Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Quantity and quality characteristics of greywater: A review

Irshad N. Shaikh, M. Mansoor Ahammed *
Civil Engineering Department, SV National Institute of Technology, Surat, 395007, India

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

Keywords: Due to depletion of water resources and increased water demand, greywater reuse is gaining popularity as a
Greywater means of water conservation all over the world. Availability of reliable data on greywater generation and quality
Wastewater quality characteristics is important in deciding the treatment system and the reuse option. This paper summarises
Wastewater quantity
quantity and quality characteristics of greywater reported from different parts of the world. Greywater gener­
Nutrients
Organic micropollutants
ation from different countries is compared and its variability is discussed. Important pollutants of concern in
greywater such as organic content, nutrients, microorganisms, metals and organic micropollutants from different
greywater sources such as bathrooms, hand basins, kitchen and laundry are described. The review shows large
variations in greywater quality and quantity with respect to time and source, and the selection of a treatment
system would largely depend on this variability. The review also shows that at the levels found in greywater,
heavy metals and organic micropollutants in recycled greywater generally do not pose a threat to human health if
treated properly.

1. Introduction quality (Wu, 2019). On-site GW recycling has been successfully

Water scarcity and depletion of natural water resources have forced
many regions of the world to consider the use of alternative sources of
water (Spychala et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2018). In particular, on-site
greywater (GW) treatment and reuse is getting increased attention all
over the world especially in water-stressed regions such as arid and
semi-arid areas. The GW is the wastewater from households excluding
that from toilets which means it includes wastewater from laundries,
washbasins, washing machines, dishwashing, bathrooms, and kitchen
sinks (Oron et al., 2014; Maimon et al., 2010). Greywater accounts for
up to 70% of the combined residential sewage and up to 90% if vacuum
toilets are installed (Penn et al., 2012; Hernandez-Leal et al., 2011a;
Pidou et al., 2007). Greywater is considerably less polluted than do­
mestic wastewater due to absence of urine, faeces and toilet paper in it,
and contains only about 30% of the total organic load and 10–20% of the
nutrients present in domestic wastewater (Beck et al., 2013; Pidou et al.,
2007). However, pathogens and other contaminants present in GW may
cause diseases which make GW treatment and guidelines necessary to
ensure public health. Therefore, it is important to characterize the
contaminants present in the GW so as to determine the total removal
required and select appropriate treatment trains. Treated GW is gener­
ally used for non-potable purposes such as toilet flushing, irrigation, car
washing and gardening as these uses do not require water of potable
employed in individual households, multi-storey residential buildings
and in small isolated communities having no access to piped water
supply.
Greywater recycling offers several advantages. Reusing treated GW
not only preserve scarce water sources but also reduce water supply
costs and decrease load on centralized wastewater treatment systems
(Beck et al., 2013) which minimize the negative impacts and costs of
water extraction and wastewater treatment (Santos et al., 2014), thus
helping to achieve water sustainability. It is reported that about 25–30%
of potable water consumption can be reduced by reuse of GW (Vuppa­
ladadiyam et al., 2018). In many water-scarce areas of the world,
governmental legislations have made GW recycling mandatory for
newly constructed buildings. A recent study comparing a wastewater
centralized reuse system and a GW decentralized reuse system showed
that the GW system consumed only between 11.8% and 37.5% of energy
of a centralized system considering the same number of inhabitants
served (Matos et al., 2014). Further, the centralized system resulted in
higher CO2 emissions to the environment than the GW system (Matos
et al., 2014).
While GW recycling has many advantages, its limitations include the
large variability in the GW quantity and quality characteristics which
limits its use as an alternative water supply source. The degree of
treatment required is determined by the wastewater characteristics and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mansoorahammed@gmail.com (M.M. Ahammed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110266
Received 7 July 2019; Received in revised form 17 January 2020; Accepted 10 February 2020
Available online 2 March 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
the reuse application. The selection of GW treatment system varies with
the site conditions and GW characteristics; for example, variability in
strength and flow of the GW can affect the performance of biological
treatment systems. A large number of studies have been reported on the
quantity and quality characteristics of GW from different parts of the
world. These studies have revealed that variability of GW quality de­
pends on a number of parameters such as the activities of the occupants,
living standards, use of chemical products and geographical location.
While much attention has been given to the household GW charac­
teristics and treatment options, only a few studies considered GW gen­
eration from other establishments like shopping malls, offices, schools
and hotels. While a number of reviews have appeared in the recent
literature on the treatment options for GW (Arden and Ma, 2018; Wu,
2019; Cecconet et al., 2019) few reports reviewed the characteristics of
GW. In this paper, quality and quantity characteristics of GW from
households, public buildings, hotels, etc. were considered. In addition to
gross GW, characteristics of GW from different streams such as hand
basins, laundries, bathrooms and kitchen were also separately
considered.
2. Greywater sources and their constituents
Characteristics of GW from a household vary widely depending upon
number and age of occupants, living habits of people, customs, living
standards, and use of household detergents, chemicals and body care
products (Spychala et al., 2019). Location and time also play a signifi­
cant role in composition of GW due to variations in water consumption
in relation to the discharged amount of substances (Eriksson et al.,
2002).
Bathrooms, wash basins, kitchen and laundry are the major sources
of GW. In the literature GW is generally divided into two groups namely,
light greywater (LGW) and dark greywater (DGW) based on the
contaminant concentration of source. LGW includes wastewater from
bath, showers, bathtubs, hand basins (washbasins) and bathroom sinks
whereas wastewater from laundry washing, rinsing, washing machines,
kitchen and dishwashers constitute DGW (Alsulaili and Hamoda, 2015).
LGW is less polluted than DGW. Total GW is generally termed as mixed
greywater (MGW) which includes GW from both light and dark GW
sources.
In the present paper, bathroom GW indicates GW from bathroom
sinks, showers, and bathtubs, while hand basin GW includes GW from
hand basins or washbasins (including those provided in bathroom or
toilet). Kitchen GW includes wastewater from kitchen and dishwashers
whereas laundry GW includes GW from laundry and washing machines
(both wash and rinse). Different GW sources and their constituents are
presented in Table 1.
Hand basin GW contains toothpaste, soaps, body care products,
shaving waste, hairs and skin cells (Zeimba et al., 2018; Morel and
Diener, 2006). Ziemba et al. (2018) reported that soap is likely the most
Table 1
Greywater sources and their composition.
Greywater Constituents
source
Bathroom Shampoo, soap, toothpaste lint, traces of urine, body care
products, hairs, skin, hair oil, body fats, hot water and sand/clay
particles.
Hand basin Toothpaste, soaps, body care products, shaving waste, hairs and
skin cells
Kitchen Dish washing detergents, oil and fats, food residue, hot water, raw
meat washing, fruit and vegetable peels, tea or coffee, traces of
food preservatives, sand and clay particles.
Laundry Chemicals from detergents, oils, solvents, bleaches, paints, hot
water, nonbiodegradable fibres from clothing.
Adapted from: Nolde (1999); Eriksson et al. (2002); Noah (2002); Morel and
Diener (2006); Achu (2007); Li et al. (2009); Orianna and Linda (2010); Nout­
sopoulos et al. (2018); Spychala et al. (2019); Babaei et al. (2019).
2
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
significant input in hand washing GW, representing ~90% of mass
loading. Bathroom GW contains shampoo, soap, toothpaste lint, traces
of urine, body care products, hairs, skin, sand/clay particles, body fats
and hot water (Noah, 2002). Pollutant potential of bathroom GW is
increased by occasional use of bathroom for washing domestic pets and
disposing harmful substances such as paints, pesticides and herbicides
residues. Phosphorus and nitrogen are relatively less in bathroom GW
due to exclusion of urine and faeces (Noutsopoulos et al., 2018).
Kitchen GW contains alkaline chemical pollutants such as cleaning
agents and detergents. Kitchen GW includes dish washing detergents, oil
and fats, food residue, hot water, raw meat washing, fruit and vegetable
peels, tea or coffee, traces of food preservatives, sand and clay particles.
Kitchen GW also contains highest levels of suspended solids, turbidity,
organic substances and nitrogen. Food particles, high pH, odour, hot
water, salinity, oil and grease, bacteria, organic matter, turbidity, soaps
and suspended solids originated from automatic dishwasher (Noah,
2002; Morel and Diener, 2006). Kitchen GW favours growth of micro­
organisms because of the presence of food residues, high amount of oil
and fats and higher temperature than normal GW. Elevated concentra­
tions of faecal coliforms have been reported in kitchen GW possibly due
to presence of high concentrations of organic matter and raw meat
washing (Orianna and Linda, 2010).
Laundry GW contains chemicals from detergents, oils, solvents,
bleaches, paints, hot water, nonbiodegradable fibres from clothing.
Bacteria and viruses are associated with washing of soiled clothes and
baby nappies. Detergents and soiled clothes result in GW with high
chemical concentrations particularly high in suspended solids, oxygen
demand, lint and turbidity. High amount of heavy metals and phos­
phates in laundry GW decreases its biodegradability compared to GW
from shower (Nolde, 1999). Laundry GW is generally deficient in ni­
trogen (Couto et al., 2015).
3. Greywater flow variation
Variation of flow is a vital parameter influencing the selection of
treatment system for onsite GW recycling in single households and small
communities. A few studies have been reported in the literature on the
variation of GW flow. It is expected that GW flow follows the same
diurnal flow pattern as observed for domestic wastewater.
Considerable variation in GW flow pattern was reported on week­
days (Monday-Friday) and weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Highest
GW flow was noted between 07:00–10:00 h and again between 17:00
and 22:00 h, namely before and after work outside the home during
weekdays (Shteynberg, 2015; Kim et al., 2009). Latter part of morning,
early afternoon and late night were recorded as low flow periods during
weekdays at households. Also, significant flow was recorded at about
12:00 h during weekdays, indicating that certain portion of the residents
had lunch at home (Eriksson et al., 2009). Birks and Hills (2007) did not
observe significant variation in the fresh GW flow on weekdays for
residential areas. Shower and hand basin are appears to be major sources
of GW flow during peak hours in households. Palmquist and Hanaeus
(2005) reported 60% low flow periods and 40% high flow periods in
daily GW fluctuations.
Alfiya et al. (2018) reported that highest LGW flow occurred during
18:00–23:00 h, contributing about 50% of the total GW generation on a
day for a dormitory. A minor peak in LGW generation at dormitory was
reported at late night during 23:00–2:00 probably due to students
studying late hours (Alfiya et al., 2018). In case of weekends at a dor­
mitory, single pronounced peak was reported during 14:00–22:00 h
which indicated the delay in GW discharge events on weekends (Palm­
quist and Hanaeus, 2005). Alfiya et al. (2018) and Kim et al. (2009) did
not observe any significant variation in GW flow during different sea­
sons of the year. Similarly, Abu Ghunmi et al. (2008) observed no var­
iations in GW flow pattern of rural and urban areas with respect to time
and flow rate. Greywater temperature variation followed the GW flow
patterns with low temperature at low fresh GW flow and vice versa
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

