Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Single house on-site grey water treatment using a submerged membrane

bioreactor for toilet ushing
M.S. Fountoulakis , N. Markakis, I. Petousi, T. Manios
Department of Agricultural Technology, Technological Educational Institute of Crete, Heraklion, Greece

H I G H L I G H T S

G R A P H I C A L

A B S T R A C T

Membrane bioreactor is an effective

method for grey water treatment.
Anionic surfactants removed at about
80%.
Treated grey water is almost free of
pathogenic content.
Nitrogen content in the inuent and the
efuent varied seasonally.
Efuent satisfy the international guidelines for indoor reuse.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 December 2015
Received in revised form 8 February 2016
Accepted 8 February 2016
Available online xxxx
Editor: D. Barcelo
Keywords:
Wastewater
Anionic surfactants
Removal efciency
Regulations
Recycled water

a b s t r a c t
Wastewater recycling has been and continues to be practiced all over the world for a variety of reasons including:
increasing water availability, combating water shortages and drought, and supporting environmental and public
health protection. Nowadays, one of the most interesting issues for wastewater recycling is the on-site treatment
and reuse of grey water. During this study the efciency of a compact Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR)
system to treat real grey water in a single house in Crete, Greece, was examined. In the study, grey water was collected from a bathtub, shower and washing machine containing signicant amounts of organic matter and pathogens. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal in the system was approximately 87%. Total suspended solids
(TSS) were reduced from 95 mg L1 in the inuent to 8 mg L1 in the efuent. The efciency of the system to
reduce anionic surfactants was about 80%. Fecal and total coliforms decreased signicantly using the SMBR system due to rejection, by the membrane, used in the study. Overall, the SMBR treatment produces average efuent
values that would satisfy international guidelines for indoor reuse applications such as toilet ushing.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mfountoul@staff.teicrete.gr (M.S. Fountoulakis).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.057
0048-9697/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Wastewater recycling has been and continues to be practiced all

over the world for a variety of reasons including: increasing water availability, combating water shortages and drought, and supporting

M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

environmental and public health protection (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 2004). Nowadays, one of the most interesting issues
for wastewater recycling is the on-site treatment and reuse of grey
water.
Grey water has been dened as wastewater originating from bathtubs, showers, hand basins, washing machines, dishwashers and
kitchen sinks (Eriksson et al., 2009). Recently, a trend has emerged by
which grey water is excluded from kitchen sinks and dishwashers
(Oron et al., 2014). The advantage of recycling grey water is that it is a
plentiful water source with a low pathogen and organic content. To illustrate, grey water represents 5070% of total consumed water but
contains only 30% of the organic fraction and 920% of the nutrients,
thereby making it a good source for water reuse. Moreover, in an individual household, it has been established that grey water could potentially support the amount of water needed for toilet ushing and
outdoor uses such as car washing and garden watering. Grey water
varies regionally and over time. Water supply quality and activities in
the house have an effect on the characteristics of grey water. Grey
water originating from the bathroom and laundry includes mainly
chemicals (detergents, soaps and salts) and several million pathogenic
bacteria, which can cause a health hazard if this water is reused without
proper treatment. Therefore, grey water must undergo certain treatments so that it can be made ready for reuse (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015).
Recently, the use of grey water has been encouraged by several
countries worldwide including Australia (Pinto and Maheshwari,
2010), USA (Yu et al., 2013), Japan (Ogoshi et al., 2001), Jordan
(Halalsheh et al., 2008), Cyprus (Charalambous et al., 2011) and Israel
(Oron et al., 2014). Australia, for example, has already developed guidelines for grey water reuse and offers rebates for the installation of grey
water systems. Severe droughts resulting in stringent restrictions on
outdoor tap water use have resulted in up to 71% of Melbourne households (ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007) reusing grey water
most frequently collected from laundry use and bathroom. In Tokyo,
Japan grey water recycling is mandatory for buildings with an area
N30,000 m2 or with a potential non-potable demand of more than
100 m3 per day. The government has created incentives in this respect:
In order to offset the costs associated with construction, the Japanese
Ministry of Construction provides subsidies of up to 50% of the capital
costs. Meanwhile, in Palo Alto, California, ofcials are promoting incentives that will help offset the high costs associated with the installation
of advanced grey water treatment systems. City ofcials are offering
homeowners $1.50 per square foot, up to $3000, of lawn removal if
grey water irrigation and less water-demanding landscaping are
established.
Depending on the required reuse applications, different treatment
technologies including physical (March et al., 2004), chemical (Pidou
et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2005) and biological (Eriksson et al., 2009; Leal
et al., 2012; Lamine et al., 2007) operational methods can be implemented for grey water treatment. So while, sand lter or settlement
and otation are used for landscape irrigation, a more complex system
is required, on the other hand, for an in-house reuse of treated grey
water (Li et al., 2009). Rotary biological contactors (RBC) (Eriksson
et al., 2009; Nolde, 1999), membrane bioreactors (Bani-Melhem et al.,
2015; Huelgas and Funamizu, 2010; Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006), constructed wetlands (Kadewa et al., 2010; Comino et al., 2013) and sequencing batch reactors (SBR) (Gabarro et al., 2013; Krishnan et al.,
2008) seem to be the more interesting treatment options for indoor
reuse of grey water. Among the different treatment methods, the membrane bioreactor (MBR) appears to be an attractive method for grey
water treatment, particularly in collective urban residential buildings
since it combines physical separation of colloidal substances, including
pathogenic bacteria, with aerobic biological treatment of dissolved organic matter, (Lazarova et al., 2003; Pidou, 2006; Li et al., 2009).
Although several previous studies have been conducted on grey
water treatment using MBR technology (the sources of grey water and
types of membrane used in these works are presented in Table 1), it is

