J

o u
rna
lofW
ate
rProce
ssE
ngin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–x
xx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

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

Wastewater reclamation and reuse trends in Turkey: Opportunities and

challenges
Bareera Maryam⁎, Hanife Büyükgüngör
Ondokuz Mayis University, Environmental Engineering Department, 55200 Samsun, Turkey

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Climate change, rapid urbanization, industrialization, tourism with a huge amount of wastewater discharge
Wastewater reclamation means that wastewater reuse has a great potential in Turkey and reclamation and reuse is the promising can-
Wastewater reuse didate to conserve the valuable fresh water sources. The water reuse applications are becoming increasingly a
Advance wastewater treatment technologies matter of interest in Turkey however it is strongly dependent on following factors: rapid adaptation of urban
Turkey wastewater reuse programs, the establishment of integrated water resources management framework and
Micropollutants
guidelines for wastewater reuse programs but on the contrary slow pace of projects, unclear or absence of water
quality requirements, the limited commercial development of reclaimed water and lack of public awareness, lack
of knowledge about the consequences of untreated or partially treated wastewater discharge into water bodies,
difficulties in accepted planning procedures and emerging new technologies in real time scale are the main
hurdles in the way of water reclamation and reuse. This paper aims to give an overview of water reuse activities
in Turkey and the opportunities and challenges in expanding reclaimed water reuse. This review precisely
presents the research trends performed in different institutes to meet the wastewater reuse goal along with the
wastewater treatment plants currently working in Turkey.

1. Introduction
Water is one of the vital commodities that sustains and nurtures our
life on earth yet being super solvent, its prone to pollution. Wastewater
recovery, integrated management, reclamation, reuse and recycling can
be used as tools for the better management of the water resources and
most importantly to attract stakeholders, scientists and policy makers
into this very important issue.
Over the last three decades the European Union and its member
states have successively implemented measures to ensure a sustainable
water management process. A Bulk of the water reuse schemes are
distributed along coastlines and in the highly urbanized areas of
Northern and Central Europe [1] An important initiative of which is the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) EU Council Directive, 1991. [2]
estimated that in the time span between 1991 (when the WFD was is-
sued) and 2025, the direct utilization of treated municipal wastewater
for reuse in Europe has doubled or expected to be increase in future. In
present times waste water reuse is not a fairy tale, countries around the
globe, like Switzerland, Australia, Singapore, South Africa, Tunisia and
Cyprus are running most successful wastewater reuse projects at full
scale [3,4]. Some countries have adopted a set of water quality criteria
based on the WHO guidelines [5,6] Insufficient fresh water resources to
satisfy basic water demands have also lead many countries in middle
east like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait to launch successful
per capita wastewater reuse facilities, even Saudi Arabia treats its 83%
of wastewater [7]. But some of the countries around Mediterranean,
like Turkey, Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus (Turkey), are experiencing
fresh water stresses and at the same time difficulties for reuse im-
plementation [8] Some of the implementation barriers are described in
section 7.
Activities regarding wastewater treatment and reuse in Turkey were
initially unveiled by the MEDAWARE Project funded by Euro-
Mediterranean partnership and more specifically by its Regional
Program for Local Water Management [9]; [10]. Under Task 5 of this
project, detailed surveys were performed across the country to check
and control all the exciting wastewater treatment facilities present in
Turkey and reported their strengths and weaknesses, with the colla-
boration of different universities and research institutes [11,12].
Findings of report clearly indicated the poor quality of effluent from
wastewater treatment plants not suitable for reuse purposes, especially
for agriculture, with exception of some facilities [12,13].
Poor water quality and unbalanced distribution of water resources
in Turkey have compelled most of Turkish population on the con-
sumption of bottled water for drinking purposes. Rapid urbanization,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bareera.mses147@iiu.edu.pk (B. Maryam).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.10.001
Received 29 November 2016; Received in revised form 23 September 2017; Accepted 1 October 2017
2
214
-71
44/©2
017E
lse
v ierL
td.A
llrig
h tsre
serv
ed.

P
lea
seciteth
isa
rticlea
s:M
ary
am,B
.,J
o u
rna
lofW
ate
rPro
cessE
ngin
eerin
g(2
017
),h
ttp
://
d x
.do
i.o
rg/
1 0
.10
16/
j.jw
pe.2
017
.10
.00
1
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
industrialization and tourism has polluted water bodies or on the way
of polluting them and of course climate change has enhanced the effect
[14]. Thus, there is a rapid need of ambitious plans with the help of
governmental and private sector to promote wastewater reuse and
make that reclaimed water becomes a key element of nationwide water
resource management scheme. The successful development of waste-
water reuse has the close relationships with the installation or upgra-
dation of wastewater treatment plants with the modern treatment fa-
cilities able to cope with emerging micropollutants.
Although water scarcity is present with all its seriousness but ex-
pensive capital cost along with public acceptance of wastewater reuse
are a big hurdle in implementation of reuse projects [15]. Turkey has
somehow wastewater treatment facilities in almost all of its major cities
depending upon targeted population but additional treatment of was-
tewater beyond secondary treatment and installation of pipeline net-
works for reuse are needed in most of the cities. [16] suggested that to
promote the implementation of more conscious and sustainable was-
tewater reuse with the help of modern technologies, interest of stake-
holders in the whole processes of water reuse operations and integrated
water resources management is required [15].
The most acceptable and applied wastewater reuse activities around
the world are divided into four categories: 1) agricultural irrigation; 2)
aquifer recharge, urban, recreational and environmental uses; 3) pro-
cess water for industry including cooling and 4) combinations of the
above (multipurpose schemes) [17]. So far, wastewater reclamation
and reuse level in Turkey is not high whereas the potential of waste-
water reuse is huge.
Present study reviewed wastewater reuse practices in Turkey,
available wastewater treatment facilities, research interests and activ-
ities performed by different institutes and the opportunities and chal-
lenges in expanding reclaimed water reuse was also an objective on
which authors touched upon.
2. Importance of wastewater reuse
As [18] predicted, with the current rate of water exploitation, the
global annual water requirements in 2030 would be 6900 billion m3,
exceeding more than 64% of total accessible and reliable water source
(4200 billion m3) and Climate change will worsen the situation [18].
The total, technically and economically usable surface and ground
water potential of Turkey is around 112 billion m3, with 96 billion m3
(86%) coming from rivers located within Turkish borders, 3 billion m3
(3%) from external rivers originating outside the country borders and
12 billion m3 (11%) from groundwater resources. Water resource po-
tential of Turkey is given in Table 1.
The available amount of water per capita is 1.519 m3. Turkey
Table 1
Water resources potential of Turkey [19,20].
Source Value
The average annual rainfall 643 mm/year
Total land area of Turkey 783.577 km2
Annual rainfall 501 billion m3
Evaporation 274 billion m3
Ground water infiltration 41 billion m3
Surface water
Annual runoff 186 billion m3
Available surface water 98 billion m3
Ground-water 3 tion and ozonation (advance treatment facilities) [32,33] However,
Annual amount of potable water 14 billion m
Total available water (net) 112 billion m3
Development status
Used in irrigation 32 billion m3
Used in drinking water 7 billion m3
Used in industry 5 billion m3
Total water consumption 44 billion m3
2
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
Statistical Institute (TSI) has predicted that by 2030 Turkey’s popula-
tion will increase to 100 million hence per capita availability of water
will drop to 1.120 m3/year [21,14]. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) with 21 different models, predicts a 12% de-
crease in annual rainfall in southern Europe and the Mediterranean
Basins that could decrease the water potential in Turkish rivers also
[22,23].
Ocak et al. [24] reported in their study that Turkey’s annual water
withdrawals are expected to exceed 20% of the annual renewable water
supply putting country at risk of suffering from water stress in the next
decade. Agriculture sector is taking very few tangible water conserva-
tion measures which are not good news for other production sectors like
dairy and meat production. MDGI (Millennium Development Goals
Indices) last reported in 2005, also reported that the overall water re-
sources withdrawn for the country’s needs are safely being replenished
[25] but on the other hand according to International Water Manage-
ment Institute, Turkey is prone to physical water scarcity because more
than 60% of river flow and/or artesian flow is extracted to full fill
country’s needs [26]. According to the United Nations program on
Water, International Decade for Action, 2005–15, around 1.2 billion
people live in areas of physical scarcity and 1.6 billion people (one
quarter of the world's population) are facing economic water shortage
[27]. Therefore, we can confidently report that considering Turkey as a
single region with same climatic conditions could falsify assumptions
[28] and this is the main reason of confusion for most of the researchers
on water stress in the country. Although Turkey generally has an en-
ough water, it is not always in the right place at the right time to meet
the real needs. Average annual precipitation, evaporation, and surface
runoff vary greatly [8]. Considering International Water Management
Institute (IWMI) indicators of water scarcity, Turkey has little or no
water scarcity. The expected water demand in 2025 is about 183 per-
cent of the present consumption. However, local water scarcities do
occur in Turkey [29] even in recent years also.
Climate change is probably one of the most defining factors af-
fecting agricultural production around the World by producing water
imbalance and in case of Turkey, story is not different. Although Turkey
is one of the most water rich countries in the Mediterranean, due to
poor water resource management, uneven water resources distribution
enormous population increase in recent decades (from 28 million in the
1960′s to presently almost 80 million), it is now barely water self-suf-
ficient and will suffer from water scarcity within the next 5–8 years.
Turkey’s use of non-renewable groundwater to sustain present irriga-
tion needs has tripled since the 1960′s [24]. 74% of the total water
supply of Turkey is used for agricultural irrigation, 15% for domestic
and the remaining 11% for industrial purposes [30].
[2] forecasted the impact of climate change on water availability in
Europe for the 2020 s and 2070 s with the help of a model and con-
cluded that some river basins of Turkey must cope with 10% reduced
water availability. Similarly, Turkey projected reuse potential, which is
supposed to triple or even grow six-fold compared to today, reaching a
maximum of 2000 Mm3/y primarily caused by a combined effect of
high irrigation demand and reduced water availability [2].
3. Water reclamation recycling and reuse status of Turkey
Water reclamation often refers to the treatment of storm-water,
industrial wastewater and municipal wastewater for beneficial reuse
[31]. Wastewater treatment plants use conventional treatment methods
like coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, sand filtration, disinfec-
conventional water treatment plants are only able to remove either
some or none of the emerging pollutants (micropollutants) from the
water like toxins, pesticides, pharmaceutical residues, arsenic and
herbicides [33,34,35]. Turkey’s conventional wastewater treatment
plants are present all along the country but because of water quality it
cannot be used for reuse purposes, especially in which the close human
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
contact is involved.
As in the case of Istanbul which is one of the most crowded cities of
the world. Previously primary treatment was favored but now some of
the plants own biological treatment units followed by advance treat-
ment units to minimize and control nutrient levels (N and P) to meet the
receiving water standards. Most of the plants serve to population over
100,000 but some plants face operational problems such as lack of
automation, clogging of pipes, old-fashioned equipment and working
over-capacities. The Water and Sewerage Administration of Istanbul
(ISKI) has to supply high quality drinking water to the inhabitants of
the city and is responsible for the treatment of the urban wastewater
[36].
It is clear for Turkey that none of wastewater treatment facility was
constructed for reuse initially. Ministry of Environment and Urban
development, Turkey has prepared an Action plan for wastewater
treatment for the years of 2015–2023 based on a previous action plan
that was prepared for the year (2008–2012) [37]. For the assessment of
water quality and quantity in the river basins of Turkey, modeling
techniques and some important parameters like COD, NH4eN, NO3eN
and TP level of organic and inorganic pollution were emphasized in the
action plan.
There are 81 cities in Turkey, where governors act as re-
presentatives of the central government. Sixteen of these cities are
Greater Metropolitan cities, whose municipalities can solve their pro-
blems with their own budget [36]. Provincial Bank General Directorate
of Turkey is responsible for tendering, designing and construction of
wastewater treatment plants similarly municipalities are responsible for
operation and maintenance of WWTPs. Conventional activated sludge
system was common in the 1990s, but after 2005 construction of the
biological facilities for nitrogen and phosphorus removal has become
widespread. The most common wastewater treatment methods applied
in Turkey are pre-treatment, mechanical (primary) treatment, biolo-
gical (secondary) and advanced treatment, including, coarse grid,
pumping stations, fine screening, grit and grease removal, primary
settling tanks, aeration tanks, and final sedimentation tanks (activated
sludge system). Collection of urban wastewater and then its discharge
in purified form (according to applied standards) comes in the re-
sponsibility of municipalities by appropriate disposal methods. Among
the present 597wastewater treatment facilities, 303 holds secondary
treatment, 13 have physical (primary treatment/physicochemical
treatment) 40 are equipped with deep sea discharge techniques, 40
small scale treatment plants (comprises of small units like local MBRs)
while 124 and 77 units have natural treatment process (phytor-
emediation, constructed wetlands, lagoons and pond systems and ad-
vance treatment (reverse osmosis) respectively. Approximately 14
million m3 of wastewater are treated at facilities in the current situa-
tion, with different treatment configurations. [37].
However, for reuse purposes, in some plants sand filters after the
final sedimentation tank, disinfection unit (especially ultraviolet rays)
is added. In recent years, instead of conventional treatment processes,
use of membrane processes (MBR) and disinfection unit is also con-
sidered in some cases like in case of Muğla and Antalya Gazipaşa
Konacik municipal WWTP plants. Details of working wastewater
treatment facilities are present in Table 2. After disinfection with ul-
traviolet rays, treated wastewater can be reused for different purposes.
Advanced treatment for the removal of pesticides such as oxidation
with ozone and filtration by granular activated carbon (GAC) has been
considered effective but problems related to the process are still there
like saturation of the activated carbon and the formation of toxic che-
mical by-products which may develop in the advance oxidation pro-
cesses [38,39]. So basically, in Turkey, generally three main types of
treatment plant were used: stabilization ponds for small communities
(< 20,000 persons), trickling filter for mid-sized community and acti-
vated sludge or extended aerated activated sludge for a large-scale
community [40,37]. According to Ministry of Science, Industry and
Technology, there are 279 Organized Industrial Zones (OIZ) in Turkey
3
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
[41].
Laws and regulations regarding the use of treated wastewater as
irrigation water were presented in Technical Notification on waste-
water treatment plant Procedures No. 27527 dated March 20, 2010 in
Annex 7 [42]. Same notification provides guidelines for the reuse of
treated wastewater in industrial processes (industrial cooling) along
with some examples of practical applications of the action plan re-
garding reuse of treated industrial wastewater back in industries in the
cities of Istanbul, Konya and Muğla. Previously these regulations were
published in Turkish Water Pollution Control Regulation Technical
Aspects Bulletin, Reference no: 20748, 1991 [43]. In Action plan for
wastewater treatment 2015–2023 [37], emphasis was laid on the point
that existing wastewater treatment plants should be modified for reuse
of wastewater according to the needs and new wastewater treatment
plants should be planned, considering reuse facilities.
There are several public institutions/organizations like Ministry of
Environment and Urban Development, Forestry and Water Affairs,
Ministry of Culture and Tourism and other municipalities and special
provincial administrations that invest into Environmental infrastructure
projects using national resources. Between the years of 2009 and 2013,
relevant ministries invested 4,812,449,067 TL (approximately
1,632,556,260 US$) on construction and maintenance of sewage and
wastewater treatment plants [37]. Description of types of treatment
plants and schemes most common in Turkey are given in Table 3.
4. Wastewater treatment methods effective for reuse and current
research trends in Turkey
Several traditional water treatment plants and techniques are pre-
sent nowadays in Turkey. High quality erffl equueinrtes water treat-
ment shift from less developed methods toward advance methods. Costs
will increase proportionally similarly highly polluted water requires
high cost for treatment [44]. Levels of wastewater treatment along with
their names and potential uses are represented in detailed yet simplified
way in Fig. 1.
For the years 2007–2023, EU Integrated Environmental Strategy
(NES) has been prepared in order to ensure Turkey's sustainable eco-
nomic and social development. Numerous aspects regarding potential
reuse and the associated wastewater treatment process continue to be
the object of research and innovation in Turkey. Improvement of
treatment facilities, development of smart technologies, and reduction
in energy consumption are just some of the issues to be supported in
this area. To ensure the active participation of the whole society in
decision-making a collaborated setup has been established between
public environmental protection activities, private sector, civil society
organizations in close cooperation with academia [46].
A Review has presented in Table 4, in which research conducted by
different academic groups in Turkey on the selection of wastewater
treatment technology, effective enough to remove generalized pollu-
tants along with emerging micropollutants are discussed with the pur-
pose of making wastewater reusable and recyclable. Opportunities and
challenges are also presented that lead us to draw this conclusion that
most of the scientists are interested in membrane technology and other
advance treatment methods with the aim of wastewater reuse however
challenges are there.
For the selection and construction of treatment trains or schemes to
treat wastewater is highly dependent on the quality/type of wastewater
to be reclaimed along with other multiple factors like population size,
area available, cost and political/social acceptance. More advanced
techniques could be added at any stage of conventional treatment
schemes according to the type of pollutants in water and discharge
standards for reuse purposes. As a consequence, the EU directives dis-
charge limits should be the starting point for further treatment of mu-
nicipal wastewater for reuse. It is to be noted that standard or typical
schemes have their own Strengths and weaknesses. Weaknesses have
driven the use of membrane technology which is multifunctional and
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x