(Birks and Hills, 2007). Higher accumulated flows were reported on meter was reported by Oteng-Peprah et al. (2018a) for flow measure­
weekends than weekdays in households, in contrast, lower accumulated ment. Leong et al. (2018) estimated GW generation from different
flows were reported on weekdays than on weekends in dormitories sources by multiplying fraction of total water demand for that source (e.
(Alfiya et al., 2018). g. kitchen) with total annual water demand.
With respect to GW flow from individual sources, great variation
along the day has been reported. During morning period (05:00–11:00
4.1. Water consumption and greywater generation
h) LGW was dominant with 30–60% of the overall discharge while it
reduced to 20–40% during the rest of the day (Penn et al., 2012). Bath,
Generation of GW is greatly affected by the economic level of the
shower and hand basin GW flow presented a significant and sharp
people and climatic conditions among other factors. In this paper,
morning peak (Penn et al., 2012). The use of kitchen and laundry
quantitative characteristics data of GW are presented in two groups
sources of GW was predominanting during the day and less variability
namely low income countries (LIC) and high income countries (HIC).
has been reported in their discharges (Shteynberg, 2015).
This is justified as the per capita annual income is related to the economy
and most HICs are in temperate regions. Countries with per person in­
4. Greywater quantitative characteristics
come less than US$ 12,746 are classified as LICs (IWA , 2012). Summary
of water consumption and GW generation data based on 80 studies re­
Greywater generation varies with culture, age, income level, coun­
ported from 14 LICs and 17 HICs are shown in Fig. 1.
try, household occupancy, gender, water availability, source of water
As expected, water consumption in HICs is significantly (p < 0.05)
(outside or in-house) and socioeconomic status among others (Chrispim
higher than that in LICs (Fig. 1(a)). The average daily per person water
and Nolasco, 2017; Katukiza et al., 2014). The quantity of GW generated
consumption in LICs varied between 35 and 234 L whereas it was be­
from kitchen, hand basins, bathroom is generally calculated as the
tween 78 and 343 L for HICs. Based on the literature data, the mean
product of the duration of the use of each source tap and its flow rate
daily per person water consumption of HICs and LICs were 173 � 76
which is measured at each source (Noutsopoulos et al., 2018). In case of
(mean � standard deviation) and 126 � 59 L, respectively. The average
laundry, dishwasher and toilet, the amount of GW generated was
water consumption in both LICs and HICs is above the minimum rec­
calculated based on the recording of the number of their uses per day
ommended value of 30 L/person/day (UNICEF, 2016).
and the amount of water consumption per use (Alfiya et al., 2018).
The Box plots in Fig. 1(b) present the daily per person GW generation
Different methods have been used for measuring the quantity of GW
LICs and HICs. As can be seen, in general, GW generation in HICs is
generated. Some studies used labelled collection containers for volume
higher than that in LICs due to higher water consumption. Great vari­
estimation from different GW sources. Advancement in the form of tally
ation in daily per person GW generation in LICs and HICs was reported.
card (able to read more than 1000 L flow) instead of conventional flow
Greywater generation in LICs varied in the range 14–140 L/person/day

Fig. 1. Greywater quantity characteristics in low income (LIC) and high income countries (HIC) (a) water consumption (b) greywater generation (c) return factor (d)
relationship between greywater generation and per capita income. These are based on 80 studies reported from 14 LICs and 17 HICs.