707

Table 1
Previous studies about greywater treatment with MBR.
Country

Water source

Building

Membrane type

UKa
Chinab
Germanyc
Moroccod
UKe
Spainf
Austriag
Jordanh

Articial
Showers (mainly)
Bathrooms & kitchens
Showers
Showers & bathroom sinks
Showers & bathroom sinks
Articial
Cleaning and sinks

Multistory building
University building
Apartments & ofce
Sports & leisure club
University building
Company Building
Single house
University building

Flat
Hollow
Flat
Hollow
Flat
Flat
Hollow
Hollow

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h

Jefferson et al. (2000).

Liu et al. (2005).
Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006.
Merz et al. (2007).
Winward et al. (2008).
Santasmasas et al. (2013).
Jabornig and Favero (2013).
Bani-Melhem et al. (2015).

evident that there is a real lack of information on the behavior of MBR

systems under real conditions in the case of single houses. Grey water
from single households is a resource and can be reused on-site, if treated
appropriately, for toilet ushing, car washing and laundry use.
Substituting grey water for drinking water for these end uses will not
only reduce the demand on drinking water supplies, but will also reduce
the amount of wastewater discharged into the environment. When it
comes to single houses, higher uctuations in both quantity and quality
characteristics of grey water are observed depending on the residents'
habits which may have an effect on the performance of the MBR. During
this study, the efciency of a compact SMBR system in treating real grey
water in a single house in Crete, Greece, was examined in which physical, chemical and microbial characteristics of the efuent were monitored and compared with the inuent.

2. Materials & methods

2.1. Experimental setup
The SMBR used in this study consisted of a bioreactor with a working
volume of 1.0 m3 which also included sufcient balancing volume for
incoming grey water ushes and a at plate membrane (SiClaro
FM611, Martin) with a pore size of 0.04 m and a total surface area of
6.25 m2. Aeration was provided at the base of the membrane module
via a diffuser supplied with air from an air compressor. The grey water
owed up to the SMBR system using the force of gravity. The water
level in the SMBR was controlled by a pump and a oat switch system.
When the water level in the tank reached a high level (1.0 m3), a oat
switch activated the suction pump and air compressor. On the other
hand, when water level reached a low level (0.8 m3), the suction
pump and air compressor were turned off. In order to reduce the operating cost of the SMBR, aeration was applied only when the suction
pump was turned on.
The treatment unit was also equipped with a UV lamp (AT 1500,
Norwego) at 254 nm for additional disinfection and a ow meter to record the quantity of grey water. The UV lamp was inserted in-line with
the treated efuent pipe. The UV dose at the maximum ow rate was
40 mW s/cm2. The disinfection compartment was equipped with an internal current sensing circuit that continuously monitored the performance of the UV lamp.
The system was installed in a single house in Gournes, Crete, Greece,
which is permanently inhabited by two people (father and mother)
who often host their daughter. Grey water in the house was collected
from a bathtub, a shower and a washing machine.