Table 2
Number of WWTPs in Turkey along with municipalities and basins [37] (key is given below the table).

City Name No of Type and number of No. of WW reuse River Basin

WWTPs WWTPs Munsip.

Adana 6 CW (1) 6 – Seyhan

PSB (5) Ceyhan
Adiyaman 3 CW (2) 3 – Euphrates
PT (1) Tigris
Afyonkarahisar 12 AT (3) – Akarçay
PSB (8) Menderes
CW (1) Sakarya
Aksaray 6 CW (4) 6 Treated Food industrial wastewater for irrigation uses Konya Closed
PSB (2) Kizilirmak
Amasya 3 CW (2) 3 – Kizilirmak
PSB (1) Yeşilirmak
Ankara 15 AT (8) 12 – Kizilirmak
PT (2) Sakarya
PSB (5)
Antalya 31 PSB (26) AT (1) 12 – Mid-Mediterranean
PSB + DSD (3) MBR (1) West-Mediterranean
27 PSB (18) 12 Onsite green areas, vegetation and plantation Small Menderes
AT (1) Big Menderes
CW (7)
PT & DSD (1)
Balikesir 15 PSB (14) 9 For limited irrigation purposes Susurluk
Electro flocculation (1) Kuzey Ege
Batman 1 PT (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Bayburt 1 CW (1) 1 – Çoruh
Bilecik 2 PT (1) 2 60 m3 of water is used for irrigation on a daily basis only in summer Sakarya
season
PSB (1)
Bingöl 1 PSB (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Bitlis 3 AT (1) 3 Park, garden watering Van lake
PSB (1) Euphrates −Tigris
Bolu 3 PSB (1) 3 – West Black Sea
ST (1)
Burdur 4 CW (1) 4 – Mid-Mediterranean
PSB (3) West Mediterranean
Burdur lake
Bursa 14 PT + DSD (3) 7 – Marmara
DSD (1) Susurluk
PSB 4 Sakarya
AT (1)
PackageT (2)
Çanakkale 13 AT (3) 13 – North Aegean
PSB (10) Marmara
Çankiri 12 CW (11) 8 – West Black Sea
PSB (1) Kizilirmak
Çorum 18 PSB (5) 12 – Kizilirmak
CW (12) Yeşilirmak
PackageT (1)
Denizli 16 PSB (7) 5 – West Mediterranean
CW (9) Burdur lake
Menderes
Diyarbakir 1 PT (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Düzce 3 PSB (2) 2 – Bati Karadeniz
AT (1)
Edirne 6 PSB (15) 6 Agricultural Irrigation Ergene
PT (1) Marmara
Elaziğ 4 PSB (3) 3 – Euphrates-Tigris
CW (3)
Erzincan 3 PT (1) 3 – Euphrates-Tigris
Yeşilirmak
CW (1)
PSB (1)
Erzurum 5 PSB (2) 3 – Euphrates-Tigris Aras
CW (2) Çoruh
PackageT (2)
Eskişehir 4 PSB (3) 3 – Sakarya
CW (1)
Gaziantep 9 AT (2) 3 – Euphrates-Tigris
PSB (1)
PackageT (6)
Giresun 12 PackageT (7) 7 – East Black Sea
PT + DSD (3) Yeşilirmak
PSB (2)
Gümüşhane 1 PSB (3) 1 – East Black Sea
(continued on next page)

4
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x

Table 2 (continued)

City Name No of Type and number of No. of WW reuse River Basin

WWTPs WWTPs Munsip.

Hatay 11 PSB (4) 5 – Asi

PackageT (2)
CW (5)
Isparta 5 PSB (3) 5 – Mid- Mediterranean
CW (2) Burdur lake
Istanbul 18 AT (5) 15 Industrial (cooling) processes, landscape irrigation and use of recycled Marmara
water for Riva stream preservation
PSB (4) West Black Sea
Pre-T & DSD (9)
CW v1)
Izmir 32 PSB (10) 18 Large scale Irrigation North Aegean
AT (18) Menderes
CW (4) Gediz
Karabük 1 PSB (1) 1 – West Black Sea
Karaman 6 PSB (5) 5 – East Mediterranean
CW (4) Konya Closed
4 PSB (2) 4 – Kizilirmak
CW (1) West Black Sea
DSD (1)
Kayseri 10 PSB (8) 8 – Kizilirmak
AT (2)
Kirikkale 2 PSB (1) 2 – Kizilirmak
CW (1)
Kirklareli 7 AT (3) 7 Green space irrigation. In May, June, July, and August Ergene
PSB (4)
Kirşehir 2 PSB (2) 2 – Kizilirmak
Kilis 1 PSB (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Kocaeli 16 PSB (9) 9 – Marmara
AT (4)
PackageT (3)
Konya 25 PSB (15) 15 Irrigation of urban green space with 527,800 m3 of treated Konya closed
wastewater in 7 months, each year and onsite park irrigation
CW (9) Akarçay
AT (1) Sakarya
Kütahya 5 PSB (4) 5 – Sakarya
AT (1) Susurluk
Gediz
Malatya 1 PSB (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Manisa 10 PSB (6) 9 – Gediz
AT (2) North Aegean Sea
BT (1)
TF (1)
Mardin 2 AT (1) 2 – Euphrates-Tigris
PackageT (1)
Mersin 10 AT (2) 6 – East Mediterranean
PT + DSD (1)
PackageT (1)
PSB (5)
PSB + DSD (1)
Muğla 29 PSB + DSD (4) 10 Irrigation of parks and gardens West Mediterranean
AT (2) Big Menderes
PSB (19)
PackageT (2)
CW (2)
Nevşehir 7 PSB (6) 7 – Konya Closed
CW (1) Kizilirmak
Niğde 5 PSB (3) 4 – Konya Closed
CW (2)
Ordu 17 PSB (11) 9 – East Black Sea
PT (2)
DSD (3)
AT (1)
Osmaniye 3 PSB (3) 3 Irrigation of parks and gardens Ceyhan
Rize 4 PT + DSD (4) 4 – East Black Sea
Sakarya 3 PSB (3) 3 – Sakarya
Samsun 10 PSB (5) 8 – Yeşilirmak
PackageT (1) Kizilirmak
AT + DSD (1)
CW (2)
PT + DSD (1)
Siirt 1 PSB (1) 1 – Euphrates-Tigris
Sinop 1 PT + DSD (1) 1 – West Black Sea
Sivas 8 AT (1) 8 – Yeşilirmak
(continued on next page)

5
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x

Table 2 (continued)

City Name No of Type and number of No. of WW reuse River Basin

WWTPs WWTPs Munsip.