3
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
whereas it varied 62–223 L/person/day for HICs with the mean GW
generation of LICs and HICs being 71 � 30 and 131 � 44 L/person/day,
respectively. Per capita GW generation was less than 100 L/person/day
for most of the LICs whereas it exceeded 100 L/person/day in most of
the HICs. Greywater generation is independent of floor area but depends
on family size. Jamrah et al. (2004) reported that though the total GW
generation from a family increased with increase in family size, per
capita GW generation decreased with increase in family size. Fig. 1(d)
which indicates the relationship between GW generation and income
level clearly shows that, in general, GW generation increases with in­
come level of the people. The average GW generation as a percentage of
average water consumption, termed as return factor, is shown in Fig. 1
(c). Large variation in return factor for LICs has been reported which
varied in the range 41–89% whereas for HICs it varied in the range
55–82%. It is interesting to note that the median return factors for LICs
and HICs are close to each other at 67% indicating that return factor, in
general, is independent of the amount of water consumption.
Adopted practices, living standards and sanitation facilities could be
the probable causes of differences in water consumption and GW gen­
eration in LICs and HICs. In-house access to water supply leads to more
water consumption and its associated GW generation than outside
source of water as return factor was reported to be high for outside
sources than in-house access (Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018a). This could be
attributed to distance, reliability of source and many other latent factors.
Type of latrines employed at households also play an important role in
return factor as return factor close to 100% could be recorded for
households with dry latrines (SANDEC et al., 2006). Many studies have
reported that water consumption and GW generation is high during
summer compared to winter, and higher return factor has been reported
during summer (Kassab et al., 2013).
Significantly lower quantity of water consumption and thus lower
GW generation has been reported in rural areas where facilities such as
kitchen sink, bathtubs, basins and washing machines are not available
and where households are served by one standpipe within the house and
water needs to be hand carried to various places for its use such as
kitchen (Sall and Takahashi, 2006). In such cases multiple uses of GW
has been reported. For instance, rice washing water generated during
food preparation is commonly given as drinking water to reared ani­
mals, or used for irrigation (Sall and Takahashi, 2006).
4.2. Distribution of greywater generation
Greywater is generated from different sources such as bathrooms,
hand basins, kitchen and laundry. Contribution from these sources as
percentage of total GW generation is presented in Fig. 2 as Box plots
which are based on the data from 45 reports from 5 LICs and 15 HICs.
The mean GW generation from bathroom, hand basin, kitchen and
laundry for LICs were 27 � 14, 21 � 17, 28 � 17 and 19 � 7%
respectively while these were 40 � 19, 10 � 15, 22 � 10 and 25 � 10%
Fig. 2. Distribution of greywater generation (a) bathroom (b) hand basin (c) kitchen (d) laundry. These are based on 45 studies reported from 5 LICs and 15 HICs.
4
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
respectively for HICs. Generation of LGW, which includes GW from
bathrooms and hand basins from LICs and HICs are 48 � 30 and 50 �
34%, respectively. Greywater generation from kitchen and laundry
(DGW) contribute 47 � 24 and 47 � 20% of total GW for LICs and HICs,
respectively. This shows that both LICs and HICs produce similar frac­
tions of LGW and DGW.
Bathroom GW accounts for more than one-third of GW generation in
HICs and this is significantly higher compared to LICs. This high per­
centage of bathroom GW generation is probably due to the increased use
of bathtubs and showers in HICs. On the other hand the fraction of hand
basin GW is relatively higher in LICs. The percentage of kitchen GW
accounts for about 28% of the total GW generated in LICs, which is
significantly higher than that in HICs. This can be attributed to the use of
automatic dish washers which consume less water (Noah, 2002) and to
the use of more processed food, less home cooking and more eating at
restaurants in HICs. The fraction of GW generation from laundry is
higher in HICs than in LICs which might be due to the use of washing
machines in which consume more water compared to manual washing of
clothes used in LICs. Large variations in laundry GW generation in both
LICs and HICs have been reported in the literature.
It is clear that on an average, LGW and DGW are produced in almost
equal percentages in both HICs and LICs, even though the absolute
volume of GW generated is significantly higher in HICs due to increased
water consumption in these countries. It should be noted that LGW
contain much less pollutant load compared to DGW and can be treated
by simple treatment systems (Abu Ghunmi et al., 2011), implying that
half of the GW generated can be reused economically reducing the load
on centralized wastewater treatment plants.
5. Greywater qualitative characteristics
Greywater quality characteristics are influenced by a large number of
factors which include habits and life style of occupants, water source,
geographical location, demographics, plumbing system, and source of
GW such as domestic or commercial (Dwumfour-Asare et al., 2018;
Jefferson et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2010; Prathapar et al., 2005; Gani et al.,
2015). In addition, factors such as dishwashing patterns, disposal of
household chemicals, bathing habits, cleaning products used and laun­
dering practices, also influence the quality of GW (Prathapar et al.,
2005). Knowledge of characteristics and its variation is important in the
selection of GW treatment system. The present review is based on data
reported in more than 100 studies.
Considerable variation in quality of GW among different GW sources
has been reported (Antonopoulou et al., 2013). Greywater originating
from bathroom and hand basin typically have low concentration of
bacteria and chemicals whereas GW generated from kitchen and laundry
are typically higher in solids, organic carbon and bacteria (Kariuki et al.,
2011).
In most cases it is not possible to analyse the fresh GW immediately
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
after discharge and GW quality gets affected with the duration of storage
prior to analysis. With storage, GW quality is considerably affected in
case of solids, and moderately in case of organics (Katukiza et al., 2014).
Microorganisms concentration was least affected by settling of GW
(Katukiza et al., 2014). Dixon et al. (1999) reported that storage of
untreated GW for less than 24–48 h was beneficial in terms of partial
removal of solids and organics. Beyond 48 h, the storage affects nega­
tively and disturbs the ambience by smelling because of initiation of
degradation. Chin et al. (2009) reported that overnight storage of GW
resulted in reduction of 13% COD, 31% turbidity and 0.5 pH units. The
rate of decomposition of GW was faster compared to blackwater (Pra­
thapar et al., 2005).
5.1. Greywater sampling
One of the possible reasons for the observed large-scale variations in
the characteristics of GW reported in the literature could be the different
sampling strategies adopted. Large variation in GW sample collection
protocol was observed in the literature. Frequency of sampling varied
from a few minutes to a month. Volume of sample collected also varied
significantly from study to study. Samples collected were either grab or
Fig. 3. Physical characteristics of greywater from different sources (a) temperature (b) turbidity (c) total suspended solids.
5
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
composite. Different means of grab and composite sample collection
have also been reported in the literature. Greywater sampling is key, not
only to measure dynamic variation of quantity and quality, but specially
to design proper technologies to treat GW avoiding retention tanks and
potential odours.
Bakare et al. (2017) collected grab sample once a day within 2 h of
generation usually by noon from laundry, kitchen and bathroom of
households. Patil and Munavalli (2016) collected grab samples with
three replicates and uniform collection time on each sampling day while
Eriksson et al. (2009) collected grab samples every 20 min over 8 h
periods.
Grab sampling leads to misleading results as GW characteristics vary
with time. Many researchers used the composite samples in their studies
and the samples were prepared in different ways. Mohamed et al. (2018)
prepared composite samples daily by mixing GW collected at peak hours
particularly in morning (08:00–10:00 h) and evening (17:00–20:00 h) of
each sampling day from bathroom of a household while Itayama et al.
(2006) prepared composite samples by mixing GW collected from
kitchen at morning, afternoon, evening and night. In an another study,
Vakil et al. (2014) collected composite sample daily from a tank in
which GW was collected over 24 h.
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
Auto sampling has also been used to collect composite samples by
many authors. Hernandez-Leal et al. (2010) collected composite samples
by means of 80 L autosampler which collected time-proportional sam­
ples and stored them at 4 � C. Palmquist and Hanaeus (2005) adopted an
automatic collection system in which for every 100 L of GW passing a
weir, a 160 mL sample was collected.
While sampling protocol is important in determining the character­
istics of GW, it should be noted that in many studies, the sampling
procedure was not mentioned clearly making the comparison of results
difficult.
5.2. Physical characteristics of greywater
Among the different physical characteristics, temperature, turbidity,
and total suspended solids (TSS) are discussed here. Characteristics of
different streams of GW reported in different studies are summarised as
Box plots in Fig. 3 and Table 2.
Temperature is a non-conservable parameter, so needs to be deter­
mined on-site. Greywater temperature is often higher than that of
municipal water supply (Olanrewaju and Iiemobade, 2015) and fol­
lowed close relationship with both ambient temperature and wastewater
temperature (Sall and Takahashi, 2006). Use of warm water for laundry,
cooking and personal hygiene results in higher GW temperature
(Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018b). Birks and Hills (2007) reported that GW
temperature is related to the flow of GW, with low temperature during
low flow of GW and vice versa.
Though there are large variations within the different sources, the
median GW temperature for all the GW sources is within a narrow range
of 24–27 � C indicating GW temperature is least dependant on GW source
(Fig. 3 (a)). Fig. 3(b) shows the variation of turbidity in different GW
sources. Turbidity is generally higher in laundry and kitchen GW. Thus
turbidity of DGW is significantly higher compared to that of LGW.
Considerable variation in GW turbidity from kitchen (277 � 68 NTU),
laundry (195 � 155 NTU) are reported. Kitchen GW proves itself to be
much more polluted than LGW sources as the least turbidity reported
from kitchen source is higher than the highest turbidity reported from
bathrooms and hand basins (Fig. 3(b)).
Variation of TSS concentration is presented in Fig. 3(c). TSS variation
shows similar pattern of turbidity with kitchen and laundry wastewater
showing significantly higher TSS content. Fabric fibers and zeolites from
detergents contribute to higher total suspended solid concentration in
laundry GW while washing vegetables and fruits are the sources of solids
in kitchen GW (Leong et al., 2018). Considerable variation in the re­
ported values of TSS for kitchen (397 � 251 mg/L) and laundry (204 �
75 mg/L) wastewater can be seen. This is due to use of washing machine
and automatic dish washer by residents of HICs in laundry and kitchen
respectively over the conventional manual means of clothes and utensils
washing used in LICs. Solids in GW increases due to traditional habits of
using sand along with charcoal ash and water for washing cooking
utensils in LICs, to prevent them for blackening (Sall and Takahashi,
2006).
Oteng-Peprah et al. (2018a) reported that GW generated from
in-house sources results in lower total suspended concentration than
that of outside sources. Winward et al. (2008a; 2008b) reported asso­
ciation of suspended solids with different microbial groups such as
protozoa, bacteria and bacterial indicators. Reduction of turbidity and
TSS from GW is recommended to reduce frequent filter clogging and to
Table 2
Summary of physical characteristics of greywater.
Parameter Bathroom Hand basin
Temperature (� C) 25.8–29.0 (5) – 24.4–30.9 (5)
Turbidity (NTU) 19-375 (23) 35-164 (5)
Total suspended solids (mg/L) 19-793 (31) 25-181 (9)
Number in parentheses indicate the number of studies considered.
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
increase the aesthetic quality of treated GW for non-potable reuse to
enhance public acceptance of GW reuse (Leong et al., 2018). Reduced
levels of turbidity and TSS concentration enhance GW disinfection.
5.3. pH, organic content and nutrients in greywater
Variation of pH in different streams of GW is presented in Fig. 4(a)
and is summarised in Table 3. It was observed that pH value is close to
neutral for most of the streams except laundry which has slightly alka­
line pH. The pH of GW depends on the pH and alkalinity of water supply
(Eriksson et al., 2002). Laundry GW exhibits higher pH values due to
presence of alkaline material used in detergents (Oteng-Peprah et al.,
2018b; Gani et al., 2015). Large variations in pH values can be seen for
kitchen and laundry because of use of automatic cloth washers and dish
washers which results in GW with higher pH values (Noah, 2002).
Bakare et al. (2017) observed that kitchen GW had the lowest pH values
which can be attributed to rapid degradation of food particles and oils
under anoxic conditions.
Very low pH values recorded in some of the samples could be
attributed to the organic acids produced by edible organic compounds,
whereas reported extreme alkaline pH could be partly attributed to the
use of sodium hydroxide based soaps (Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018a;
Bakare et al., 2017; Noah, 2002). Less fluctuation in daily variation of
GW pH has been reported (Sall and Takahashi, 2006). pH of GW has an
important bearing on its use for irrigation. If GW with pH value
exceeding 8.0 is used for irrigating soil, availability of micronutrients
such as boron for plants may be reduced (Turner et al., 2013; Al-Ha­
maiedeh and Bino, 2010).
Further, higher pH results in reduced disinfection efficiency. Fig. 4
(b) and (c) show the variation of BOD and COD in GW from different
sources. Variations in BOD and COD follow similar trends, and kitchen
and laundry GW are rich in organic content compared to bathroom and
hand basin GW. Based on 80 reported studies, the mean BOD concen­
tration in kitchen and laundry wastewater were 780 and 594 mg/L,
respectively, while bathroom and hand basin GW had mean values of
121 and 115 mg/L, respectively. Similarly, COD concentration for
bathroom, hand basin, kitchen and laundry wastewater were 268, 316,
852 and 1100 mg/L, respectively. Values indicate that the average BOD
concentration of DGW is up to five times higher than LGW (Table 3).
This could be due to the presence of xenobiotic organic compounds
(XOCs) in GW (Fatta-Kassinos et al., 2011).
Concentration of particulate COD in GW is reported to be less than
that of domestic wastewater (Wang, 1994). Elmitwalli and Otterpohl
(2007) reported that on an average, dissolved, suspended and colloidal
fractions of COD represented about 34, 36 and 27%, respectively of the
total COD in GW.
Quantity of water used in households has an important bearing on
the BOD and COD values of GW generated. Very high values of organic
content have been reported from some developing countries. For
example, Katukiza et al. (2014) reported BOD value of 1354 mg/L in
mixed GW in Uganda. This could be attributed to reduced water usage in
developing countries. Heavy use of detergents or food and drink re­
siduals with fat and oil might be the probable reasons for high organic
content in laundry and kitchen sources (Arden and Ma, 2018; Noutso­
poulos et al., 2018) while chemicals used in dishwashing and laundry
detergents might contribute higher COD values in kitchen and laundry
wastewater.
Kitchen Laundry Light greywater Dark greywater
22.4–35.0 (5) 13.4–29.0 (10) 22.4–35.0 (12)
210-357 (6) 34-510 (12) 13-375 (48) 34-510 (20)
11-3934 (10) 33-4564 (16) 7-793 (58) 11-4564 (23)
6
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

Fig. 4. Chemical characteristics of greywater from different sources (a) pH (b) BOD (c) COD (d) COD/BOD ratio.

Table 3
Chemical characteristics of greywater from different sources.
Parameter Bathroom Hand basin Kitchen Laundry Light greywater Dark greywater

pH 5.94–8.40 (35) 6.72–9.82 (11) 5.58–10.00 (14) 5.00–10.33 (20) 4.90–8.53 (63) 5.00–10.33 (34)
BOD (mg/L) 20-673 (35) 33-305 (12) 185-2460 (10) 44-3330 (17) 20-673 (64) 44-3330 (29)
COD (mg/L) 64–903 (38) 47-587 (14) 411-8071 (9) 58-4155 (17) 23-1489 (70) 58-8071 (23)
Total nitrogen (mg/L) 2.7–148.0 (14) 2.5-10.4 (5) 0.5-65.0 (5) 2.8-31.0 (11) 1.3-148.0 (28) 0.5-65.0 (16)
Total phosphorous (mg/L) 0.1–60.0 (17) 0.3-2.6 (5) 2.7-187.0 (5) 0.2-51.6 (13) 0.1-60.0 (27) 0.2-187.0 (18)

Number in parentheses indicate the number of studies considered.

