Inventory of personal pollutants and

feasibility analysis of recycling greywater in households

By: Bernard Maloney
CIVE 5067 | Water Quality Management
SP2 2015 | 8th May

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Table of Contents
Part 1: Inventory of wastewater pollutants generated by the entire household over a period of one
week................................................................................................................................................... 4
Part 2: Feasibility analysis of recycling grey-water in the household...............................................10
References........................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix........................................................................................................................................... 15

List of Tables
Table 1: Calculated flow rates for household hydraulic fixtures..............................................................5
Table 2: Typical water consumption for domestic use (WELS Regulator 2014)......................................5
Table 3: Results of water audit from the 12-18 April 2015......................................................................6
Table 4: Comparison between the estimated average daily per capita consumption and the theoretical
values from (Willis et al. 2013)(L/p/d).................................................................................................... 6
Table 5: Consumption of household chemicals from 12-18 April............................................................7
Table 6: Comparison between the estimated pollutants and the typical pollutants in household
wastewater as per (Eriksson et al. 2003)................................................................................................ 8
Table 7: Typical concentration of pollutant for each type of greywater (Mushtaque, Abdullah & Ahmed
2012)...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 8: Inventory of household water use from 12 - 18 April 2015......................................................15
Table 9: Inventory of household chemical use from 12 - 18 April 2015.................................................16
Table 10: Treatment requirements for residential non-potable wastewater reuse.................................17

P a g e 2 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Part 1: Inventory of wastewater pollutants generated by the entire

household over a period of one week
Particulars of household
Location: 6 Alexandrina Walk, Mawson Lakes, SA, 5095.
Number of Occupants: 2
Number of Bedrooms: 2
Living/ Dining Area: 1
Kitchen: 1
Bathroom: 1
Laundry: 1
Description of household hydraulic fixtures.
The household is supplied with potable municipal water and recycled
wastewater which is used for toilet flushing and possible gardening or car
washing. Water consumption is limited to general household use as
gardening and car washing is not being done on the premises. The
hydraulic fixtures currently in use are; one kitchen tap, one faucet, one
shower, one toilet and a washing machine. These are equipped with water
saving devices such as; tap aerators, a shower rose, a dual flush system
and a 3 star water efficient front loader washing machine. There is no
dishwasher and during the inventory period there were no leaks or
dripping taps in the household.
Inventory of household water use and pollutants
Water use analysis and comparison
This water use analysis was conducted from April 12 th to April 18th during
the mid-semester break to facilitate the requisite daily monitoring. Prior to
the start of the inventory, experiments were carried out to determine the
flow rates of the various household appliances. This was conducted by the
use of a marked one litre container and a stopwatch. Table 1 shows the
result of the experiment and the calculated flowrates for each fixture.

P a g e 3 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Table 1: Calculated flow rates for household hydraulic fixtures

These flowrates were compared to those obtained from the WELS

Regulator (2014). Pursuant to table 2, the calculated flow rates were
significantly lower. The consumption of the shower (6.83 l/min) and taps
(6.05 and 6.43 l/min) were less than half of the lower end consumption (15
l/min), while the consumption of the dual flush toilet (5.5 L/flush)
calculated as per equation 1 is not dissimilar to the table. The relatively
low consumption is due to the water saving devices that are currently
being used on the premises. While the washing machine consumption was
obtained from the energy rating label and is included in table 2.
Table 2: Typical water consumption for domestic use

Equation (1) Water consumption of the dual flush toilet during the
Inventory period
Toilet consumption* = flushed Volume/ number of flushes
= 265.5 L/ 48 flushes
= 5.5 L/flush
*Flushed volume and number of flushes obtained from table 8 in the appendix

Analysis of wastewater pollutants

The compilation of the wastewater pollutants was conducted through a
review of the labels on the most commonly used household products. The
figures that are recorded are the actual estimated usage based primarily
on the recommended usage of the labels. Where applicable, the volume in
millilitres was converted to a corresponding weight in grams assuming that
P a g e 4 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

the density of the products is equivalent to that of water (1kilogram/litre).