PT (5) Euphrates-Tigris
Kizilirmak
CW (1)
PSB (1)
Şanliurfa 4 PSB (4) 4 – Euphrates-Tigris
Tekirdağ 5 PSB (4) 3 – Marmara
DSD (1) Ergene
Tokat 13 CW (11) 13 – Yeşilirmak
AT (1)
PSB (1)
Trabzon 15 PT + DSD (13) 12 – East Black Sea
PSB (2)
Tunceli 1 PSB (1) – Euphrates-Tigris
Uşak 2 AT (1) 1 – Big Menderes
CW (1) Gediz
Small Menderes
Van 4 AT (3) 4 – Van lake
PSB (1)
Yalova 5 AT (1) 5 – Marmara
PSB (4)
Yozgat 28 PSB (3) 21 – Yeşilirmak
CW (25) Kizilirmak
Zonguldak 11 PSB + DSD (1) 4 – West Black Sea
PT + DSD (2)
PSB (1)
PackageT (7)

Table Key: BT: Biological Treatment, TF: Trickling Filter, MBR: Membrane Bioreactors, ST: Stabilization Tank, Pre-T: Pre-treatment, PackageT: Package Treatment, PSB: physical,
Secondary Biological Treatment, CW: Constructed wetlands, PT: physical Treatment, AT: Advance Treatment, DSD: Deep Sea Discharge.

cost effective. One of the innovating technologies is direct membrane
filtration (DMF) of raw wastewater. This is a purely physical process by
which particles (including microorganisms) are removed from the
wastewater by membrane filtration (UF). To remove large particles
from the wastewater simple pre-treatments such as screening, sedi-
mentation or dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be applied. The effluent
of this process is particle free water rich in dissolved components
(nutrients). Possible applications of this new concept can be found in
agriculture. DMF is investigated in several places including Turkey.
Other innovating technologies are advanced oxidation processes. These
processes become more and more important since substances such as
pesticides, endocrine disrupters, etc. are given priority [82]
5. Wastewater reuse opportunities
Turkey is defined by economists and political scientists as one of the
world's newly industrialized countries with GDP per sector, agriculture:
8.1%; industry: 27.7%; services: 64.2% [83]. Generally, central was-
tewater recovery applications are more common in Turkey however,
individual applications (household) and on-site sewage recycling, grey
water recycling applications are also available and can be intensified
[84].
Selection of Wastewater treatment method depends on many socio-
economic factors, for instance, the application features, location, ter-
rain, availability of water resources, cultural norms and religious be-
lieves. Likewise, planning of local authorities, waste recycling policies
and regulations is also important along with public awareness.
Increased need of water has grown interest of people in water reuse in

Table 3
Types of wastewater treatment plants working in Turkey.

Treatment Method Description

Secondary WW Treatment P and N removal, followed by dual media filtration and disinfection by chlorine; the reuse varies from urban applications, green
landscaping to industrial usage.
High quality, Secondary Wastewater Secondary wastewater treatment, including P and N removal, followed by double membrane filtration (MF or UF followed by RO)
Treatment and final disinfection by UV. The treated high quality water can be reused many applications (industrial, household, etc.).
Only disinfection Secondary wastewater treatment, followed by chlorination, enabling the reuse of the treated water for irrigation under restricted
conditions.
Local MBR Small scale treatment of wastewater by a package MBR system with reuse of the water in the direct neighborhood (as toilet flush
water).
Soil aquifer treatment P and N removal, followed by infiltration through large ground areas; the extracted water can be reused for unrestricted
irrigation.
Constructed Wetlands P and N removal, followed by constructed wetlands as a natural polishing step. The treated effluent can be reused for nature
conservation or agriculture.
Lagoons/Pond systems Treatment of wastewater by lagoons (several types in series), occasionally followed by chlorination; reuse of the effluent only for
(very) restricted irrigation applied in Mediterranean countries.
Package Treatment A complete range of pre-engineered, factory-built and field-erected configurations systems comprises of aerobic, biological
wastewater treatment systems to meet the varied needs of industry, commercial facilities, municipalities, and private
development. Package treatment has handling capacities from 1000 gallons per day to 5 million gallons per day.
Deep Sea Discharge Discharge of municipal, industrial wastewater under the sea surface with the help of pipeline or tunnel. In the case of municipal
wastewater, effluent is often being discharged after having undergone no or only primary treatment.

6
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
some areas but modification of existing wastewater treatment plants
and construction of new wastewater treatment plants considering re-
use facilities should be the priority.
It is a great opportunity to apply advanced current technologies in
wastewater treatment and reuse such as ultraviolet radiation, oxidation
processes, maturation ponds, membrane filtration and electrochemical
treatment to remove effectively the pollutants including salinity, pa-
thogens, heavy metals and emerging contaminants [85] in future. With
government involvement in establishing policies regulations and sta-
keholder’s involvement can bring a boast in waste water reuse in
Turkey along with the revenue generation. Some of the opportunities
that are important for future perspective and that can initiate reclaimed
water use efforts in Turkey are explained in following sections.
5.1. Wastewater reuse in agriculture
Agriculture plays a very important role in Turkish economy but
reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation has not been considered
consciously till now, as the country has not yet experienced severe
water shortages [6]. But significantly high benefits of wastewater reuse
have been observed throughout the world both in terms of economics
and agriculture sustainability [9]. In 2000, 42 km3 of water consumed
was used for irrigation purposes [86]. Agricultural water use is not only
the largest consumer of water in country (74%), but also the greatest
consumer of funds allocated for water resources projects [30]. How-
ever, irrigated lands are polluted and deteriorated quickly by improper
culture and irrigation practices [8]. Presently, the largest water-con-
suming sector is agriculture which made up 65–70% of the global water
demand [87,88]. World Bank in 2010 reported about one tenth of the
global crops was irrigated with sewage; unfortunately, in which only
10% was properly treated. Although treated wastewater could supple-
ment necessary nutrients for plants, but the existence of emerging
pollutants such as phthalates, polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pharmaceutical compounds, and per-
sonal care products [89] is a new growing concern.
Turkey has approved its irrigation water quality standards in 1991
in the form of Turkish water pollution control regulations, also covering
five quality classifications on the bases of water quality required for
specific agricultural land and constraints on heavy metal and other
toxic compounds concentrations generally adopted from WHO
7
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
Fig. 1. Types and levels of wastewater Treatment processes
(modified from [44,45].
guidelines [43]. Another updated version of laws and regulations re-
garding the use of treated wastewater as irrigation water and industrial
cooling processes was published in Annex 7, Technical Notification
Procedures No. 27527, dated March 20, 2010. According to the reg-
ulations treated wastewater can be used in irrigation after getting a
written statement issued by the concerned governmental organizations.
Provincial banks, Agriculture ministry and environment and forest
ministry will decide whether the effluent can be reused in irrigation or
not [90]. Reuse of treated wastewater in some cities are given in
Table 2. 37% of treated waste water that is discharged in to nearby
creeks and rivers are reused for direct (effluent directly used irrigation)
or indirect (reuse through a receiving body) agricultural uses. In arid
areas in which irrigation activities should be increased for crop pro-
duction, direct irrigation is experienced [10,9]
Currently, effluents of UWWPs (Urban Wastewater Treatment
Plants) are not suitable for agricultural irrigation purposes because
some of the UWWTPs do not even have disinfection units as their final
polishing treatment stage likewise organic micropollutants are another
modern threat for open waters. It has been observed that despite of the
all the efforts to produce high quality wastewater treatment, satisfac-
tory and efficient operation is rarely achieved due to their high-energy
consumption and disinfecting chemicals requirements.
5.2. Urbanization
Some researchers think that the main reason of water crisis is the
increasing water resource demand caused by urbanization and eco-
nomical boast [91]. Urbanization process in the world began with In-
dustrial Revolution and accelerated with globalization. Urbanization
degree may be statistically derived from many loosely connected
properties as described in detail by [92] such as land-use type changes,
land cover, construction activities, motor-driven vehicles registration,
energy consumption, population and so on. Urbanization is defined as
urban scale expanding due to populations transferring in search of
better standards of life and the gathering of secondary and tertiary
industries from rural to urban areas [85]. Turkey ranks number 18 in
the list of countries by population with 75,837,020 people as of July 1
2014 records. Turkey's population is equivalent to 1.05% of the total
world’s population. The population density in Turkey is 97 people per
Km2 [93]. The studies on urbanization process in Turkey were
 B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
Table 4
Trends of research in different institutes of turkey regarding wastewater treatment technologies, along with opportunities and challenges.

S.no Type of Wastewater Type of Wastewater Treatment Purpose/Objective Opportunity/challenge Reference

1 Domestic wastewater
2 Domestic wastewater
3 Effluents from dormitories and
academic village
4 Organized industrial district (OID)
activated sludge treatment plant
wastewater
5 Domestic wastewater (WWTP)
6 Raw greywater from a lodging house
and guest house complex of the
TUBITAK Gebze Campus
5 Soft drinks/beverages industry (OİD)
6 Domestic wastewater
7 Urban wastewater
8 Urban wastewater
8
SMBR (UF)
Trickling filter+oxidation pond
Vacuum rotation membrane (VPM)
+MBR
Chemical precipitation and ion exchange To treat the effluent from an OID treatment plant and elevate
Anaerobic lagoons
SMBR (microfiltration)
Introduction of water reuse systems by
managerial and technical approaches
Activated sludge-vertical flow subsurface
constructed wetland systems (VFSCW)
Conventional waste water treatment
plants
Constructed wetlands
Removal of organic and nutrient pollutants
Removal of suspended solids (SS), algae and organic matter Process produced clear effluents with < 2 NTU suitable for
Removal of organic and nutrient pollutants
its water quality to the levels of reuse standards for the
textile industry.
Removal of organic and nutrient pollutants
MBR operation without nutrient limitation the and to
investigate the biodegradation of grey water in MBR using a
process modeling approach
Water conservation and reuse opportunities
Removal of COD and N
Investigation of working efficiency of four treatment plants Higher potential for waste water reuse but challenges in terms of
To evaluate the effectiveness of constructed wetland systems
in the removal of organic matter
Membrane module was not efficient. Experiment gave unsatisfactory [47]
nutrient and COD removal but because of biochemical reactions
removal efficiency improved.
[48]
unrestricted agriculture
99.99% BOD5 removal, 95% COD removal, < 1 NTU turbidity [49]
removal, bacteria removals close to zero fecal coliforms/fouling of the
membrane
Removal efficiencies of TSS, COD and Fe were determined to be 96%, [50]
27% and 94% respectively/water quality is suitable for reuse in the
textile industry/expensive
Effluent for irrigation purposes were not satisfied requiring [51]
improvement on the treatment technology by tertiary techniques
Suitable for reuse [52]
Water consumption reduced to 91.8%/Total annual water saving of [53]
water is 503,893 m3/wastewater generation reduced by 57.4%/
56,960 $ was spent for equipment/payback within 7 months
COD removal efficiencies were initially acceptable but decreased by [54]
the last time of operation as root of plants decomposed
[36]
coliform bacteria and lack of awareness
Constructed wetlands had a potential for BOD5, COD and coliform [55]
removal and the treatment and reuse of tertiary effluents however this

potential is highly sensitive to temperature and seasons

9 Indigo dyeing rinsing wastewater from Coagulation and filtration processes MF Reclamation of dyeing wastewaters Coagulation is not an effective technique and efficient pretreatment [56]
a textile mill +(UF) membrane MF alone or coupled with UF were found to be promising prior to the
application of Nanofiltration (NF). sequential application of MF and
NF was found to be the optimum treatment
10 Indigo dyeing rinsing Wastewater Microfiltration/ultrafiltration For the reclamation of rinsing waters of indigo dyeing Highest flux decline due to fouling. UF was selected as the best pre- [57]
process filtration train
11 Textile waste water Nanofiltration+ultrafiltration+SBR To evaluate the effectiveness of membrane UF + NF Water reuse standards for textile industry is a difficult matter because [58]
treatment of aerobically pre-treated effluents every fiber has different requirements in terms of reclaimed water
however dying of light colors and first washing can be successfully
done by applied method
12 Olive mill wastewaters Reverse osmosis + UF + Nanofiltration Investigation of the performance of Nanofiltration and Lower performances were observed in Nanofiltration. Centrifuging can [59]

