Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

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

Review

A review of wastewater irrigation: Environmental implications

Ajay Singh
Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India

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

Keywords: The UN’ SDG6 thrusts the reuse of treated wastewater to ensure the availability of water for all. The use of
Wastewater irrigation treated wastewater for crop irrigation is a feasible option as the agriculture sector is the largest user of all water
Wastewater treatment sources. This paper provides a review of wastewater utilization for crop irrigation with a specific focus on
Heavy metals accumulation
environmental impacts. The need for wastewater irrigation and valuable fertilizer contribution from wastewater
Fertilizer contribution from wastewater
Soil and plant contamination
along with wastewater treatment processes are presented. The environmental impacts of wastewater irrigation
Contaminants of emerging concern on soil and plant are detailed. The effect of wastewater irrigation on human and animal health due to pathogens
(bacteria, protozoa, viruses) and contaminants of emerging concern (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, personal care
products) are described. The water-related vector-borne diseases (dengue fever, zika, malaria, yellow fever) are
also detailed. The link between wastewater irrigation and climate and greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide) emissions are discussed. And the global case studies of wastewater irrigation and their
implications are described. The literature analysis revealed that poorly-treated wastewater resulted in the
deposition of heavy metals and other toxic elements in soils and plants apart from raised pathogens level and
increased microbial threats to human and animal wellbeing. The long-term impacts of emerging contaminants
should be established in future studies because these are generally new chemicals and there are no standard
analytical techniques to precisely detect and analyze them. Similarly, the reliable long-term comprehensive
appraisal of heavy metals’ threat to human health needs to be explored in future investigations.

1. Introduction income and decreases environmental pollutions by decreasing waste­

The human population is growing steadily and is projected to touch
9.8 billion in 2050, from 7.6 billion people in 2017 (United Nations,
2017). The rapid rise in the human population has increased urbaniza­
tion very fast during the last few decades (Maryam and Buyukgungor,
2019; Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani, 2019; Singh, 2019a, Singh, 2019b).
And this has increased the production of municipal wastewater (MWW)
considerably (Ye et al., 2019; Romano et al., 2019; Romeiko, 2019;
Amann et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2018). The proper management of the
vast amount of MWW is a global challenge because untreated waste­
water discharge pollutes the water bodies and spreads water-related
diseases (Menegassi et al., 2020; Petousi et al., 2019; Maruthi et al.,
2012). The problem of wastewater disposal is severe in coastal regions,
where more than sixty percent of the global population lives (Satya­
narayana et al., 2010). The utilization of treated wastewater for agri­
cultural production is a common practice globally (Singh, 2021; Pena
et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019a; World Health Or­
ganization, 2015; Paranychianakis et al., 2015; Rutkowski et al., 2007;
Bixio et al., 2006). Irrigation with treated wastewater augments farm
water release into the natural environment (Chowdhury and Al-Zah­
rani, 2014). Over twenty Mha of land are irrigated by treated and
untreated wastewater globally (Sato et al., 2013). This area is expected
to grow further in the future (Mendoza-Espinosa et al., 2019). Fernan­
dez et al. (2009) examined the ecological effects of irrigation in
water-scarce areas and concluded that the chemicals might surface as
contaminants when untreated wastewater is used for irrigation.
Crop irrigation with wastewater is widespread in water-scarce areas
because of the shortage of adequate water resources (Jesse et al., 2019;
Soller et al., 2017; Singh 2019c; Singh 2019d; Ye et al., 2019b; Singh
et al., 2016; Carr et al., 2011). Recently, Libutti et al. (2018) evaluated
the impacts of wastewater irrigation (WWI) on broccoli and tomato yield
and soil properties in Italy’s study area. The study considered various
irrigation regimes such as freshwater and treated wastewater to
compare the results. The results showed higher values of soil chemicals
under WWI as compared to freshwater irrigation. And sodium and ni­
trate ion concentrations were slightly higher than the threshold values
recommended for vegetables. The study suggested that properly treated
wastewater can safely be used for crop production in water-scarce

E-mail address: erajay07@yahoo.co.in.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105454
Received 1 May 2020; Received in revised form 29 December 2020; Accepted 26 January 2021
Available online 8 February 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Singh
Mediterranean regions. Similarly, Farhadkhani et al. (2018) evaluated
the effect of treated WWI on soil characteristics and the quality of
diverse crops compared with freshwater irrigation in the water-scarce
middle east region. The results showed no significant impacts on the
attributes under WWI in control plots. However, the study reported
slightly higher SAR and EC values in WWI areas. The study concluded
that the treated WWI could be carefully considered as an optional irri­
gation source for leafy and root crops in water-scarce regions. More
recently, the utilization of treated wastewater for irrigating vineyards in
South Africa and Mexico was presented by Mendoza-Espinosa et al.
(2019). The study reported no methodical barriers in employing treated
wastewater for irrigating vineyards in these countries. Particularly,
Mexico has specific policies to utilize treated wastewater in its terri­
tories. On the other hand, South Africa has no material policies for WWI,
regardless of encompassing a regulatory structure that encourages
treated wastewater.
Researchers worldwide have addressed the issues required to eval­
uate treated WWI during the last four decades (Farhadkhani et al., 2020;
Anshassi et al., 2019; Rock et al., 2019; Maalouf and El-Fadel, 2018;
Elfanssi et al., 2018). Al-Jaloud (2010) reported an increase in crop
production by over ten percent by treating wastewater for cultivating
alfalfa and wheat in Saudi Arabia. Pescod (1992) examined some case
studies for treated WWI and their impacts on soil properties and farm
production. The measures of treated wastewater irrigation in some
States in the USA were compared and presented by Crook and Sur­
ampalli (1996). Later, Morari and Giardini (2009) evaluated MWW
treatment’s effectiveness and aptness for Italy’s agricultural production.
The study reported that water quality factors with high subtraction ef­
ficiencies satisfied the Italian guidelines for WWI, while elements with
low efficiencies restricted the potential water reuse. Earlier, a similar
approach was utilized by Lopez et al. (2006) for evaluating the use of
treated MWW for irrigation. The effect of treated WWI on Eucalyptus
plants was recently studied by Maaloul et al. (2019). The outcomes of
the study were compared with freshwater irrigation used in parallel
situations. The investigation showed altered soil properties with treated
WWI.
In a recent study, Ganjegunte et al. (2018) reported a substantial,
heavy metal accrual with WWI of sorghum crop in a water-scarce area.
Muyen et al. (2011) concluded that the wastewater has massive quan­
tities of soluble salts other than heavy metals that could go between 200
and 3000 mg/L. Later, Sruthi et al. (2017), Suarez et al. (2017), and
Regelink et al. (2015) reported similar findings in regards to the buildup
of heavy metals in soil with continuing WWI. In a more recent study,
Farhadkhani et al. (2020) analyzed the health-hazards of consuming
wastewater-irrigated vegetables in Middle East countries. The study
concluded that applying treated wastewater for vegetable crops doesn’t
create a considerable threat to human health from campylobacter in­
fections under an explicit set of conditions in water-scarce areas. All the
major issues related to wastewater irrigation and its environmental
impacts altogether have scarcely been covered in previous in­
vestigations. For example, some studies focused on treatment technol­
ogies but without considering the soil and crop characteristics. In
contrast, some other studies considered environmental contaminations
without broadly considering the heavy metal accumulation in soil and
plant. In some investigations, modeling studies were done to simulate
the nutrient and water dynamics apart from plant development without
considering specific contaminants’ environmental impacts. This paper
provides a review of wastewater utilization for crop irrigation and its
environmental impacts.
The previous papers are analyzed and presented in six main sections.
The rationale and requirements of wastewater irrigation are provided in
the Introduction. The Background section offers the need for wastewater
irrigation in the backdrop of dwindling water resources and a rapid rise
in wastewater production globally. The fertilizer contribution from
wastewater and a brief history of wastewater irrigation along with the
wastewater treatment processes are covered in the same section. The
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
next section describes mathematical models use to formulate a suitable
framework for proper and optimal wastewater management. The envi­
ronmental impacts of wastewater irrigation in the soil profile and plant
tissues due to the accumulation of heavy metals and other toxic elements
are detailed. The effect of wastewater irrigation on human and animal
health due to pathogens (e.g., bacteria, helminths, protozoa, viruses,
etc.) and ’contaminants of emerging concerns’ and toxic organic com­
pounds (e.g., pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, per­
sonal care products, etc.) are described. The water-related vector-borne
diseases (e.g., dengue fever, zika, malaria, Japanese encephalitis, yellow
fever, etc.) are covered. And the discussions regarding the link between
wastewater irrigation and climate and greenhouse gasses (e.g., carbon
dioxide, methane, & nitrous oxide, etc.) emissions are provided. In the
next section, the worldwide case studies of wastewater irrigation and
their implications under diverse agro-hydro-climatic conditions are
discussed, followed by a summary of conclusions and recommendations.
Based on the literature analysis, the research gaps have been recognized,
and some key recommendations for future research regarding the sus­
tainable and safe use of treated wastewater for irrigation have been
made (Fig. 1).
2. Background
A brief history of wastewater irrigation for crop production in
various countries is presented in this section, along with a rapid rise in
wastewater production on a global scale. The dwindling water resources
and the vital fertilizer input from wastewater, which thrust the use of
wastewater for crop irrigation, are also presented in the section. Finally,
the wastewater treatment processes and diverse applications of different
quality treated wastewater are provided.
2.1. History of wastewater irrigation
Application of wastewater and marginal quality water for irrigation
is not new, and it has been in practice for centuries (Hussain et al., 2019;
Abd-Elwahed, 2018; Suyama et al., 2007; World Health Organization,
2006; Ayars and Schoneman, 2006; Bowman et al., 2006). In around
1700 BC, brick-conduits were used for carrying the wastewater to
farming fields to irrigate crops in Crete. And in about 600 BC, the
Romans gathered urine in community toilets and traded it to tanners and
dyers (Raschid-Sally, 2010). Numerous reports of using wastewater for
irrigation in Brazil, India, Czech Republic, China, Greece, Lebanon,
Germany, Mexico, South Korea, Vietnam, Morocco, Peru, France, South
Africa, Italy, Egypt, Spain, Turkey, and Scotland are also available in the
literature (Jeong et al., 2020; Maryam and Buyukgungor, 2019; Men­
doza-Espinosa et al., 2019; Libutti et al., 2018; Sramkova et al., 2018;
Alderson et al., 2015; Pedrero et al., 2010; Keraita et al., 2008; Jiménez
and Asano, 2008; Asano et al., 2007; Shuval et al., 1986). During the last
decades, the quantity of wastewater generation in municipalities has
enlarged considerably on account of the rapid increase in the population
and industrialization in addition to alterations in consumption patterns
(Mishra et al., 2017). For example, in Australia, total municipal waste­
water production has increased by 36% in the last two decades, i.e., from
1535 MCM (Million Cubic Meter) to over 2094 MCM (FAO, 2018). The
corresponding increases for Belarus, China, Columbia, Cuba, Egypt, and
India were 18%, 158%, 15%, 68%, 97%, and 215%. During the same
period, Indonesia, Israel, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Switzerland, and
Tunisia have reported 285%, 72%, 17%, 353%, 11%, and 50% increases
in the total municipal wastewater production.
2.2. Dwindling water resources
An expected above half of the global population may experience
water scarcity in the next three decades (Garcia et al., 2019). The
developing countries would suffer the most because of the high poverty
level and complex socioeconomic conditions (Angelakis et al., 2018). At
A. Singh
Fig 1. Reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation.
present, more than fifty percent of the globe’s water sources are seri­
ously polluted with untreated or partially treated agricultural, house­
hold, and industrial wastewater (Alderson et al., 2015). And it results in
the spreading of various diseases due to a large number of fecal bacteria
(Menegassi et al., 2020). Moreover, the demands put forth by agricul­
ture, which uses over seventy percent of the total water worldwide
(FAO, 2013) along with industrial demands and burgeoning population
in developing regions requires a new sustainable and
environment-friendly approach in dealing with the world’s water
sources (Pedrero et al., 2018). The problem of water shortages can be
solved up to some degree by reusing the MWW for various applications,
including crop irrigation (Deng et al., 2019; Matheyarasu et al., 2016;
Paranychianakis et al., 2015; Fadlelmawla and Al-Otaibi, 2005).
Developing countries face severe water shortages due to the bur­
geoning population and competition for water demands from various
economic sectors (United Nations, 2019; Mendoza-Espinosa et al., 2019;
Zolti et al., 2019; Farhadkhani et al., 2018; Singh, 2015a; Singh, 2015b).
Untreated wastewater has been extensively utilized for irrigating crops
in developing regions to meet water shortages (Murtaza et al., 2010).
Hussain et al. (2002) evaluated WWI features and compared the pro­
cedural concerns in impact evaluation. They showed improved farm
production from WWI. The study also showed that treated wastewater
did not cause any threat, but untreated sewage caused elevated
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
microbial threats to the human being. Furthermore, the study showed
that WWI could cause heavy metals deposition in soils in the long-term,
contaminating the crops. Qadir et al. (2010a) reported crop production
with treated wastewater in the Middle East region. They stated that the
Middle East region has an elevated perspective of fair use of treated
wastewater. However, the study highlighted some critical limitations for
sluggish development in the region, such as high associated costs, the
disparity between water cost and water shortage, lack of wastewater
treatment, and inadequate information on ecological impact. Waste­
water collection, conveyance, quality monitoring of treated wastewater,
and its applications in different vegetables and field crops are shown in
Fig. 2.
2.3. Fertilizer contribution from wastewater
Wastewater is generated all over the year and consists of essential
nutrients required for crop production (Hsien et al., 2019; Diaz-Elsayed
et al., 2019; Raschid-Sally et al., 2005). Bichai et al. (2012) reported that
in addition to nutrients supply to plants, WWI had linked several other
benefits, such as reduced fertilizer requirement, which leads to better
yields without excessive chemical application. And because of fewer
chemical applications, the quality of farm produce would be better and
healthy. The fertilizer input to the soil would depend on the irrigation
A. Singh
Fig 2. Wastewater collection, conveyance, quality monitoring, & applications in different crops Water quality monitoring.
amount and concentration of the treated wastewater. Table 1 (Becer­
ra-Castro et al., 2015; White and Greenwood, 2013; Hanjra et al., 2012;
Qadir et al., 2010b; Michael, 2009; World Health Organization, 2006;
Lazarova and Bahri, 2005) shows the possible fertilizer contribution to
the soil with diverse quantities of treated wastewater. It reveals that an
irrigation application of 4000 m3/ha with treated wastewater of 18–60
mg/L concentration would add 64–248 kg/ha of nitrogen equivalent in
the soil. Similarly, a 4–66 mg/L concentration of treated wastewater
would add up to 276 kg/ha of potash in the soil. And a 6–23 mg/L
concentration of treated wastewater would add up to 96 kg/ha of
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
phosphorus in the soil with the same amount of irrigation. Likewise, the
utilization of treated wastewater for crop irrigation would add various
amounts of other elements in soil such as Na, Ca, Mg, etc. Therefore,
adequately treated wastewater could be a dependable source for crop
production, particularly in water-scarce dry regions (Jeong et al., 2020;
Farhadkhani et al., 2020; Angelakis et al., 2003).
2.4. Wastewater treatment for reuse
In the majority of municipalities in developing countries, wastewater
A. Singh Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454

