which specific and dominant nutrient transformations occur for each
nutrient form at different depths of GWs and what are the in­
terrelationships of these?
3. How do environmental and operating factors, such as temperature,
irrigation scheduling, humidity, nutrient availability, PLR, and HLR
influence the efficiency of physicochemical and biological treatment
processes within GWs?
4. How can the complex relationships between substrate characteristics
and vegetation be optimized to enhance nutrient removal efficiency?
5. What is the interaction and competition between nutrients and other
pollutants in greywater treated in GWs, and how does this affect
nutrient removal in green walls?
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the University of Canterbury, New
Zealand, for supporting Moeen Gholami on a Sustainable Development
Goals PhD Scholarship.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118917.
References
Abd-ur-Rehman, H., Deletic, A., Zhang, K., Prodanovic, V., 2022. The comparative
performance of lightweight green wall media for the removal of xenobiotic organic
compounds from domestic greywater. Water Res. 221, 118774.
Addo-Bankas, O., Zhao, Y., Vymazal, J., Yuan, Y., Fu, J., Wei, T., 2021. Green walls: a
form of constructed wetland in green buildings. Ecol. Eng. 169, 106321.
Akratos, C.S., Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2007. Effect of temperature, HRT, vegetation and porous
media on removal efficiency of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 29, 173–191.
Al-Kayiem, H.H., Koh, K., Riyadi, T.W., Effendy, M., 2020. A comparative review on
greenery ecosystems and their impacts on sustainability of building environment.
Sustainability 12, 8529.
Almanassra, I.W., Mckay, G., Kochkodan, V., Atieh, M.A., Al-Ansari, T., 2021. A state of
the art review on phosphate removal from water by biochars. Chem. Eng. J. 409,
128211.
Antonopoulou, G., Kirkou, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2013. Quantitative and qualitative
greywater characterization in Greek households and investigation of their treatment
using physicochemical methods. Sci. Total Environ. 454, 426–432.
Arden, S., Ma, X., 2018. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: a review.
Sci. Total Environ. 630, 587–599.
Baban, A., Hocaoglu, S.M., Atasoy, E.A., Gunes, K., Ayaz, S., Regelsberger, M., 2010.
Grey water treatment and reuse by using RBC: a kinetic approach. Desalination
Water Treat. 23, 89–94.
Badhe, N., Saha, S., Biswas, R., Nandy, T., 2014. Role of algal biofilm in improving the
performance of free surface, up-flow constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 169,
596–604.
M. Gholami et al.
Bahrami, M., Amiri, M.J., Badkubi, M., 2020. Application of horizontal series filtration in
greywater treatment: a semi-industrial study. Aust. J. Water Resour. 24, 236–247.
Bakhshoodeh, R., Ocampo, C., Oldham, C., 2022. Exploring the evapotranspirative
cooling effect of a green façade. Sustain. Cities Soc. 81, 103822.
Boano, F., Caruso, A., Costamagna, E., Fiore, S., Demichelis, F., Galvao, A., Pisoeiro, J.,
Rizzo, A., Masi, F., 2020a. Assessment of the treatment performance of an open-air
green wall fed with graywater under winter conditions. ACS ES&T Water 1,
595–602.
Boano, F., Caruso, A., Costamagna, E., Ridolfi, L., Fiore, S., Demichelis, F., Galvão, A.,
Pisoeiro, J., Rizzo, A., Masi, F., 2020b. A review of nature-based solutions for
greywater treatment: applications, hydraulic design, and environmental benefits.
Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134731.
Boano, F., Costamagna, E., Caruso, A., Fiore, S., Chiappero, M., Galvão, A., Pisoeiro, J.,
Rizzo, A., Masi, F., 2021. Evaluation of the influence of filter medium composition
on treatment performances in an open-air green wall fed with greywater. J. Environ.
Manag. 300, 113646.
Bonvin, C., Etter, B., Udert, K.M., Frossard, E., Nanzer, S., Tamburini, F., Oberson, A.,
2015. Plant uptake of phosphorus and nitrogen recycled from synthetic source-
separated urine. Ambio 44, 217–227.