Studies have been reported on the temporal variation of GW quality.
No significant difference was observed in different quality parameters
analysed for week and weekend samples (Birks and Hills, 2007). Also, no
significant difference was reported between the morning and afternoon
samples for any of the parameters anlaysed. Eriksson et al. (2009) re­
ported lower pollution concentration during periods of peak GW flow.
Kassab et al. (2013) reported that the average COD concentration was
1.8 times higher during summer months than during winter.
COD to BOD ratio is an important parameter in determining the
suitability of a wastewater for biological treatment. Table 4 shows the
mean values of COD/BOD ratio for different types of GW sources re­
ported in different studies. Li et al. (2009) reported easy biodegrad­
ability of GW with COD/BOD ratio of less than 2.5. It was observed that
GW from laundry, kitchen and DGW is easily biodegradable with
average COD/BOD ratio of 1.79, 1.71 and 1.77, respectively. This was
attributed to the fact that biodegradability of GW primarily depends on
amount of oil and fats present. Presence of food and drink residuals, dirt
from vegetable washing could be the sources of organics in kitchen GW

7
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

Table 4 problem with kitchen GW is the high concentration of oil and grease
Parameters influencing biodegradability of greywater. which may impair the biological treatment and may produce poor
Greywater source COD/BOD COD:N:P quality effluent making it unfit for reuse (Chrispim and Nolasco, 2017).
Concentration of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, vary widely in
Bathroom 1.275–3.135 (23) 100 : 4.158 : 0.699
Hand basin 1.400–3.787 (10) 100 : 2.437 : 0.484 different streams of GW (Fig. 5). However, the median values of nitrogen
Kitchen 1.226–2.055 (8) 100 : 1.119 : 0.859 in different streams of GW vary in a narrow range of 7–12 mg/L (Fig. 5
Laundry 1.200–3.060 (8) 100 : 0.978 : 1.101 (a)). This level is much lower than the concentration found in domestic
Light greywater 1.275–4.350 (51) 100 : 3.697 : 0.648 wastewater (20–80 mg/L) (Henze et al., 2001) which can be explained
Dark greywater 1.287–2.543 (11) 100 : 1.286 : 0.973
by the absence of urine and faeces in GW (Noutsopoulos et al., 2018).
Number in parentheses indicate the number of studies considered. Higher levels of total nitrogen concentration reported in some
bathroom GW may be because of the choice of washing products used.
whereas in the case of laundry GW, clothes impurities and use of High nitrogen concentration in laundry may be attributed to the reduced
biodegradable detergents could be the sources (Antonopoulou et al., use of water. Proteins in meat, vegetables, protein containing shampoos,
2013). and other household products which have ammonia and ammonia
Greywater from bathroom is moderately biodegradable with mean containing cleansing products are source of nitrogen (Jong et al., 2010).
COD/BOD ratio of 2.03. However GW from hand basin and LGW are less The variability of nitrogen content in GW was found similar to its flow
biodegradable with mean COD/BOD ratios of 2.81 and 2.42, respec­ pattern, periods of high concentration were found to correspond to the
tively. COD to BOD ratio of bathroom, hand basin and MGW are close to occurrence of peak discharges (Sall and Takahashi, 2006).
that of domestic sewage (2.2) reported by Metcalf, 2003. In a few cases Variation in total phosphorus concentration in different GW sources
COD/BOD ratio as high as 4 has been reported, indicating unsuitability is shown in Fig. 5(b). Laundry GW acts as a major source of phosphorus
of GW for biological treatment. This indicates that suitability of partic­ in GW followed by kitchen, bathroom and hand basin. Detergents, soaps
ular source of GW or GW as a whole for biological treatment varies from and cleaning materials used in washing purpose are the primary sources
household to household depending upon the household activities. of phosphorus found in GW (Dalalmeh et al., 2016). The mean phos­
In general, it is beneficial to add kitchen and laundry GW if it is to be phorus concentration for laundry and kitchen are 11.9 and 8.9 mg/L
treated biologically. If GW is to be treated by other treatment systems, respectively, whereas for bathroom and hand basin it was below 2.0
then it is recommended not to mix kitchen and laundry GW with the rest mg/L. Higher phosphorus concentration in laundry and kitchen leads to
of the GW sources so as to get GW with low organic content. Another its higher concentration in DGW.

Fig. 5. Nutrients in greywater (a) nitrogen (b) phosphorus.

8
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

The COD: N: P ratio is an important parameter which indicates the

Ghaitidak and Yadav (2015a)

Chrispim and Nolasco. (2017)
suitability of GW for biological treatment (Li et al., 2009). Metcalf, 2003

Christova-Boal et al. (1996)

Antonopoulou et al. (2013)
Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)

Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)

Abu-Ghunmi et al. (2008)

suggested a value of 100: 20: 1 for COD: N: P for aerobic biological

Santasmasas et al. (2013)

Sostar-Turk et al. (2005)

Atanasova et al. (2017)

Halalsheh et al. (2008)
Jefferson et al. (2004)

Birks and Hills (2007)

treatment. Table 4 shows COD: N: P for different GW sources. It can be

Katukiza et al. (2014)

Maimon et al. (2014)

Ciabatti et al. (2009)
Kariuki et al. (2011)
Santos et al. (2012)
Al-Jayyousi (2003)

Vakil et al. (2014)

Vakil et al. (2014)

observed that GW from all the sources is greatly deficient in nitrogen

Zipf et al. (2016)

Teh et al. (2015)

Oh et al. (2016)
concentration. Therefore frequent monitoring and adjustments of
nutrient content is important for optimum functioning of treatment

Reference
systems if aerobic processes are used for GW treatment. A recent study
showed that hand washing wastewater was deficient in both nitrogen
and phosphorus relative to carbon, and supplementary nutrients
increased the removal rate of organic carbon (Zeimba et al., 2018).

E.coli (CFU/100 mL)

2.5 � 104-6.1 � 105

8.0 � 101-4.4 � 105

4.5 � 101-7.8 � 103

It is also interesting to compare the characteristics of GW from high

0.0–5.2 � 106
0.0–1.1 � 106
income and low income countries. Table 5 summarises a few recent

5.1 � 104

1.0 � 101

7.0 � 105

3.9 � 105
4.2 � 106

1.6 � 105
reports from different countries on GW characteristics from different
sources. Though it is difficult to make definite conclusions from Table 5

NA
due to large variations in characteristics, it can be seen that in general,
GW from HICs are significantly less polluted compared to that from LICs

1.1 � 102-1.1 � 103

2.6 � 103-9.0 � 104
especially GW generated from kitchen and laundry.

FC (CFU/100 mL)
While most of the studies reported in the literature on GW quality are
on GW generated from single households, a few reports have appeared

2.3 � 102

4.3 � 102

5.4 � 105
on the characteristics of GW from other types of buildings. Table 6
summarises some of these reported studies from institutional/commer­
cial buildings, hotels, multiple households and industrial buildings. It is

2.3 � 103-3.3 � 105

4.6 � 103-9.3 � 106
6.0 � 107-1.9 � 108
1.4 � 106-4.1 � 106
clear that most of the industrial and institutional buildings produce GW

TC (CFU/100 mL)
with reduced pollution loads. This shows that they can be treated with

0.0–1.7 � 106
simple methods.

4.0 � 105

9.4 � 103

2.0 � 107

2.2 � 107
6.9 � 107
7.3 � 106
5.4. Microbiological quality

NA
Pathogenic organisms are considered to be the main hazard to public
TP (mg/L)

0.8–15.0
health from GW reuse (Maimon et al., 2014) and one of the important

0.3–1.3

18.3
objectives of GW treatment is the removal of these organisms. This in­
5.3
0.1

2.6

2.7

9.0

9.9

0.9
2.9

1.9
dicates the need for proper monitoring of GW for microbiological
quality. Survival and transformation of these contaminants in GW are
TN (mg/L)

11.0–36.0

1.3–25.5
also important. Generally microbial indicators such as total coliforms
50.3

10.4

65.0
(TC) and faecal coliforms (FC) are used to monitor GW microbial qual­
2.7

9.6

2.8

2.8
ity. Levels of different microbial indicators and pathogens found in
different streams of GW are presented in Table S1 (supplementary ma­
COD (mg/L)

terial) and the variations of total and faecal coliforms in different GW

251–508

164–424
146–903
47–350

76–287

41–535
streams are presented in Fig. 6.
2244
1119

2500

2861
273
390

263

587
602

775

824
280

602
96
Potential sources of pathogens found in GW can be faecal contami­
nation, peripheral pathogens and food handling (Maimon et al., 2014).
BOD (mg/L)

Hand washing after toilet use, uncooked food, raw meat and washing
Comparison of greywater quality from high income and low income countries.