Jou
membranes reverse osmosis processes be used as primary treatment. reverse osmosis membranes produced

rn
high quality effluent

a
lofW
13 Secondary urban effluents Coagulation- flocculation-disinfection Investigate the performance of a tertiary treatment system Removal of organic matter, SS and turbidity microbiological indicators [60]
for irrigation reuse and heavy metal was satisfactory. Use of different chemicals. suitable

a
for irrigation

terP
14 Textile dye wash wastewater NF and RO Decolorization removal of COD and salts Obtained treated water was suitable for reuse in the dye washing [61]

rocessE
process however membrane fouling was a problem
15 Municipal wastewater Nanofiltration Working efficiency of Nanofiltration (NF) membranes, such Water flux NF–270 < NF–< 90CK/similar capacity in rejection of [62]
as CK, NF-90, and NF-270 were tested color. Best water quality was obtained with the NF-90 membrane.

n
gin
16 Urban wastewater Reverse osmosis Enhance the quality of secondary treated wastewater for its Conventionally bio-treated wastewater and RO could be helpful to [63]

eerin
use in agriculture produce reliable source of reusable water

gx
17 Municipal wastewater sMBR Performance analysis was performed for submerged sMBR could be successfully used for reclamation and re-use of [64].

x
membrane bioreactor (sMBR) and classic activated sludge municipal wastewater in terms of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacterial

x(x
process for water reuse and reclamation removal

xx
18 Raw whey (sMBR) (UF) To estimate the behavior of non-biodegradable compounds Increase of inert COD in a submerged membrane is a problem however [65].

x
)x
in the system and their effects on biomass viability inert COD could be partly removed at low sludge ages

x
19 Agricultural perspective (Irrigation) Improved irrigation techniques Conserve water resources Water use efficiency (WUE) [66]

x–x
(continued on next page)

xx
 B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
Table 4 (continued)

S.no Type of Wastewater Type of Wastewater Treatment Purpose/Objective Opportunity/challenge Reference

20 Raw tannery wastewater Electro Fenton process AOP COD reduction 70% of COD removal 840 mgL−1 H2O2, Electrical power of 15.0 W, [67]
58% COD removal was obtained in 10 min. Reuse of water was limited
21 Domestic wastewater Constructed wetland system Investigation of effluent quality improvements (organic COD and TN concentrations decreased effluent could be reused in [68]
matter and nitrogen removal irrigation after proper disinfection
22 Domestic wastewaters Sub surface horizontal-flow constructed To find out optimum hydraulic loading levels for removal Suitable for domestic waters of small communities. Highest removal [142]
wetlands efficiency rates were obtained as 0.050 m3 day−1 0.5.6 days were required as
hydraulic retention time. Further treatment is required for reuse
purposes
23 Textile wastewater Biological treatment microfiltration (MF) To check the feasibility of activated sludge process as a Colour and COD rejection (80–100%) was observed with NF. [69]
+ Nanofiltration pretreatment for NF. System set was in the order: bench scale Nanofiltration after biological treatment can be applied to meet reuse
activated sludge reactor →MF → NF criteria
24 Urban wastewater treatment Wastewater stabilization ponds + (WSPs) Efficiency of systems was tested against selected metals Effluent quality obtained by stabilization ponds was not good because [70].
activated sludge process (ASP) present in waste water of Cr level treated water is not suitable for agricultural purposes
however, ASP treated water is suitable as far as metals a concerned
25 Housing complex waste water MBRs Investigated the fate of soluble residual organics during 50% of the soluble residual COD was removed from both black and [71].
(domestic) biological treatment by membrane bioreactor grey waters. Carbohydrates, proteins and aromatic compounds were
partially removed. Particle size distribution (PSD) analysis is
promising for tracking organics
26 Dairy wastewater (whey) Forward osmosis (FO)/membrane To investigate the techno-economic analysis of whey Water can be recovered to be reused in cheese production and 66–68% [72]
distillation (MD) and MD/reverse osmosis concentration and water recovery using membrane systems more cost-effective systems rather than UF/RO system
(RO).
27 Textile dye bath wastewater Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) integrated Determine the usefulness of the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) Zero Liquid Discharge approach could be successfully used but this [73]
with membrane processes approach with ultimate goal of water recovery and reuse approach is dependent on membrane distillation process. ZLD
approach is most effective approach but incineration cost of unit is
high. Membranes coupled with RO gave better quality effluent
28 Olive oil mill wastewater Slow rate land treatment system, PVC To provide a viable alternative solution of slow rate land On initial stages, experiment gave good percentages of organic [74]
9

reactors treatment system for the mill owners for dealing with waste removal along with TKN and phosphate but later mill’s waste water
water instead of large evaporation ponds seriously affected the plant bodies in reactors ultimately decreasing
efficiency
29 Domestic wastewater Constructed wetlands (CWs) To quantify the effect of different filter media (gravel-filled Slag-filled wetland showed relatively better results but both systems [75]
wetland and a blast furnace granulated iron slag-filled were failed to catchup with modern day water reuse standards
wetland) on the treatment performance especially in terms of nutrient removal. However secondary and
tertiary treatment can improve water quality was suggested
30 Petrochemical industry wastewater Sonication Sono-degradation of seven polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Less or high hydrophobic PAHs could be removed by sonication at [76]
(PAHs) (priority pollutants) from wastewater to make water 60 °C after 150 min sonication
more efficient for reuse
31 High strength synthetic wastewater Gas-lift anaerobic dynamic membrane To investigate the effects of biogas sparging velocity (GSV) AnDMBR achieved over 99% COD removal efficiencies had no [77]
treatment bioreactors AnDMBR and HRT on the pollutant removal efficiency of high strength remarkable effect on COD removal efficiency. The investment and

Jou
wastewater and filtration, cost estimation of system and operational costs of the AnDMBRs are lower than conventional

rn
operation membrane filtration

a
lofW
32 Slaughterhouse wastewater Membrane bioreactor (MBR) (UF) Treatment efficiency of MBR for removal of organic Removal efficiencies of TOC, COD, NH4eN and TP are observed to be [78]
substances and nutrient satisfactory with 96,97,99 and 65%. However, high nitrate

a
concentration was a problem. Denitrification and disinfection is

terP
required for any type of reuse

rocessE
33 Textile industry wastewater Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) Recyclability and direct reuse of washing/bleaching No undesirable effects on fabric dyeing quality were found for all [79]
(O3, UV-O3, O3eH2O2, and O3eH2O2-UV) wastewater from reactive dyeing of cotton fabric through AOPs, color removal was similar ( > 95%), reduction of fresh water
advanced oxidation processes demand and energy is also reported.

n
gin
34 Olive mill wastewater Sequential Coagulation and Fenton Investigation of recalcitrant total phenol (TPh) and organic Efficiency of the system was reported as COD removal, 65.5% and TPh [80]

eerin
system matter removal removal, 87.2%. Good potential for phenolic pollutants removal.

gx
35 Pulp mill effluent Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) Analysis of color, total organic carbon (TOC) and adsorbable Almost every method used resulted in some degree of color removal, [81]

x
(H2O2 /Fe2+), UV, UV/H2O2, (UV/H2O2/ organic halogens (AOX) removals. Effects of parameters i.e. however, the Fenton's reagent utilizing H2 O2/Fe2+ resulted in the

x(x
Fe2+) (ozone/H2 O2 ) pH, oxidant and catalyst concentrations were also highest color, TOC and AOX removals under acidic conditions. 88%

xx
investigated TOC, 85% color and 89% AOX removals were obtained at pH 5 within

x
)x
30 min.