Boyjoo, Y., Pareek, V.K., Ang, M., 2013. A review of greywater characteristics and
treatment processes. Water Sci. Technol. 67, 1403–1424.
Cascone, S., 2019. Green roof design: state of the art on technology and materials.
Sustainability 11, 3020.
Castellar, J.A., Torrens, A., Buttiglieri, G., Monclús, H., Arias, C.A., Carvalho, P.N.,
Galvao, A., Comas, J., 2022. Nature-based solutions coupled with advanced
technologies: an opportunity for decentralized water reuse in cities. J. Clean. Prod.
340, 130660.
Cescon, A., Jiang, J.-Q., 2020. Filtration process and alternative filter media material in
water treatment. Water 12, 3377.
Chaillou, K., Gérente, C., Andrès, Y., Wolbert, D., 2011. Bathroom greywater
characterization and potential treatments for reuse. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 215,
31–42.
Chen, R.-F., Liu, T., Rong, H.-W., Zhong, H.-T., Wei, C.-H., 2021. Effect of organic
substances on nutrients recovery by struvite electrochemical precipitation from
synthetic anaerobically treated swine wastewater. Membranes 11, 594.
Chowdhury, R.K., Abaya, J.S., 2018. An experimental study of greywater irrigated green
roof systems in an arid climate. J. Water Manag. Model. 26, 1–10.
Chowdhury, S., Bolan, N., Farrell, M., Sarkar, B., Sarker, J.R., Kirkham, M.B., Hossain, M.
Z., Kim, G.-H., 2021. Chapter Two - role of cultural and nutrient management
practices in carbon sequestration in agricultural soil. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.), Advances
in Agronomy. Academic Press, pp. 131–196.
Chung, P.-W., Livesley, S.J., Rayner, J.P., Farrell, C., 2021. Greywater irrigation can
support climbing plant growth on building green façades. Urban For. Urban Green.
62, 127119.
Ciabattia, I., Cesaro, F., Faralli, L., Fatarella, E., Tognotti, F., 2009. Demonstration of a
treatment system for purification and reuse of laundry wastewater. Desalination 245,
451–459.
Correa, J., Postma, J.A., Watt, M., Wojciechowski, T., 2019. Soil compaction and the
architectural plasticity of root systems. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 6019–6034.
Costamagna, E., Fiore, S., Boano, F., 2022. Influence of the number of levels and system
age on greywater treatment in a green wall. Ecol. Eng. 183, 106755.
Cuce, E., 2017. Thermal regulation impact of green walls: an experimental and numerical
investigation. Appl. Energy 194, 247–254.
Dal Ferro, N., De Mattia, C., Gandini, M.A., Maucieri, C., Stevanato, P., Squartini, A.,
Borin, M., 2021. Green walls to treat kitchen greywater in urban areas: performance
from a pilot-scale experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 757, 144189.
do Couto, E.d.A., Calijuri, M.L., Assemany, P.P., da Fonseca Santiago, A., de Castro
Carvalho, I., 2013. Greywater production in airports: Qualitative and quantitative
assessment. Resourc. Conserv. Recycl. vol. 77, 44–51.
El Menshawy, A.S., Mohamed, A.F., Fathy, N.M., 2022. A comparative study on green
wall construction systems, case study: south valley campus of AASTMT. Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 16, e00808.
Eregno, F.E., Moges, M.E., Heistad, A., 2017. Treated greywater reuse for hydroponic
lettuce production in a green wall system: quantitative health risk assessment. Water
9, 454.
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002. Characteristics of grey wastewater.
Urban Water 4, 85–104.
Farrell, C., Ang, X.Q., Rayner, J.P., 2013. Water-retention additives increase plant
available water in green roof substrates. Ecol. Eng. 52, 112–118.
Farrell, C., Mitchell, R., Szota, C., Rayner, J., Williams, N., 2012. Green roofs for hot and
dry climates: interacting effects of plant water use, succulence and substrate. Ecol.