Table 1 membrane filtration, the elimination of pathogens and toxic soluble

Fertilizer values in soil with wastewater irrigation. pollutants at macro or micro levels is performed. Treated wastewater
Nutrient Concentration (mg/ Fertilizer input (kg/ha) (for 4000 m3/ha application needs wastewater collection and proper treatment linked to
L) irrigation) spending. More advanced treatments need more expenditure, i.e., sec­
N 18–60 64–248 ondary treatment is costlier than primary and tertiary treatment is
K 4–66 8–276 dearer than secondary wastewater treatment.
P 6–23 16–96 A considerable amount of wastewater or marginal quality water is
Na 29–178 108–722 produced by industrial and urban water treatment processes (Egbuik­
Mg 11–111 36–444
Ca 21–213 73–821
wem et al., 2019; Resende et al., 2019; De Sanctis et al., 2017; Miyamoto
and Chacon, 2006; Gerhart et al., 2006; Ayars et al., 2006). These
marginal quality waters are typically released into groundwater and
is discharged into rivers and lakes with no apt treatment, and this results urban sewage systems where they characterize likely environmental and
in vast contamination of water sources (Hu et al., 2019; López-Morales human health risks (Hong et al., 2018; Contreras et al., 2017; Muschal,
et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019b; Purandara et al., 2011). Conventional 2006). These waters can be used for irrigating plants in water-scarce
wastewater treatment typically consists of three stages: a temporary regions where good-quality water is limited (Wang et al., 2019c; Ayo­
holding of sewage for removing the suspended materials, removing dele et al., 2018; Gerhart et al., 2006). This way the related problems of
dissolved substances, and definitive treatment (Anubha and Kaushik, their releases into groundwater and urban sewage systems can also be
2017). The wastewater treatment processes, including the techniques avoided up to some extent (Bardhan et al., 2016; Ayars et al., 2006).
used in the primary, secondary, tertiary, and advanced treatments, are Considering the water shortages in water-scarce urban settings,
demonstrated in Fig. 3. It shows that only primary treated wastewater is poor-quality saline wastewater can be used for irrigating halophytes in
suitable for no use. The secondary and tertiary treated wastewater is these areas. Glenn et al. (2009) used slightly saline-treated water in
used for garden irrigation, groundwater recharge, landscape irrigation, deep-rooted local halophytes in an area of Twentynine Palms, Califor­
food crop irrigation, etc. In contrast, the advanced treated wastewater is nia. They extended a deficit irrigation approach to circumvent releasing
used for indirect drinking and recharge of surface and groundwater water through the rootzone. Irrigation was done at a thirty-three percent
bodies. Under the advanced oxidation process, the decomposition of rate of reference evapotranspiration (RET), estimated from climatic
organic contaminants to carbon dioxide by hydrogen peroxide is done. characteristics, and a neutron hydroprobe was used to measure soil
The other techniques used under this method include ozonation, elec­ moisture levels. Water was applied regularly to keep application rates
trolysis, solar, ultrasound, wet air oxidation, etc. Similarly, under under RET in the summer season and slightly higher than RET in winter.

Fig 3. Wastewater treatment processes.

5
A. Singh Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454

The results showed that sodium content steadily enlarged in the soil
profile, but sulfate concentrations stayed low during the study.
Alterations in soil salinity and sodicity values are the most distinctive
modifications in agricultural areas following WWI. Given the signifi­
cance of these values in agricultural production, Leal et al. (2009)
examined the viability of treated WWI on sugarcane on the tropical soil
in Sao Paulo in Brazil. For this study, the authors collected the soil
samples from a block of designed-four replications-four treatment fields
during 2005–2006. Earlier, Gonçalves et al. (2007) determined the hy­
draulic conductivity (Ks) of an agricultural area near Lins in Brazil and
irrigated with treated wastewater and treated groundwater in the last
two years. The results were compared with the values of a region in
natural settings. The results illustrated that the Ks of soil altered in both
cases, such as treated wastewater and treated groundwater irrigations,
compared to natural environments. The results also demonstrated that
the Ks’ variations were more distinct in the topsoil profile, such as up to
one m depth from the soil surface. In a recent study, Egbuikwem et al.
(2020) evaluated the usefulness of the "suspended growth biological
process" (SGBP) for recovery and reuse of wastewater for agricultural
production of edible crops such as beets and lettuce. The study consid­
ered plants’ germination and phenological features in a hydroponic unit
with four irrigation systems, including freshwater, wastewater,
SGBP-treated wastewater, and freshwater coupled with nutrient solu­
tion. The study reported that SGBP-treated wastewater had no harmful
effect on germination.
3. Mathematical models
With the advancement of fast electronic PCs during the ongoing past,
researchers developed and used different management models for
handling the issues of wastewater irrigation. These issues have been
solved by utilizing simulation and optimization models.
3.1. Simulation modeling
soil heat, evaporation, and moisture condition are hard to acquire daily.
In a recent study, Garcia et al. (2019) presented a new plant uptake
model for foretelling the lettuce contaminations. The model’s required
data were generated from the experimentation of vegetables produced
in glasshouse conditions with treated WWI. The model worked well as
there was a close match between field-recorded and model values. The
study reported over eighty percent higher contaminants in leaves than in
the roots. A general approach employed in wastewater management
modeling is illustrated in Fig. 4. It shows that, first, wastewater data is
collected from various sources that are used for database creation and
development. Then, the input data is used in the modeling framework,
which leads to an analysis of output and results.
The model NLEAP is used to forecast a quick site-specific approxi­
mation of nitrate-nitrogen leaching potential in diverse farming systems
(Li et al., 2020). Like SOILN, the model NLEAP has also been developed
initially to simulate the carbon and nitrogen cycle (Qi et al., 2012).
However, the modified versions of the model have been used widely to
simulate nitrogen management scenarios under different cropping sys­
tems (Li et al., 2020; Delgado et al., 2020). The model NLEAP interprets
the user-supplied data regarding on-farm management practices and
climate variables along with soils into likely nitrogen budgets and
possible leaching through the rootzone. Model NLEAP was recently
utilized to evaluate the effects of nitrogen fertilizers on groundwater
nitrate concentrations in an area of the USA (Reuben and Sorensen,
2014). The study shows a positive link between the leaching forecasted
by NLEAP and the groundwater concentrations. However, the nitrate
levels were elevated in those areas related to high nitrate leaching
potential.
Improper farming waste management may pose severe environ­
mental challenges at the local and large-scale levels (Vergine et al.,
2020). Oenema et al. (2005) pointed out that farming waste is the pri­
mary source of pollution through the increased nitrous oxide and
methane releases. A new model SIMSWASTE-AD was developed by Pardo
et al. (2017) for the ecological assessment of farming waste organization

Formulating a suitable framework for the proper and optimal use of

water and nutrients for crop production is necessary for achieving sus­
tainable food production. However, it is challenging under varying
hydro-climatic and crop conditions (Wang and Huang, 2008). The use of
mathematical models can assess diverse management strategies (Mor­
etti et al., 2019; Sonkamble et al., 2018; Singh and Panda, 2013;
Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2016; Singh, 2016, 2014, 2012; Wang and Huang,
2008). Several models have been used during the recent past to assess
irrigation and nutrient management applications, such as RZWQM
(Ahuja et al., 2000; Cannavo et al., 2008), SUNDIAL (Bardbury et al.,
1993), SOILN (Bergstrom et al., 1991), NLEAP (Shaffer et al., 1991), and
CREAMS (Knisel, 1980) with others. The model RZWQM has been used
extensively for appraising optional management plans and their related
effect on agricultural production. The model RZWQM has demonstrated
the potential of rationally simulating fertilizer and water dynamics in
addition to plant development in diverse settings globally (e.g., Hu et al.,
2006; Cameira et al., 2005; Landa et al., 1999; Farahani et al., 1999; and
Hanson et al., 1999). However, in a recent study, Fang et al. (2017)
reported that the original version of model RZWQM overestimates ni­
trogen concentration in the crop. And this issue could be fixed with the
modified versions of the model.
Researchers such as Flattery et al. (2018) and Abukhdeir et al. (2011)
recently reported that SUNDIAL is efficient in simulating nitrogen
leaching and crop nitrogen uptake in cropping systems due to the
forecasting feature. However, SUNDIAL forecasts are reliant on the
weather estimates, and usually, the estimated and real weather will
vary. Vassiljev et al. (2018) reported that the SOILN is a useful model for
simulating carbon and nitrogen flows and subsequent processes in plants
and soils. However, the model has a daily time-step that requires
intensive data that is not feasible in infrastructure-poor regions. Because
in these regions, the needed input data such as radiation, temperature, Fig 4. General approach employed in wastewater management modeling.