168–673
81–271

48–290
60–300

babies or diapers of babies are the probable sources of these organisms 37–295
35–92

33–89

1100

1266

1125
123
263

109

155
293

831

269
195

(Blanky et al., 2015). Households with young children have higher level 46

79
of faecal contamination, and it is reported that faecal contamination of
GW depends on the age distribution of household members (Al-Mugh­
TSS (mg/L)

101–206

alles et al., 2012). Oteng-Peprah et al. (2018b) reported that the faecal
40–141

88–250
82–256
36–224
9–195
1852

contamination of GW is associated with poor personal hygiene and

156

153
308
644
319
299
760

996

166
74

37

47

washing of nappies.
Greywater from the bathroom and laundry can be a significant
9.30–10.00
6.30–6.73

7.20–8.30
6.72–9.82

7.10–7.50

7.13–8.53
5.94–6.40
4.90–7.90

source of faecal contamination (O’Toole et al., 2012; Jefferson et al.,

2004; Birks and Hills, 2007; Jamrah et al., 2008). Washing faecally
7.50

7.32
6.20
5.58
6.90
6.72
9.60
9.40
9.60

7.20
7.20
6.60
7.30
7.20
pH

contaminated diapers and showering and washing hand after contact

with potentially contaminated objects are the main reasons of faecal
contamination of GW (Ottoson and Stenstrom, 2003; Busgang et al.,
LIC/
HIC

HIC
HIC

HIC
HIC

HIC
HIC

HIC
HIC

HIC
HIC

HIC
HIC
LIC
LIC

LIC
LIC

LIC
LIC

LIC
LIC

LIC
LIC

LIC
LIC

2015).
Bathroom GW was found to contain highest concentration of total
Australia
Malaysia

Malaysia
Slovenia
Portugal
Country

Uganda

coliforms among the different streams of GW (Fig. 6) which can be

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan
Greece

Greece
Greece

Kenya
Brazil

Brazil
Spain

Spain

Israel
India

India

India

Italy

attributed to dead skin, sweatings from body and traces of urine present
UK

UK

in bathroom GW (Zhu et al., 2016). Washing baby and baby diapers in

bathroom could also add faecal matter in bathroom GW (Benami et al.,
Light greywater

Dark greywater

2016). Faecal coliform concentration shows high variability in different

Hand basin
Bathroom

streams of GW ranging from non-detectable to as high as 105 CFU/100

Laundry
Kitchen
Table 5

Source

mL. The median total coliforms concentration for bathroom and hand
basin are 2.8 � 106 and 5.0 � 104 CFU/100 mL respectively while these

9
 I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
Table 6
Greywater quality from different types of building.
Type of building Country Source pH TSS (mg/ BOD (mg/ COD (mg/ TN (mg/L) TP (mg/ TC (CFU/100 FC (CFU/100 mL) E.coli (CFU/100 Reference
L) L) L) L) mL) mL)

Single house Malaysia BR 5.94–6.40 36–224 168–673 146–903 6.0 � 107-1.9 � 0.0–5.2 � 106 Teh et al. (2015)
108
Greece BR,L 6.20–7.80 60–134 217–1461 16.0–63.0 0.5–3.8 0.8 � 105-1.2 � 5
0.6 � 10 -8.1 � Fountoulakis et al. (2016)
107 106
Dormitory India BR,HB 7.15–8.34 121–322 40–240 126–460 5.0 � 104-9.0 � 1.4 � 103-1.7 � 2.1 � 102-8.2 � Ghaitidak and Yadav
106 105 103 (2015b)
Australia BR,HB 6.00–6.80 7–28 31–162 5.7–34.3 0.4–9.3 <1.0–1.0 � 105 Jokerst et al. (2011)
Commercial Brazil BR,K, LR 7.60 76 93 170 Couto et al. (2015)
(Airport)
Morocco BR (Sport club) 7.40 43 51 120 1.3 � 105 Bouchaib et al. (2008)
Hotel Spain BR,HB 4.90–7.90 9–195 37–295 41–535 1.3–25.5 1.4 � 106-4.1 � 0.0–1.1 � 106 Atanasova et al. (2017)
10

106
Turkey BR,HB,K 7.10 51 117 310 9.4 Hocaoglu et al. (2013)
Multiple Egypt BR,HB,K,L 5.77–7.96 50–125 140–390 301–526 7.9–9.7 8.4–12.1 Abdel-Shafy et al. (2015)
Households Greece K 6.90 319 831 1119 6.5 2.7 Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)
Hospital Nepal 26–230 31–210 63–1048 3.9 � 104-8.0 � Shrestha et al. (2001)
108
Slovenia L 9.60 35 195 280 2.8 9.9 Sostar-Turk et al. (2005)
School Kuwait 5.95–8.69 2–146 0–65 6–170 <0.1–2.6 8.9 � 101-3.5 � 0.0 Alsulaili and Hamoda.
102 (2015)
India 6.40–8.10 40–340 0.1–0.8 NEERI (2007)
Industry Italy L 7.20 166 602 1.9 Ciabatti et al. (2009)
Laundry Centre Iran L 987 4155 27.6 Janpoor et al. (2011)

Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

Mosque Oman HB 7.10 25 61 163 6.7 � 101 1.1 � 102 Prathapar et al. (2005)
Office USA BR 6.40–6.80 1.3 � 102-5.0 � Beck et al. (2013)
103
Factory Malaysia BR 6.20–7.66 43–63 46–59 64–153 0.0–1.8 � 104 Oh et al. (2015)
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
Fig. 6. Variation of indicator organisms in different sources of greywater (a) total coliforms (b) faecal coliforms.
are 2.15 � 106 and 7.06 � 105 CFU/100 mL for kitchen and laundry GW
respectively. E. coli concentration also show high variability with values
ranging from 0 to > 106 CFU/100 mL.
Though attempts have been made to monitor enteric pathogenic
organisms directly in GW, these attempts have been largely ineffective
(Benami et al., 2015) due to intermittent infectious incidences among
population sizes and qualitative limits of detection (Jahne et al., 2017).
A few recent studies reported the presence of pathogenic organisms such
as rotavirus, Pseudomonas, Salmonella, Legionella, Giardia and Crypto­
sporidium in GW (Blanky et al., 2015). O’Toole et al. (2012) reported
that 21% of household GW samples contained pathogens and 4% sam­
ples contained more than one type of pathogens. P. aeruginosa is
generally found in mouth, nose and throat hence its presence in bath­
room and LGW is justified (Busgang et al., 2015). P. aeruginosa was
present in LGW in high concentration (Table S1). Pathogens such as
Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococci, Salmonella enterica, Shigella spp. were
found specifically in bathroom and LGW (Maimon et al., 2014).
Presence of Salmonella spp. which is associated with food poisoning
has been reported in GW which can be attributed to partially cooked
meat, shellfish and other household items which already carry the
bacteria (Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018a). Maimon et al. (2014) also iden­
tified inappropriate food handling in the kitchen and direct handling of
contaminated food as sources of enteric pathogenic bacteria such as
Salmonella and Campylobacter in GW. Birks and Hills (2007) reported the
presence of Giardia in 63% of the LGW samples analysed, however, their
level was below the cause of concern as they were below the infective
dose. Cryptosporidium were not present in any of the tested sample in
LGW (Birks and Hills, 2007). Total and faecal coliform concentrations
were reported to be low during winter months whereas it increased
11
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
during summer which can be attributed to enhanced death rate of
coliform bacteria during winter months (Vakil et al., 2014). No signifi­
cant difference was reported between the week and weekend samples for
indicator organisms and plate count at 37 � C (Birks and Hills, 2007).
Depending on the intended reuse, the level of treatment required for
removing microorganisms will be different. It is also important to note
that the GW recycling system may provide an environment for potential
growth of pathogenic organisms such as Legionella. A recent study to
determine whether long-term reuse of GW for garden irrigation leads to
higher risk of water-borne diseases found no difference in the prevalence
of diseases between users of GW and potable water for gardening
(Busgang et al., 2015). O’Toole et al. (2012) also found little correlation
between reported gastrointestinal diseases in households and pathogen
concentration in GW.
5.5. Organic micropollutants
Trace organics such as xenobiotic organic compounds (XOCs) are
synthetic organic compounds present in products of domestic use such
as cleaning agents, soaps, fabric softeners, preservatives, fragrances, UV
filters, cleaners, dish washing liquids, toothpaste and pharmaceuticals
(Eriksson et al., 2003; Donner et al., 2010; Etcheare and van der Hoek,
2015). These can be grouped into different classes such as endocrine
disruptors, surfactants, preservatives, fragrances and flavours, pesti­
cides, UV filters, and solvents like dyes, emulsifiers and plasticizers. A
large variety of these compounds are reported to be present in different
streams of GW.
An early study by Eriksson et al. (2002) identified about 900 XOCs to
be potentially present in GW from common Danish households based on
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
the chemicals used in the households. Subsequently, presence of 191 of
these XOCs was confirmed in qualitative analysis of bathroom GW
(Eriksson et al., 2003). They also detected the presence of some unex­
pected chemicals such as flame retardants and illicit drugs which are not
directly connected to household use. However, pharmaceuticals active
substances which are normally found in municipal wastewater and
which are endocrine disruptive, were largely absent in GW (Etcheare
and van der Hoek, 2015).
Among the different organic pollutants, surfactants such as LAS
(linear alkylbenzene sulphonate) MBAS (methylene blue active sub­
stances, which is a measure of anionic surfactants) are the most common
and abundant in GW. Table 7 shows the reported values of MBAS and
LAS concentrations in different GW sources. Higher concentration of
these compounds are generally found in wastewater from kitchen and
laundry. LAS is toxic to aquatic organisms, and is known to be persistent
under anaerobic conditions and potentially bioaccumulative (Palmquist
and Hanaeus, 2006).
The reported concentrations of a few selected trace organics in GW
are presented in Table S2 (supplementary material). Parabens are
commonly used as preservatives in personal care products such as hand
soap, showering and bathing products in concentration up to 0.8%, and
are more likely to be present in hand basin and shower GW than in
laundry and kitchen GW (Hernandez-Leal et al., 2010). Parabens are
also found in food and pharmaceuticals (Eriksson et al., 2009). Eriksson
et al. (2009) reported that parabens have a load of about 0.59
mg/person/day. Eriksson et al. (2009) reported presence of short-chain
parabens, methyl, ethyl and propyl parabens in 83–97% of the samples
analysed whereas long-chain parabens were found less frequently.
Though parabens are readily biodegradable compounds, yet they are
detected in effluents from wastewater treatment plants and receiving
water bodies (Andersen et al., 2007). Estrogenic potential of methyl,
ethyl, propyl and butyl paraben has been determined (Miller, 2001).
UV filters are compounds used to protect skin against solar radiation
and are found in highest concentration during summer months (Her­
nandez-Leal et al., 2010). The commonly used UV filters include 2-ethyl­
hexyl-4-methoxycinnamate (EHMC), 4-methylbenzylidene-champhor
(4MBC) and benzophenone-3 (BP3). Risks associated with these com­
pounds cannot be excluded as these are highly bioaccumulative and has
estrogenic and endocrine disrupting potential (Hernandez-Leal et al.,
2010). The UV-filters EHMC, 4MBC and BP3 were found in MGW with
average concentrations of 7.9, 0.9 and 0.6 μg/L respectively (Table S2).
Even though EHMC is reported to be readily biodegradable Hernande­
z-Leal et al. (2010) reported its presence even after biological treatment.
Alfiya et al. (2018) reported that the concentrations of micropollutants
such as octocrylene (a UV-filter) were high during summer compared to
winter.
Triclosan as a biocide has been mostly used in personal care prod­
ucts, and also used in plastics and textiles. Triclosan is also used as
antibacterial substance in toothpastes, dish soaps, cosmetics, sports­
wear, deodorants, detergents and oral care products (Zraunig et al.,
2019; Alfiya et al., 2018; Palmquist and Hanaeus, 2005). Hernande­
z-Leal et al. (2010) found an average concentration of 15.6 μg/L in MGW
which can be attributed to the frequent use of soaps with antibacterial
effect. The average concentration of triclosan is much higher than pre­
viously reported concentration of sewage (0.05–5.2 μg/L) which can be
attributed to the fact that sewage is diluted by either storm water or
toilet water, which is not the case with GW (Gonzalez-Marino et al.,
2009). Reported concentration of triclosan was lower during summer
Table 7
Surfactant concentration in different greywater sources.
Parameter Bathroom Hand basin Kitchen
MBAS (mg/L) 1.6–6.2 (4) 3.7–28.0 (2) 2.6–55.0 (2)
LAS (mg/L) 14.9–78.0 (3) 9.0–42.0 (2) 7.0–87.0 (2)
Number in parentheses indicate the number of studies considered
12
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
than in winter (Alfiya et al., 2018).
Nonylphenol is used as a stabilizer, cleaning agent, softener and an
intermediate in process industry. Eriksson et al. (2003) reported the
nonylphenol concentration of 0.4 μg/L in greywater whereas it was 0.76
μg/L as reported by Palmquist and Hanaeus (2006).
Eriksson et al. (2003) reported presence of more than 40 fragrances
and flavours. This group is present as perfume additives in personal care
products or as flavours. In Europe, the production of galaxolide and
tonalide ranges between 1 and 5 � 106 kg/year (Heberer, 2003).
Endocrine disrupting effects of galaxolide and tonalide have been
proven in vitro and vivo (Schreurs et al., 2004).
Galaxolide and tonalide are among the most used fragrance materials
and are found with average concentrations of 10.7 and 2.2 μg/L,
respectively in MGW Hernandez-Leal et al. (2011a). Nonylphenol which
is used in detergents is found with an average concentration of 1.69 μg/L
in MGW (Hernandez-Leal et al., 2011b). Micropollutants such as gal­
axolide and tonalide have low solubility in water and thus possibility of
accumulation in the environment increases (Alfiya et al., 2018).
The average concentration of 4-methyl phenol in 139 streams in the
USA was 0.05 μg/L whereas 0.54 μg/L was the maximum value (Eriks­
son et al., 2003). Presence of oxybenzone (BP3) was reported in sham­
poos and skin care products. So, its presence in greywater is not
surprising (Alfiya et al., 2018).
Perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) can be found in food pack­
aging, laundry liquids, and due to their persistence and increasing reg­
ulations, can have major implications on use of treated greywater. No
studies have been reported on their presence in greywater. The physi­
cochemical properties of PFAS are unique because of their high water
solubilities (Wang et al., 2019).
It has been reported that concentration of some xenobiotics such as
tonalide, EHMC and triclosan are higher in GW than in sewage or
comparable to the maximum sewage concentration (Hernandez Leal
et al., 2010) as sewage is diluted with blackwater (toilet) and storm
water. A recent study reported that among the 280 micropollutants
detected in GW, only 14 compounds had risk quotient values above 0.2
indicating that most of these organic compounds do not pose a health
risk at the concentration normally found in GW (Etcheare and van der
Hoek, 2015).
5.6. Metals in greywater
A number of reports have appeared in the literature on the presence
of metals in different sources of GW. While some metals are essential for
growth, elevated levels can affect the soil health if GW is used for irri­
gation. Ranges of concentration of metals from different GW sources is
presented in Table 8.
The levels of alkaline and alkaline earth metals such as Na, K, Cs and
Mg are generally related to their concentration in source water with
some additions during the water use (Hernandez-Leal et al., 2011b).
High concentration of Na in GW can be attributed to its presence in
cooking salt, sodium based detergents and body care products
(Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018b). The presence of Na in GW can lead to Na
buildup within the environment, which leads to deterioration of soil
structure affecting the plant growth (Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018a). Excess
concentration of K in GW can be attributed to abundance of their salts
present in surfactants or foaming agents (Kant et al., 2018).
Heavy metals are also routinely found in GW. Zn and Cu are the two
heavy metals that are generally found in high concentrations. They are
Laundry Light greywater Dark greywater
7.0–39.0 (6) 1.6–29.0 (7) 2.6–55.0 (8)
8.8–118.3 (2) 9.0–78.0 (6) 7.0–118.3 (5)
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266