Eng. 49, 270–276.
FLL, F.L.L.e.V., 2018. Green Roof Guidelines–Guidelines for the Planning, Construction
and Maintenance of Green Roofs. Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung
Landschaftsbau eV (FLL), Bonn.
Fountoulakis, M., Markakis, N., Petousi, I., Manios, T., 2016. Single house on-site grey
water treatment using a submerged membrane bioreactor for toilet flushing. Sci.
Total Environ. 551, 706–711.
Fowdar, H.S., Deletic, A., Hatt, B.E., Cook, P.L., 2018. Nitrogen removal in greywater
living walls: insights into the governing mechanisms. Water 10, 527.
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.
Galvão, A., Martins, D., Rodrigues, A., Manso, M., Ferreira, J., Silva, C.M., 2022. Green
walls with recycled filling media to treat greywater. Sci. Total Environ. 842, 156748.
17
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
Gattringer, H., Claret, A., Radtke, M., Kisser, J., Zraunig, A., Rodriguez-Roda, I.,
Buttiglieri, G., 2016. Novel vertical ecosystem for sustainable water treatment and
reuse in tourist resorts. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plann. 11, 263–274.
Gentili, R., Ambrosini, R., Montagnani, C., Caronni, S., Citterio, S., 2018. Effect of soil pH
on the growth, reproductive investment and pollen allergenicity of Ambrosia
artemisiifolia L. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1335.
Ghaitidak, D.M., Yadav, K.D., 2013. Characteristics and treatment of greywater—a
review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 20, 2795–2809.
Gizaw, A., Zewge, F., Kumar, A., Mekonnen, A., Tesfaye, M., 2021. A comprehensive
review on nitrate and phosphate removal and recovery from aqueous solutions by
adsorption. AQUA—Water Infrastruct. Ecosyst. Soc. 70, 921–947.
Glover, C.M., Liu, Y., Liu, J., 2021. Assessing the risk from trace organic contaminants
released via greywater irrigation to the aquatic environment. Water Res. 205,
117664.
Gondek, M., Weindorf, D.C., Thiel, C., Kleinheinz, G., 2020. Soluble salts in compost and
their effects on soil and plants: a review. Compost Sci. Util. 28, 59–75.
Graceson, A., Hare, M., Hall, N., Monaghan, J., 2014. Use of inorganic substrates and
composted green waste in growing media for green roofs. Biosyst. Eng. 124, 1–7.
Kader, S.A., Spalevic, V., Dudic, B., 2022. Feasibility study for estimating optimal
substrate parameters for sustainable green roof in Sri Lanka. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02837-y.
Khajvand, M., Mostafazadeh, A.K., Drogui, P., Tyagi, R.D., Brien, E., 2022. Greywater
characteristics, impacts, treatment, and reclamation using adsorption processes
towards the circular economy. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29, 10966–11003.
Khanam, K., Patidar, S., 2022. Greywater characteristics in developed and developing
countries. Mater. Today: Proc. 57, 1494–1499.
Kiba, T., Krapp, A., 2016. Plant nitrogen acquisition under low availability: regulation of
uptake and root architecture. Plant Cell Physiol. 57, 707–714.
Kim, S., Park, C., 2022. Fouling behavior and cleaning strategies of ceramic
ultrafiltration membranes for the treatment and reuse of laundry wastewater.
J. Water Process Eng. 48, 102840.
Kotsia, D., Deligianni, A., Fyllas, N., Stasinakis, A., Fountoulakis, M., 2020. Converting
treatment wetlands into “treatment gardens”: use of ornamental plants for greywater
treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 744, 140889.
Koviessen, S., O’Sullivan, A., Gholami, M., Vining, M., de Vries, T., 2023. Physical and
chemical parameters of various waste materials for living roof systems: a critical
review. Ecol. Eng. 194, 107013.
Lakho, F.H., Le, H.Q., Mattheeuws, F., Igodt, W., Depuydt, V., Desloover, J., Rousseau, D.