6
A. Singh
approaches. The developed model was verified with the on hand
measured data, and a good match was found between the modeled and
measured values as revealed in high regression values. Farahani et al.
(2017) presented a robust model-based analytical control system for
managing Barcelona’s wastewater scheme. The proposed approach is
capable of dealing with the challenges of weather-related complexities
and diminish wastewater-related pollution. Recently, Edmondson et al.
(2018) presented the development of a wastewater management model
SSAIM for an existing sewerage system. The model integrates distributed
smart sensors to facilitate synchronized monitoring of the sewer system.
Results illustrated an approach for data investigation to assist the syn­
chronized forecast of flooding. More recently, Jeong et al. (2020) pre­
sented a mathematical model for WWI at a watershed scale in South
Korea. The model was used to spot the main factors in water systems that
significantly affect wastewater agriculture and investigate the effects of
shifting farming conditions by varying the significant factors. Then the
model was used to extend the possibility of potential alterations from
existing decision-making. The model results showed that WWI has a
well-built impact on groundwater and might mitigate irrigation water
shortfalls by expanding irrigation supplies. And it might be an additional
cost-effective irrigation practice than the current groundwater irrigation
in shifting farming conditions.
3.2. Optimization modeling
Scholars have used various optimization techniques to manage
waste-related problems in the recent past (Phonphoton and Pharino,
2019). For example, some models focused on energy production while
others focused on the transport facility. A detailed survey of current
Fig 5. Formulation and solution of a typical optimization model.
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
waste management models was reported by Juul et al. (2013). The
survey covered the crucial factors and significant issues that need to be
mulled over when appraising waste treatment options’ financial per­
formance. An inexact optimization model was presented by Du et al.
(2013) for assisting water quality management of Xiangxihe River,
considering uncertainty. The results demonstrated that agricultural ac­
tivities produced a maximum quantity of nonpoint source pollution and
phosphorus discharged into the river approach mainly from point
sources. U-tapao et al. (2015) used a multi-objective optimization model
for a wastewater treatment plant to generate a sustainable power source.
The study concluded that the wastewater treatment plant might ratio­
nalize the quantity of CO2, yet the investment and operational expenses
would be expanded. In a typical wastewater optimization model, the
objective(s) and constraints of the model are set, followed by program
formulation. Then, the model formulation is solved under a specific set
of predetermined conditions, which leads to decision alternatives and
optimal planning (Fig. 5).
Cultivation of edible crops with WWI is becoming progressively more
widespread because of a blend of socioeconomic and environmental
drivers (Urbano et al., 2017; Abegunrin et al., 2016). Even with this
practice’s benefits, it causes hazards to human health, mainly through
pollution with pathogens (Farhadkhani et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2018;
Hamilton et al., 2007). A mathematical model RIRA was presented by
Hamilton et al. (2007) to help planners assess WWI’s hazard on edible
crops. The model was designed to put up an extensive range of scenarios
regarding microbial hazard appraisal. Because of its flexible structure,
the model can also perform risk evaluations compliant with the ways
suggested in main wastewater reuse rules. Wang and Huang (2008) used
the model RZWQM in Beijing, China, for assessing the nutrient and
A. Singh
water management practices under the treated WWI. The field experi­
mentation with four irrigation treatments was done during 2001–2003
on a designed experimental plot in the study area. The crop growth and
hydrologic parameters of the model were calibrated by using the
measured information. The analysis illustrated the model’s usefulness in
simulating the multiple cropping system parameters under diverse
nutrient and irrigation conditions. More than one criterion in waste­
water management needs to be considered before a dependable decision
is made. For example, wastewater production rate, human wellbeing,
and ecosystem damage could be considered before deciding. In such
cases, a multicriteria decision analysis approach can be used for decision
making. In this approach, first, the categorization of wastewater man­
agement scenarios is done. Various strategies are classified, assessment
criteria are set, and qualitative and quantitative measures are evaluated
before assigning the weightage. The analysis and ranking of the sce­
narios are then done (Fig. 6).
4. Environmental impacts of wastewater irrigation
The section deals with the environmental impacts of wastewater
irrigation on soil and plant due to accumulation of heavy metals and
other toxic elements in the soil profile and plant tissues, which nega­
tively impacts wellbeing. The key benefits and limitations of the
approach are the parts of the section, followed by the negative impacts
on human and animal health due to pathogens (e.g., bacteria, helminths,
Fig 6. Wastewater management scheme in multicriteria decision framework.
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
protozoa, viruses, etc.) and toxic organic compounds. The water-related
vector-borne diseases (e.g., dengue fever, zika, malaria, Japanese en­
cephalitis, yellow fever, etc.) are also covered. And the discussions
regarding the link between wastewater irrigation and climate and
greenhouse gasses (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, & nitrous oxide, etc.)
emissions are also provided. The section also covers qualitative criteria
for wastewater utilization for crop irrigation.
4.1. Soil and plant contamination
Due to the water shortages, the use of treated wastewater for irri­
gation has become a common practice in the farm-production system
(Jesse et al., 2019; Ibekwe et al., 2018; Saliba et al., 2018; Da Fonseca
et al., 2007). On the other hand, its use can also cause agro-ecosystems’
environmental problems (Petousi et al., 2019; Nicolas et al., 2016; Toze,
2006). For example, it can increase N and P concentrations and other
toxic elements in the soil profile over time (Oliveira et al., 2017; Paudel
et al., 2016; Wafula et al., 2015; Tillman and Surapaneni, 2002). It can
also alter the physical properties of soil such as hydraulic conductivity
and leaching efficiency, which further impede the leaching of harmful
salts through the rootzone (Shilpi et al., 2018; Gurjar et al., 2017; Guo
et al., 2017a; Leal et al., 2009; Oster and Shainberg, 2001; Bond, 1998).
Da Fonseca et al. (2007) reported an immaterial variation in crop yield
within the treated wastewater irrigated plots. The study suggested that
the monitoring of soil following treated WWI is necessary to sustain
A. Singh
agricultural quality considerations. Recently, Gao et al. (2017) reported
that the accessibility of low-quality water resources, such as low-quality
groundwater, drainage water, or wastewater, is becoming a significant
concern in water-scarce countries like Tunisia. More recently, Wang
et al. (2019a) and Saha et al. (2015) reported the accumulation of heavy
metals in plants and soil profiles due to continual WWI. The studies also
reported the changes in soil properties such as salinity and pH, etc. These
alterations altogether reduce soil health and agricultural productivity
apart from negatively impacting the environment (Becerra-Castro et al.,
2015; Guo et al., 2017b).
The treated wastewaters vary in composition, but most are saline,
typically having 1–7 gs per liter TDS. Generally, sodium is the leading
element in these waters (Libutti et al., 2018; Hanjra et al., 2012; Glenn
et al., 2009). The wastewater irrigation causes Na increase that prompts
declining soil structure, negatively impacting soil porosity and soil mi­
crobial biodiversity (Hussain et al., 2019; Belaid et al., 2012). The
expansion in sodium content might also aggravate overall soil deterio­
ration and restricted crop production because of general growth inhi­
bition at different development stages and nutritional imbalance (Pena
et al., 2020; Hanjra et al., 2012). Apart from EC, the soil pH is also
increased by applying wastewater to soil (Radingoana et al., 2020;
Hussain et al., 2019). Pinto et al. (2010) reported the elevated EC and pH
levels with marginal quality water compared to fresh and diluted
wastewater treatments. More recently, Zolti et al. (2019) presented an
analysis of the impacts of treated wastewater on the microbial structure
of soil and plant performance. They considered wastewater and
freshwater-irrigated tomato and lettuce plants for soil and
root-microbiomes analysis under diverse soil conditions. The study re­
ported a notably enhanced soil pH and EC and reduced fruit production
under WWI compared to freshwater irrigation.
Good quality water resources are in high prerequisites globally
(Muluneh et al., 2017). This is currently a vital reserve for several re­
gions and creates community and financial disagreements (Bekchanov
and Lamers, 2016). Many consecutive years of drought, caused by
climate alteration, diminished the water availability for agriculture in
water-scarce regions (Cerda et al., 2017). This compels the utilization of
low-quality water for agricultural production, which may negatively
impact soil health (Keesstra et al., 2018; Santos et al., 2017). A pot trial
was conducted by Mbarki et al. (2018) to assess nutrient content in
plants and heavy metal accrual in soils irrigated with low-quality water
and treated with compost. The study concluded that crops cultivated
with solid waste compost could balance the impact of poor water irri­
gation. The study further revealed that low water irrigation reduced the
plant’s dry yield in sandy and clay soil. The yield reductions were,
however, higher in sandy soils. Recently, Abd-Elwahed (2018) exam­
ined the spatial distribution of harmful substances such as heavy metals
in the case of continual WWI in an area of Egypt. They used various
indicators to evaluate the soil quality of the area. The study found high
concentrations of heavy metals under the WWI as compared to Nile
freshwater. The study mainly found a higher concentration of Cu in
wastewater irrigated area. Similarly, Dotaniya et al. (2018) reported
that WWI possibly would have a low concentration of heavy metals, but
its continuing utilization would build up large amounts of heavy metals
in rootzone. The study concluded that continuing WWI in clay soil will
increase the concentration of lead, iron, zinc, copper, and chromium
compared to freshwater application.
Irrigation is deemed an excellent option for using wastewater with
the real worries for the growing use of water in farming and the dwin­
dling water supplies (Christou et al., 2017; Jing et al., 2017). Gloaguen
et al. (2007) evaluated WWI’s consequences on soil solution composi­
tion of a Brazilian Oxisol planted with sunflower and maize. In this
study, the authors observed soil solution composition for the top
two-meter soil depth through two years. The results showed a reduction
in sodium content with time, mainly caused by leaching through the soil.
The results also showed a lower nitrate concentration during the rainy
season that was attributed to leaching and plant uptake both.
9
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
Chowdhury and Al-Zahrani (2014) assessed the application of treated
wastewater for irrigation in Saudi Arabia. Advantages of treated
wastewater application, environmental hazards and human health, and
outlay of wastewater collection and treatment were taken into account
for the assessment. The authors proposed a fuzzy synthetic approach for
the appraisal of treated WWI. The analysis demonstrated that treated
wastewater applications might have a supporting impact on ground­
water protection, hazard reduction, and agriculture. The key benefits
and limitations of wastewater irrigation in soils are summarized in
Fig. 7. The significant benefits include improved N, P, K levels, and soil
organic matter apart from enhanced soil microbial activity and better
physical structure. While the main disadvantages include increased soil
and food contamination, raised pathogens level, increased antibiotics,
and grown heavy metals in soil and plant produce.
Recently, Petousi et al. (2019) assessed WWI’s aptness on young
grapevines by considering the fruit quality and yield. The study also
evaluated the accumulation of salts and heavy metals in soil profile apart
from microbial contamination. The results showed an elevated sodium
level in the rootzone with WWI. The outcomes also revealed that
secondary-treated wastewater harmed plant growth while
tertiary-treated wastewater had a beneficial effect on freshwater irri­
gation. Thus, it is suggested to utilize the tertiary-treated WWI for young
grapevines. Earlier similar studies were conducted by Netzer et al.
(2014) and Mosse et al. (2013) for wastewater-irrigated grapevines
under diverse soil geo-hydrological conditions. For example, Israel’s
clay loam soil was considered in the first study, while California’s silt
loam soil was considered in the second study. These studies also re­
ported the accumulation of sodium in the rootzone with the
partially-treated WWI. Furthermore, the studies revealed that
wastewater-irrigation could create a likely threat in the case of its
long-term utilization. Earlier, Sharvelle et al. (2012) examined the
long-term impact of marginal quality water on fields and reported a salt
buildup in soils, which caused a threat of groundwater pollution. The
investigation indicated that, with successful management of these wa­
ters, pollution of the soil and water sources could be minimized if not
prevented on the whole.
Wastewater contains essential plant nutrients, but untreated or
poorly treated sewage augments the toxic elements in soils and plants,
which could negatively impact the environment (Aquilino et al., 2018;
Li et al., 2018; Moazeni et al., 2017; Tal, 2016; World Health Organi­
zation, 2015; Battistone et al., 2014). The proper management choices
for such soils consist of using nontoxic materials, such as calcium sulfate
and lime. Organic substances can also be used for treating these polluted
soil (Murtaza et al., 2010). Gonçalves et al. (2007) reported that the
direct use of untreated wastewater for agricultural production resolves
the instant water source pollution caused by its release into water
bodies. However, it may result in other issues by changing the soil
properties such as hydraulic conductivity of agricultural lands (Song
et al., 2019; Rodriguez-Liebana et al., 2018). Tidaker et al. (2006)
examined the ecological effect and resource utilization in a life cycle
outlook for various schemes; each consists of both farming production
and wastewater management. In the study, wastewater and food waste
were both treated in a wastewater treatment plant. And the system
sludge was utilized for making a soil conditioner to be used in oat pro­
duction in a Swedish region.
4.2. Human and animal health
Poorly treated or untreated sewage contains different excreted or­
ganisms such as pathogens, bacteria, helminths, protozoa, viruses, etc.,
which could cause several diseases (Table 2; World Health Organiza­
tion, 2006; Pena et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2019; Maryam and Buyuk­
gungor, 2019; Singh, 2019e; Johnson et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2016;
Hanjra et al., 2012; Michael, 2009). For example, the presence of bac­
teria in wastewater can cause diarrhea, cholera, gastroenteritis,
arthritis, typhoid fever, etc. Similarly, helminths eggs can result in
A. Singh Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454

Fig 7. Benefit and limitation of wastewater irrigation in soils.

Table 2
Pathogens present in wastewater and their survival time and linked diseases.
Organism/ Concentrations in Survival time (days) Diseases caused by organisms & vector-borne pathogens
pathogen wastewater (n/L) Water/ Crops Soil
Sewage

Bacteria 1–1010 10–60 2–30 10–70 Diarrhea, Cholera, Gastroenteritis, Arthritis, Typhoid fever
Helminths 1–103 Years 30–60 Years Hookworm infection, Clonorchiasis, Ascariasis, Fascioliasis, Taeniasis
Protozoa 1–104 15–180 2–10 10–150 Dysentery, Diarrhea, Fever, Amoebiasis, Giardiasis, Cryptosporidiosis
Viruses 1–106 50–120 15–60 20–100 Respiratory disease, Gastroenteritis, Fever, Rash, Heart & kidney diseases, Eye infections,
Paralysis, Aseptic meningitis, Infectious hepatitis
Vector-borne – Japanese encephalitis, Dengue fever, Zika, Malaria, Yellow fever
pathogens

hookworm infection and clonorchiasis, among other diseases. In
contrast, protozoa cause dysentery, diarrhea, fever, amoebiasis, giardi­
asis, cryptosporidiosis (Table 2). And respiratory illness, gastroenteritis,
fever, rash, heart and kidney diseases, eye infections, paralysis, aseptic
meningitis, and infectious hepatitis are the results of viruses in waste­
water as detailed in Table 2. Poorly treated or untreated sewage can also
result in spreading "water-related vector-borne diseases", such as dengue
fever, zika, malaria, Japanese encephalitis, yellow fever, etc. (Singh,
2019e). Among these pathogens, helminth eggs and protozoa are most
virulent, and they are most intricate to eliminate by treatment processes
(Hanjra et al., 2012). It can also cause other diseases and health issues in
humans and animals because of many pathogens (Pena et al., 2020;
Huang et al., 2016). The numbers of bacteria can vary between 1 and
1010 per liter of wastewater, depending on its source and concentration.
Similarly, the numbers of helminths vary from 1–103, protozoa from
1–104, and viruses from 1–106 as shown in Table 2. In wastewater, the
pathogens are rarely measured directly due to their variable concen­
trations and complex analytical processes. Due to this, the pathogens are
detected through their proxies with similar features. For example, E. coli
or thermotolerant coliforms present in wastewater, and usually, their
presence in wastewater is directly proportional to the amount of fecal
contamination present (Carvajal et al., 2017).
The spread of diseases and the seriousness of a pathogen depends on
its survival in wastewater-irrigated soil and crop environment. Some
pathogens can survive many years in soil or on crop surfaces to be
transmitted to humans or animals (Table 2). For example, helminth eggs
can survive for several years in the soil. Pathogen’s survival depends on
humidity, soil content, temperature, pH, plant type, sunlight, etc.
Generally, a humid environment and high organic content in soil favor
pathogen growth (Hussain et al., 2019). Similarly, low temperature and
low pH levels of soil also support pathogen propagation. Exposure to
direct sunlight results in the inactivation of pathogens through ultravi­
olet radiation. Usually, a bacteria’s survival time would be higher in a
soil environment than on crops or in wastewater, as shown in Table 2.
For example, a bacteria can survive in wastewater for 10–60 days and on
crops 2–30 days, while it could survive up to 70 days in soil. The survival
time for protozoa or viruses would be about the same in water and soil
environments. The most significant health risks are eaten raw crops such
as salads, mainly if they are root crops, such as radish, carrot, onion,
lettuce, etc. (Kacholi and Sahu, 2018; Hanjra et al., 2012).
The poorly treated sewage also contains contaminants of emerging
concerns (CECs) and toxic organic compounds (TOCs) such as pharma­
ceuticals, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, personal care products,
polyaromatic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, surfactants, pol­
ybrominated diphenyl ethers, etc., that have serious environmental and
health risks (Pena et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2019; Kibuye et al., 2018;
Vidal-Dorsch et al., 2012). Even, small amounts of these contaminants in
treated wastewater could make a severe impact on the environment and
on the human health after a long-term use of such waters. These con­
taminants, after leaching through the rootzone reach the groundwater
system making the water sources polluted (Pena et al., 2020). The use of
these water sources results in various health issues in human and animal
beings. Recently, Gonçalves et al. (2016) reported that WWI resulted in
increased transport of TOCs in the soils. The study concluded that the
high amount of DOM put in soil from WWI could elevate desorption of
TOCs from the soil and, therefore, their mobility. The chemicals such as
pesticides applied in the fields can be translocated to various plant parts,
affecting the plant growth and causing exposure to the humans and