708

M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

2.2. Chemical analyses

3.2. Submerged membrane bioreactor efciency

The inuent and efuent were sampled regularly for a period of

9 months (Sep 2014Feb 2015 and Jul 2015Sep 2015) and analyzed
for pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC) according to APHA, AWWA,
WEF (2005) using a pH-meter (model 3110, WTW) and conductimeter
(model 525, Crison). Turbidity was measured using a portable Turbidity
Meter (2100Q, Hach). Chemical oxygen demand (COD), Total Nitrogen
(TN), Nitrate, Total Phosphorus (TP) and Anionic Surfactants concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically by use of standard test
kits (Hach-Lange). Total coliforms and Escherichia coli were determined
using the IDEXX Quanti-Tray enumeration procedure with Colilert18 reagent (APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005). Sealed trays were incubated
for 18 h at 37 C, after which the MPN of total coliforms and E. coli
were determined.

Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the bioreactor stabilized at

about 23 g/L. The ratio of MLVSS to MLSS ranged from 72% to 84% during the experimental period. The reasons for the low values of MLSS observed in this study may be due to the low aeration applied in the
reactor and the composition of the grey water, which contains a variety
of bactericidal substances from shampoos, soaps and cleaning agents.
Similarly, Liu et al. (2005) reported a MLSS concentration of about
1.3 g/L in a SMBR treating bath wastewater. Fig. 1 shows the variation
of COD concentration in the inuent and the efuent of the SMBR. The
mean COD concentration in the efuent was found to be 59
37 mg L1, signicantly lower than the COD concentration in the inuent (466 252 mg L1). Similar results were also observed in a previous study (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015) treating real grey water from a
building belonging to the Faculty of Natural Resources at the Hashemite
University, Jordan where a decrease in COD value from 356 mg L1 in
the inuent to 42 mg L1 in the SMBR efuent was found.
Santasmasas et al. (2013) reported a COD mean concentration of
29 mg L1 in the efuent of an MBR while the COD concentration in
raw grey water (from showers and bathroom sinks) in a company
building in Spain was 302 mg L1.
Total nitrogen variation during the monitoring period is presented in
Fig. 2 where we see that TN content in the inuent and the efuent varied seasonally. During the winter period, the inuent contains seasonal
lower concentrations of TN (mean average 25 mg L1 as opposed to
36 mg L 1 during March-November). In the same period, seasonal
lower removal efciencies were also recorded (mean average removal
of 19% as opposed to 45% during March-November). The lower nitrogen
content in raw grey water for the winter period may be linked to residents' activities. The system's limited overall performance in regard to
nitrogen removal was associated with the low aeration that was applied. It is a known fact that a high dissolved oxygen concentration
can enhance the nitrication rates while also inhibiting the denitrication process. On the other hand, at lower dissolved oxygen concentrations the nitrication process was inhibited, while the denitrication
process was enhanced (Pochana and Keller, 1999). The mean nitrate
concentration in the outlet of 0.2 0.2 mg L1 indicated that nitrication process in the SMBR was inhibited.
In addition, decreased nitrogen removal efciency during the winter
period could be related with lower temperatures. The optimum temperatures for common bacterial activity in activated sludge processes are in
the range of 2535 C. When the temperature drops to about 5 C, the