P., Van Hulle, S.W., 2021a. Decentralized grey and black water reuse by combining a
vertical flow constructed wetland and membrane based potable water system: full
scale demonstration. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 104688.
Lakho, F.H., Le, H.Q., Van Kerkhove, F., Igodt, W., Depuydt, V., Desloover, J.,
Rousseau, D.P., Van Hulle, S.W., 2020. Water treatment and re-use at temporary
events using a mobile constructed wetland and drinking water production system.
Sci. Total Environ. 737, 139630.
Lakho, F.H., Qureshi, A., Novelli, L.D.D., Depuydt, V., Depreeuw, T., Van Hulle, S.W.,
Rousseau, D.P., 2022. Performance of a green wall (total value Wall™) at high
greywater loading rates and life cycle impact assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 821,
153470.
Lakho, F.H., Vergote, J., Khan, H.I.-U.-H., Depuydt, V., Depreeuw, T., Van Hulle, S.W.,
Rousseau, D.P., 2021b. Total value wall: full scale demonstration of a green wall for
grey water treatment and recycling. J. Environ. Manag. 298, 113489.
Li, J., Zuo, Q., 2020. Forms of nitrogen and phosphorus in suspended solids: a case study
of Lihu lake, China. Sustainability 12, 5026.
Li, X., Zhou, J., Tang, Y., Li, Y., Jin, Z., Kong, H., Zhao, M., Zheng, X., Bei, K., 2022.
A hydroponic vertical greening system for disposal and utilization of pre-treated
Blackwater: optimization of the operating conditions. Ecol. Eng. 183, 106739.
Liang, L., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2019. The effect of urbanization on environmental pollution in
rapidly developing urban agglomerations. J. Clean. Prod. 237, 117649.
Liu, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Bai, L., Deng, Y., Tao, J., 2021. Effect of pore size
distribution and amination on adsorption capacities of polymeric adsorbents.
Molecules 26, 5267.
Mahmoudi, A., Mousavi, S.A., Darvishi, P., 2021. Greywater as a sustainable source for
development of green roofs: characteristics, treatment technologies, reuse, case
studies and future developments. J. Environ. Manag. 295, 112991.
Manso, M., Castro-Gomes, J., 2015. Green wall systems: a review of their characteristics.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 863–871.
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.
Merz, C., Scheumann, R., El Hamouri, B., Kraume, M., 2007. Membrane bioreactor
technology for the treatment of greywater from a sports and leisure club.
Desalination 215, 37–43.
Molineux, C.J., Fentiman, C.H., Gange, A.C., 2009. Characterising alternative recycled
waste materials for use as green roof growing media in the UK. Ecol. Eng. 35,
1507–1513.
Nikpay, M., 2022. Wastewater fines influence the adsorption behavior of pollutants onto
microplastics. J. Polym. Environ. 30, 776–783.
Oteng-Peprah, M., Acheampong, M.A., DeVries, N.K., 2018a. Greywater characteristics,
treatment systems, reuse strategies and user perception—a review. Water, Air, Soil
Pollut. 229, 1–16.
Oteng-Peprah, M., De Vries, N., Acheampong, M., 2018b. Greywater characterization
and generation rates in a peri urban municipality of a developing country.
J. Environ. Manag. 206, 498–506.
M. Gholami et al.
Panuvatvanich, A., Koottatep, T., Koné, D., 2009. Hydraulic behaviour of vertical-flow
constructed wetland under different operating conditions. Environ. Technol. 30,
1031–1040.
Patil, P.D., Bhange, V.P., Shende, S.S., Ghorpade, P.S., 2022. Greywater characterization
of an Indian household and potential treatment for reuse. Water-Energy Nexus 5,
1–7.
Paulo, P.L., Azevedo, C., Begosso, L., Galbiati, A.F., Boncz, M.A., 2013. Natural systems
treating greywater and blackwater on-site: integrating treatment, reuse and
landscaping. Ecol. Eng. 50, 95–100.
Perini, K., Rosasco, P., 2013. Cost–benefit analysis for green façades and living wall
systems. Build. Environ. 70, 110–121.