10
A. Singh
animals feeding on those plants (Tian et al., 2019). Plant uptake of TOCs
depends on the climate, plant features, and the specific properties of the
TOCs (Motoki et al., 2015). High absorptions of heavy metals also cause
a health hazard when ingested in high amounts and lethal (Hanjra et al.,
2012). Transmission of these metals to human and animal beings
through the food chain might have severe health implications (Deng
et al., 2019).
The harmful effects of wastewater utilization are not limited to the
human being but equally impact other creatures, i.e., fish and frog,
among others (Li et al., 2018). In a recent study, Zaibel et al. (2016)
examined the impact of treated wastewater on fish health in an arid
region located in the Negev Desert in Israel. The artificial water reser­
voir, which was used for the study, frequently receives treated waste­
water. The study monitored the organic micropollutants in fish tissues,
and histopathology was used to evaluate the general condition of fish
health. The study concluded different degrees of infection in fish
exposed to treated wastewater. Similarly, Cazenave et al. (2014) re­
ported the harmful effects of sewage on fish’s health status. Similar
conclusions were also made by Galus et al. (2013) and Schultz et al.
(2010) regarding the adverse effects on fish health due to exposure to
wastewater effluents. Earlier, Yeom et al. (2007), Liney et al. (2005),
and Bernet et al. (2004) reported the incidences of histopathological
alterations in the liver and kidneys of different species of fish exposed to
municipal wastewater. In a recent study, Melvin et al. (2016) investi­
gated the growth and developmental effects of treated sewage on the
frog tadpoles. The tadpoles were exposed to control water and diverse
quality of treated domestic wastewater. The study concluded an accel­
erated growth and development but an enlarged liver size in exposed
animals.
Considering the aforementioned environmental concerns with
wastewater irrigation, some qualitative criteria are given in Table 3
(Vergine et al., 2020; Hussain et al., 2019; Libutti et al., 2018; Shakir
et al., 2017; Norton-Brandao et al., 2013; Pedrero et al., 2010; Asano
et al., 2007; Ayers and Westcot, 1985). The proposed criteria can serve
as a guideline for using wastewater in irrigation. For most of the crop
and soil conditions, an EC of less than 0.7 dS/m has no utilization re­
striction. Similarly, a TDS of less than 440 mg/L is considered safe for
most situations. An EC of up to 3 dS/m is deemed moderate, and the
corresponding value for TDS is 2000 mg/L. The sodium concentration of
up to 3 mg/L is considered safe, while the values between 3 and 9 mg/L
are recommended as moderate from the utilization point of view. The
water quality criteria for other substances such as Cl, N, HCO3, and pH
are also reported in Table 3. A pH level of 6.5–8.0 is considered safe for
irrigation purposes. Wastewater with pH values above eight could raise
soil pH considerably and decrease the availability of some plant’s
micronutrients (Radingoana et al., 2020). The World Health Organiza­
tion (2006) set additional restrictions regarding the values of microbi­
ological parameters in wastewater to be used for irrigation, as shown in
Table 4. The E. coli count for root crops is recommended to be below 103
(CFU/ 100 mL). The corresponding recommended counts for leaf crops
is 104 and for drip-irrigated crops is 105. Similarly, the count for
Table 3
Qualitative criteria for wastewater irrigation.
Parameters Restriction on use
None Low to Moderate High
EC (dS/m) <0.7 <3.0 >3.0
TDS (mg/L) <440 <2000 >2000
Na (mg/L) <3 <9 >9
N (mg/L) <5 <30 >30
Cl (mg/L) <140 <350 >350
Li (mg/L) <2.5 <5.0 >5.0
Ni (mg/L) <0.2 <0.5 >0.5
B (mg/L) <0.7 <3.0 >3.0
HCO3 (mg/L) <90 <500 >500
pH 6.5–8.0
11
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
Table 4
Microbiological parameters in wastewater used for irrigation.
Parameters Crop type
Root crops Leaf crops Drip irrigation
E. coli (CFU/100 mL) ≤103 ≤104 ≤105
Helminths eggs (n/L) <1 <1 <1
helminths eggs (n/L) is recommended to be below one in all the
conditions.
4.3. Climate and greenhouse gas emissions
Considering the environmental outlook, Lijo et al. (2017) evaluated
two diverse arrangements for the joint treatment of household organic
waste and wastewater in a tiny and decentralized area. An anaerobic
blanket was part of the functional systems in the treatment procedure.
The first system incorporates coverings with the anaerobic treatment,
and the second system applies biological elimination of nutrients in a
sequencing batch reactor. The study reported that the straight releases of
dissolved methane had a major environmental impact on climate
alteration. It also showed the ecological viability of the utilization of
food waste disposers for household waste collection. Earlier, Xue et al.
(2012) examined the attributes and impacts of soil porosity and nitrogen
input on the releases of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from
wastewater-irrigated soil. The results showed that irrigation with
treated wastewater considerably increased cumulative nitrous oxide
release in soil. And an exponentially enlarged nitrous oxide emission
was observed with the rising pore spaces in un-amended soil. The study
concluded that irrigation with treated wastewater could cause great
concern for rising global warming potential thanks to increased carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. A similar conclusion was earlier
made by Boldrin et al. (2009) regarding greenhouse gas emissions and
global warming contributions related to the wastewater system.
The impacts of wastewater on atmospheric fluxes of three green­
house gasses, i.e., methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide from
mangrove soils, were examined by Chen et al. (2011). The study
considered three wastewater sources, i.e., sewage wastewater, livestock
wastewater, and shrimp pond wastewater. The results showed consid­
erably increased gas emissions from mangrove soils after wastewater
irrigation, and the highest emission of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
were found from shrimp pond wastewater. Later, Mao et al. (2015)
analyzed the impacts of wastewater irrigation-induced copper on
methane emission in the paddy field in bulk soil and rhizosphere. The
results showed that wastewater application reduced methane emissions
and multiplicity and plenty of methanogens and methanotrophs. How­
ever, the methanotrophs were more sensitive to copper addition than
methanogens. More recently, Shilpi et al. (2019) reported that the
methane gas produced from the wastewater system could be used for
heat and power generation or as a vehicle fuel, in this manner dimin­
ishing the net emission of greenhouse gasses and impacts on climate
change.
Nakakubo et al. (2012) used a life cycle assessment to compare
optional technologies for recycling sewage sludge, focusing on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and diminishing public health threats. The
study evaluated two methods, i.e., conventional incineration and a
projected new method wherein sewage sludge is mixed with domestic
food waste in an anaerobic digestion tank. The study concluded that the
latter scenario was superior regarding both greenhouse gas emissions
and phosphorous recovery. Fine and Hadas (2012) examined on-site
greenhouse gas emissions under various treatments in an agricultural
area in Israel and provided options for emission reduction by altering
treatment processes. The study concluded that a potential decrease of
about 24–56 percent in greenhouse gas emissions could be realized by
fertilizer conservation. More recently, Moretti et al. (2019) presented a
modeling study to analyze treated wastewater’s environmental effects
A. Singh
for irrigating tree crops in the Mediterranean region. The authors
computed the ecological performance of conjunctive sewage and surface
water irrigation on the region’s tree crops. The study also analyzed the
impact of climate variability and contamination in the modeling
approach. Furthermore, the investigation reports the call for budding
consensus and consistent direction for wastewater utilization.
Eom et al. (2018) presented the development of an
environment-supporting and economical, biological treatment system
for saline wastewater. The developed method shows a standard removal
efficiency of over 80% for all the nutrients. The analysis showed that the
developed system was quite useful in treating saline wastewater with
high salt concentration. More recently, Menegassi et al. (2020) exam­
ined the production of coast cross grass under sprinkler irrigation with
treated wastewater. The experimentation was comprised of five various
treatments and four replicates in a randomized block design. The
treatments considered were the combinations of irrigation with surface
water and treated wastewater. The fresh and dry mass and soil charac­
teristics were analyzed to examine the comparative performance of in­
dividual treatment. The results showed a higher concentration of N and
a low salinity across treatments. Impacts and public concerns related to
wastewater irrigation are reported in Table 5 (Hussain et al., 2019;
Hanjra et al., 2012; Michael, 2009). It shows that water quality and
community well-being are the primary concerns for most recipients,
such as lakes, rivers, streams, water-wells for drinking purposes,
municipal water-supply tubewells, heritage sites, wetlands farm dams,
and livestock, etc. However, smell and insects are the main concerns for
nearby schools and hospitals, etc. These are directly related to human
health and life.
5. Global case studies
Given the growing demands and dwindling water supplies, using
reclaimed wastewater is a vital alternative to extend the resource base in
water-scarce regions (Beneduce et al., 2017). However, the quality of
reclaimed water for diverse applications is the key to its long-term
sustainable use (Ashrafi et al., 2017). Salgot et al. (2006) suggested
quality groupings for various indirect and direct applications, for
example, groundwater recharge and irrigation. They reported the
chemical and microbial bounds for every group based on current rules
and hazard evaluations. Considering the significance of financial reck­
onings, the study incorporated systematic costs and suggested mea­
surements. A greenhouse study was performed by García-Delgado et al.
(2012) in Spain to appraise the impact of treated wastewater on pepper
quality. The study concluded that the wastewater utilization saved ni­
trogen by thirty-seven percent, phosphorus by sixty-six percent, and
potassium by twelve percent. It also reported that heavy metals such as
As, Cd, and Pb were low within the pepper fruits. Earlier, Boyden and
Rababah (1996) evaluated the use of nutrients from household sewage
to irrigate vegetable crops such as tomato and capsicum. The crops
irrigated in these schemes significantly removed P and N from sewage.
In a recent study, Sramkova et al. (2018) performed an experimental
authentication of treatment practice to attain the output quality neces­
sary by wastewater reuse principles. They set up a wastewater treatment
plant in South Bohemia in the Czech Republic for checking the treated
water quality for non-potable uses, i.e., irrigation and industry. The
Table 5
Impacts of wastewater irrigation.
Recipient Impacts and public concerns
Lakes, river, streams Water quality, water environment
Water-wells for drinking purpose Community wellbeing
Municipal water-supply tubewells Community wellbeing
Farm dams, drainage channels Water quality and linked useful utilizations
Livestock, wildlife Heavy metals, organic substances
Roads, schools, hospitals Noise, smell, insects
Heritage sites, wetlands Water quality, water environment
12
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
study used three different technologies, such as DAF, sand filter, Fil­
tralite filter in the treatment process. The authors compared the water
quality results with the existing Czech values for non-potable uses. The
investigation results have driven the policymakers to introduce legisla­
tion directing wastewater reuse in the Czech water management system.
Earlier, Zeng et al. (2008) presented the tactical zoning for reusing
municipal wastewater in China. They segregated the country’s mainland
into over three hundred parts, and every part has one central city. The
study attempted to respond to choosing the growth outline of municipal
wastewater reuse for every part. This approach was necessary because of
high spatial variations in socioeconomic and resource situations be­
tween diverse parts of the country. Adopting the same policy framework
for the entire country is not feasible.
Recently, Murtaza et al. (2010) presented a review of sewage’s
proper disposal and application on Pakistan’s agricultural lands. They
analyzed the disparity in sewage quality at diverse locations along with
its effect on vegetables and soils. The analysis showed a high degree of
spatial variation in sewage quality. It also showed that sewage from the
food industries was comparatively protected for irrigation. And the
sewage brought together from the tanneries, textile, hospitals, and
clinical laboratories were harmful regarding heavy metals and soluble
salts. Furthermore, the analysis found that the quality of sewage was
better in the main drains; however, it was still unsafe for irrigation. The
study reported a high degree of metal accumulation in roots of vegeta­
bles and fruits compared to that in plant shoots. Earlier, Alhumoud et al.
(2003) showed that treated WWI in Kuwait might be advantageous. The
study, though, has not carried out an inclusive assessment of treated
wastewater use in farm production. Later, Zahid (2007) carried out a
cost evaluation of treated wastewater generation by various treatment
methods in Saudi Arabia. O’Connor et al. (2008) reported that the use of
MWW has quickly expanded in humid territories as well, especially for
urban irrigation.
The use of the latest technologies generate high-quality output from
wastewater treatment, and it can be regarded as a precious resource for
reuse. Nevertheless, its reuse should be monitored based on pertinent
official rules and procedures because the absence of guidelines hinders
this reuse and associated advantages. Recently, the application of me­
chanically biologically treated (MBT) waste as landfill cover has
increased noticeably. Angermeier et al. (2011) presented MBT munic­
ipal solid waste expansion under diverse vegetation categories in Lower
Austria and Styria. Mineralization and leaching of organic substances
were computed, and the impact of sampling depth and vegetation on the
essence was examined. The analysis showed that salt-leaching and
nitrogen-alteration were subjective primarily to time and depth. The
study also reported that the well stabilized biologically treated sub­
stance could be applied as a cover sheet with sufficient vegetation. Later,
Alderson et al. (2015) evaluated low-cost household wastewater treat­
ment plants’ consistency to reuse for irrigation in northeast Brazil. The
study considered many low-cost wastewater treatment plants and
diverse treatment technologies such as septic tanks with and without
anaerobic filters in the evaluation. Chemical and biochemical O2 de­
mands and total suspended solids were the factors used in the assess­
ment. The analysis revealed that low-cost wastewater treatment plants
could offer an appropriate outflow for treated waste reuse for irrigation
at 80% reliability.
Van Rooijen et al. (2010) investigated the connections among water
management, wastewater irrigation, and municipal expansion in the
three different mounting cities of the world, i.e., Hyderabad (India),
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), and Accra (Ghana). The study reported that the
ecological squalor within the cities and the vicinity have various
health-related issues, especially using the untreated wastewater for
irrigation. Even with significant attempts to augment wastewater
treatment, alternatives for protecting community health through con­
servative treatment methods only continue limited to smaller water­
sheds. The study further reported that managing possible health-related
threats may let municipal water planners in these municipalities put
A. Singh
together the previously presented wastewater reuse’s advantages.
Recently, Mishra et al. (2017) evaluated the water resources sustain­
ability of the Kathmandu valley, Nepal, by examining the water-quality
factors, i.e., BOD and DO, through a mathematical model WEAP. They
investigated the Bagmati river’s pollution by considering the existing
and potential wastewater generation and treatment situations. The
analysis indicated that river water quality was comparatively better in
rainy months because of high river flow. It also showed that the existing
practice of releasing untreated wastewater was not appropriate to sus­
tain the quality of river water and its reuse.
Raschid-Sally (2010) presented an outline regarding the expansions
in applying wastewater in agricultural production, mainly of unpro­
cessed wastewater, in cities’ vicinity. The author described the challenge
for worldwide evaluations considering the discoveries of an inclusive
investigation that tried to identify the features of wastewater application
for agricultural production in developing countries. The paper provided
some key findings that typified WWI and concluded that untreated WWI
was a widespread truth of perhaps growing alarm, which needs optional
health risk reduction advances. Earlier, Cuesta et al. (2006) investigated
the current status of dairy waste disposal and management in Galicia,
the European Union considering farmers’ approaches in this matter, and
government guidelines. The investigation was done by performing a
field survey of over four thousand farmers. The income level and the
preference status of the farm were considered for its categorization. The
investigation revealed that most farmers expressed their willingness to
advance wastewater management and treatment system. In recent
times, Marshall and Farahbakhsh (2013) provided a review of system
approaches for managing waste in developing countries. The analysis
revealed that only a few system models deemed social characteristics of
waste management during the past. They mainly focused on the envi­
ronmental and economic aspects of the problems. Based on the analysis
of past literature, the authors concluded the need for initiating new
waste management approaches for developing countries.
The electron beam radiation changes wastewater’s chemical prop­
erties when it is passed through the wastewater because of chemical
molecules’ ionization (Sampa et al., 1995; Woods and Pikaev, 1994).
Hossain et al. (2018) presented a survey of irradiation of wastewater
with an electron beam and concluded that this technique is key to sus­
tainable green cities. The survey also reported that beam-radiation for
wastewater treatment could make sure upcoming green cities with
sustainable resources organization. Earlier, Al-Saed et al. (2011) pro­
vided a new design theory for employing rock filters to reclaim the
sewage in waste stabilization pools in a region in Palestine. An
algae-based pond and a rock-filter pond were examined simultaneously
for more than six months to appraise their treatment efficiencies. Four
similar ponds were considered in both the schemes and these ponds were
continuously supplied water with household wastewater from Birzeit
University. The observations regarding elimination rates of nutrients
and organic matter were done for every treatment. The analysis showed
that the rock-filter ponds were more competent to eliminate suspended
solids and organic matter than the algae-based ponds. However, the
algae-based ponds were more capable of phosphorus and ammonium
elimination.
6. Summary, recommendations and future directions
The burgeoning global population has increased wastewater pro­
duction considerably, and its appropriate management has become a
global challenge because untreated wastewater discharge pollutes the
water bodies and spreads water-related diseases. The UN’ SDG6 thrusts
the reuse of treated wastewater to "ensure the availability of water for
all". The use of treated wastewater for crop irrigation is a feasible option
as the agricultural sector is the largest user of all water sources. An
adequately treated wastewater can safely be used for crop irrigation,
particularly in water-scarce areas where adequate quality water re­
sources are limited. The treated wastewater boosts agricultural
13
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
production as it contains essential plant nutrients. Most of the previous
studies revealed an improved crop production with the treated waste­
water irrigation. However, the poorly treated or untreated wastewater
resulted in raised pathogens level and increased microbial threats to the
human and animal being. The deposition of heavy metals and other toxic
elements in the soil profile and plant tissues and altered soil’s physical
properties and high food contamination was standard among the earlier
investigations with the long-term utilization of wastewater irrigation.
The long-term sustainable use of wastewater for irrigation needs a
strategy to remove the specific heavy metals and toxins from the
wastewater, which can be done by implementing some better policies,
for example, the separation of industrial sewage to lessen the most un­
safe wastewater segments. This aspect, however, has not been widely
covered in the previous studies. Similarly, the previous investigations
lack a holistic approach in considering all the main parameters for
assessing the irrigation water quality. Previous studies scarcely regarded
heavy metals, pathogens level, microbial threats, irrigation technique,
and soil properties in total. Instead, most studies considered only a few
of the main parameters for deciding irrigation water’s suitability.
Indeed, even though several research gaps are recognized, this
literature analysis endeavors to present some critical recommendations
for the sustainable and safe use of treated wastewater for irrigation.
These recommendations should be included in future studies to
circumvent the wastewater irrigation related hazards:
• Various wastewater treatment technologies are available, but only
the advanced treatment technology processes can eliminate
numerous contaminants and specific pathogens from the waste ef­
fluents. Therefore, only wastewater treated with advanced treatment
processes should be used for crop irrigation to avoid soil and human
health and environmental contamination.
• The provision of adequate funding should be made for proper
maintenance and up-gradation of treatment infrastructure. As old
and non-upgraded infrastructure results in low-quality effluent. Also,
installing advanced treatment facilities that ensure better water
quality requires more funds than non-advanced treatment processes.
• An inclusive risk appraisal model for reusing treated wastewater
should be considered in future research as none of the existing
models considers each aspect of wastewater irrigation. For example,
a few models considered the simultaneous simulation of nutrient and
water dynamics in addition to plant development in diverse settings.
These models, however, did not consider the environmental impacts
of specific contaminants of wastewater irrigation altogether.
• The ’contaminants of emerging concerns’ and toxic organic com­
pounds are generally new chemicals, and there are no standard
analytical techniques to precisely detect and analyze them. Assessing
their long-term impacts on the environment and human health
should be considered in future research. Similarly, the reliable long-
term comprehensive appraisal of heavy metals’ threat to human
health needs to be explored in future studies.
• An inclusive guideline for contaminants in treated wastewater
should be implemented, particularly in developing countries. The
formulated policies should be adaptable to local conditions and in­
tegrated with the specific soil and plant characteristics. For example,
the intended reuse of treated wastewater under different crop and
soil conditions may have other criteria. For this purpose, an exten­
sive dataset of wastewater irrigation under diverse agro-hydro-
climatic and crop conditions is vital for future research.
• Training and awareness of farmers of financially developing nations
about the considerable environmental and health risks of utilizing
untreated/poorly-treated wastewater for irrigation are necessary. It
should be included in future policy guidelines of wastewater reuse.
The local government authorities can quickly implement this
through regular exhibition and extension activities.
• The adverse impacts of wastewater irrigation should be dealt with as
a social issue and not just an economic one. For example, wastewater
A. Singh Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454