x
x–x
xx
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
Table 5
Changes in the number of cities in Turkey in years 1920–2009 [95].
year 1924 1926 1929 1933 1936 1939
cities 74 63 63 57 62 63
conducted mostly in 1970s and 80s. There have not been any extensive
studies after 80 s except the studies conducted by State Planning Or-
ganization (SPO) to find out development levels of cities and provinces.
According to an estimate, in 2007, 67.5% population was living in cities
and this percentage increased to 72.3 in the year 2012. The jurisdic-
tions on administrative status change of cities are performed by head
quarter of Provincial Administration in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The changes are made possible via regulations or directives based on
article 126 of the constitution [94]. Depending on these regulations or
directives, there have been changes in the number of cities from 1920 to
2009, currently with 81 cities [36] as shown in Table 5.
It is not obvious that the current water resource carrying capacity of
Turkey can support the rapid urbanization and economic development
or not but it’s clear that rapid urbanization can stimulate water resource
use efficiency by implementing wastewater reuse [96]. For example,
Istanbul and Ankara wastewater reclamation and reuse are now re-
cognized as key components of water and wastewater management by
urban managers. Many cities municipalities are now putting forward
the plans of wastewater reuse.
5.3. Water stress and climate change
Water is the fundamental medium that transfers the effects of cli-
mate change to the ecology and human beings, as stated by United
Nations Water [97]. Increased Global Mean Surface Temperature,
+0.3–0.7 °C for the years 2016–2035 and rise in sea level rise about
+0.2-0.6 m by the year 2100 is reported [98]; [99]. To adapt to more
intensified climatic change, intensified future planning is required
especially for rapidly developing economies and urbanization [100] in
order to the provide adequate ecosystem services [101]. Climate
change reports forecast considerably reduced availabilities for many
South European river basins. The EuroWasser model [102] has fore-
casted the impact of climate change on water availability in Europe
according to two different Global Circulation Models for the time hor-
izons 2020s and 2070s. Their calculations indicated, river basins will
have heavily reduced water availability. Decreases of more than 10%
are projected for some continental countries (Poland, Hungary) and
South Eastern countries (Bulgaria, Romania, parts of Turkey) whereas
most South European countries will experience reductions of 25% and
more [103].
Unal et al. [104] reported in their elaborated study about pre-
cipitation in Turkey with the help of different models and tests in space
and time. They noticed complex temporal structure and spatial varia-
tions in dry and wet season because of which an obvious decrease in
annual precipitation throughout Anatolia, including west, and south-
west sections whereas increased annual precipitation trends in north-
east Black Sea region of Turkey, were observed. Turkey is the largest
country in the Eastern Mediterranean [105] therefore, in another study
Önol and Unal [28] divided Turkey into 7 homogeneous climate regions
to understand its climatic variations. They have concluded that Pre-
cipitation results in future simulation reveal that precipitation in all
seasons and in almost all regions decreases except for the autumn
season. In the future simulation, warming over climatic regions is in the
range of 2–5 °C. Summer warming over western regions of Turkey is
3 °C higher than the winter warming. During winter, in the future si-
mulation, precipitation decreases very significantly over southeastern
Turkey (24%), which covers most of the upstream of Euphrates and
Tigris river basin. This projected decrease could be a major source of
concern for Turkey and the neighboring countries [28]. Decreasing
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
1953 1954 1957 1989 1990 1991 1992 1996 1999 2009
63 66 67 71 73 74 76 80 81 81
wet/dry season precipitation and increasing temperatures throughout
the country, except northeast coasts and eastern parts of Turkey, is
expected to have a strong impact on the economic livelihood of the
region, especially on agricultural production, drinking water supply,
and hydroelectricity production [104].
Under the influence of climate change, alternate water source like
recycling water should be viewed as a necessity, not an option. Indeed,
the opportunities and threats posed by the climate change for the water
reclamation industry were interwoven [45]. Climate change triggers
market with higher willingness on the use of reclaimed water and
modern technology for treatment plants but unfortunately to date, cli-
mate change impacts have hardly been studied thoroughly as not a
single study is present reporting the influence of the climatic factors on
water shortages and wastewater treatment and reuse potentials.
5.4. Wastewater reuse market
Various methods such as life cycle Assessment (LCA) and cost-
benefit analyses exist to quantify the costs of water services. Economic
considerations for environment based projects, like internal (monetary
units) and external impacts (nontangible) are therefore of high im-
portance [106,107] such as for water reuse [108]. It is a common ob-
servation that a series of activities about the advantages of wastewater
regeneration and reuse are often presented, without supporting eco-
nomic quantification. [109] reported a great feasibility of water-reuse
projects, undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of water reuse projects
incorporating all parameters including economic valuation, environ-
mental externalities and resource availability.
The reclaimed water is perceived as a part of total urban water
management and received similar subsidy like other water services
[44]. The global municipal wastewater flow-rate was estimated about
680–960 million m3 per day, only a small fraction (4%), (equivalent to
32 million m3) was reclaimed in 2010 [110]. With an increasing de-
mand on resource saving, the quantity of recycled wastewater was
expected to jump to 55 million m3 in 2015 [111].
Developing countries, normally accompanied with water-con-
strained conditions, tries to adapt gradually the World Health
Organization (WHO) guidelines for more flexible approaches as targets
for wastewater reuse have been clearly regulated in the official docu-
ments. Furthermore, the playing ground in the water supply sector is
more open to private companies [112] and they act as a monopoly of
governmental organizations in most of the countries, but in case of
Turkey, key actors of the total water management is still the local
governmental water authorities. There is a huge tendency of socializing
the water supply industry to share the financial burden of the Gov-
ernments [31] private sectors could participate in the process by deli-
vering professional service packages as in Public–Private Partnerships
(PPPs) models [111]. Water management authorities and companies
should not only consider the benefits of market value but also en-
vironmental benefits or the increase in the availability of a scarce re-
source.
5.5. Ground water exploitation
Groundwater resources are often exploited unsustainably, with ab-
stractions exceeding the recharge rate that leads towards over-ex-
ploitation of the water resource. The exploitation rate exceeds 50% in
Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, Algeria and Morocco [113].
Excessive water abstraction can cause secondary effects in negatively
1
0
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x

Table 6
Main concerns/problems in water reclamation/reuse-recycling practices in Turkey.

Concern Comments

Hazard/risk-related knowledge Insufficient standards.

Precautionary principle Application
Quality assessment
Epidemiological studies implementation
Social aspects of reclamation and reuse
Level of exigency of the standards
Planning procedures legislation
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Cost
Competence problems/disagreements among
authorities
More elaborated guidelines are needed. The health related concern by the officials is limiting implementation of water
reuse practices.
Positive and proactive actions are needed. Low contribution of wastewater treatment systems in national research and
development.
Real-time water quality results are not usually available. Analytical work is expensive. Microbial indicators are not fully
representative. Micropollutants related hazards are not well established.
Diseases and risk associated with exposure to micropollutants and wastewater reuse has not been the part of planning and
implementation. Limited epidemiological data is available.
Social acceptance is paramount for reuse success. Social-related tools are to be fully developed. Marketing policies must be
implemented.
It is not clear what is the relationship among the standards level and the risk level in the real reuse practice.
Standards should be according to the emergence of pollutants
Integrated management of all water resources within a basin is necessary implementation at local level
Focus is to be made on reliability of the systems. A clear relation must be established among secondary and tertiary
treatment. It is not easy to determine the performances of the systems with the present indicators. Institutional and
technical capacity of treatment plants must be figured out. The low operational performance of infrastructures are hurdle.
Reclamation and reuse can be expensive in terms of money and energy. It is not clear who must pay for the treatment and
controls. Less energy-consuming with best treatments are to be implemented.
Differences of criteria among authorities like water/health/agriculture or national/regional/local institutes.
Inadequate financial resources and institutional and technical capacity of local governments

affecting water quality. In addition, groundwater resources are polluted
by insufficiently treated municipal wastewater and uncontrolled in-
dustrial pollution and more and more aquifers are lost for direct
drinking water supply due to diffused pollution. In case of Turkey, as
per 2012 data, about 4.9 billion m3 of water was drawn from different
resources for drinking and domestic purposes by municipalities. 48.9%
of water was taken from dams, 28.3%, of the water was drawn from
wells, 19.2% from lakes and 2% and 1.6% from ponds and sea re-
spectively. According to data provided by Turkey Statistical Institute in
2012, about 216 Liters of water per person per day was provided by the
municipal water supply networks. Similarly amount of water available
per person in three major cities, Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir was found
to be 186, 217 and 223 Liters respectively TSI, 2012 Another con-
siderable reason for high use of groundwater is for the agricultural
purposes and the driving force is, low prices of irrigation water. Pricing
of irrigation water is based on land area but water fees should be
regulated according to the volumetric water consumption [8].
5.6. Tourisms
In Aegean and Mediterranean Regions, where touristic facilities are
concentrated, need of treatment plants has developed overtime. In re-
sidential areas, these effluents are used for garden and park irrigation,
and also in some places, wastewater collected in the stabilization ponds
is used for agricultural purposes [114]. It is estimated that over 2000
small scale package plants exist in Turkey for tourist settlements serving
for populations between 20 and 800 persons and 75% of these serve for
between 50 and 400 persons [115,9]. For example in Antalya being the
center of tourism in South Anatolia, 14 urban wastewater treatment
plants are in operation, followed by Istanbul Greater Metropolitan City,
that has 13 urban wastewater treatment plants and another 6 plants in
the highly industrialized province Kocaeli, i.e. in the vicinity of Istanbul
[9] but recently number of wastewater treatment facilities has been
increased as shown in Table 2 and even number will increase in coming
years along with the upgradation of already present facilities for reuse
purposes.
5.7. Environmental protection and restoration
An increasing number of countries have produced legislative fra-
mework for the safe use of treated municipal wastewater. The legisla-
tive framework can be broken down into two types: regulations; and
guidelines. Regulations are legally adopted, enforceable and manda-
tory, while guidelines are advisory, voluntary and non-enforceable, but
can be incorporated in treated wastewater reuse permits and in this way
become enforceable requirements. Like WHO, and national organiza-
tions of federal governments (EPA) and Australia, which can then be
used as a resource by states that have limited, or no regulations or
guidelines. Which offers guidelines and frameworks regarding, methods
of reuse, treatment methods, microbiological constituents, chemical
constituents, physical properties, monitoring and communication
Strategies.
Compliance of new and existing environmental regulations and
stricter pollution limit values also contribute towards the environ-
mental protection and restoration. Turkey being having a diverse eco-
system, aquatic and terrestrial has a great opportunity to develop its
rules, laws and regulation for wastewater treatment and its disposal.
For example, the use of adequately treated wastewater for appropriate
applications (e.g. for irrigation or industrial cooling/processes), instead
of abstracting river water, can reduce or even cease the amount of
wastewater discharged to water bodies, thereby leading to compliance
with water quality legislation. This will not only minimize the water
pollution but will also decrease the potential risk of micropollutants
and growing bacterial resistance in water ecosystems. The restoration
and enhancement of natural habitats such as wetlands, their creation
for environmental and recreational purposes can also be considered as
emerging drivers for treated wastewater reuse in Turkey.
6. Wastewater reuse challenges
Discharge of untreated or partially treated municipal wastewater
into surface water, contamination of groundwater resulting from sewer
systems leaks and open dumping of solid waste, occurrence of pesticides
and chemical fertilizers in soil and irrigation canals that ends up in
ocean, aquifers and surface water, inadequate/incorrect agricultural
practices, rapid erosions and sedimentation of natural lakes and dams
due to deforestation are the biggest reasons of water deformation in
Turkey. Some of the practical concerns are given in Table 6 which are
also reported by other researchers [3].
6.1. Social perception/acceptance of wastewater reuse
The most critical factor determining the sustainability of the re-
clamation scheme is not lying on the technology itself but rather on