2.3. Data analysis

The data was analyzed through one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to compare the effect of SMBR on grey water quality
characteristics.
3. Results & discussion
3.1. Grey water characteristics
The overall quantity of grey water produced over a period of
13 months (Sep 2014Sep 2015) was 28.5 m3, corresponding to
73 L day1 or to about 36.5 L inhabitant1 day1. A previous study
(Antonopoulou et al., 2013) in 90 households in Greece estimated
(based on the use of questionnaires) that the average quantity of wastewater produced from showers, bathtubs and laundry use was signicantly higher (55.2 L inhabitant1 day1). Quantitatively, grey water
characteristics are presented in Table 2. Signicant amounts of organic
matter as well as pathogens were recorded. The COD:N:P ratio was
100:7.1:0.3 which was quite good for nitrogen but poor for phosphorus.
Reliable data for household grey water in Greece is very limited.
Antonopoulou et al. (2013) reported COD and TSS concentrations
from shower and bathtub use of 399 183 mg L1 and 63
38 mg L1 respectively, values which are close to the ndings of the
present study. No data for the other parameters are available in
Greece to our knowledge. Moreover, mean values found in this work
for all examined parameters are consistent with those reported in the
literature worldwide (Table 2) with the exception of nitrogen. In general, grey water characteristics (quantitative and qualitative) produced
in houses vary widely, depending on the size of the household and the
residents' habits. In small houses, as in this case, higher uctuations in
both quantity and quality characteristics of grey water are usually
observed.
Table 2
Characteristic values of grey water originated from bathroom and laundry.
Parameter

pH
EC (mS cm1)
COD (mg L1)
TSS (mg L1)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total-N (mg L1)
Total-P (mg L1)
Anionic surfactants (mg L1)
Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL1) 105
E. coli (MPN 100 mL1) 105

Grey water
Previous studiesa
Minmax

This study
Mean (minmax)

6.410
0.91.6
26645
7250
37444
3.621
0.1101
3076
0240
03.4

7.1 (6.27.8)
0.6 (0.41.1)
466 (2171461)
95 (60134)
162 (29559)
33 (1663)
1.3 (0.53.8)
37 (1162)
4.8 (0.8119)
3.6 (0.681)

a
Christova-Boal et al. (1996); Almeida et al. (1999); Nolde (1999); Eriksson et al.
(2002); Friedler (2004); Antonopoulou et al. (2013); Bani-Melhem et al. (2015).

Fig. 1. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) variation in the inuent and the efuent of SMBR
during the monitoring period.

M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

709

during the treatment of grey water with an SMBR system (mean anionic
surfactant concentration of 45 mg L1 in raw grey water).
Table 3 shows the overall performance of the SMBR system during
the monitoring period. The pH and EC values were slightly increased
in the outlet of the system, which should be taken into consideration
in case of reuse for crop irrigation. A very efcient removal of TSS and
turbidity was observed. Total coliforms and E. coli decreased signicantly with the SMBR system due to rejection, from the UF membrane,
used in the study. The efuent was almost free of pathogenic content.
On average, the SMBR system reduced the total coliforms and E. coli
from 4.8 105 MPN 100 mL1 and 3.6 105 MPN 100 mL1 in grey
water to b 7 MPN 100 mL1 and 1 MPN 100 mL1 in the efuent respectively. In general, TSS, turbidity and pathogens were effectively removed with the use of MBR systems (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015;
Jefferson et al., 2000; Santasmasas et al., 2013; Jabornig and Favero,
2013; Ghunmi et al., 2011). This makes the application of MBR systems
the ideal solution for grey water treatment.
Fig. 2. TN variation in the inuent and the efuent of SMBR during the monitoring period
in comparison with air temperature (monthly mean).