irrigation adversely affecting a farmer’s wellbeing, and profitability effluent flow samples from wastewater treatment plants in Italy. Food Environ. Virol.
6 (1), 13–22.
is an economic effect. However, if a large part of the farmers in the
Becerra-Castro, C., Lopes, A.R., Vazmoreira, I., Silva, E.F., Manaia, C.M., Nunes, O.C.,
region is adversely influenced. In that case, the economic effects 2015. Wastewater reuse in irrigation: a microbiological perspective on implications
become a social problem because of more extensive ramifications for in soil fertility and human and environmental health. Environ. Int. 75 (4), 117–135.
financial levels, wellbeing, and society’s prosperity. Bekchanov, M., Lamers, J.P., 2016. Economic costs of reducedirrigation water
availability in Uzbekistan (Central Asia). Reg. Environ. Change 16 (8), 2369–2387.
Belaid, N., Neel, C., Kallel, M., Ayoub, T., Ayadi, A., Baudu, M., 2012. Long term effects
of treated wastewater irrigation on calcisol fertility: a case study of Sfax-Tunisia.
Declaration of Competing Interest Agric. Sci. 3, 702–713.
Beneduce, L., Gatta, G., Bevilacqua, A., Libutti, A., Tarantino, E., Bellucci, M.,
None. Troiano, E., Spano, G., 2017. Impact of the reusing of food manufacturing
wastewater for irrigation in a closed system on the microbiological quality of the
food crops. Int. J. Food Mic. 260, 51–58.
Acknowledgments Bergstrom, L., Johnsson, H., Torstensson, G., 1991. Simulation of soil nitrogen dynamics
using the SOILN model. Fertil. Res. 27, 181–188.
Bernet, D., Schmidt-Posthaus, H., Wahli, T., Burkhardt-Holm, P., 2004. Evaluation of two
The author expresses his gratitude to the editors and the five anon­ monitoring approaches to assess effects of waste water disposal on histological
ymous reviewers whose useful remarks and careful comments have alterations in fish. Hydrobiologia 524 (1), 53–66.
prompted extensive enhancement to the manuscript draft’s prior Bichai, F., Polo-Lopez, M.I., Ibanez, P.F., 2012. Solar disinfection of wastewater to reduce
contamination of lettuce crops by Escherichia coli in reclaimed water irrigation.
editions.
Water Res 46 (18), 6040–6050.
Bixio, D., et al., 2006. Wastewater reuse in Europe. Desalination 187, 89–101.
References Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Møller, J., Christensen, T.H., Favoino, E., 2009. Composting
and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27, 800–812.
Abd-Elwahed, M.S., 2018. Influence of long-term wastewater irrigation on soil quality
Bond, W.J., 1998. Effluent irrigation-an environmental challenge for soil science. Aust. J.
and its spatial distribution. Annal. Agric. Sci. 63, 191–199.
Soil Res. 36, 543–555.
Abegunrin, T.P., Awe, G.O., Idowu, D.O., Adejumobi, M.A., 2016. Impact of wastewater
Bowman, D., Devitt, D., Miller, W., 2006. The effect of moderate salinity on nitrate
irrigation on soil physico-chemical properties, growth and water use pattern of two
leaching from burmudagrass turf: a lysimeter study. Water Air Soil Pollut 175,
indigenous vegetables in southwest Nigeria. Catena 139, 167–178.
49–60.
Abukhdeir, N.M., et al., 2011. Long-time integration methods for mesoscopic models of
Boyden, B.H., Rababah, A.A., 1996. Recycling nutrients from municipal wastewater.
pattern-forming systems. J. Comput. Phys. 230, 5704–5715.
Desalination 106 (1–3), 241–246.
Ahuja, L.R., Rojas, K.W., Hanson, J.D., Shafer, M.J., 2000. Root Zone Water Quality
Cameira, M.R., Fernando, R.M., Ahuja, L.R., Pereira, L.S., 2005. Simulating the fate of
Model. In: Ma, L. (Ed.), Modeling Management Effects on Water Quality and Crop
water in field soil-crop environment. J. Hydrol. 315, 1–24.
Production. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO.
Cannavo, P., Recous, S., Parnaudeau, V., Reau, R., 2008. Modeling N dynamics to assess
Alderson, M.P., et al., 2015. Reliability analysis of low-cost, full-scale domestic
environmental impacts of cropped soils. Adv. Agron. 97, 131–174.
wastewater treatment plants for reuse in aquaculture and agriculture. Ecol. Eng. 82,
Carr, G., et al., 2011. Water reuse for irrigation in Jordan: perceptions of water quality
6–14.
among farmers. Agric. Water Manage. 98, 847–854.
Alhumoud, J.M., Behbehani, H.S., Abdullah, T.H., 2003. Wastewater reuse practices in
Carvajal, G., Branch, A., Michel, P., Sisson, S.A., Roser, D.J., Drewes, J.E., Khan, S.J.,
Kuwait. Environmentalist 23, 117–126.
2017. Robust evaluation of performance monitoring options for ozone disinfection in
Al-Jaloud, A.A., 2010. Reuse of wastewater for irrigation in Saudi Arabia and its effect on
water recycling using Bayesian analysis. Water Res 124, 605–617.
soil and plant. In 19th World Congress of Soil science, Soil Solutions For a Changing
Cazenave, J., Bacchetta, C., Rossi, A., Ale, A., Campana, M., Parma, M.J., 2014.
world, August 1-6, Brisbane, Australia.
Deleterious effects of wastewater on the health status of fish: a field caging study.
Al-Saed, R., et al., 2011. Novel design concept for facultative ponds using rock filters to
Ecol. Indic. 38, 104–112.
reclaim the effluent. J. Environ. Eng. 137 (4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1061/
Cerda, A., Rodrigo-Comino, J., Gimenez-Morera, A., Keesstra, S.D., 2017. An economic,
(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000318.
perception and biophysical approach to the use of oat straw as mulch in
Amann, A., Zoboli, O., Krampe, J., et al., 2018. Environmental impacts of phosphorus
Mediterranean rainfedagriculture land. Ecol. Eng. 108, 162–171.
recovery from municipal wastewater. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 130, 127–139.
Chen, G.C., et al., 2011. Effect of wastewater discharge on greenhouse gas fluxes from
Angelakis, A.N., Asano, T., Bahri, A., Jimenez, B.E., Tchobanoglous, G., 2018. Water
mangrove soils. Atmos. Environ. 45, 1110–1115.
reuse: from ancient to modern times and the future. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 26,
Chowdhury, S., Al-Zahrani, M., 2014. Fuzzy synthetic evaluation of treated wastewater
10.3389/fenvs.2018.00026.
reuse for agriculture. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16, 521–538.
Angelakis, A.N., Bontoux, L., Lazarova, V., 2003. Challenges and prospectives for water
Christou, A., Agüera, A., Bayona, J.M., Cytryn, E., Fotopoulos, V., Lambropoulou, D.,
recycling and reuse in EU countries. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 3 (4), 59–68.
2017. The potential implications of reclaimed wastewater reuse for irrigation on the
Angermeier, R., et al., 2011. Development of mechanically biologically treated municipal
agricultural environment: the knowns and unknowns of the fate of antibiotics and
solid waste under different vegetation types. J. Environ. Eng. 137 (5), 340–346.
antibiotic resistant bacteria and resistance genes—A review. Water Res 123,
Anshassi, M., Laux, S.J., Townsend, T.G., 2019. Approaches to integrate sustainable
448–467.
materials management into waste management planning and policy. Resour.
Contreras, J.D., Meza, R., Siebe, C., Rodriguez-Dozal, S., Silva-Magana, M.A., Vazquez-
Conservat. Recycl. 148, 55–66.
Salvador, N., Lopez-Vidal, Y.A., Mazari-Hiriart, M., Perez, I.R., Riojas-Rodriguez, H.,
Anubha, K., Kaushik, C.P., 2017. Environmental Studies, 5th edn. New Age International
Eisenberg, J.N.S., 2017. Health risks from exposure to untreated wastewater used for
Publishers, Chennai. ISBN:978-81-224-3655-6.
irrigation in the Mezquital Valley, Mexico: a 25-year updates. Water Res 123,
Aquilino, M., Martinez-Guitarte, J.L., Garcia, P., Beltran, E.M., Fernandez, C., Sanchez-
834–850.
Arguello, P., 2018. Combining the assessment of apical endpoints and gene
Crook, J., Surampalli, R.Y., 1996. Water reclamation and reuse criteria in the U.S. Water
expression in the freshwater snail Physa acuta after exposure to reclaimed water. Sci.
Sci. Technol. 33 (10–11), 451–462.
Total Environ. 642, 180–189.
Cuesta, T.S., et al., 2006. Wastewater management evaluation by using the opinion
Asano, T., Burton, F.L., Leverenz, H., Tsuchihashi, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 2007. Water
survey in Galicia. Spain. Water Resour. Manag. 20, 817–828.
Reuse: issues. Technologies, and Applications. McGraw Hill, Columbus, OH, USA.
Da Fonseca, A.F., Herpin, U., Paula, A.M., Victoria, R.L., Melfi, A.J., 2007. Agricultural
Ashrafi, N., Nikbakht, A., Gheysari, M., 2017. Effect of recycled water applied by surface
use of treated sewage effluents: agronomical-environmental implications and
and subsurface irrigation on the growth, photosynthetic indices and nutrient content
perspectives for Brazil. Sci. Agric. 64, 194–209.
of young olive trees in central Iran. J. Water Reuse Desalin. 7, 246–252.
De Sanctis, M., Del Moro, G., Chimienti, S., Ritelli, P., Levantesi, C., Di Iaconi, C., 2017.
Ayars, J., Christen, E., Sooper, R., Meyer, W., 2006. The resource potential of insitu
Removal of pollutants and pathogens by a simplified treatment scheme for municipal
shallow ground water use in irrigated agriculture: a review. Irrig. Sci. 24, 147–160.
wastewater reuse in agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 580, 17–25.
Ayars, J., Schoneman, R., 2006. Irrigating field crops in the presence of saline
Delgado, J.A., et al., 2020. Potential use of a new nitrogen trading tool to assess nitrogen
groundwater. Irrig. Drainage 55, 265–279.
management practices to protect groundwater quality. Comput. Electron. Agric. 169,
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture. Irrigat. Drainage Paper
105195.
29. FAO, Rome p. 174.
Deng, S., et al., 2019. The utilization of reclaimed water: possible risks arising from
Ayodele, T.R., Alao, M.A., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., 2018. Recyclable resources from
waterborne contaminants. Environ. Pollut. 254, 113020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
municipal solid waste: assessment of its energy, economic and environmental
envpol.2019.113020.
benefits in Nigeria. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 134, 165–173.
Diaz-Elsayed, N., Rezaei, N., Guo, T., Mohebbi, S., Zhang, Q., 2019. Wastewater-based
Bardbury, N.J., Whitmore, A.P., Hart, P.B.S., Jenkinson, D.S., 1993. Modelling the fate of
resource recovery technologies across scale: a review. Resour. Conservat. Recycl.
nitrogen in crop and soil in the years following application of 15N-labelled fertilizer
145 (2019), 94–112.
to winter wheat. J. Agric. Sci. 121, 363–379.
Dotaniya, M.L., Rajendiran, S., Meena, V.D., Coumar, M.V., Saha, J.K., Kundu, S., Patra,
Bardhan, G., Russo, D., Goldstein, D., Levy, G.J., 2016. Changes in the hydraulic
A.K., 2018. Impact of long-term application of sewage on soil and crop quality in
properties of a clay soil under long-term irrigation with treated wastewater.
vertisols of Central India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1–8. 10.1007/s00128-018-
Geoderma 264, 1–9.
2458-6.
Battistone, A., Buttinelli, G., Bonomo, P., Fiore, S., Amato, C., Mercurio, P., Cicala, A.,
Simeoni, J., Foppa, A., Triassi, M., 2014. Detection of enteroviruses in influent and