1
1
 B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
public acceptance [116]. The ratio of people willing to use recycled
water for non-potable purposes, not surprisingly, overweighed those for
drinking purposes reported in many studies around the world
[117,118,119,120,121,122]. A greater support of reclaimed wastewater
for agriculture, public utilities and low-contact purposes was well re-
cognized [123] whereas most of objections fell into projects with
human close-contact. Therefore, Buyukkamaci and Alkan, [117] con-
ducted a survey designed to increase public awareness, and to de-
termine the potential for acceptance of wastewater reuse applications in
Turkey. Respondents felt that treated wastewater reuse for applications
not involving close personal contact was acceptable, due to health risk
concerns. On the other hand, the cost of reclaimed water was another
major public concern in Turkey. Most respondents have a positive
conception for reuse alternatives of toilet flushing (64%), cleaning
roads (63%), use in construction (63%) and use in fire extinguish sys-
tems (58%) [117]. However, in the case of direct human contact with
treated water, a majority opposed treated water uses. Most of the par-
ticipants do not support the use of reclaimed water for the preparation
of canned vegetables and other foods and drinking purposes. less or
minimal acceptance towards reuse of wastewater could be because of
religious and cultural taboos.
Friedler et al. [124] reported, cost-saving (71%), positive outcomes
on the environment (36%) and saving potable water (34%) as ad-
vantages for a household. Climate change has changed the public per-
ception about wastewater reclamation and reuse not only for agri-
culture but also for their household usage. For instance, over 78% of
local residents in Switzerland “perceived long-term changes in pre-
cipitation and/or temperature” and experienced its effects on the urban
drainage and wastewater system in recent years [125].
The fact is, success of advocating a wastewater reuse scheme de-
pends greatly on the adopted communicative strategy and transparency
of information [126]. Promoting a voluntary spirit (bottom-up) where
people familiarized themselves with recycled water would result in a
higher support than applying compulsory measures (top-down). Dol-
nicar et al. [126] and Hurlimann [127] believed that if people involved
their senses with reclaimed water, they tended to accept recycled water
for close to personal use. Trust on water authorities to ensure water
quality and quantity will proportionally increase gradually. Therefore,
a water reclamation project must utilize the mass media and larger
communities for communicating scientific information about its bene-
fits and risks to maximize the public understanding on water reuse
[116].
6.2. Lack of framework of guidelines for safe treated wastewater reuse
In order to reduce the environmental and health impacts of waste-
water reuse, countries have adopted several standards and guidelines
that differ from each other even at the regional level. Practice of was-
tewater reuse mainly depends on a country’s economy, infrastructural
status covering wastewater treatment capacity and capability, educa-
tional level, climate, water supply, balance between water requirement
and demand, intensity of agricultural activities, population, social ha-
bits like cultural and religious prejudice, and many other factors [128].
In Turkey, Ministry of Environment has been established as the
authority and administrative structure to identify and achieve the goals
of the national environmental policy in 1991. In 2003, after colla-
boration with the Ministry of Forestry it has continued to operate as the
Ministry of Environment and Forests. Water amendment and determi-
nation of policies related to waste management were made in 2011 and
for this purpose Ministry of Environment and Urban Development
comes together with ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. Turkey has
very limited regulations of wastewater reuse for agricultural purposes
with many loop holes. The regulation has many technical limitations for
recycling wastewater in terms of treatment methods and suitability of
industrial treated wastewaters to be used for irrigation [129].
Recently, limited regulations that determine the discharge standards
1
2
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
and appropriate sanctions were made in order to protect and improve
water quality; control of pollution sources purifying the contaminated
water and wastewater re/safe use, by Ministry of Environment and
Urban Planning Organization (Official Gazette: 04/07/2011-No.
27984) and Environmental Law Article 29 will be followed in ac-
cordance with the wastewater treatment plant utilization of incentive
measures for the regulation on principles and procedures (Official
Gazette: 01/10/2010-No: 27716) page 111 [130,131,42]. In addition,
objective of the Master Plan is to satisfy standards of EU Urban Was-
tewater Treatment Directive [132] for the discharges into sensitive
zones starting from 2010. Discharge limits for preliminary and pre-
treatment of wastewater, defined in Water Pollution Control Regulation
[133] are BOD5 45 mg/L, SS 30 mg/L and microbial quality Total co-
liform concentrations will be less than 1000/100 mL and fecal coliform
will be less than 200/100 mL in the 90% of water body samples.
On the other hand, there are no legislative regulations at the
European level concerning wastewater reuse so far, apart from the
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) which advises to
reuse wastewater “whenever appropriate” [132,134,135] however an
updated, complete set of guidelines are present for water reuse pub-
lished by US-EPA [136].
6.3. Human health risk
The probability of infection associated with reclaimed water and
wastewater reuse has been reported by different studies separately ac-
cording to the types of wastewater like conventionally treated waste-
water, storm wastewater, grey water and rain water
[137,138,139,140,141]. Risk from various pathogens (viral, bacterial,
parasitic protozoan and helminths) and chemicals (pharmaceuticals,
disinfection byproducts, pesticides, metals, etc.) when ingested, inhaled
or absorbed through the skin, cannot be ignored. These pathogens and
chemicals may cause a range of health outcomes from acute illness to
chronic diseases and mortality if found in reclaimed water [31].
If the emphasis is put on a maximum risk reduction, independently
of the costs associated to the treatments, then the standards are usually
restrictive and cost of projects will be high. On the contrary, if the
emphasis is on an acceptable risk level, the standards are not so im-
portant, but are combined with other tools, like LCA and cost-benefit
analysis [3] in this case costs could be affordable.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, a wide range of documents has been analyzed to
provide a synthetic outlook and update on wastewater treatment, reuse
opportunities and constraints. Policy makers, academia, national and
international firms are aware of the potential benefits in the field of
wastewater reuse but lack of public interest and negligence of im-
plementing authorities may leading efforts in vain. This scenario is
perhaps not unique to Turkey instead all developing countries have
such challenges. Many wastewater treatment facilities are equipped
with water reuse system but reclaimed water is not efficiently reused. In
other most of the cases there is a good opportunity to build new units or
update exciting treatment units with new emerging techniques as per
the needs of growing population. Although Turkish government have
many long-term and short-term plans for installation of WWTPs in all
parts of country but the institutions need to clarify that the available
methods related to the specific water use should be made available
including, reuse for aquaculture, the reuse for wetland development as
well as the reuse of treated grey water, treated excreta, and treated
sewage sludge in agriculture. Responsible Ministries and Agencies
should have an additional department for problem identification and
implementation of solutions. According to the expected degree of pol-
lution, technology solutions should be proposed by taking care of mi-
crobiological constituents, chemical constituents and physical para-
meters of wastewater as the existing wastewater treatment plants must
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
overcome their deficiencies in terms of micropollutants removal by the
installation or upgradation to advance treatment methodologies.
This whole process can be assured by the availability of best tech-
nicians, academicians, engineers and workers to regulate wastewater
treatment plants to minimize extent of errors.
Appropriate monitoring criteria should be selected for monitoring of
wastewater on regular basis, not only to ensure best result of the
treatment, but also results should be publish for general population to
win the public confidence. The reference framework of guidelines for
the safe use of treated wastewater should integrate the impacts and
pressure of extensive International tourism and transboundary river
basins check that can be the hurdle in implementation of reuse plan.
Likewise, formation of wastewater reuse guidelines or regulations
should involve proper public involvement may be with the help of print
and soft media. Reuse of wastewater in agricultural production has a lot
of benefits and is a very important subject to be regulated in a separate
(more field based) “standard guideline” for irrigation. Country should
formulate its own strict regulations according to the needs of economy
and better production.
In Turkey, determining the wastewater treatment needs and after-
ward associated benefits are not yet well understood. The marketing of
recycled wastewater, engineering evaluations and cost analysis of al-
ternatives in terms of economics, steps to be followed in the planning of
facilities for wastewater recycling and reuse are still insufficient. For
Future recommendations, first step should be the primary data collec-
tion from each city to understand the level and type of water pollution
then by involving academic institutes, a proper technical solution could
be found. Presently without any proper collaboration between private
and government institutes most of the research activities went in vain,
as when government will allow private sector to jump in, they will
come up with implementable solutions. Second important future re-
commendation is to integrate the risk of climate change into the
National Action Plan. Complete understanding of climate changes that
Turkey is going to face in near future or is facing on this very day will
speed up water reuse work and aims and will lead to new policies and
regulations.
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey’s (TÜBİTAK) 2215 program for supporting
International students in their research activities.
References
[1] D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, T. Wintgens, A. Ravazzini, V. Miska, M. Muston, H. Chikurel,
A. Aharoni, D. Joksimovic, T. Melin, Water reclamation and reuse: implementa-
tion and management issues, Desalination 218 (1) (2008) 13–23.
[2] R. Hochstrat, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, P. Jeffrey, Assessing the European wastewater
reclamation and reuse potential-a scenario analysis, Desalination 188 (1)
(2006) 1–8.
[3] M. Salgot, Water reclamation, recycling and reuse: implementation issues,
Desalination 218 (1) (2008) 190–197.
[4] D. Bixio, H. Cikurel, M. Muston, V. Miska, D. Joksimovic, A.I. Schäfer,
A. Ravazzini, A. Aharoni, D. Savic, C. Thoeye, Municipal wastewater reclamation:
where do we stand? An overview of treatment technology and management
practice, Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply 5 (1) (2005) 77–85.
[5] WHO (World Health Organization), 1989, Health guidelines for the use of was-
tewater in agriculture and aquaculture, Tech. Bull. Ser. 77, WHO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 1989.
[6] WHO (World Health Organization), Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater,
excreta and greywater, Wastewater Use in Agriculture vol. 2, World Health
Organization, France, 2006.
[7] US EPA, Guidelines for Water Reuse. Municipal Support Division Office of
Wastewater Management and Office of Water Washington, DC. 625/R-04/108. 08
August, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, 2004.
[8] B. Kendirli, B. Çakmak, Z. Gökalp, Assessment of water quality management in
Turkey, Water Int. 30 (4) (2005) 446–455.
[9] D. Fatta, I. Arslan-Alaton, C. Gokcay, M.M. Rusan, O. Assobhei, M. Mountadar,
A. Papadopoulos, Wastewater reuse: problems and challenges in Cyprus, Turkey,
Jordan, and Morocco, Eur. Water 11 (12) (2005) 63–69.
[10] ΜEDAWARE, 2003. Development of tools and guidelines for the promotion of the
1
3
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