autotrophic nitrifying bacteria practically cease functioning

(Krzeminski et al., 2012). Chiemchaisri and Yamamoto (1994) examined the performance of a membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewater treatment at various temperatures and found that nitrogen removal
decreased signicantly as the temperature dropped to 10 C.
A reduction of total phosphorus concentration was also observed
(data not shown). TP concentration varied from 0.5 to 1.7 mg L1 in
the untreated grey water, and from 0.01 to 0.7 mg L1 in the SMBR efuent. The SMBR system's performance, with respect to TP removal,
was close to the results found in the literature (Bani-Melhem et al.,
2015; Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006).
Fig. 3 shows the SMBR system's performance with respect to anionic
surfactant removal. The average removal was about 80% during the
monitoring period with a mean concentration value in the efuent of
8.0 mg L1. Turning to anionic surfactants which are widely used in
many personal care and household products, to our knowledge, there
are limited reports on anionic surfactant removal for SMBR systems
treating real grey water. That being said, Santasmasas et al. (2013) reported a mean removal efciency of about 98% using a signicantly
lower mean concentration (compared to this study) of 7.1 mg L1 of anionic surfactants in the MBR inlet, while Bani-Melhem et al. (2015)
found a uctuation in anionic surfactant removal from 60% to 90%

3.3. Quality criteria for toilet ushing reuse

The scope of this study was to examine the efciency of an SMBR for
the purposes of producing high quality recycled water that satises
stringent reuse criteria for indoor uses such as toilet ushing. Table 4
presents the quality criteria for the application of treated grey water
worldwide for toilet ushing (toilet ushing guidelines require disinfection to avoid human health related risks for which turbidity and E. coli
concentrations are the two most-used parameters). The worldwide
quality criteria varied from b20 to b2 NTU for turbidity and from
b100 to b1 number 100 mL1 for E. coli. Treated grey water in this
study satised all existing guidelines with the exception of the California turbidity criteria. The pH and TSS values were also in the range required by international standards noting that BOD values, as required
by the Australian guidelines were not measured in this study.
3.4. Cost analysis
A payback analysis was conducted for the examined SMBR treatment system, the methodology of which has been described by
Jabornig (2013). Briey, cash values are calculated and compared with
a zero investment case without the treatment of grey water. The total
cost includes the investment and operation cost of a treatment system
as well as the fresh water cost and sewage disposal fees in the case of
no treatment.
The grey water amount produced annually from a four people
household in Greece was estimated at 53 m3 according to the ndings
of this study (36.5 L inhabitant1 day1). The investment cost for the
SMBR and disinfection unit was 4050 (including installation cost).
The total operation cost was calculated to be approximately
186 a year1. Specically, power demand for the treatment system
was estimated at 4.2 kWh m3 with a power cost per kWh of 0.179
(Greece mean value). The mean life time of the membrane was

Table 3
Efuent concentrations and removal efciencies for quality parameters for SMBR during
treatment of grey water.

Fig. 3. Anionic surfactants variation in the inuent and the efuent of SMBR during the
monitoring period.

Parameter

Mean (minmax)

Removal (%)

pH
EC (mS cm1)
COD (mg L1)
TSS (mg L1)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total-N (mg L1)
Total-P (mg L1)
Anionic surfactants (mg L1)
Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL1)
E. coli (MPN 100 mL1)

7.9 (7.08.6)
0.8 (0.61.9)
59 (34157)
8 (412)
5.0 (1.59.9)
20 (847)
0.4 (0.11.6)
8 (217)
1.3 (b118)
b1

87
92
97
40
69
80
100
100

710

M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

Table 4
Grey water results obtained in this study in comparison with guidelines and regulations worldwide.
Parameter

UKa

Australiab

USAc

Israeld

This study

pH
Turbidity (NTU)

5.09.5
b10

BOD (mg L1)

TSS (mg L1)
E. coli (number 100 mL1)

b25

6.58.5
b2 (95%)
b5 (max)
b10
b10
b1

b2 (avg)
b5 (max)

b100

7.9
5.0 (avg)
9.9 (max)

8
b1

Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL1)

Application

Toilet ushing

Toilet ushing/washing machines

b2.2 (avg)
b23 (max)
Toilet ushing

b20
(mean b 10)

b400
(mean b 100)

a
b
c
d

British standards Institute BS-8525-2 (2011).