14
A. Singh
Du, P., et al., 2013. Inexact chance-constrained waste-load allocation model for water
quality management of Xiangxihe River. J. Environ. Eng. 139 (9), 1178–1197.
Edmondson, V., et al., 2018. A smart sewer asset information model to enable an
’Internet of Things’ for operational wastewater management. Automat. Construct.
91, 193–205.
Egbuikwem, P.N., Mierzwa, J.C., Saroj, D.P., 2020. Assessment of suspended growth
biological process for treatment and reuse of mixed wastewater for irrigation of
edible crops under hydroponic conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 231, 106034
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106034.
Egbuikwem, P.N., Naz, I., Saroj, D.P., 2019. Appraisal of suspended growth process for
treatment of mixture of simulated petroleum, textile, domestic, agriculture and
pharmaceutical wastewater. Environ. Technol. 1–17. 10.1080/
09593330.2019.1609097.
Elfanssi, S., Ouazzani, N., Mandi, L., 2018. Soil properties and agro-physiological
responses of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) irrigated by treated domestic wastewater.
Agric. Water Manag. 202, 231–240.
Eom, H., et al., 2018. Treatment of saline wastewater containing a high concentration of
salt using marine bacteria and aerobic granule sludge. J. Environ. Eng. 144 (5),
04018026 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001354.
Fadlelmawla, A., Al-Otaibi, M., 2005. Analysis of the water resources status in Kuwait.
Water Resour Manage 19 (5), 555–570.
Fang, Q., Ma, L., Trout, T.J., Comas, L.H., DeJonge, K.C., Ahuja, L.R., et al., 2017.
Modeling N concentration and uptake for maize hybrids under growth stage-based
deficit irrigations. Trans. ASABE 60 (6), 2067–2081.
FAO, 2013. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013, World Food and Agriculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 289. <http://www.fao.
org/docrep/018/i3107e/i3107e00.htm> (Accessed on 21.07.13).
FAO, 2018. AQUASTAT - FAO’s Global information system on water and agriculture, at:
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en.
(Accessed on 9th July 2020).
Farahani, S.S., et al., 2017. Robust model predictive control with signal temporal logic
constraints for Barcelona wastewater system. IFAC PapersOnLine 50 (1), 6594–6600.
Farhadkhani, M., et al., 2018. Effects of irrigation with secondary treated wastewater on
physicochemical and microbial properties of soil and produce safety in a semi-arid
area. Water Res. 144, 356–364.
Farhadkhani, M., et al., 2020. Campylobacter risk for the consumers of wastewater-
irrigated vegetables based on field experiments. Chemosphere 251, 126408. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126408.
Fernandez, C.A., Arumı, J.L., Rivera, D., Boochs, P.W., 2009. Environmental effects of
irrigation in arid and semi-arid regions. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 69 (S–1), 27–40.
Fine, P., Hadas, E., 2012. Options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during wastewater
treatment for agricultural use. Sci. Total Environ. 416, 289–299.
Flattery, P., et al., 2018. Simulation of soil carbon efflux from an arable soil using the
ECOSSE model: need for an improved model evaluation framework? Sci. Total
Environ. 622-623, 1241–1249.
Gallego-Schmid, A., Tarpani, R.R.Z., 2019. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment
in developing countries: a review. Water Res. 153, 63–79.
Galus, M., Jeyaranjaan, J., Smith, E., Li, H., Metcalfe, C., Wilson, J.Y., 2013. Chronic
effects of exposure to a pharmaceuticalmixture and municipal wastewater in
zebrafish. Aquat. Toxicol. 132-133, 212–222.
Ganjegunte, G., Ulery, A., Niu, G., Wu, Y., 2018. Treated urban wastewater irrigation
effects on bioenergy sorghum biomass, quality and soil salinity in an arid
environment. Land Degrad. Dev. 29 (3), 534, 10.1002/ldr.2883.
Gao, X., Bai, Y., Huo, Z., Xu, X., Huang, G., Xia, Y., Steenhuis, T.S., 2017. Deficit
irrigation enhances contribution of shallow groundwater to crop water consumption
in arid area. Agric. Water Manage 185, 116–125.
Garcia, M.G., et al., 2019. Predicting the uptake of emerging organic contaminants in
vegetables irrigated with treated wastewater - Implications for food safety
assessment. Environ. Res. 172, 175–181.
García-Delgado, C., Eymar, E., Contreras, J.I., Segura, M.L., 2012. Effects of
fertigationwith purified urban wastewater on soil and pepper plant (Capsicum
annuumL.) production, fruit quality and pollutant contents. Span. J. Agric. Res. 10
(1), 209–221.
Gerhart, V., Kane, R., Glenn, E., 2006. Recycling industrial saline wastewater for
landscape irrigation in a desert urban area. J. Arid Environ. 67, 473–486.
Glenn, E.P., et al., 2009. Deficit irrigation of a landscape halophyte for reuse of saline
waste water in a desert city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 89, 57–64.
Gloaguen, T.V., et al., 2007. Soil solution chemistry of a Brazilian Oxisol irrigated with
treated sewage effluent. Agric. Water Manag. 88, 119–131.
Gonçalves, M.S., Sampaio, S.C., Suszek, F.L., Coelho, S.R.M., 2016. Atrazine leaching in
soil submitted of swine wastewater application. Irriga 21, 131–139.
Gonçalves, R.A.B., et al., 2007. Hydraulic conductivity of a soil irrigated with treated
sewage effluent. Geoderma 139, 241–248.
Guo, H., Nasir, M., Lv, J., Dai, Y., Gao, J., 2017b. Understanding the variation of
microbial community in heavy metals contaminated soil using high throughput
sequencing. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 144, 300–306.
Guo, W., Andersen, M.N., Qi, X., Li, P., Li, Z., Fan, X., Zhou, Y., 2017a. Effects of
reclaimed water irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on the chemical properties and
microbial community of soil. J. Integr. Agric. 16, 679–690.
Gurjar, O.P., Meena, R., Latare, A.M., Rai, S., Kant, S., Kumar, A., Sheshama, M.K., 2017.
Effects of sewage wastewater irrigation compare to ground water irrigation on soil
physico-chemical properties. Int. J. Chem. Studies 5 (6), 265–267.
Hamilton, A.J., et al., 2007. RIRA: a tool for conducting health risk assessments for
irrigation of edible crops with recycled water. Comput. Electron. Agric. 57, 80–87.
Hanjra, M.A., et al., 2012. Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: implications
for water governance and public policy. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 215, 255–269.
15
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
Hanson, J.D., Rojas, K.W., Shaffer, M.J., 1999. Calibrating the root zone water quality
model. Agron. J. 91, 171–177.
Hong, P.Y., Julian, T.R., Pype, M.L., Jiang, S.C., Nelson, K.L., Graham, D., Pruden, A.,
Manaia, C.M., 2018. Reusing treated wastewater: consideration of the safety aspects
associated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes. Water
(Basel) 10, 22.
Hossain, K., et al., 2018. Irradiation of wastewater with electron beam is a key to
sustainable smart/green cities: a review. Appl. Water Sci. 8, 6. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13201-018-0645-6.
Hsien, C., Low, J.S.C., Chung, S.Y., Tan, D.Z.L., 2019. Quality-based water and
wastewater classification for waste-to-resource matching. Resour. Conservat. Recycl.
151, 104477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104477.
Hu, C.S., Saseendran, S.A., Green, T.R., Ma, L., Li, X., Ahuja, L.R., 2006. Evaluating
nitrogen and water management in a double-cropping system using RZWQM. Vadose
Zone J 5, 493–505.
Hu, W., Guo, Y., Tian, J., Chen, L., 2019. Eco-efficiency of centralized wastewater
treatment plants in industrial parks: a slack-based data envelopment analysis.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 176–186.
Huang, X., Zhao, Z., Hernandez, D., Jiang, S.C., 2016. Near real-time flow cytometry
monitoring of bacterial and viral removal efficiencies during water reclamation
processes. Water (Basel) 8, 464.
Hussain, I., Raschid, L., Hanjra, M.A., Marikar, F., van der Hoek, W., 2002. Wastewater
use in agriculture: review of impacts and methodological issues in valuing impacts.
(With an Extended List of Bibliographical references). Working paper 37. IWMI,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Hussain, M.I., et al., 2019. Sustainable use and management of non-conventional water
resources for rehabilitation of marginal lands in arid and semiarid environments.
Agric. Water Manag. 221, 462–476.
Ibekwe, A.M., Gonzalez-Rubio, A., Suarez, D.L., 2018. Impact of treated wastewater for
irrigation on soil microbial communities. Sci. Total Environ. 622-623, 1603–1610.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.039.
Islam, M.A., Romic, D., Akber, M.A., Romic, M., 2018. Trace metals accumulation in soil
irrigated with polluted water and assessment of human health risk from vegetable
consumption in Bangladesh. Environ. Geochem. Health. 40, 59–85. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10653-017-9907-8.
Jeong, H., et al., 2020. Insights from socio-hydrological modeling to design sustainable
wastewater reuse strategies for agriculture at the watershed scale. Agric. Water
Manag. 231, 105983 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105983.
Jesse, S.D., Zhang, Y., Margenot, A.J., Davidson, P.C., 2019. Hydroponic lettuce
production using treated post-hydrothermal liquefaction wastewater (PHW).
Sustainability 11, 1–16.
Chapter 1 In: Jiménez, B., Asano, T., 2008. Water reclamation and reuse around the
World. In: Jiménez, B., Asano, T. (Eds.), Water Reuse: An International Survey of
Current Practice, Issues and Needs. International Water Association Publishing,
London, pp. 3–26.
Jing, X., Yao, G.J., Liu, D.H., Liang, Y.R., Luo, M., Zhou, Z.Q., Wang, P., 2017. Effects of
wastewater irrigation and sewage sludge application on soil residues of chiral
fungicide Benalaxyl. Environ. Pollut. 224, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2017.03.004.
Johnson, W.J., Jjemba, P.K., Bukhari, Z., LeChevallier, M.W., 2018. Occurrence of
Legionella in nonpotable reclaimed water. J. Am.WaterWork. Assoc. 110, 15–27.
Juul, N., et al., 2013. Challenges when performing economic optimization of waste
treatment: a review. Waste Manag. 33, 1918–1925.
Kacholi, D.S., Sahu, M., 2018. Levels and health risk assessment of heavy metals in soil,
water, and vegetables of dar es Salaam. Tanzania. J. Chem. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/1402674.
Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., Cerda, A., 2018.
The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing
ecosystem services. Sci. Tot. Environ. 610, 997–1009.
Keraita, B., Drechsel, P., Konradsen, F., 2008. Perceptions of farmers on health risks and
risk reduction measures in wastewater-irrigated urban vegetable farming in Ghana.
J. Risk. Res. 11 (8), 1047–1061.
Kibuye, F.A., Gall, H.E., Elkin, K.R., Ayers, B., Veith, T.L., Miller, M., Jacob, S.,
Hayden, K.R., Watson, J.E., Elliott, H.A., 2018. Fate of pharmaceuticals in a spray
irrigation system: from wastewater to groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 654,
197–208.
Knisel, W.G., 1980. CREAMS: a field-scale model for chemicals, run-off and erosion from
agricultural management systems. U.S. Dept. Agric. Conserv. Res. Rept. No. 26.
Landa, F.M., Fausey, N.R., Nokes, S.E., Hanson, J.D., 1999. Plant production model
evaluation for the root zone water quality model (RZWQM). Agron. J. 91, 220–227.
Lazarova, V., Bahri, A., 2005. Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture, Landscapes, and
Turf Grass. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
Leal, R.M.P., et al., 2009. Sodicity and salinity in a Brazilian Oxisol cultivated with
sugarcane irrigated with wastewater. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 307–316.
Li, C., Chen, Q., Zhang, X., Snyder, S.A., Gong, Z., Lam, S.H., 2018. An integrated
approach with the zebra fishmodel for biomonitoring of municipal wastewater
effluent and receiving waters. Water Res 131, 33–44.
Li, Z., et al., 2020. Regional simulation of nitrate leaching potential from winter wheat-
summer maize rotation croplands on the North China Plain using the NLEAP-GIS
model. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 294, 106861.
Libutti, S.A., et al., 2018. Agro-industrial wastewater reuse for irrigation of a vegetable
crop succession under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 196, 1–14.
Lijo, L., et al., 2017. Decentralised schemes for integrated management of wastewater
and domestic organic waste: the case of a small community. J. Environ. Manag. 203,
732–740.