sustainable urban wastewater treatment and reuse in the agricultural production
in the Mediterranean basin, Task 2: Evaluation of the existing situation related to
the operation of urban wastewater treatment plants and the effluent disposal
practices. European Commission, EuroMediterranean Partnership.
[11] A. Achilleos, N. Kythreotou, D. Fatta, Development of Tools and Guidelines for the
Promotion of the Sustainable Urban Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the
Agricultural Production in the Mediterranean Basin, Task 5: Technical Guidelines
on Wastewater Utilization, Nicosia Cyprus, 2005.
[12] I. Arslan-Alaton, G. Eremektar, M. Gurel, A. Tanik, S. Ovez, T. Baskan, D. Orhon,
Wastewater Reuse in Turkey, MEDAWARE-Task 5 Report, ITU, 2005 2005.
[13] TUBITAK-MRC, MEDAWARE Project-Task 5, Final Report, Project Code: 505G207,
Chemistry and Environment Institute, The Scientific and Technical Research
Council of Turkey, Marmara Research Centre (MRC), Gebze, Kocaeli, September,
2005.
[14] TSI (Turkish Statistical Institute), 2008, Water Consumption Breakdown inTurkish
Manufacturing Industry. Sectoral Water, Wastewater and WasteStatistics. Ankara,
Turkey. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=10824.
[15] T. Asano, A. Bahri, Global challenges to wastewater reclamation and reuse, On
Water Front. 2 (2011) 64–72.
[16] D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, J. De Koning, D. Joksimovic, D. Savic, T. Wintgens, T. Melin,
Wastewater reuse in europe, Desalination 187 (1) (2006) 89–101.
[17] E. Huertas, M. Salgot, J. Hollender, S. Weber, W. Dott, S. Khan, A. Schäfer,
R. Messalem, B. Bis, A. Aharoni, H. Chikurel, Key objectives for water reuse
concepts, Desalination 218 (1) (2008) 120–131.
[18] [2030] Water Research Group, Charting Our Water Future: Economic Frameworks
to Inform Decision Making, Water Research Group, 2009.
[19] F. Dilek, I. Imamoglu, G. Surucu, C.F. Gokcay, A Sustainable Waste Water
Management Project: MEDAWARE, Conference on Environment: Survival and
Sustainability, 19–24 February 2007, Near East University Nicosia-Northern
Cyprus, 2007, pp. 310–328.
[20] SHW, General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works. 1997. The Pollution Research
Report of Ergene River, Department of Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
(Translated from Turkish), Ankara, 1997.
[21] M. Gurel, G. Iskender, S. Ovez, I. Arslan-Alaton, A. Tanik, D. Orhon, A global
overview of treated wastewater guidelines and standards for agricultural reuse,
MEDA WATER International Conference on Sustainable Water Management,
Rational Water Use, Wastewater Treatment and Reuse, Abstract Book on CD-ROM,
8–10 June 2006, Marrakech, Morocco, 2006.
[22] IIPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani,
J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (Eds.), Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2007.
[23] O.F. Durdu, Effects of climate change on water resources of the Büyük Menderes
river basin, western Turkey, Turk. J. Agric. For. 34 (4) (2010) 319–332.
[24] S. Ocak, S. Öğün, E. Emsen, Turkey's animal production water footprint; heading
in the wrong direction, Procedia Technol. 8 (2013) 255–263.
[25] M. Kellis, I.K. Kalavrouziotis, P. Gikas, Review of wastewater reuse in the
Mediterranean countries, focusing on regulations and policies for municipal and
industrial applications, GNest J. 15 (3) (2013) 333–350.
[26] M.S. Dogdu, C. Sagnak, Climate change, drought and over pumping impacts on
ground waters: two examples from Turkey, Third International BALWOIS
Conference on the Balkan Water Observation and Information System, Ohrid, the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2008.
[27] UN, International Decade for Action, 2013 Water for Life 2005–2015, United
Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
[28] B. Önol, Y.S. Unal, Assessment of climate change simulations over climate zones of
Turkey, Reg. Environ. Change 14 (5) (2014) 1921–1935.
[29] D. Seckler, U. Amarasinghe, D. Molden, R. Siva, R. Barker, World Water Demand
and Supply, 1990–2025: Scenarios and Issues. Research Report of International
Water Management Institute, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1998.
[30] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009, Databases.
Water Resources by Country/Territory and by inhabitant, and MDG Water
Indicator. http://www.fao.org/ (accessed February 24, 2010).
[31] NRC (National Research Council), Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the
Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, National
Academies Press, Washington DC, 2012.
[32] S. Xia, X. Li, R. Liu, G. Li, Study of reservoir water treatment by ultrafiltration for
drinking water production, Desalination 167 (2004) 23–26.
[33] B. Sarkar, N. Venkateshwarlu, R.N. Rao, C. Bhattacharjee, V. Kale, Potable water
production from pesticide contaminated surface water—a membrane based ap-
proach, Desalination 204 (1) (2007) 368–373.
[34] R.S. Harisha, K.M. Hosamani, R.S. Keri, S.K. Nataraj, T.M. Aminabhavi, Arsenic
removal from drinking water using thin film composite nanofiltration membrane,
Desalination 252 (1) (2010) 75–80.
[35] J. Radjenović, M. Petrović, F. Ventura, D. Barceló, Rejection of pharmaceuticals in
nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane drinking water treatment, Water
Res. 42 (14) (2008) 3601–3610.
[36] I. Arslan-Alaton, A. Tanik, S. Ovez, G. Iskender, M. Gurel, D. Orhon, Reuse po-
tential of urban wastewater treatment plant effluents in Turkey: a case study on
selected plants, Desalination 215 (1) (2007) 159–165.
[37] WWTAP (Wastewater treatment Action Plan), 2015–2023, 2015, Ministry of en-
vironment and Urban Development. General Directorate of Environmental
Management. Ankara. http://www.csb.gov.tr/db/cygm/editordosya/Atiksu_
Aritimi_Eylem_Plani.pdf.
[38] K.V. Plakas, A.J. Karabelas, Removal of pesticides from water by NF and RO
membranes-A review, Desalination 287 (2012) 255–265.
[39] M.P. Ormad, N. Miguel, A. Claver, J.M. Matesanz, J.L. Ovelleiro, Pesticides
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
removal in the process of drinking water production, Chemosphere 71 (1) (2008)
97–106.
[40] A.N. Bdour, M.R. Hamdi, Z. Tarawneh, Perspectives on sustainable wastewater
treatment technologies and reuse options in the urban areas of the Mediterranean
region, Desalination 237 (1) (2009) 162–174.
[41] Ministry of science, technology and industry, 2011. Decree of law for ministry of
industry and technology regarding wastewater. Official Gazette, dated 17 August
2011 (Translated from Turkish).
[42] Official Gazette, 2010. Wastewater infrastructure and municipal solid waste dis-
posal facility to be observed for determining the principles and procedures related
to the tariff regulations, official gazette, reference no: 27742. Dated. 27.10.2010.
[43] WPCR, 1991, Technical Aspects Bulletin. Turkish Water Pollution Control
Regulation. Technical Aspects Bulletin, Article on technical methods for water
quality control regulations Official Newspaper, Reference no: 20748, dated 07
January 1991.
[44] US EPA, Guidelines for Water Reuse, US Agency for International Development,
Washington DC, 2012.
[45] P.T. Vo, H.H. Ngo, W. Guo, J.L. Zhou, P.D. Nguyen, A. Listowski, X.C. Wang, A
mini-review on the impacts of climate change on wastewater reclamation and
reuse, Sci. Total Environ. 494 (2014) 9–17.
[46] EC, 2013. European Commission, Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working
Group. Modified from: Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Report. Joint
Mediterranean EUWI/WFD Process EU; 2007.
[47] A. Ünlü, H. Hasar, C. Kinaci, M. Çakmakci, N.N. Koçer, Real role of an ultra-
filtration hollow-fibre membrane module in a submerged membrane bioreactor,
Desalination 181 (1) (2005) 185–191.
[48] D. Kaya, F.B. Dilek, C.F. Gökçay, Reuse of lagoon effluents in agriculture by post-
treatment in a step feed dual treatment process, Desalination 215 (1) (2007) 29–36.
[49] O.T. Komesli, K. Teschner, W. Hegemann, C.F. Gokcay, Vacuum membrane ap-
plications in domestic wastewater reuse, Desalination 215 (1) (2007) 22–28.
[50] S.K.A. Solmaz, G.E. Üstün, A. Birgül, Y. Taşdemir, Treatability studies with che-
mical precipitation and ion exchange for an organized industrial district (OID)
effluent in Bursa, Turkey, Desalination 217 (1) (2007) 301–312.
[51] U. Türker, M. Okaygün, S.J. Almaqadma, Impact of anaerobic lagoons on the
performance of BOD and TSS removals at the Haspolat (Mia Milia) Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Desalination 249 (1) (2009) 403–410.
[52] S.M. Hocaoglu, E. Atasoy, A. Baban, D. Orhon, Modeling biodegradation char-
acteristics of grey water in membrane bioreactor, J. Membr. Sci. 429 (2013)
139–146.
[53] E. Alkaya, G.N. Demirer, Reducing water and energy consumption in chemical
industry by sustainable production approach: a pilot study for polyethylene ter-
ephthalate production, J. Clean. Prod. 99 (2015) 119–128.
[54] M. Bilgin, İ. Şimşek, Ş. Tulun, Treatment of domestic wastewater using a lab-scale
activated sludge/vertical flow subsurface constructed wetlands by using Cyperus
alternifolius, Ecol. Eng. 70 (2014) 362–365.
[55] S.C. Ayaz, Post-treatment and reuse of tertiary treated wastewater by constructed
wetlands, Desalination 226 (1) (2008) 249–255.
[56] M. Unlu, H. Yukseler, U. Yetis, Indigo dyeing wastewater reclamation by mem-
brane-based filtration and coagulation processes, Desalination 240 (1) (2009) 178–
185.
[57] N. Uzal, L. Yilmaz, U. Yetis, Microfiltration/ultrafiltration as pretreatment for
reclamation of rinsing waters of indigo dyeing, Desalination 240 (1) (2009) 198–
208.
[58] E. Debik, G. Kaykioglu, A. Coban, I. Koyuncu, Reuse of anaerobically and aero-
bically pre-treated textile wastewater by UF and NF membranes, Desalination 256
(1) (2010) 174–180.
[59] T. Coskun, E. Debik, N.M. Demir, Treatment of olive mill wastewaters by nano-
filtration and reverse osmosis membranes, Desalination 259 (1) (2010) 65–70.
[60] G.E. Üstün, S.K.A. Solmaz, F. Çiner, H.S. Başkaya, Tertiary treatment of a sec-
ondary effluent by the coupling of coagulation–flocculation–disinfection for irri-
gation reuse, Desalination 277 (1) (2011) 207–212.
[61] E. Kurt, D.Y. Koseoglu-Imer, N. Dizge, S. Chellam, I. Koyuncu, Pilot-scale eva-
luation of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for process reuse of segregated textile
dyewash wastewater, Desalination 302 (2012) 24–32.
[62] S. Bunani, E. Yörükoğlu, G. Sert, Ü. Yüksel, M. Yüksel, N. Kabay, Application of
nanofiltration for reuse of municipal wastewater and quality analysis of product
water, Desalination 315 (2013) 33–36.
[63] S. Bunani, E. Yörükoğlu, Ü. Yüksel, N. Kabay, M. Yüksel, G. Sert, Application of
reverse osmosis for reuse of secondary treated urban wastewater in agricultural
irrigation, Desalination 364 (2015) 68–74.
[64] H. Hasar, C. Kinaci, Comparison of a sMBR and a CASP system for wastewater
reclamation and re-use, Filtrat. Separ. 41 (1) (2004) 35–39.
[65] H. Hasar, C. Kinaci, A. Ünlü, Production of non-biodegradable compounds based
on biomass activity in a submerged ultrafiltration hollow fibre membrane bior-
eactor treating raw whey, Process Biochem. 39 (11) (2004) 1631–1638.
[66] A. Atik, B. Yilmaz, Effects of treatment with vermicompost on the some mor-
phological and physiological characteristics of scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.),
Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 3 (1) (2014) 42.
[67] U. Kurt, O. Apaydin, M.T. Gonullu, Reduction of COD in wastewater from an or-
ganized tannery industrial region by Electro-Fenton process, J. Hazard. Mater. 143
(1) (2007) 33–40.
[68] S.Ç. Ayaz, Ö. Aktaş, L. Akça, N. Findik, Effluent quality and reuse potential of
domestic wastewater treated in a pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetland system, J.
Environ. Manage. 156 (2015) 115–120.
[69] E. Sahinkaya, N. Uzal, U. Yetis, F.B. Dilek, Biological treatment and nanofiltration
1
4
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
of denim textile wastewater for reuse, J. Hazard. Mater. 153 (3) (2008) 1142–
1148.
[70] G.E. Üstün, Occurrence and removal of metals in urban wastewater treatment
plants, J. Hazard. Mater. 172 (2) (2009) 833–838.
[71] S.M. Hocaoglu, D. Orhon, Fate of soluble residual organics in membrane bior-
eactor, J. Membr. Sci. 364 (1) (2010) 65–74.
[72] C. Aydiner, U. Sen, S. Topcu, D. Ekinci, A.D. Altinay, D.Y. Koseoglu-Imer,
B. Keskinler, Techno-economic viability of innovative membrane systems in water
and mass recovery from dairy wastewater, J. Membr. Sci. 458 (2014) 66–75.
[73] I. Vergili, Y. Kaya, U. Sen, Z.B. Gönder, C. Aydiner, Techno-economic analysis of
textile dye bath wastewater treatment by integrated membrane processes under
the zero liquid discharge approach, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 58 (2012) 25–35.
[74] A.S.E. Yay, H.V. Oral, T.T. Onay, O. Yenigün, A study on olive oil mill wastewater
management in Turkey: a questionnaire and experimental approach, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 60 (2012) 64–71.