Government of Western Australia (2011).
California Title 22 as reported by Yu et al. (2013).
SI-6147 as reported by Oron et al. (2014).

considered to be ve years with a replacement cost of 50 m2 while

membrane cleaning costs were estimated to be 10 a year1. Maintenance costs were estimated to be 3% of the investment. The price increase for operation costs and fresh water was assumed to be 2%
while the interest rate for the investment was calculated at a rate of 3%.
Many areas in Greece such as the Aegean islands and Crete suffer
from water scarcity (total population: 1,131,311 people, 2011 census).
Water importation from the mainland is a common practice on the Aegean Islands, as it is the only way to instantly fulll these islands' freshwater needs. In addition, many single houses in Crete transport water
for their indoor needs. As a result, the cost of fresh water in many of
these cases is more than 10 m3. Furthermore, a number of single
houses built all over the coastal areas of the Greek islands have no connection with sewerage systems. As a result, homeowners use cesspits
for temporary sewage disposal which harbors a signicantly high cost
(about 5 m3) which is related to sewage transport using vacuum
trucks.
Two scenarios were examined in regard to the payback analysis: one
with a fresh water and sewage disposal cost of 10 m 3 (more frequently the case in many single houses on the Aegean islands and
coastal Crete) and another with a fresh water and sewage disposal
cost of 5 m3 (more often the case with single houses on the mainland). In regard to the rst scenario, the results (Table 5) showed that
the SMBR system is feasible as there is a payback time of b13 years
with the opposite being true for the second scenario which entailed a
payback time of over 70 years.
A recent feasibility study conducted in Austria concerning on-site
MBR systems shows that the investment is still too high for a payback
time of b15 years for single households (Jabornig, 2013); the same author stated that the major factors, if these systems are to be feasible,
are the fresh water cost and sewage disposal costs. The higher these
costs are, the faster the investment in on-site MBR systems can become
cost effective. In regard to this study, it was found that where fresh
water and sewage disposal costs were above 10 m 3, the on-site
SMBR systems were feasible even for single houses.
Table 5
Treatment performance and payback analysis for a single house in Greece.a

Cost
Investment ()
Operational ( y1)
Fresh water and sewage fees ( y1)
Total cash value ()
Annual cost ()
Payback time (y)
a

Toilet ushing

1.3 (avg)
18 (max)

Aegean island

Mainland

MBR +
UV

No
invest

MBR +
UV

No
invest

4050
186
0
6232
603
12.6

0
0
530
6232
603

4050
186
0
13509
462
71

0
0
265
13509
462

Assuming grey water production of 53 m3 y1.

Although the use of other systems has also been placed under consideration (Li et al., 2009), all other systems achieve quality criteria (especially for TSS and turbidity) for indoor uses with a degree of difculty.
Thus the combination of the aerobic biological process with physical ltration and disinfection may be an economical and feasible solution
(Friedler and Hadari, 2006). That being said, there is no available data
for grey water treatment in single houses in this respect. In his overview
of companies producing advanced grey water systems for single households (2013), Jabornig found that there were, in total, 13 companies
from which 11 use membrane ltration either as MBR or direct UF/MF
ltration, as a treatment step. So, both companies and researchers are
convinced that on-site MBR systems will have a promising future
(Jabornig, 2013) on advanced grey water treatment.

4. Conclusions
During this study the efciency of a compact submerged membrane
bioreactor for on-site grey water treatment in a single house in Crete,
Greece, was examined for the rst time. Real grey water produced in
the household contained signicant concentrations of COD, TSS, anionic
surfactants and pathogens. SMBR treatment was found to be an effective
method of grey water treatment and reuse with respect to the above parameters. The mean reduction of COD and anionic surfactants was more
than 80% while total coliforms and E. coli were also almost 100% effectively removed. Unexpectedly, a signicant amount of nitrogen was recorded in raw grey water, while the nitrogen removal efciency of the
SMBR uctuated seasonally from 19% in winter to 45% during other periods. The use of a complicated and relative costly system for grey water
treatment necessitates the production of high quality recycled water.
This recycled water should satisfy reuse criteria, not only for outdoor
uses such as irrigation but also for indoor uses such as toilet ushing,
in order to compete with other simpler systems. Indeed, during this
study it was found that SMBR is an effective grey water treatment system, producing recycled water suitable for toilet ushing. The feasibility
of a SMBR system for grey water treatment in single houses depends on
fresh water and sewage disposal cost (more than 10 m3).