A. Singh
Liney, K.E., Hagger, J.A., Tyler, C.R., Depledge, M.H., Galloway, T.S., Jobling, S., 2005.
Health effects in fish of long-term exposure to effluents from wastewater treatment
works. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 81–89.
Lopez, A., Pollice, A., Lonigro, A., Masi, S., Palese, A.M., Cirelli, G.L., Toscano, A.,
Passino, R., 2006. Integrated concepts in water recycling. Desalination 187 (1–3),
323–334.
López-Morales, C.A., Rodríguez-Tapia, L., 2019. On the economic analysis of wastewater
treatment and reuse for designing strategies for water sustainability: lessons from the
Mexico Valley Basin. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 140, 1–12.
Maalouf, A., El-Fadel, M., 2018. Carbon footprint of integrated waste management
systems with implications of food waste diversion into the wastewater stream.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 133, 263–277.
Maaloul, A., et al., 2019. Effect of treated wastewater on growth and secondary
metabolites production of two Eucalyptus species. Agric. Water Manag. 211, 1–9.
Mao, T.-.T., Yin, R., Deng, H., 2015. Effects of copper on methane emission, methanogens
and methanotrophs in the rhizosphere and bulk soil of rice paddy. Catena 133,
233–240.
Marshall, R.E., Farahbakhsh, K., 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste
management in developing countries. Waste Manag. 33, 988–1003.
Maruthi, Y.A., Hossain, K., Sultana, M., 2012. Optimization studies on pollution
abatement: biodegradation of nitroso dye effluents by two fungi (Phanerochaete
chrysosporium & Trametes hirsuta) under static conditions. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm.
Sci. 4 (5), 262–267.
Maryam, B., Buyukgungor, H., 2019. Wastewater reclamation and reuse trends in
Turkey: opportunities and challenges. J. Water Process Eng. 30, 100501 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2017.10.001.
Matheyarasu, R., Bolan, N.S., Naidu, R., 2016. Abattoir wastewater irrigation increases
the availability of nutrients and influences on plant growth and development. Water,
Air, Soil Pollut 227–253.
Mbarki, S., Cerda, A., Zivcak, M., et al., 2018. Alfalfa crops amended with MSW compost
can compensate the effect of salty water irrigation depending on the soil texture.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 115, 8–16.
Melvin, S.D., et al., 2016. Altered bioenergetics and developmental effects in striped
marsh frog (Limnodynastes peronii) tadpoles exposed to UV treated sewage. Aquatic
Toxicol. 175, 30–38.
Mendoza-Espinosa, L.G., et al., 2019. Reclaimed water for the irrigation of vineyards:
mexico and South Africa as case studies. Sustain Cities Soc. 51, 101769 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101769.
Menegassi, L.C., et al., 2020. Reuse in the agro-industrial: irrigation with treated
slaughterhouse effluent in grass. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119698 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119698.
Michael, A.M., 2009. Irrigation: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition. Vikas Publishing
House Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, India.
Mishra, B.K., et al., 2017. Assessment of Bagmati river pollution in Kathmandu Valley:
scenario-based modeling and analysis for sustainable urban development. Sustain.
Water Qu. Ecol. 9-10, 67–77.
Miyamoto, S., Chacon, A., 2006. Soil salinity of urban turf areas irrigation with saline
water. II. Soil factors. Landsc. Urban Plann. 77, 28–38.
Moazeni, M., Nikaeen, M., Hadi, M., Moghim, S., Mouhebat, L., Hatamzadeh, M.,
Hassanzadeh, A., 2017. Estimation of health risks caused by exposure to enter
viruses from agricultural application of wastewater effluents. Water Res 125,
104–113.
Morari, F., Giardini, L., 2009. Municipal wastewater treatment with vertical
flowconstructed wetlands for irrigation reuse. Ecol. Eng. 35 (5), 643–653.
Moretti, M., et al., 2019. Modelling environmental impacts of treated municipal
wastewater reuse for tree crops irrigation in the Mediterranean coastal region. Sci.
Total Environ. 660, 1513–1521.
Mosse, K.P.M., Lee, J., Leachman, B.T., Parikh, S.J., Cavagnaro, T.R., Patti, A.F.,
Steenwerth, K.L., 2013. Irrigation of an established vineyard with winery cleaning
agent solution (simulated winery wastewater): vine growth, berry quality, and soil
chemistry. Agric. Water Manag. 123, 93–102.
Motoki, Y., Iwafune, T., Seike, N., Otani, T., Akiyama, Y., 2015. Relationship between
plant uptake of pesticides and water-extractable residue in Japanese soils. J. Pestic.
Sci. 40, 175–183.
Murtaza, G., et al., 2010. Disposal and use of sewage on agricultural lands in Pakistan: a
review. Pedosphere 20 (1), 23–34.
Muschal, M., 2006. Assessment of risk to aquatic biota from elevated salinity—A case
study from the Hunter River. Australia. J. Environ. Manage. 79, 266–278.
Muyen, Z., Moore, G.A., Wrigley, R.J., 2011. Soil salinity and sodicity effects of
wastewater irrigation in south east Australia. Agric. Water Manag. 99 (1), 33–41.
Nakakubo, T., Tokai, A., Ohno, K., 2012. Comparative assessment of technological
systems for recycling sludge and food waste aimed at greenhouse gas emissions
reduction and phosphorus recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 157–172.
Netzer, Y., Shenker, M., Schwartz, A., 2014. Effects of irrigation using treated wastewater
on table grape vineyards: dynamics of sodium accumulation in soil and plant. Irrig.
Sci. 32, 283–294.
Nicolas, E., Alarcón, J., Mounzer, O., Pedrero, F., Nortes, P., Alcobendas, R., et al., 2016.
Long-term physiological and agronomic responses of mandarin trees to irrigation
with saline reclaimed water. Agric. Water Manag. 166, 1–8.
Norton-Brandao, D., et al., 2013. Reclamation of used urban waters for irrigation
purposes e A review of treatment technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 122, 85–98.
O’Connor, G.A., et al., 2008. Degraded water reuse: an overview. J. Environ. Qual. 37,
S157–S168.
Oenema, O., Wrage, N., Velthof, G.L., Groenigen, J.W., Dolfing, J., Kuikman, P.J., 2005.
Trends in global nitrous oxide emissions from animal production systems. Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst. 72, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004-7354-2.
16
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
Oliveira, J.F., Rodrigues, F.N., Fia, R., Mafra, D.C.B., Landim, D.V., 2017. Percolate
quality in soil cultivated with application of wastewater from swine slaughterhouse
and dairy products. Agric. Eng. 37 (6), 1222–1235.
Oster, J.D., Shainberg, I., 2001. Soil responses to sodicity and salinity: challenges and
opportunities. Aust. J. Soil Res. 39, 1219–1224.
Paranychianakis, N.V., Salgot, M., Snyder, S.A., Angelakis, A.N., 2015. Water reuse in EU
states: necessity for uniform criteria to mitigate human and environmental risks.
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (13), 1409–1468.
Pardo, G., et al., 2017. SIMSWASTE-AD - A modelling framework for the environmental
assessment of agricultural waste management strategies: anaerobic digestion. Sci.
Total Environ. 574, 806–817.
Paudel, I., Cohen, S., Shaviv, A., Bar-Tal, A., Bernstein, N., Heuer, B., Ephrath, J., 2016.
Impact of treated wastewater on growth, respiration and hydraulic conductivity of
citrus root systems in light and heavy soils. Tree Physiol 36, 770–785.
Pedrero, F., Camposeo, S., Pace, B., Cefola, M., Vivaldi, G.A., 2018. Use of reclaimed
wastewater on fruit quality of nectarine in Southern Italy. Agric. Water Manag. 203,
186–192.
Pedrero, F., Kalavrouziotis, I.K., José Alarcón, J., Koukoulakis, P., Asano, T., 2010. Use of
treated municipal wastewater in irrigated agriculture- review of the practices in
Spain and Greece. Agric. Water Manage. 97 (9), 1233–1241.
Pena, A., et al., 2020. A review of the impact of wastewater on the fate of pesticides in
soils: effect of some soil and solution properties. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134468.
Pescod, M.B., 1992. Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. FAO irrigation and
drainage paper no. 47, Rome, Italy.
Petousi, I., Daskalakis, G., Fountoulakis, M.S., Lydakis, D., Fletcher, L., et al., 2019.
Effects of treated wastewater irrigation on the establishment of young grapevines.
Sci. Total Environ. 658, 485–492.
Phonphoton, N., Pharino, C., 2019. Multi-criteria decision analysis to mitigate the impact
of municipal solid waste management services during floods. Resour. Conservat.
Recycl. 146, 106–113.
Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., Grewal, H.S., 2010. Effects of greywater irrigation on plant
growth, water use and soil properties. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (7), 429–435.
Purandara, B.K., Varadarajan, N., Venkatesh, B., Choubey, V.K., 2011. Surface water
quality evaluation and modeling of Ghataprabha River, Karnataka, India. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 184 (3), 1371–1378.
Qadir, M., Bahri, A., Sato, T., Al-Karadsheh, E., 2010a. Wastewater production,
treatment, and irrigation in Middle East and North Africa. Irrig. Drain Syst. 24,
37–51.
Qadir, M., et al., 2010b. The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries.
Agric. Water Manag. 97, 561–568.
Qi, Z., et al., 2012. Development and evaluation of the carbon-nitrogen cycle module for
the GPFARM-Range model. Comput. Electro. Agric. 83, 1–10.
Radingoana, M.P., et al., 2020. Progress in greywater reuse for home gardening:
opportunities, perceptions and challenges. Phy. Chem. Earth. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pce.2020.102853.
Raschid-Sally, L., 2010. The role and place of global surveys for assessing wastewater
irrigation. Irrig. Drain. 24, 5–21.
Raschid-Sally, L., et al., 2005. Managing wastewater agriculture to improve livelihoods
and environmental quality in poor countries. Irrig. Drain. 54, S11–S22.
Regelink, I.C., Stoof, C.R., Rousseva, S., Weng, L., Lair, G.J., et al., 2015. Linkages
between aggregate formation, porosity and soil chemical properties. Geoderma 247-
248, 24–37.
Resende, J.D., Nolasco, M.A., Pacca, S.A., 2019. Life cycle assessment and costing of
wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour. Conservat.
Recycl. 148, 170–177.
Reuben, T.N., Sorensen, D.L., 2014. Estimated nitrate loadings from lawns, irrigated
cropland, and on-site wastewater to an aquifer in Ogden Valley. Utah. J. Soil Water
Conserv. 69, 243–253.
Rock, C.M., Brassill, N., Dery, J.L., Carr, D., McLain, J.E., Bright, K.R., Gerba, C.P., 2019.
Review of water quality criteria for water reuse and risk-based implications for
irrigated procedure under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, produce safety
rule. Environ. Res. 172, 616–629.
Rodriguez-Liebana, J.A., Pena, A., 2018. Adsorption-desorption of dimethenamid and
fenarimol onto three agricultural soils as affected by treated wastewater and fresh
sewage sludge-derived dissolved organic carbon. J. Environ. Manage. 217, 592–599.
Romano, G., Rapposelli, A., Marrucci, L., 2019. Improving waste production and
recycling through zero-waste strategy and privatization: an empirical investigation.
Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 146, 256–263.
Romeiko, X.X., 2019. Comprehensive water footprint assessment of conventional and
four alternative resource recovery based wastewater service options. Resour.
Conservat. Recycl. 151, 104458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104458.
Ruiz-Rosa, I., Garcia-Rodriguez, F.J., Mendoza-Jimenez, J., 2016. Development and
application of a cost management model for wastewater treatment and reuse
processes. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 299–310.
Rutkowski, T., et al., 2007. Wastewater irrigation in the developing world-two case
studies from the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. Agric. Water Manage. 88, 83–91.
Saha, S., Hazra, G.C., Saha, B., Mandal, B., 2015. Assessment of heavy metals
contamination in different crops grown in long-term sewage-irrigated areas of
Kolkata,West Bengal, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187 (1), 4087–4099.
Salgot, M., et al., 2006. Wastewater reuse and risk: definition of key objectives.
Desalination 187, 29–40.
Saliba, R., Callieris, R., D’Agostino, D., Roma, R., Scardigno, A., 2018. Stakeholders’
attitude towards the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation in Mediterranean
agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 204, 60–68.
A. Singh
Sampa, M.H.O., Borrely, S.I., Silva, B.L., Vieira, J.M., Rela, P.R., Calvo, W.A.P., Nieto, R.
