Greywater: a study of greywater

characteristics and treatment feasibility at

the University of Reading
WATEF -Water Efficiency Conference 2013
Qasim Akhtar, Katherine Hyde & Tom Yearley
Tuesday 26th March 2013

What is Greywater ?
S For the purpose of the British Standard (BS:8525,2011),

greywater is defined as water originating from bathrooms,

including,
S water used in baths, showers, washbasins and for
laundry

S Characterised by its cloudy appearance and richness in

organic matter (Pidou 2007)

Benefits

S Reduction of the use of mains water for non-potable

applications
S Reduction in water bills
S Reduces the pressure on existing freshwater sources
S Natural recharge of soils

Aim and Objectives of UoR Greywater Study

Aim

To evaluate the characteristics of greywater and the feasibility for

implementing greywater treatment systems at the University of Reading
Objectives
S Determine the chemical and biological characteristics of untreated

greywater at the UoR

S Evaluate the effectiveness of treatment on the characteristics of greywater

S Evaluate the quality of untreated and treated greywater, and the potential

for greywater reuse

S Examine the installation costs of greywater system at the UoR

Greywater Collection

Greywater was sourced from two halls of residences

1. Sibly Hall Located in close proximity to UoRs
Whiteknights campus
2. Wessex Hall Located within the UoRs Whiteknights
campus

Methodology
Collection of GW
From Washbasins

Transfer to
Storage Bucket

Chemical
&&
Chemical
Microbiological
Bacterial Analysis
Analysis

Filtered GW Sample
Taken

Approach to
Greywater
Collection &
Analysis

Treatment

Transport to
UoRs Engineering
Department

Transfer to
Settlement Bucket
and Mixing
Unltered GW
Sample Taken

Treatment System
S Comprising of two brewing buckets and a Intex Krystal

Clear 604 cartridge filter pump

S Capacity of pump - 2000 litres an hour.
S Cartridge filter - Dacron (PET, Polyethylene terephthalate)
S Filter pore size rating ~0.45m
S Storage capacity of buckets 15 and 25 litres.
S Treatment - 12 minute cycles per batch of greywater

Chemical Analysis
Chemical Analysis
S Analysis took place on the same day as greywater collection and

treatment.
S In total 24 samples were analysed, yielding 12 untreated and 12 treated

samples.
S In line with standard methods, repeat and blank samples were analysed

for each sample.

S The standard analytical procedures were carried out in an accredited

UKAS laboratory at the University of Reading.

Parameters Analysed
Chemical Analysis
S Following parameters were analysed:
S pH

S Electrical conductivity (EC)

S Total Solids (TS) & Total dissolved solids (TDS)
S Anions Ion chromatography

Water Quality Standards

Parameter and
maximum
concentration

pH

a) for greywater 6.0 9.5

b) for bathing
and drinking

EC
(s/cm)

TDS
(mg/l)

450 550 <1500

6.5 7.9 <2,500

300
500

Chloride Fluoride
(mg/l)
(mg/l)

Nitrate Phosphate Sulphate

(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)

<250

<1.5

<45

<250

Information on standards for greywater, bathing and drinking water was

obtained from a range of sources and these are denoted as follows:
For greywater:

BS: 8525-1/2 (2011);

CSIRO (Diaper et al, 2008);

Chinese Greywater Standard (Ernst et al, 2006)

For Bathing and drinking water:

Health Protection Agency Drinking Water Standard (2009);

Safe Drinking Water Foundation Standard (2009);

Thames Water Drinking Water Standard (2011);

US Environmental Protection Agency Standards (2009)

Results Electrical Conductivity and TS

S Electrical Conductivity Results
S Reduction of 12% following treatment

Electrical Conduc vty and Total Solids

Concentra ons

S Unfiltered within a range acceptable

S Total Solids Results

S Unfiltered Greywater 442 mg/l

S Filtered Greywater - 269 mg/l

S 63% Reduction in TS.