Pradhan, S., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Mackey, H.R., 2019a. Greywater recycling in buildings
using living walls and green roofs: a review of the applicability and challenges. Sci.
Total Environ. 652, 330–344.
Pradhan, S., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Mackey, H.R., 2019b. Greywater treatment by ornamental
plants and media for an integrated green wall system. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad.
145, 104792.
Pradhan, S., Helal, M.I., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., Mackey, H.R., 2020. Performance evaluation of
various individual and mixed media for greywater treatment in vertical nature-based
systems. Chemosphere 245, 125564.
Prajapati, B., Jensen, M., Jørgensen, N., Petersen, N., 2019. Grey water treatment in
stacked multi-layer reactors with passive aeration and particle trapping. Water Res.
161, 181–190.
Prodanovic, V., Hatt, B., McCarthy, D., Deletic, A., 2020. Green wall height and design
optimisation for effective greywater pollution treatment and reuse. J. Environ.
Manag. 261, 110173.
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., McCarthy, D., Hatt, B., Deletic, A., 2019a. Designing green walls for
greywater treatment: the role of plants and operational factors on nutrient removal.
Ecol. Eng. 130, 184–195.
Prodanovic, V., Wang, A., Deletic, A., 2019b. Assessing water retention and correlation
to climate conditions of five plant species in greywater treating green walls. Water
Res. 167, 115092.
Prodanovic, V., Zhang, K., Hatt, B., McCarthy, D., Deletic, A., 2018. Optimisation of
lightweight green wall media for greywater treatment and reuse. Build. Environ.
131, 99–107.
Prodanovic, V., Zhang, K., Zheng, M., Hu, S., Hong, P.-Y., Yuan, Z., Deletic, A., 2023.
Nitrification potential of daily-watered biofiltration designs for high ammonium
wastewater treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 863, 160989.
Qadir, M., Drechsel, P., Jiménez Cisneros, B., Kim, Y., Pramanik, A., Mehta, P.,
Olaniyan, O., 2020. Global and regional potential of wastewater as a water, nutrient
and energy source. Nat. Resour. Forum 44 (1), 40–51.
Radingoana, M.P., Dube, T., Mazvimavi, D., 2020. Progress in greywater reuse for home
gardening: opportunities, perceptions and challenges. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/
C 116, 102853.
Ramprasad, C., Philip, L., 2018. Greywater treatment using horizontal, vertical and
hybrid flow constructed wetlands. Curr. Sci. 114 (1), 155–165.
Ramprasad, C., Smith, C.S., Memon, F.A., Philip, L., 2017. Removal of chemical and
microbial contaminants from greywater using a novel constructed wetland: grow.
Ecol. Eng. 106, 55–65.
Read, J., Wevill, T., Fletcher, T., Deletic, A., 2008. Variation among plant species in
pollutant removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Water Res. 42, 893–902.
Rudrappa, T., Biedrzycki, M.L., Bais, H.P., 2008. Causes and consequences of plant-
associated biofilms. FEMS (Fed. Eur. Microbiol. Soc.) Microbiol. Ecol. 64, 153–166.
Saeed, T., Sun, G., 2012. A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in
subsurface flow constructed wetlands: dependency on environmental parameters,
operating conditions and supporting media. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 429–448.
18
Journal of Environmental Management 345 (2023) 118917
Sami, M., Hedström, A., Kvarnström, E., McCarthy, D., Herrmann, I., 2023. Greywater
treatment in a green wall using different filter materials and hydraulic loading rates.
J. Environ. Manag. 340, 117998.
Schwammberger, P.F., Yule, C.M., Tindale, N.W., 2020. Rapid plant responses following
relocation of a constructed floating wetland from a construction site into an urban
stormwater retention pond. Sci. Total Environ. 699, 134372.
Shaikh, I.N., Ahammed, M.M., 2020. Quantity and quality characteristics of greywater: a
review. J. Environ. Manag. 261, 110266.