With these assumptions it was possible to collect the data presented in
table 9 of the appendix. These results are summarized in table 5 of the
Results and Discussion subsection.
Results and Discussion
The following table is a summary of the data that was recorded during the
audit. The actual table used to record this data is published in table 8 of
the appendix. The estimated consumption in litres/day is presented in the
final column. The number of flushes of the toilet was recorded as 1 for a
full flush and 0.5 for a half flush and multiplied by the volume of the tank
(9 litres) to calculate the overall volume. Similarly, the washing machine
usage was obtained by the product of the number of uses by the volume
of 53 litres per wash as per the Energy rating label.
Table 3: Results of water audit from the 12-18 April 2015

Table 4: Comparison between the estimated average daily per capita consumption and the
theoretical values from (L/p/d)

It is noted that the daily per capita consumption from the household is
107.3 l/p/d, 41% orginates from the shower, 18.3 % from the kitchen tap,
17.7% from the toilet, 12.5 % from the faucet, and 10.6% from the
washing machine. The consumption from the taps and the shower is
P a g e 5 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

similar to those found in Willis et al. (2013). However, the estimated toilet
and washing machine consumption is 68% and 38 % of the theoretical
value respectively. This can be attributed to the use of the dual flush
system along with minimal usage of the washing machine during the
reporting period.

Wastewater pollutants audit results

The following table summarises the results of an audit done on the typical
household products used during the reporting period. It therefore
represents the total amount of chemical pollutants generated. The original
table is presented as table 9 in the appendix section.
Table 5: Consumption of household chemicals from 12-18 April

P a g e 6 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Table 6: Comparison between the estimated pollutants and the typical pollutants in household
wastewater as per .

Table 7: Typical concentration of pollutant for each type of greywater

P a g e 7 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Microbiological quality of greywater

According to Santos et al. (2012), raw greywater contains 3.8 x 10 4
cfu/100 ml of fecal coliforms and 1.6 x 10 7 cfu/mL of Heterotrophic plate
count (HPC) bacteria. These values are significantly lower than that of raw
sewage or blackwater; however, they must be adequately reduced for
greywater reuse which will be discussed in the next section.

P a g e 8 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Part 2: Feasibility analysis of recycling grey-water in the

household.

Introduction
Municipal wastewater comprise 99.9% water, other constituents such as
suspended and dissolved organic and inorganic solids therefore represents
a mere 0.1%

. As a result, the collection, treatment and reuse of

wastewater provides a practicable alternative to supplement non-potable

uses in the household. This is especially true for greywater which
according to Santos et al. (2012), is defined as wastewater derived from
baths, showers, basins, kitchen sinks, washing machines and dishwashers.
This excludes any toilet contribution. The results of the inventory reveals
that greywater constitutes 82% of the total wastewater. As such, the
treatment option should have the capacity to recycle 1235.2 litres of
greywater on a weekly basis of which 265.5 litres can be used to flush
toilets and 159. Litres for laundry. There is also the possibility of irrigation
with the surplus effluent.
Grey-water treatment options
The treatment options for greywater are classified on the basis of the
treatment process viz. chemical, physical, biological or a combination of
these . The use of chemical treatments are limited to coagulation, photocatalyltic

oxidation,

ion

exchange,

granular

activated

carbon

and

disinfection . Physical treatments utilizes soil, coarse sand and various

types of membranes to remove pollutants present in greywater .
Meanwhile, biological treatments depend on aerobic attached growth
process, aerobic suspended- growth process and anaerobic biological
process . The author further states that in order to improve the removal
efficiency of these processes, filtration or physiochemical processes such
as activated carbon must to be incorporated.
The optimal selection of a treatment system for greywater depends on
various characteristics such as; the reuse requirements, the cost, the
performance of the technology, the energy demand, and the geographical
P a g e 9 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

location . This is not dissimilar to the recommendations made by Santos et

al. (2012), that greywater treatment systems should be simple, low cost,
easy to maintain, safe and effective for specific non-potable uses. The
widespread use of constructed wetlands in Mawson Lakes had prompted
the decision to use reed beds as a possible treatment of the greywater
stream from this household. The technical, economic and social feasibility
of the use of reed beds will be discussed herein with the aim of
establishing it as a non-potable water source for toilet flushing.
Description of infrastructure for reed beds
In the first phase, the greywater is filtered through an effluent filter fitted
to a collection or septic tank where the retention time allows for
sedimentation of suspended solids . This is the physical stage of the
treatment. Therefore the construction of the filter medium and the septic
tank are the vital infrastructure works that must be carried out in this step.
This should be done with ease of cleaning and other maintenance issues in
mind.
The effluent then passes through the reed bed which is essentially a
channel lined with an impermeable membrane that is filled with gravel and
planted with macrophytes . To construct a reed bed it is essential that the
structural integrity of the lining is maintained after the channel or hole is
dug to prevent leakage of greywater. The size of the hole will depend of
the volume and flow rate of the greywater. For this household the volume
is 1235.2 litres and the residence time of 5 days will be used as per the
recommendations of Lismore City Council (2004) . The hole is then filled
with gravel, soil or sand and the reeds are then planted into the mix. The
greywater is then delivered by gravity by a feeder trench.
It is within the reed bed that secondary treatment occurs. The 5 days
residence time allows for further settling and filtering of suspended solids,
nitrification/denitrification, fixation onto the substrate, breakdown of
organic matter and nutrient removal via micro-organisms and plant uptake
.Treatment occurs all year round within the reed bed and is increased
P a g e 10 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

during the summer months or by pruning the reeds to stimulate new

growth .
The treated effluent will then be pumped to an elevated storage tank for
gravity distribution to the toilet or washing machine. In order to comply
with the Environment Protection Authority South Australia guidelines for
wastewater reuse summarized in table 10 of the appendix, it is
recommended that sodium hypochlorite be administered to the tank.