700

TDS (mg/l) & EC (S/cm )

for potable water

S Filtered - within a range acceptable
for potable water (MRCCC 2007)

600
500
400

EC
300

TS

200
100
0

UF

S TDS concentrations, compliant with standards

S Unfiltered classed as Good (SDWF 2009)
S Filtered classed as Excellent (SDWF 2009)

Results
S pH concentration
S Treated samples are slightly
8.3
8.2
8.1
8
pH

more alkaline
S This is most probably linked to
removal of:
S Buffering agents
S Surfactants and micelles
S Unfiltered greywater
compliant with all standards
S Filtered greywater
compliant with 7 out of 9
standards

pH - A Comparison

7.9
pH

7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
UF

Results - Chloride
Chloride (mg/l)
Tap

UF

70

Chloride (mg/l)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tap

UF

Tap Water/ GW Sample

S Chloride Concentrations

S Concentrations are controlled to reduce conductivity and corrosive

nature within pipes

S Increase of 8% from tap water levels, in untreated greywater
S Removal rate of 16% as a result of treatment
S Concentrations recorded in untreated and treated samples were below
the 250mg/l limit, set in potable and non potable water standards

Results - Nitrate
Nitrate (mg/l)
30

Nitrate (mg/l)

25
20
15
10
5
0
Tap

UF

Tap/GW Samples

S Nitrate concentrations
S Concentrations recorded in untreated and treated samples

were below the 45-50mg/l limits set in potable and non potable
water standards

Results - Sulphate
Sulphate (mg/l)
30
Sulphate mg/l)

25
20
15
10
5
0
Tap

UF

Tap/ GW sample

S Sulphate concentration
S Concentrations in drinking water controlled to prevent intestinal

discomfort
S No significant reduction in sulphate concentrations as a result of
treatment
S Concentrations within untreated and treated samples below the 250mg/l
- 500mg/l limit

Results - Fluoride
Flouride (mg/l)
0.3

Flouride (mg/l)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Tap

UF

Tap Water/ GW Sample

S Fluoride concentration
S Negligible difference between treated and untreated greywater
S Low concentrations of fluoride in both untreated and treated

samples
S Levels within untreated and treated samples below the 1.5
3mg/l limit for potable water

Economic Feasibility at UoR

a
Output of GW (L/Day)
Size of System (L/Day)
Capital Cost ()
Total Annual Savings ()
Annual Depreciation ()
NPV (5%)
IRR (%)
Simple Payback

Science and
Wessex Hall East Lodge
Technology Centre
6,250
5,153
2,090
6,500
5,500
2,500
15,000
12,650
5,750
4,000
3,308
1,347
1,000
843
338
16,211
12,942
5,723
18%
18%
16%
5
5.1
5.7
15 Year Lifetime of System

S Potential Annual Greywater Yield S Science and Technology Centre 2,477 m3

S Wessex Hall 1,881m3
S East Lodge 766 m3

Implications
S Despite using a filtration system having a relatively limited

technical specification, the characteristics of the greywater

quality improvement exemplified the potential for treating
greywater for reuse at the University of Reading
S The chemical constituents in the treated greywater complied

with the BS:8525 requirements for greywater supplies

S The outcomes regarding the efficacy of using an inexpensive

system of greywater treatment may be applied in future to small

throughput, lightly loaded systems, provided that chlorination or
other disinfection were to be added to the process

Implications
S The feasibility study indicated that the early-stage benefits of

implementing greywater treatment and of using distributed

greywater at the University can be tentatively demonstrated
on the grounds of technical, environmental and financial
viability
S Research conducted during the feasibility study indicated that

water savings and cost savings will be made following the

installation of greywater treatment on the campus
S When taking into consideration the calculation of the

potential annual supply of greywater within those buildings,

savings in potable water supply and effluent charges will be
likely to be achieved