Acknowledgments
This research has been co-nanced by the European Union
(European Social Fund ESF 20072013, Grant Number MIS 380040)
and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Education
and Lifelong Learning of the National Strategic Reference Framework
(NSRF 20072013, Grant Number MIS 380040) - Research Funding
Program THALES: Reinforcement of the interdisciplinary and/or interinstitutional research and innovation (acronym: Hydropolis).

M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551552 (2016) 706711

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.057.
References
ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics 4602.0-Environmental Issues: People's Views and
Practices, March 2007. Common wealth of Australia, Canberra.
Almeida, M.C., Butler, D., Friedler, E., 1999. At-source domestic wastewater quality. Urban
Water 1, 4955.
Antonopoulou, C., Kirkou, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2013. Quantitative greywater characterisation in Greek households and investigation of their treatment using physicochemical
methods. Sci Total Environ 454455, 426432.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF).
Bani-Melhem, K., Al-Qodah, Z., Al-Shannag, M., Qasaimeh, A., Rasool Qtaishat, M.,
Alkasrawi, M., 2015. On the performance of real grey water treatment using a submerged membrane bioreactor system. J. Membr. Sci. 476, 4049.
BS-8525-2, Greywater Systems Part 2: Domestic Greywater Treatment Equipment, Requirements and Test Methods. Issued by the British Standards Institution, London,
UK, ISBN 978 0 580 63 476 5. BSI, p-32, 2011.
Charalambous K, Bruggeman A, Lange MA. Policies for Improving Water Security, the Case
of Cyprus. CLICO-Climate Change. Hydro-conicted and Human Security. Working
Package 4, contract number: SSH-CT-2010-244443, 2011.
Chiemchaisri, C., Yamamoto, K., 1994. Performance of membrane separation bioreactor at
various temperatures for domestic wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 87, 119129.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An investigation into greywater reuse
for urban residential properties. Desalination 106, 391397.
Comino, E., Riggio, V., Rosso, M., 2013. Grey water treated by an hybrid constructed wetland pilot plant under several stress conditions. Ecol. Eng. 53, 120125.
Eriksson, E., Aufarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002. Characteristics of grey wastewater.
Urban Water 4, 85104.
Eriksson, E., Andersen, H., Madsen, S., Ledin, A., 2009. Greywater pollution variability and
loadings. Ecol. Eng. 35, 661669.
Friedler, E., 2004. Quality of individual domestic greywater streams and its implication for
onsite treatment and reuse possibilities. Environ. Technol. 25, 9971008.
Friedler, E., Hadari, M., 2006. Economic feasibility of on-site grey water reuse in multi-storey buildings. Desalination 202 (13), 293301.
Gabarro, J., Batchelli, L., Balaguer, M.D., Puig, S., Colprim, J., 2013. Grey water treatment at
a sports centre for reuse in irrigation: a case study. Environ. Technol. 34, 13851392.
Ghunmi, L.A., Zeeman, G., Fayyad, M., Van Lier, J.B., 2011. Grey water treatment systems: a
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 657698.
Government of Western Australia, Guidelines for the Non-potable Uses of Recycled Water
in Western Australia. Department of Health, Australia, p-99, 2011.
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M., Mansour, M., Sa, M.,
2008. Grey water characteristics and treatment options for rural areas in Jordan.
Bioresour. Technol. 99, 66356641.
Huelgas, A., Funamizu, N., 2010. Flat-plate submerged membrane bioreactor for the treatment of higher-load greywater. Desalination 250, 162166.
Jabornig, S., 2013. Overview and feasibility of advanced grey water treatment systems for
single households. Urban Water J. 11, 361369.
Jabornig, S., Favero, E., 2013. Single household greywater treatment with a moving bed
biolm membrane reactor (MBBMR). J. Membr. Sci. 446, 277285.
Jefferson, B., Laine, A., Parsons, S., Stephenson, T., Judd, S., 2000. Membrane bioreactors
and their role in wastewater reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 41, 197204.