C., Duarte, C.L., Perez, H.E.B., Somessari, E.S., Lugão, A.B., 1995. The use of electron
beam accelerator for the treatment of drinking water and wastewater in Brazil.
Radiat. Phys. Chem. 46 (4–6), 1143–1146.
Santos, G.O., Faria, R.T., Rodrigues, G.A., Dantas, G.F., Dalri, A.B., Palaretti, L.F., 2017.
Forage yield and quality of marandugrass fertigated with treated sewage wastewater
and mineral fertilizer. Acta Sci. Agron. 39 (4), 515–523.
Sato, T., et al., 2013. Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater
generation, treatment, and use. Agric. Water Manag. 130, 1–13.
Satyanarayana, C.H., Ramakrishna, R.S., Hossain, K., 2010. Assessment of water quality
along the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 9 (1), 19–23.
Schultz, M.M., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Werner, S.L., Schoenfuss, H.L., Barber, L.B.,
Blazer, V.S., Norris, D.O., Vajda, A.M., 2010. Antidepressant pharmaceuticals in two
U.S. effluent-impacted streams: occurrence and fate in water and sediment, and
selective uptake in fish neural tissue. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (6), 1918–1925.
Shaffer, M.J., Halvorson, A.D., Pierce, F.J., 1991. Nitrate leaching and economic analysis
package (NLEAP): model description and application. In: Follett, R., Keeney, D.R.,
Cruse, R.M. (Eds.), Managing Nitrogen for Ground Water Quality and Farm
Profitability. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 285–322.
Shakir, E., et al., 2017. Environmental and health risks associated with reuse of
wastewater for irrigation. Egypt. J. Petroleum 26, 95–102.
Sharvelle, S., Roesner, L., Qian, Y., Stomberger, M., Azar, M.N., 2012. Long-term study
on landscape irrigation using household graywater – Experimental study. The Urban
Water Centre. Colorado State University at: http://www.aciscience.org/docs/gray
water%20report%202012.pdf. Accessed on 15th November 2019.
Shilpi, S., et al., 2019. Waste to watt: anaerobic digestion of wastewater irrigated
biomass for energy and fertilizer production. J Environ Manag 239, 73–83.
Shilpi, S., Seshadri, B., Sarkar, B., Bolan, N., Naidu, R., 2018. Comparative values of
various wastewater streams as a soil nutrient source. Chemosphere 192, 272–281.
Shuval, H.I., Adin, A., Fattal, B., Rawitz, E., Yekutiel, P., 1986. Wastewater irrigation in
developing countries: health effects and technical solutions. World Bank Technical
Paper No. 51. Washington, DC; 1986.
Singh, A., 2016. Hydrological problems of water resources in irrigated agriculture: A
management perspective. Journal of Hydrology 541, 1430–1440.
Singh, A., 2014. Irrigation planning and management through optimization modelling.
Water Resources Management 28 (1), 1–14.
Singh, A., 2012. An overview of the optimization modelling applications. Journal of
Hydrology 466-467, 167–182.
Singh, A., 2015a. Poor quality water utilization for agricultural production: An
environmental perspective. Land Use Policy 43, 259–262.
Singh, A., 2015b. Soil salinization and waterlogging: A threat to environment and
agricultural sustainability. Ecological Indicators 57, 128–130.
Singh, A., 2019a. Solid waste management through the applications of mathematical
models. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 151, 104503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2019.104503.
Singh, A., 2019b. Remote sensing and GIS applications for municipal waste management.
Journal of Environmental Management 243, 22–29.
Singh, A., 2019c. Managing the uncertainty problems of municipal solid waste disposal.
Journal of Environmental Management 240, 259–265.
Singh, A., 2019d. Environmental problems of salinization and poor drainage in irrigated
areas: Management through the mathematical models. Journal of Cleaner
Production 206, 572–579.
Singh, A., 2019e. An overview of drainage and salinization problems of irrigated lands.
Irrigat. Drainage 68 (3), 551–558.
Singh, A., 2021. Soil salinization management for sustainable development: a review.
J. Environ. Manage. 277, 111383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111383.
Singh, A., Panda, S.N., 2013. Optimization and simulation modelling for managing the
problems of water resources. Water Resour. Manag. (Springer) 27 (9), 3421–3431.
Singh, A., Panda, S.N., Saxena, C.K., Verma, C.L., Uzokwe, V.N.E., Krause, P., Gupta, S.K.,
2016. Optimization modeling for conjunctive use planning of surface water and
groundwater for irrigation. J. Irrigat. Drainage Eng. (ASCE) 142 (3), 04015060.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000977.
Soller, J.A., Eftim, S.E., Warren, I., Nappier, S.P., 2017. Evaluation of microbiological
risks associated with direct potable reuse. Microb. Risk Anal. 5, 3–14.
Song, P., Feng, G., Brooks, J., Zhou, B., Zhou, H., Zhao, Z., Li, Y., 2019. Environmental
risk of chlorine-controlled clogging in drip irrigation system using reclaimed water:
the perspective of soil health. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 1452–1464.
Sonkamble, S., Wajihuddin, M., Jampani, M., Sarah, S., Somvanshi, V.K., Ahmed, S.,
Amerasinghe, P., Boisson, A., 2018. Natural treatment system models for wastewater
management: a study from Hyderabad. India. Water Sci. Technol. 77, 479–492.
Sramkova, M.V., et al., 2018. Experimental verification of tertiary treatment process in
achieving effluent quality required by wastewater reuse standards. J. Water Process
Eng. 22, 41–45.
Sruthi, P., Shackira, A.M., Puthur, J.T., 2017. Heavy metal detoxification mechanisms in
halophytes: an overview. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 25, 129–148.
Suarez, D.L., Gonzalez-Rubio, A., 2017. Effects of the dissolved organic carbon of treated
municipal wastewater on soil infiltration as related to sodium adsorption ratio and
pH. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81, 602–611.
Suyama, H., Benes, S., Robinson, P., Getachew, G., Grattan, S., Grieve, C., 2007. Biomass
yield and nutritional quality of forage species under long-term irrigation with saline-
sodic drainage water: field evaluation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 135, 329–345.
Tal, A., 2016. Rethinking the sustainability of Israel’s irrigation practices in the Drylands.
Water Res 90, 387–394.
Tian, B.B., Zhou, J.H., Xie, F., Guo, Q.N., Zhang, A.P., Wang, X.Q., Yu, Q.Q., Li, N.,
Yang, H., 2019. Impact of surfactant and dissolved organic matter on uptake of
atrazine in maize and its mobility in soil. J. Soil. Sedim. 19, 599–608.
17
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105454
Tidaker, P., et al., 2006. Wastewater management integrated with farming - an
environmental systems analysis of a Swedish country town. Resour. Conservat.
Recycl. 47, 295–315.
Tillman, R.W., Surapaneni, A., 2002. Some soil-related issues in the disposal of effluent
on land. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 42, 225–235.
Toze, S., 2006. Reuse of effluent water-benefits and risks. Agric. Water Manage. 80,
147–159.
United Nations, 2017. World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision Population Database
online at http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm (accessed on 22nd May
2018).
United Nations, 2019. United Nations, Introduction and proposed goals and targets on
sustainable development for the post-2015 development agenda. https://sustainable
development.un.org/sdgs (accessed on 24th January 2020).
Urbano, V.R., Mendonça, T.G., Bastos, R.G., Souza, C.F., 2017. Effects of treated
wastewater irrigation on soil properties and lettuce yield. Agric. Water Manag. 181,
108–115.
U-tapao, C., et al., 2015. Stochastic, multiobjective, mixed-integer optimization model
for wastewater-derived energy. J. Energy Eng. 141 (1), B5014001.
Van Rooijen, D.J., et al., 2010. Urban growth, wastewater production and use in irrigated
agriculture: a comparative study of Accra. Addis Ababa Hyderabad. Irrig Drainage
Syst. 24, 53–64.
Vassiljev, A., et al., 2018. Modelling of nitrogen leaching from watersheds with large
drained peat areas. Adv. Eng. Softw. 125, 94–100.
Vergine, P., et al., 2020. Reuse of ultrafiltered effluents for crop irrigation: on-site flow
cytometry unveiledmicrobial removal patterns across a full-scale tertiary treatment.
Sci. Total Environ. 718, 137298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137298.
Vidal-Dorsch, D.E., Bay, S.M., Maruya, K., Snyder, S.A., Trenholm, R.A., Vanderford, B.
J., 2012. Contaminants of emerging concern in municipal wastewater effluents and
marine receiving water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31 (12), 2674–2682.
Wafula, D., White, J.R., Canion, A., Jagoe, C., Pathak, A., Chauhan, A., 2015. Impacts of
long-term irrigation of domestic treated wastewater on soil biogeochemistry and
bacterial community structure. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 81, 7143–7158. https://doi.
org/10.1128/AEM.02188-15.
Wang, F., Yu, C., Xiong, L., Chang, Y., 2019c. How can agricultural water use efficiency
be promoted in China? A spatial-temporal analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145,
411–418.
Wang, H.-.C., Cui, C., Han, J.-.L., et al., 2019b. A2O-MBR as an efficient and profitable
unconventional water treatment and reuse technology: a practical study in a green
building residential community. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 150, 104418 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104418.
Wang, M., et al., 2019a. The responses of a soil bacterial community under saline stress
are associated with Cd availability in long-term wastewater-irrigated field soil.
Chemosphere 236, 124372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124372.
Wang, X., Huang, G., 2008. Evaluation on the irrigation and fertilization management
practices under the application of treated sewage water in Beijing. China. Agric.
Water Manag. 95, 1011–1027.
White, P.J., Greenwood, D.J., 2013. Properties and management of cationic elements for
crop growth. In: Gregory, P.J., Nortcliff, S. (Eds.), Soil Conditions and Plant Growth.
Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 160–194.
Woods, R.J., Pikaev, A.K., 1994. Applied Radiation Chemistry: Radiation Processing.
Wiley, New York, p. 920.
World Health Organization, 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and
Greywater: volume II- Wastewater use in agriculture. World Health Organization. htt
ps://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/gsuweg2/en/. (Accessed
on 21st July 2020).
World Health Organization, 2015. Sanitation safety planning: manual for safe use and
disposal of wastewater, greywater and excreta. World Health Organization. https://
apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/171753. (Accessed on 7th July 2020).
Xue, Y.-d., et al., 2012. Characteristics and driven factors of nitrous oxide and carbon
dioxide emissions in soil irrigated with treated wastewater. J. Integr. Agric. 11 (8),
1354–1364.
Ye, S., Zeng, G., Tan, X., et al., 2019. Nitrogen-doped biochar fiber with graphitization
from Boehmeria nivea for promoted peroxymonosulfate activation and non-radical
degradation pathways with enhancing electron transfer. Appl. Catal. B 269, 118850.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2020.118850.
Ye, S., Zeng, G., Wu, H., et al., 2019. The effects of activated biochar addition on
remediation efficiency of co-composting with contaminated wetland soil. Resources.
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 140, 278–285.
Yeom, D.-.H., Lee, S.-.A., Kang, G.S., Seo, J., Lee, S.-.K., 2007. Stressor identification and
health assessment of fish exposed to wastewater effluents in Miho Stream, South
Korea. Chemosphere 67, 2282–2292.
Yuan, Z., et al., 2019. Sweating the assets The role of instrumentation, control and
automation in urban water systems. Water Res. 155, 381–402.
Zahid, W.A., 2007. Cost analysis of trickling-filtration and activated sludge plants for the
treatment of municipal wastewater. The Proceedings of the 7th Saudi engineering
Conference. College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh. December 2-5.
Zaibel, I., et al., 2016. Impact of treated wastewater reuse and floods on water quality
and fish health within a water reservoir in an arid climate. Sci. Total Environ. 559,
268–281.
Zeng, S., Chen, J., Fu, P., 2008. Strategic zoning for urban wastewater reuse in China.
Water Resour. Manage. 22, 1297–1309.
Zolti, A., et al., 2019. Root microbiome response to treated wastewater irrigation. Sci.
Total Environ. 655, 899–907.