Conclusions
S Greywater sourced from washbasins is chemically suitable for

reuse
S Simple biological treatment is required to remove biological

contaminates
S The payback period for a greywater systems at UoR is within

the range of 5-6 years

S Greywater systems at the UoR can offer water based savings

of between 4,000 and 1,347 annually

Recommendations
S In order to obtain more substantial estimates of these

variables and to determine whether the technology would be

suitable for roll-out throughout the University estate, it would
be appropriate to implement a pilot project in one or more
buildings to enable more detailed testing
S Future research is also needed to assess the rates at which

greywater can be recovered, as a proportion of incoming

mains water, from a variety of uses

References
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

S
S
S
S
S
S

Bristol Water (2009) Drinking water quality, the standards explained, Bristol : Bristol Water
British Standards Institute (2010) BS 8525-1 Greywater systems Part 2: Domestic Greywater Treatment Equipment, Requirements and Test Methods Milton
Keynes : BSI.
Ernst M, Sperlich A, Zheng X, Gan Y, Hu J, Zhao X, Wang J, Jekel M (2006) An integrated wastewater treatment and reuse concept for the Olympic Park
2008, Beijing. Desalination, 202 (1-3) pp 293301.
Health Protection Agency (2009) Drinking water safety, guidance to health and water professionals, Whitehall; Heath Protection Agency.
Morel A, Diener S (2006) Grey water management in low and middle-income countries. Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (Sandec). Eawag: Swiss
Federal institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Swizerland. Available at [Online] http://www.susana.org/langen/library?view=ccbktypeitem&type=2&id=947 [Accessed 18/04/2012].
Memon F A., Butler D , Han W, Liu, S., Makropoulos C. K., Avery L., et al. (2005). Economic assessment tool for greywater recycling systems.
Engineering Sustainability, Institution of Civil Engineers, 158(ES3), 155161.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2000) Water efficiency in the home. POST, London, 2000, Note 135.
Pidou M, Memon F A, Stephenson T, Jefferson B, Jeffery P (2007) Greywater recycling: A review of treatment options and applications, Institute of Civil
Engineers, Proceedings of the ICE- Energy Sustainability, Vol 160, p 191-131.
Rose, J. B., Sun, G., Gerba, C. P., & Sinclair, N. A. (1991). Microbial quality and persistence of enteric pathogens in greywater from various household
sources. Water Research, 25(1), 3742.
Safe Drinking Water Foundation (2009) TDS and pH. North Saskatoon: Safe Drinking Water Foundation
Surendran S. and Wheatlry A. D. Greywater reclamation for non-potable reuse. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental
Management, 1998, 12, 406 413.
Thames Water (2011) Drinking water standards explained. Reading: Thames Water. Available at http://www.thameswater.co.uk/your-water/7503.htm
[Accessed 25/07/2012[
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Drinking Water Contaminants. Washington D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
World Health Organisation (2003) Chloride in Drinking water. Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality.
Geneva: World Health Organisation
World Health Organization (2003) Nitrate and nitrite in drinking-water. Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality.
Geneva: World Health Organization
World Health Organization (2003) Sulphate in drinking-water. Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva:
World Health Organization
World Health Organisation (2003) Total Dissolved Solids in Drinking water. Background document for preparation of WHO Guidelines for drinkingwater quality. Geneva: World Health Organisation

Costs - Assumptions
Total Water Consumption
S Based on water readings for 4 months.
S Water consumption is constant throughout 15 year lifetime of system.
S Sewerage
S Assumed to be 95% of all water consumed (Southern Water 2012).
S Greywater Yield
S

30% of sewerage available as greywater (Parliamentary Office of Science and

Technology 2000).
S Capital Costs
S Based on estimates for greywater system by Surendran et al (1998) and Memon et al
(2005)
S 5 stage system including physical and biological treatment.
S Do not include O&M costs.
S Based on a retrofit system.
S Discount Rate
S 5% (Glick et al 2009).
S