Technical feasibility
The use of a reed bed is similar to that of constructed wetlands and
provides the conditions necessary to promote biological processes that
occur in nature under controlled conditions to assure pollutant removal
efficiency . In accordance with Dallas, Scheffe and Ho (2004) , the potential
for reed bed treatment is enormous. The authors further state that the
treatment chain is low in cost, easy to operate and maintain, and is an
appropriate and sustainable technology for greywater treatment. The
subsurface flow arrangement of reed beds is also a major technical
advantage. This procedure prevents odour formation and contact with the
wastewater levels externalities such as mosquitoes and humans .
The on-site treatment of greywater by reed beds reduces the load on
existing wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure. In this case if
all of the household greywater is treated, only 17.7 % of the current
effluent will enter the sewerage network. Muga and Mihelcic (2008)
postulate that the selection of a particular wastewater treatment
technology should not be based primarily on technical insight. As such, the
economic and social feasibility are also discussed.

Economic feasibility
In any investment it is imperative that the returns and the payback
periods are attractive enough to pursue the project. A review was done on
an economic analysis of artificial wetlands or reed bed construction
conducted in Syria and presented in Mourad, Berndtsson and Berndtsson
P a g e 11 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

(2011). The authors report that although reed beds are feasible on a large
scale for residential buildings with a payback period of 7 years, for small
households the payback period extends to 20 years. Other costs must be
considered such as the recurring cost of pumping from the end of the
treatment chain to the reuse storage tank which is dependent on ever
increasing energy prices. Unless of course solar energy is used which also
has a high initial capital cost.
It must be considered that the volume of water needed for toilet flushing
and laundry compared to the estimated household consumption is only
17.7% and 10.6% respectively. Moreover, the toilet already uses treated
wastewater from the Bolivar Sewerage Treatment plant. In accordance
with SA Water (2015), the current price of recycled water supplied
exclusively to Mawson Lakes and Seaford Meadows is 90% of the first tier
water price which is $2.09/ kL. Therefore, it is imperative to integrate this
unit cost into the cost benefit analysis.
Social feasibility
Pursuant to Radcliffe (2006), water recycling in Australia was given an
impetus since the early 1990s as the States established Environmental
Protection Authorities that promulgated its use for purposes that did not
require potable water standards. However, there is still a lot of work to be
done regarding the social sensitization towards water reuse.
There are perceived risks such as the occurrence of colour and odour
which is highly undesirable by the general public. In a survey conducted at
Mawson Lakes, SA, where recycled water is currently being used,
Hurlimann and McKay (2006) report that the primary concern for residents
was the risk of odour with 27% giving it an importance rating of 10, on a
scale from 1 to 10, followed closely but discolouration. This proves that
concerns are mainly aesthetic and not necessarily health related.
In order to remove barriers posed by water quality concerns, Najia and
Lustig

(2006)

recommends

tank

pre-treatment,

diversion

systems,

secondary treatment systems and tertiary treatment for the various types
P a g e 12 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

of recycled water source. This treatment chain aligns with that of the
proposed reed bed and septic tank. This guarantees fit for purpose use of
the recycled effluent whereby risks are eliminated by multi barrier
approaches. Zaneti, Etchepare and Rubio (2012) conlude that users were
generally not at risk with using recycled water for car washing where the
risk of body contact is far greater than with toilet flushing.

Conclusion
The inventory of wastewater pollutants and household water usage was
successfully executed. The data obtained along with a literature review
facilitated the evaluation of a treatment processes and reed beds were
deemed the most conducive to the site conditions. This treatment process
will ensure an adequate and efficient treatment of the greywater stream of
the household.

P a g e 13 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

References

P a g e 14 | 19

Appendix
Table 8: Inventory of household water use from 12 - 18 April 2015

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

P a g e 16 | 19

Table 9: Inventory of household chemical use from 12 - 18 April 2015

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

P a g e 18 | 19

Assignment 2: Conduct Inventory of Personal Pollutant | Bernard Maloney

Table 10: Treatment requirements for residential non-potable wastewater reuse

P a g e 19 | 19