Table 8
Metals in different greywater sources.
Metal Source Conc. Country WHO drinking water standards (WHO, 2017) Reference

Na (mg/L) L 302.1 Jordan 200 Jamrah et al. (2006)

BR 93.0–142.7 Israel Ramon et al. (2004)
Ca (mg/L) K 47.0 Jordan 200 Abu Ghunmi et al. (2008)
BR 15.8 Oman Prathapar et al. (2005)
Mg (mg/L) K 5.4 Kenya – Skudi et al. (2011)
L 18.8 Hungary Bodnar et al. (2014)
K (mg/L) K 7.0 Jordan – Abu Ghunmi et al. (2008)
BR,HB,K,L 8.8–15.0 The Netherlands Hernandez-Leal et al. (2011a)
As (μg/L) BR 1.0 Australia 10 Christova-Boal et al. (1996)
L 0.0 Oman Prathapar et al. (2005)
Al (μg/L) BR,HB 150.0–300.0 Denmark 100 Eriksson et al. (2010)
BR,HB 3.0 UK Jefferson et al. (2004)
Cd (μg/L) L <0.2 Greece 3 Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)
BR 0.0–0.2 Denmark Revitt et al. (2011)
Cr (μg/L) HB <2.5 Greece 50 Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)
BR,HB 0.0–0.8 Denmark Eriksson et al. (2010)
Cu (μg/L) HB, Ablution, 0.0–10.0 Malaysia 2000 Leong et al. (2018)
BR 0.1 The Netherlands Hernandez-Leal et al. (2007)
Fe (μg/L) K 355.0 Ghana – Dwumfour-Asare et al. (2017)
BR 5.6–198.0 Denmark Eriksson et al. (2010)
Hg (μg/L) K 1.0 Kenya 6 Skudi et al. (2011)
BR,HB 0.6–36.0 Denmark Eriksson et al. (2009)
Pb (μg/L) HB, Ablution, 0.0–6.0 Malaysia 10 Leong et al. (2018)
BR 4.9–10.0 Denmark Eriksson et al. (2010)
Zn (μg/L) HB, Ablution, 16.0–65.0 Malaysia 3000 Leong et al. (2018)
K 0.1 Greece Noutsopoulos et al. (2018)

often associated with leaching from plumbing materials, galvanized
tanks, pipes, fittings and coatings (Noutsopoulos et al., 2018). High
concentration of Zn in hand basin GW was attributed to the use of long
lasting chlorine tablets to disinfect water stored in steel collection tanks,
leading to leaching the Zn from tank walls (Christova-Boal et al., 1996).
High concentration of Pb is reported in some GW sources. Removal of
old Pb based wall paint, particles of which collected in clothes which are
subsequently washed in laundry, and glazes on lead piping in water
distribution system are probable sources of Pb (Bodnar et al., 2014).
Reported concentration of Al in GW was in the range 3–300 μg/L
which is mostly found in laundry GW which can be attributed to laundry
detergents, and more specifically to zeolite which is used as a substitute
for phosphorus in detergents (Ghaitidak and Yadav, 2015a). Metals such
as, Cr, Cd, Mo, Hg and Co are also reported to be present in low con­
centration in nearly all the GW sources.
Studies show high concentration of Na, Mg and K in GW generated
from outside sources than in-house sources (Oteng-Peprah et al., 2018a).
Most of the values reported in the literature from different parts of the
world shows that heavy metal concentrations in GW are not of concern
as most conform to drinking water quality guideline values. Based on a
detailed study on heavy metals in GW Eriksson et al. (2010) concluded
that their presence in GW was unlikely to present any major problem for
GW reuse for toilet flushing.
6. Concluding remarks
The review clearly shows that the GW characteristics are affected by
a number of factors such as lifestyle, quality of source water and climatic
conditions. This leads to significant differences in GW characteristics
originating from different parts of the world. These differences are also
caused by different sampling protocols used in the experimental studies.
Though the per person GW generation is significantly higher in high
income countries due to higher water consumption, the GW generation
as a percentage of water consumption is similar in high income and low
income countries. Comparison of GW quality from different countries
shows that it is more polluted in developing countries compared to
developed countries due to reduced water usage in developing coun­
tries. In general, GW generated from kitchen and laundry are more
polluted compared GW from bathrooms and hand basins. Thus,
separating GW from bathrooms and hand basins would be advantageous
as simple treatment schemes would only be required to meet the reuse
standards. Nutrient content in different GW sources is limited and
nutrient addition would be required for effective biological treatment.
Though a number of studies have been reported on the microbiological
quality of GW, most of these studies used indicator organisms such as
total coliforms, faecal coliforms and E. coli in their studies. Thus, more
studies are needed on monitoring pathogenic bacterial, viral and pro­
tozoan organisms in GW. These data can then be advantageously used in
mathematical modelling approaches such as qualitative microbial risk
assessment which are much cheaper and sensitive compared to epide­
miological studies. Though the reported levels of organic micro­
pollutants are relatively low in GW, they would continue to pose risks in
reuse purposes, implying the importance of proper treatment. Further,
most of the data reported on trace organics are from developed coun­
tries, and more information from developing countries are needed due to
different living habits and different chemical products used in these
countries. As many studies have shown, heavy metals in GW do not
generally pose a problem if GW is reused for toilet flushing. One of the
important characteristics of GW is its significant variation in quality and
quantity with time and from source to source. This variability of GW in
quantity and quality according to source and time, indicates the need for
appropriate upstream approaches to the management of greywater
production, collection, and treatment such as flow segregation,
blending, and specific treatments aimed at the final destination of the
produced effluents.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110266.
References
Abdel-Shafy, H.I., Al-Sulaiman, M.A., Mansoor, M.S., 2015. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment
of grey water via UASB and MBR for unrestricted reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 71,
630–637.
Abu Ghunmi, L., Zeeman, G., Lier, J.B.V., Fayyed, M., 2008. Qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of greywater for reuse requirements and treatment alternatives: the
case of Jordan. Water Sci. Technol. 58, 1385–1396.