711

Kadewa, W.W., Le Corre, K., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P.J., Jefferson, B., 2010. Comparison of grey
water treatment performance by a cascading sand lter and a constructed wetland.
Water Sci. Technol. 62, 14711478.
Krishnan, V., Ahmad, D., Jeru, J.B., 2008. Inuence of COD:N:P ratio on dark greywater
treatment using a sequencing batch reactor. J Chem Technol Biot 83, 756762.
Krzeminski, P., Iglesias-Obelleiro, A., Madebo, G., Garrido, J.M., Van der Graaf, J.H.J.M., Van
Lier, J.B., 2012. Impact of temperature on raw wastewater composition and activated
sludge lterability in full-scale MBR systems for municipal sewage treatment.
J. Membr. Sci. 423, 348361.
Lamine, M., Bousselmi, L., Ghrabi, A., 2007. Biological treatment of grey water using sequencing batch reactor. Desalination 215, 127132.
Lazarova, V., Hills, S., Birks, R., 2003. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses: a
review with particular reference to toilet ushing. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 3
(4), 6977.
Leal, H.L., Soeter, A.M., Kools, S.A.E., Kraak, M.H.S., Parsons, J.R., Temmink, H., Zeeman, G.,
Buisman, C.J.N., 2012. Ecotoxicological assessment of grey water treatment systems
with Daphnia magna and Chironomus riparius. Water Res. 46, 10381044.
Lesjean, B., Gnirss, R., 2006. Grey water treatment with a membrane bioreactor operated
at low SRT and low HRT. Desalination 199, 432434.
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for grey
water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 34393449.
Lin, C.J., Lo, S.L., Kuo, C.Y., Wu, C.H., 2005. Pilot-scale electrocoagulation with bipolar aluminium electrodes for on-site domestic greywater reuse. J. Environ. Eng. 131,
491495.
Liu, R., Huang, X., Chen, L., Wen, X., Qian, Y., 2005. Operational performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor for reclamation of bath wastewater. Process Biochem.
40, 125130.
March, J.G., Gual, M., Orozco, F., 2004. Experiences on greywater re-use for toilet ushing
in a hotel (Mallorca Island, Spain). Desalination 164, 241247.
Merz, C., Scheumann, R., Hamouri, B.E., Kraume, M., 2007. Membrane bioreactor technology for the treatment of greywater from a sports and leisure club. Desalination 215,
3743.
Nolde, E., 1999. Greywater reuse systems for toilet ushing in multi-storey buildings
over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1, 275284.
Ogoshi, M., Suzuki, Y., Asano, T., 2001. Water reuse in Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 43,
1723.
Oron, G., Adel, M., Agmon, V., Friedler, E., Halperin, R., Leshem, E., Weinberg, D., 2014.
Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: standards and prospects. Water Res. 58,
92101.
Pidou, M., 2006. Hybrid Membrane Process for Water Reuse PhD thesis Craneld
University.
Pidou, M., Avery, L., Stephenson, T., Jeffrey, P., Parsons, S.A., Liu, S., Memon, F.A., Jefferson,
B., 2008. Chemical solutions for greywater recycling. Chemosphere 7, 147155.
Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., 2010. Reuse of greywater for irrigation around homes in
Australia: understanding community views, issues and practices. Urban Water J 7,
141153.
Pochana, K., Keller, J., 1999. Study of factors affecting simultaneous nitrication and denitrication (SND). Water Sci. Technol. 39, 6168.
Santasmasas, C., Rovira, M., Clarens, F., Valderrama, C., 2013. Grey water reclamation by
decentralized MBR prototype. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72, 102107.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. USEPA,
Washington, DC, USA, 2004, Report EPA/625/R-04/108.
Winward, G.P., Avery, L.M., Frazer-Williams, R., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P., Stephenson, T.,
Jefferson, B., 2008. A study of the microbial quality of grey water and an evaluation
of treatment technologies for reuse. Ecol. Eng. 32, 187197.
Yu, Z.L., Rahardianto, A., DeShazo, J., Stenstrom, M.K., Cohen, Y., 2013. Critical review: regulatory incentives and impediments for onsite graywater reuse in the United States.
Water Environ Res 85, 650662.