[75] E.A. Korkusuz, M. Beklioğlu, G.N. Demirer, Comparison of the treatment perfor-
mances of blast furnace slag-based and gravel-based vertical flow wetlands oper-
ated identically for domestic wastewater treatment in Turkey, Ecol. Eng. 24 (3)
(2005) 185–198.
[76] D.T. Sponza, R. Oztekin, Destruction of some more and less hydrophobic PAHs and
their toxicities in a petrochemical industry wastewater with sonication in Turkey,
Bioresour. Technol. 101 (22) (2010) 8639–8648.
[77] M.E. Ersahin, Y. Tao, H. Ozgun, H. Spanjers, J.B. van Lier, Characteristics and role
of dynamic membrane layer in anaerobic membrane bioreactors, Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 113 (4) (2016) 761–771.
[78] L. Gürel, H. Büyükgüngör, Treatment of slaughterhouse plant wastewater by using
a membrane bioreactor, Water Sci. Technol. 64 (1) (2011) 214–219.
[79] G.T. Güyer, K. Nadeem, N. Dizge, Recycling of pad-batch washing textile waste-
water through advanced oxidation processes and its reusability assessment for
Turkish textile industry, J. Clean. Prod. 139 (2016) 488–494.
[80] A. Alver, E. Baştürk, A. Kiliç, M. Karataş, Use of advance oxidation process to
improve the biodegradability of olive oil mill effluents, Process Saf. Environ.
Protect. 98 (2015) 319–324.
[81] E.C. Catalkaya, F. Kargi, Color, TOC and AOX removals from pulp mill effluent by
advanced oxidation processes: a comparative study, J. Hazard. Mater. 139 (2)
(2007) 244–253.
[82] J. De Koning, D. Bixio, A. Karabelas, M. Salgot, A. Schäfer, Characterisation and
assessment of water treatment technologies for reuse, Desalination 218 (1) (2008)
92–104.
[83] CIA (central intelligence Agency) World fact book 2015. https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/index.html.
[84] H. Buyukgungor, ‘Some Practices on Greywater Reuse in City Samsun/Turkey’,
IWA Development Congress, Nairobi, October 2013 Kenya, 2013.
[85] S. Lyu, W. Chen, W. Zhang, Y. Fan, W. Jiao, Wastewater reclamation and reuse in
China: opportunities and challenges, J. Environ. Sci. 39 (2016) 86–96.
[86] WWC (World Water Council), 2003, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and General
Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Turkey. Country Report. Prepared for the
3rd World Water Forum March 2003, Turkey.
[87] World Bank, 2010. In: Scheierling S.M., Bartone C., Mara D.D., Drechsel P., edi-
tors. Improving wastewater use in agriculture: an emerging priority. Washington
D.C.
[88] Aquastat, 2013. Water Uses, Food and Agriculture. Organization. United Nations,
(2013).
[89] J.D. Peterson, R.R. Murphy, Y. Jin, L. Wang, M.B. Nessl, K. Ikehata, Health effects
associated with wastewater treatment, reuse, and disposal, Water Environ. Res. 83
(10) (2011) 1853–1875.
[90] D. Barceló, M. Petrovic (Eds.), Waste Water Treatment and Reuse in the
Mediterranean Region, vol. 14, Springer, 2011, p. 173.
[91] G.D. Jenerette, L. Larsen, A global perspective on changing sustainable urban
water supplies, Global Planet. Change 50 (3) (2006) 202–211.
[92] U. Chung, J. Choi, J.I. Yun, Urbanization effect on the observed change in mean
monthly temperatures between 1951 and 1980 and 1971–2000 in Korea, Clim.
Change 66 (1–2) (2004) 127–136.
[93] Worldometers, 2015, Elaboration of data by United Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects:
The 2015 Revision. (Medium-fertility variant). http://www.worldometers.info/
world-population/turkey-population/.
[94] G. Kilinç, N.Z. Gülersoy, Türkiye’deki olçelerin Kentleúme Sürecinde Derecelerine
Göre Olma Potansiyellerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
Dergisi, Mimarlik, Planlama, Tasarim, Cilt Alti Sayi, Istanbul, 2007 pp. 71.
[95] T. Öcal, The 2nd international geography symposium GEOMED. ÖA geographical
approach to the storage of domestic solid waste during Turkey s urbanization
process, Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 19 (2011) 474–481.
[96] H. Buyukgungor, Wastewater Management And Reuse Options: A Case Study Of
Samsun City/Turkey, IWRM-(Integrated Water Resource Management)- Karlsruhe
12, 20–21 November 2012, Germany, 2012.
[97] UNW, United Nations Water. Climate Change Adaptation: the Pivotal Role of
Water. UN: UNWater, (2012).
[98] World Bank, Water Climate Change Understanding the Risks and Making the
Climatesmart Investment Decisions. Washington DC: World Bank; 2009. (2009).
[99] IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, p. 2013.
[100] WHO (World Health Organization), Un-water Global Analysis and Assessment of
Sanitation and Drinking-water (GLAAS) 2012 Report: the Challenge of Extending
and Sustaining Services, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2012.
[101] IPCC, C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi,
B. Maryam, H. Büyükgüngör
M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, P.M. Midgley
(Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[102] B. Lehner, T. Henrichs, P. Döll, J. Alcamo, EuroWasser-Model-based assessment of
European water resources and hydrology in the face of global change, Kassel
World Water Series (2001) 5.
[103] EEA, Water Resources Problems in Southern Europe − An Overview Report.
European Topic Centre on Inland Waters, EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1996.
[104] Y.S. Unal, A. Deniz, H. Toros, S. Incecik, Temporal and spatial patterns of pre-
cipitation variability for annual, wet, and dry seasons in Turkey, Int. J. Climatol.
32 (3) (2012) 392–405.
[105] Y.S. Unal, T. Kindap, M. Karaca, Redefining the climate zones of Turkey using
cluster analysis, Int. J. Climatol. 23 (9) (2003) 1045–1055.
[106] T. Asano, Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies and Applications, Metcalf & Eddy/
AECOM, 2007.
[107] X. Xue, M.E. Schoen, X.C. Ma, T.R. Hawkins, N.J. Ashbolt, J. Cashdollar,
J. Garland, Critical insights for a sustainability framework to address integrated
community water services: technical metrics and approaches, Water Res. 77
(2015) 155–169.
[108] M. Molinos-Senante, F. Hernández-Sancho, R. Sala-Garrido, Economic feasibility
study for wastewater treatment: a costebenefit analysis, Sci. Total Environ. 408 (4)
(2010) 953–957.
[109] M. Molinos-Senante, F. Hernández-Sancho, R. Sala-Garrido, Cost–benefit analysis
of water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: a case study for Spanish
wastewater treatment plants, J. Environ. Manage. 92 (12) (2011) 3091–3097.
[110] GWI, Municipal Water Reuse Markets 2010, Media Analytics Ltd, Oxford, UK,
2010.
[111] P. Szyplinska, Design–Build–Operate a Sustainable Global Model? Water World,
26, PennWell Corporation, Washington, DC, 2012.
[112] NWC (National Water Commission), Urban Water in Australia: Future Directions,
NWC, Canberra, 2011.
[113] MED-EUWI, Mediterranean Groundwater Report, Technical Report on
Groundwater Management in the Mediterranean and the Water Framework
Directive. Produced by the Mediterranean Groundwater Working Group (MED-
EUWI WG on Groundwater), 15 February 2007. (2007).
[114] R. Şahin, Legal Issues Pertaining Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Turkey,
Innovative Processes and Practices for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the
Mediterranean Region, 08–11 October 2007, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
[115] A. Samsunlu, G. Ciplakoglu, L. Akça, Small treatment plants and sludge manage-
ment-In Turkish, Proceedings of the 2nd National Environmental Pollution Control
Symposium, 22–24 October, Ankara Turkey, 2003, pp. 46–52.
[116] J.S. Marks, M. Zadoroznyj, Managing sustainable urban water reuse: structural
context and cultures of trust, Soc. Nat. Resour. 18 (6) (2005) 557–572.
[117] N. Buyukkamaci, H.S. Alkan, Public acceptance potential for reuse applications in
Turkey, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 80 (2013) 32–35.
[118] J.C. Radcliffe, Evolution of water recycling in Australian cities since 2003, Water
Sci. Technol. 62 (4) (2010) 792–802.
[119] S. Beck, Between Disgust and Trust: State of Social Science Research on the
Implementation and Acceptance of Water and Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
(WWT & R), (2009) http://www.iwrm-smart.org.
[120] A. Hurlimann, S. Dolnicar, When public opposition defeats alternative water
projects − the case of Toowoomba Australia, Water Res. 44 (1) (2010) 287–297.
[121] N. Stenekes, H.K. Colebatch, T.D. Waite, N.J. Ashbolt, Risk and governance in
water recycling: ‘Public acceptance' revisited, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31 (2)
(2010) 107–134.
[122] H. Buyukgungor, Watewater reuse options for rural areas, Turkish-German
Workshop on Sustainable Waste Water Management, 25 October 2010, Konya,
2010.
[123] T.H. Boyer, C. Overdevest, L. Christiansen, S.K. Ishii, Expert stakeholder attitudes
and support for alternative water sources in a groundwater depleted region, Sci.
1
5
Jo
u rn
alofW
aterP
rocessEn
gin
eerin
gxx
x(x
xxx
)xx
x–xx
x
Total Environ. 437 (2012) 245–254.
[124] E. Friedler, O. Lahav, H. Jizhaki, T. Lahav, Study of urban population attitudes
towards various wastewater reuse options: israel as a case study, J. Environ.
Manage. 81 (4) (2006) 360–370.
[125] M. Veronesi, F. Chawla, M. Maurer, J. Lienert, Climate change and the willingness
to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban
centers and the environment, Ecol. Econ. 98 (2014) 1–10.
[126] S. Dolnicar, A. Hurlimann, B. Grün, What affects public acceptance of recycled and
desalinated water? Water Res. 45 (2) (2011) 933–943.
[127] A. Hurlimann, Household use of and satisfaction with alternative water sources in
Victoria Australia, J. Environ. Manage. 92 (10) (2011) 2691–2697.
[128] C. Lallana, W. Krinner, T. Estrela, C.S. Nixon, J. Leonard, J.M. Berland, Sustainable
Water Use in Europe, Office for official publications of the European Communities
(IS); European Environment Agency (IS), Ufficio delle pubblicazioni ufficiali delle
Comunità europee; Agenzia europea dell'ambiente, 2001.
[129] L. Gurel, H. Buyukgungor, Implementation of membran bioreactor treatment
process on sloughter-house wastewater., AN-016, IWA-MTWR Regional
Conference and Exhibition on Membrane Technology and Water Reuse, 18–22
October 2010, Istanbul, 2010.
[130] Official Gazette, 2011. Ministry of forestry and water affairs. Environmental Law
in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Waste Water Treatment
Plant Regulations, Procedures and Principles Official Newspaper, Reference no:
27984. Dated 4 July 2011 (Translated from Turkish) http://www.resmigazete.
gov.tr/eskiler/2011/07/20110704M1-2.htm.
[131] Official Gazette, 2010. Ministry of Environment and Forestry notification of
technical procedures for wastewater treatment plant Official Gazette, Reference
no: 27527. Dated 20 March 2010 (Translated from Turkish) http://www.
resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2010/03/20100320-7.htm.
[132] EU (European Union), Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21.05.1991. Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment, as
Amended by Directive 98/15/EC. (1991).
[133] WPCR, 2004, National Water Pollution Control Regulation (revised), Official
Gazette, Reference no: 25687, dated: 31 December 2004.
[134] R.M. Carr, U.J. Blumenthal, D.D. Mara, Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater
in agriculture: revisiting WHO guidelines, Water Sci. Technol. 50 (2) (2004) 31–
38.
[135] R. Hochstrat, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, Development of integrated water reuse stra-
tegies, Desalination 218 (1) (2008) 208–217.
[136] US EPA, Guidelines for Water Reuse. Office of Wastewater Management and Office
of Water. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-12/
618. September 2014. (2014).
[137] S. Petterson, Development of a Software Tool for Undertaking Comparative Risk
Assessment of DBPs and Pathogens in Drinking Water, European Environment
Agency, Denmark, 2010.
[138] P.F.M. Teunis, M. Xu, K.K. Fleming, J. Yang, C.L. Moe, M.W. LeChevallier, Enteric
virus infection risk from intrusion of sewage into a drinking water distribution
network, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (22) (2010) 8561–8566.
[139] M.E. Schoen, N.J. Ashbolt, Assessing pathogen risk to swimmers at non-sewage
impacted recreational beaches, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (7) (2010) 2286–2291.
[140] W. Ahmed, H. Brandes, P. Gyawali, J.P. Sidhu, S. Toze, Opportunistic pathogens in
roof-captured rainwater samples, determined using quantitative PCR, Water Res.
53 (2014) 361–369.
[141] F.S. Barker, J. O'Toole, M.I. Sinclair, K. Leder, M. Malawaraarachchi,
A.J. Hamilton, A probabilistic model of norovirus disease burden associated with
greywater irrigation of home-produced lettuce in Melbourne, Australia, Water Res.
47 (3) (2013) 1421–1432.
[142] R. Çakir, A. Gidirislioglu, U. Çebi, A study on the effects of different hydraulic
loading rates (HLR) on pollutant removal efficiency of subsurface horizontal-flow
constructed wetlands used for treatment of domestic wastewaters, J. Environ.
Manage. 164 (2015) 121–128.