13
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
Abu-Ghunmi, L., Zeeman, G., Fayyad, M., Lier, J.B.V., 2011. Greywater treatment
systems: a review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 657–698.
Achu, D.F., 2007. Greywater Treatment Systems Assessment. M.Sc. Thesis in Water
Resources and Livelihood Security. Linkoping University, Sweden.
Alfiya, Y., Dubowski, Y., Friedler, E., 2018. Diurnal patterns of micropollutants
concentrations in domestic greywater. Urban Water J. 15, 399–406.
Al-Hamaiedeh, H., Bino, M., 2010. Effect of treated grey water reuse in irrigation on soil
and plants. Desalination 256, 115–119.
Al-Jayyousi, O., 2003. Grey water reuse: towards sustainable water management.
Desalination 156, 181–192.
Al-Mughalles, M.H., Rahman, R.B., Suja, F.B., Mahmud, M., Jalil, N.A., 2012. Household
greywater quantity and quality in Sana’a, Yemen. EJGE 17, 1025–1034.
Alsulaili, A.D., Hamoda, M.F., 2015. Quantification and Characterization of greywater
from schools. Water Sci. Technol. 72, 1973–1980.
Andersen, H.R., Lundsbye, M., Wedel, H.V., Eriksson, E., Ledin, A., 2007. Estrogenic
personal care products in a greywater reuse system. Water Sci. Technol. 56, 45–49.
Antonopoulou, G., Kirkou, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2013. Qualitative and quantitative
greywater characterization in Greek households and investigation of their treatment
using physicochemical methods. Sci. Total Environ. 454–455, 426–432.
Arden, S., Ma, X., 2018. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: a review.
Sci. Total Environ. 630, 587–599.
Atanasova, N., Dalmau, M., Comas, J., Poch, M., Rodriguez-Roza, I., Buttiglieri, G., 2017.
Optimized MBR for greywater reuse systems in hotel facilities. J. Environ. Manag.
193, 1–9.
Babaei, F., Ehrampoush, M.H., Eslami, H., Ghaneian, M.T., Fallahzadeh, H., Talebi, P.,
Fard, R.F., Ebrahimi, A.A., 2019. Removal of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and
turbidity from greywater by a hybrid multi-layer slow sand filter microfiltration
ultrafiltration system. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 922–931.
Bakare, B.F., Mtsweni, S., Rathilal, S., 2017. Characteristics of greywater from different
sources within households in a community in Durban, South Africa. Journal of Water
Reuse and Desalination 7, 520–528.
Beck, S.E., Rodriguez, R.A., Salveson, A., Goel, N., Rhodes, S., Kehoe, P., Linden, K.G.,
2013. Disinfection methods for treating low TOC, light graywater to California Tile
22 water reuse standards. J. Environ. Eng. 139, 1137–1145.
Benami, M., Gillor, O., Gross, A., 2015. The question of pathogen quantification in
disinfected greywater. Sci. Total Environ. 506, 496–504.
Benami, M., Gillor, O., Gross, A., 2016. Potential health and environmental risks
associated with onsite greywater reuse: a review. Built. Environ. 42, 212–229.
Birks, R., Hills, S., 2007. Characterisation of indicator organisms and pathogens in
domestic greywater for recycling. Environ. Monit. Assess. 129, 61–69.
Blanky, M., Martinez, S.R., Halpern, M., Friedler, E., 2015. Legionella pneumophila: from
potable water to treated greywater; quantification and removal during treatment.
Sci. Total Environ. 533, 557–565.
Bodnar, I., Szabolcsik, A., Baranyai, E., Uveges, A., Boros, N., 2014. Qualitative
characterization of household greywater in the northern great lain region of
Hungary. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 13, 2717–2724.
Bouchaib, El-H., Bey, I., Ait, D., Ghazi, N., Regelsberger, M., 2008. Greywater treatment
and recycling for toilet flushing: comparison low and high tech treatment
approaches. Water Pract. Technol. 3, 1–8.
Busgang, A., Friedler, E., Ovadia, O., Gross, A., 2015. Epidemiological study for the
assessment of health risks associated with greywater reuse for irrigation in arid
regions. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 230–239.
Cecconet, D., Callegari, A., Hlavinek, P., Capodaglio, A.G., 2019. Membrane bioreactors
for sustainable, fit-for-purpose greywater treatment: a critical review. Clean Technol.
Environ. Policy 21, 745–762.
Chin, W.H., Roddick, F.A., Harris, J.L., 2009. Greywater treatment by UVC/H2 O2. Water
Res. 43, 3940–3947.
Chrispim, C.M., Nolasco, M.A., 2017. Greywater treatment using a moving bed biofilm
reactor at a university in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 290–296.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An investigation into greywater
reuse for urban residential properties. Desalination 106, 391-197.
Ciabatti, I., Cesaro, F., Faralli, L., Fatarella, E., Tognotti, F., 2009. Demonstration of a
treatment system for purification and reuse of laundry wastewater. Desalination 245,
451–459.
Couto, E.A.D., Calijuri, M.L., Assemany, P.P., Santiago, A.F., Lopes, L.S., 2015. Greywater
treatment in airports using anaerobic filter followed by UV disinfection: an efficient
and low cost alternative. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 372–379.
Dalalmeh, S., Lalander, C., Pell, M., Vinneras, B., Jonsson, H., 2016. Quality of greywater
treated in biochar filter and risk assessment of gastroenteritis due to household
exposure during maintenance and irrigation. J. Appl. Microbiol. 121, 1427–1443.
Dixon, A., Butler, D., Fewkes, A., Robinson, M., 1999. Measurement and modelling of
quality changes in stored untreated grey water. Urban Water 1, 293–306.
Donner, E., Eriksson, E., Revitt, D.M., Scholes, L., Holten, H.C., Ledin, A., 2010. Presence
and fate of priority substances in domestic greywater treatment and reuse systems.
Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2444–2451.
Dwumfour-Asare, B., Adantey, P., Nyarko, K.B., AppiahEffah, E., 2017. Greywater
characterization and handling practices among urban households in Ghana: the case
of three communities in Kumasi metropolis. Water Sci. Technol. 76, 813–822.
Dwumfour-Asare, B., Nyarko, K.B., Awuah, E., Essandoh, H.A., Anim, K.K., Quaye, A.,
2018. Greywater in the drains of a sewered community in Ghana. Water Pract.
Technol. 13, 965–979.
Elmitwalli, T.A., Otterpohl, R., 2007. Anaerobic biodegradability and treatment of grey
water in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket(UASB) reactor. Water Res. 41, 1379–1387.
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002. Characteristics of greywater. Urban
Water 4, 85–104.
14
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
Eriksson, E., Auffarth, K., Eilersen, A.M., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2003. Household
chemicals and personal care products as sources for xenobiotic organic compounds
in grey wastewater. WaterSA 29, 135–146.
Eriksson, E., Andersen, H.R., Madsen, T.S., Ledin, A., 2009. Greywater pollution
variability and loadings. Ecol. Eng. 35, 661–669.
Eriksson, E., Donner, E., Ledin, A., 2010. Presence of selected priority and personal care
substances in an onsite bathroom greywater treatment facility. Water Sci. Technol.
62, 2889–2898.
Etcheare, R., Van der Hoek, J.P., 2015. Health risk assessment of organic micropollutants
in greywater for potable reuse. Water Res. 72, 788–804.
Fatta-Kassinos, D., Kalavrouziotis, I.K., Koukoulakis, P.H., Vasquez, M.I., 2011. The risks,
associated with wastewater reuse and xenobiotics in the agroecological
environment. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3555–3563.
Fountoulakis, M.S., Markakis, N., Petuosi, I., Manios, T., 2016. Single House on site grey
water treatment using a submerged membrane bioreactor for toilet flushing. Sci.
Total Environ. 551–552, 706–711.
Gani, P., Sunar, N.M., Matias-Peralta, H.M., Latiff, A.A., Kamaludin, N.S., Parjo, U.K.,
Emparan, Q., Er, C.M., 2015. Experimental study for phytoremediation of
Botryococcus sp. on greywater. Appl. Mech. Mater. 773–774, 1312–1317.
Ghaitidak, D.M., Yadav, K.D., 2015a. Effect of coagulation in greywater treatment for
reuse: selection of optimal coagulation condition using Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Desalination and Water Treatment 55, 913–925.
Ghaitidak, D.M., Yadav, K.D., 2015b. Reuse of greywater: effect of coagulant.
Desalination and Water Treatment 54, 2410–2421.
Gonzalez-Marino, I., Quintana, J.B., Rodriguez, I., Cela, R., 2009. Simultaneous
determination of parabens, triclosan and triclocarbon in water by liquid
chromatography/electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid
Communication Mass Spectrum 23, 1756–1766.
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M., Mansour, M.,
Safi, M., 2008. Grey water characteristics and treatment options for rural areas in
Jordan. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6635–6641.
Heberer, T., 2003. Occurrence, fate and removal of pharmaceutical residues in the
aquatic environment: a review on recent research data. Toxicol. Lett. 131, 5–17.
Henze, M., arremoes, P., Cour Jansen, J.L., Arvin, E., 2001. Wastewater Treatment:
Biological and Chemical Processes, third ed. Springer.
Hernandez-Leal, L., Zeeman, G., Temmink, H., Buisman, C.N.J., 2007. Characterisation
and biological treatment of greywater. Water Sci. Technol. 5, 193–200.
Hernandez-Leal, L., Vieno, N., Temmink, H., Zeeman, G., Buisman, C.N.J., 2010.
Occurrence of xenobiotics in gray water and removal in three biological treatment
systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 6835–6842.
Hernandez- Leal, L., Temmink, H., Zeeman, G., Buisman, C.N.J., 2011a. Removal of
micropollutants from aerobically treated grey water via ozone and activated carbon.