Shen, S., Li, X., Cheng, F., Zha, X., Lu, X., 2020. Recent developments of substrates for
nitrogen and phosphorus removal in CWs treating municipal wastewater. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27, 29837–29855.
Solano, L., Ristvey, A.G., Lea-Cox, J.D., Cohan, S.M., 2012. Sequestering zinc from
recycled crumb rubber in extensive green roof media. Ecol. Eng. 47, 284–290.
Sotiropoulou, M., Stefanatou, A., Schiza, S., Petousi, I., Stasinakis, A., Fountoulakis, M.,
2022. Removal of microfiber in vertical flow constructed wetlands treating
greywater. Sci. Total Environ., 159723
Thomaidi, V., Petousi, I., Kotsia, D., Kalogerakis, N., Fountoulakis, M., 2022. Use of green
roofs for greywater treatment: role of substrate, depth, plants, and recirculation. Sci.
Total Environ. 807, 151004.
Turner, R.D., Will, G.D., Dawes, L.A., Gardner, E.A., Lyons, D.J., 2013. Phosphorus as a
limiting factor on sustainable greywater irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 456, 287–298.
Verma, A.K., Dash, A.K., Bhunia, P., Dash, R.R., 2021. Removal of surfactants in
greywater using low-cost natural adsorbents: a review. Surface. Interfac. 27, 101532.
Vijayaraghavan, K., 2016. Green roofs: a critical review on the role of components,
benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57, 740–752.
Vijayaraghavan, K., Raja, F.D., 2014. Design and development of green roof substrate to
improve runoff water quality: plant growth experiments and adsorption. Water Res.
63, 94–101.
Vox, G., Blanco, I., Convertino, F., Schettini, E., 2022. Heat transfer reduction in building
envelope with green façade system: a year-round balance in Mediterranean climate
conditions. Energy Build. 274, 112439.
Vuppaladadiyam, A.K., Merayo, N., Prinsen, P., Luque, R., Blanco, A., Zhao, M., 2019.
A review on greywater reuse: quality, risks, barriers and global scenarios. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 18, 77–99.
Wang, J., Li, Y., Wang, W., Wu, H., Kong, F., Wang, S., 2022. Enhancement of wastewater
treatment under low temperature using novel electrochemical active biofilms
constructed wetland. J. Environ. Manag. 312, 114913.
Wu, S., Austin, D., Liu, L., Dong, R., 2011. Performance of integrated household
constructed wetland for domestic wastewater treatment in rural areas. Ecol. Eng. 37,
948–954.
Xu, C., Yuan, Q., Zhao, S., He, T., Song, N., 2020. Effects of pretreatments on physical
and chemical characteristics of wheat straw used as a maintenance-free compressed
green roof substrate material. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 123381.
Xue, M., Farrell, C., 2020. Use of organic wastes to create lightweight green roof
substrates with increased plant-available water. Urban For. Urban Green. 48,
126569.
Young, T., Cameron, D.D., Sorrill, J., Edwards, T., Phoenix, G.K., 2014. Importance of
different components of green roof substrate on plant growth and physiological
performance. Urban For. Urban Green. 13, 507–516.
Yuvaraj, M., Bose, K.S.C., Elavarasi, P., Tawfik, E., 2021. Soil salinity and its
management. In: Meena, R.S., Datta, R. (Eds.), Soil Moisture Importance.
IntechOpen, p. 109.
Zhai, X., Piwpuan, N., Arias, C.A., Headley, T., Brix, H., 2013. Can root exudates from
emergent wetland plants fuel denitrification in subsurface flow constructed wetland
systems? Ecol. Eng. 61, 555–563.
Zheng, G., Tian, B., Zhang, F., Tao, F., Li, W., 2011. Plant adaptation to frequent
alterations between high and low temperatures: remodelling of membrane lipids and
maintenance of unsaturation levels. Plant Cell Environ. 34, 1431–1442.
Zheng, J., Kamal, M.A., 2020. The effect of household income on residential wastewater
output: evidence from urban China. Util. Pol. 63, 101000.