Water Res. 45, 2887–2896.
Hernandez- Leal, L., Zeeman, G., Temmink, H., Buisman, C.N.J., 2011b. Greywater
treatment concept integrating water and carbon recovery and removal of
micropollutants. Water Pract. Technol. 2. Wpt2011.035.
Hocaoglu, M.S., Atasoy, E., Baban, A., Orhon, D., 2013. Modeling biodegradation
characteristics of greywater in membrane bioreactor. J. Membr. Sci. 429, 139–146.
Itayama, T., Kiji, M., Suetsugu, A., Tanaka, N., Saito, T., Iwami, N., Mizuochi, M.,
Inamori, Y., 2006. On site experiments of the slanted soil treatment systems for
domestic gray water. Water Sci. Technol. 53, 193–201.
IWA (International Water Association), 2012. Country Classification. https://www.iw
adewats-nagpur.com/register-info.php.
Jahne, M.A., Schoen, M.E., Garland, J.L., Ashbolt, N.J., 2017. Simulation of enteric
pathogen concentrations in locally collected greywater and wastewater for microbial
risk assessment. Microbial Risk Analysis 5, 44–52.
Janpoor, F., Torabian, A., Khatibikamal, V., 2011. Treatement of laundry waste-water by
electrocoagulation. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 86, 1113–1120.
Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Prathapar, S.A., Ahmed, M., Al-Harrasi, A., 2004. Evaluating
greywater reuse potential for sustainable water resources management in the
Sultanate of Oman. In: Presented in the Conference on “International Water Demand
Management’ Held in Jordan during May30 - June, vol. 3, 2004.
Jamrah, A., Al-Omari, A., Al-Qasem, L., Abdel, G.N., 2006. Assessment availability and
characteristics of grey water in Amman. Int. Water Res. Assoc. 31, 210–220.
Jamrah, A., Al-Futaisi, A., Prathapar, S., Harrasi, A., 2008. Evaluating greywater reuse
potential for sustainable water resources management in Oman. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 137, 315–327.
Jefferson, B., Plamer, A., Jeffrey, P., Stuetz, R., Judd, S., 2004. Grey water
characterization and its impact on the selection and operation of technology for
urban reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 50, 157–164.
Jokerst, A., Sharvelle, S.E., Hollowed, M.E., Roesner, L.A., 2011. Seasonal performance
of an outdoor constructed wetland for greywater treatment n a temperate climate.
Water Environ. Res. 83, 2187–2198.
Jong, J., Lee, J., Jim, J., Hyun, K., Hwang, T., Park, J., Choung, Y., 2010. The study of
pathogenic microbial communities in grey water using membrane bioreactor.
Desalination 250, 568–572.
Kant, S., Jaber, F.H., Karthikeyan, R., 2018. Evaluation of a portable in-house greywater
treatment system for potential water reuse in urban areas. Urban Water J. 15,
4309–4315.
Kariuki, F.W., Kotut, k., Nganga, V.G., 2011. The potential of a low cost technology for
the greywater treatment. Open Environ. Eng. J. 4, 32–39.
Kassab, G., Halalsheh, M., Abu Ghunmi, L., Shatanawi, K., 2013. Characterization and
Anaerobic biodegradation of single house wastewater. Jordan J. Civil Eng. 7,
202–210.
I.N. Shaikh and M.M. Ahammed
Katukiza, A.Y., Ronteltap, M., Niwagaba, C.B., Kansiime, F., Lens, P.N.L., 2014.
Greywater treatment in urban slums by a filtration system : optimisation of the
filtration medium. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 131–141.
Kim, J., Song, I., Oh, H., Jong, J., Ark, J., Choung, Y., 2009. A laboratory-scale graywater
treatment system based on a membrane filtration and oxidation process-
characteristics of graywater from a residential complex. Desalination 238, 347–357.
Leong, J.Y., Chong, M.N., Poh, P.E., 2018. Assessment of greywater quality and
performance of a pilot-scale decentralized hybrid rainwater-greywater system.
J. Clean. Prod. 172, 81–91.
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for
greywater treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3439–3449.
Liu, S., Butler, D., Memon, F.A., Markrooulos, C., Avery, L., Jefferson, B., 2010. Impacts
of residence time during storage on potential of water saving for greywater recycling
system. Water Res. 44, 267–277.
Maimon, A., Tal, A., Friedler, E., Gross, A., 2010. Safe on-site reuse of greywater for
irrigation-A critical review of current guidelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44,
3213–3220.
Maimon, A., Friedler, E., Gross, A., 2014. Parameters affecting greywater quality and its
safety for reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 487, 20–25.
Matos, C., Pereira, S., Amorim, E.V., Bentes, I., Briga-San, A., 2014. Wastewater and
greywater reuse on irrigation in centralized and decentralized systems-An integrated
approach on water quality, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Sci. Total
Environ. 493, 463–471.
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. Tata McGraw-
Hill Education Private Limited, New Delhi.
Miller, D., 2001. Distributing responsibilities. J. Polit. Philos. 9, 453–471.
Mohamed, R.M., Al-Gheethi, A.A., Noramira, J., Chan, C.M., Hashim, M.K., Sabariah, M.,
2018. Effect of detergents from laundry greywater on soil properties: a preliminary
study. Appl. Water Sci. 8, 1–16.
Morel, A., Diener, S., 2006. Greywater management in low and middle income countries.
Review of Different Treatment Systems for Households or Neighborhoods. Swiss
Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Dubendorf,
Switzerland.
NEERI, 2007. Greywater Reuse in Rural Schools, Guidance Manual. National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nehru Marg, Nagpur, India.
Noah, M., 2002. Graywater use is still a gray area. J. Environ. Health 64, 22–25.
Nolde, E., 1999. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-story buildings- over
ten years’ experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1, 275–284.
Noutsopoulos, C., Andreadakis, A., Kouris, N., Charchousi, D., Mendrinou, P., Galani, A.,
Mantziaras, I., Koumaki, E., 2018. Greywater characterization and loadings,
physicochemical treatment to promote onsite reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 216,
337–346.
Oh, K., Poh, P.E., Chong, M.N., Gouwanda, D., Lam, W., Chee, C., 2015. Optimising the
in-line ozone injection and delivery strategy in a multistage pilot-scale greywater
treatment system: system validation and cost benefit analysis. J. Environ. Chem.
Eng. 3, 1146–1151.
Oh, K.S., Poh, P.E., Chong, M.N., Von, L.E.V., Saint, C.P., 2016. Bathroom greywater
recycling using polyelectrolyte complex bilayer membrane: advanced study of
membrane structure and treatment efficiency. Carbohydr. Polym. 148, 161–170.
Olanrewaju, O.O., Iiemobade, A.A., 2015. Greywater reuse review and framework for
assessing greywater treatment technologies for toilet flushing. Advances in Research
5, 1–25.
Orianna, C., Linda, E., 2010. Small Scale Systems for Grey Water Reuse and Disposal. PG
Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Oron, G., Adel, M., Agmon, V., Friedler, E., Halperin, R., Leshem, E., Weinberg, D., 2014.
Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: standards and prospects. Water Res. 58,
92–101.
Oteng-Peprah, M., DeVries, N.K., Acheampong, M.A., 2018a. Greywater characterization
and generation rates in a peri urban municipality of a developing country.
J. Environ. Manag. 206, 495–506.
Oteng-Peprah, M., Acheampong, M.A., DeVries, N.K., 2018b. Greywater characteristics,
treatment systems, reuse strategies and user perception-a review. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 229–255, 2018.
O’Toole, J., Sinclair, M., Malawaraarachchi, M., Hamilton, A., Barker, S.F., Leder, K.,
2012. Microbial quality assessment of household greywater. Water Res. 46,
4301–4313.
Ottoson, J., Stenstrom, T.A., 2003. Faecal contamination of greywater and associated
microbial risks. Water Res. 37, 645–655.
Palmquist, H., Hanaeus, J., 2005. Hazardous substances in separately collected grey and
blackwater from ordinary Swedish households. Sci. Total Environ. 348, 151–163.
Palmquist, H., Hanaeus, J., 2006. Organic hazardous substances in graywater from
Swedish households. J. Environ. Eng. 132, 901–908.
Patil, Y.M., Munavalli, G.R., 2016. Performance evaluation of an integrated on-site
greywater treatment system in a tropical region. Ecol. Eng. 95, 492–500.
Penn, R., Hadari, M., Friedler, E., 2012. Evaluation of the effects of greywater reuse on
domestic wastewater quality and quantity. Urban Water 9, 137–148.
Pidou, M., Memon, F.A., Stephenson, T., Jefferson, B., Jeffery, P., 2007. Greywater
recycling: treatment options and applications. Eng. Sustain. 160, 119–131.
15
Journal of Environmental Management 261 (2020) 110266
Prathapar, S.A., Jamrah, A., Ahmed, M., Al-Adawi, S., Al-Sidairi, S., Al-Harassi, A., 2005.
Overcoming constraints in treated greywater reuse in Oman. Desalination 186,
177–186.
Ramon, G., Green, M., Semiat, R., Dosoretz, C., 2004. Low strength greywater
characterization and treatment by direct membrane filtration. Desalination 170,
241–250.
Revitt, D.M., Eriksson, E., Donner, E., 2011. The implications of household greywater
treatment and reuse for municipal wastewater flows and micropollutant loads. Water
Res. 45, 1549–1560.
Sall, O., Takahashi, Y., 2006. Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of stored
greywater and unsewered suburban Dakar in Senegal. Urban Water J. 3, 153–164.
SANDEC, 2006. Greywater management in low and middle income countries. In:
Morel, A., Stefan, D. (Eds.), Eawag Aquatic Research. SANDEC, Switzerland,
pp. 18–26.
Santasmasas, C., Rovira, M., Clarens, F., Valderrama, C., 2013. Grey water reclamation
by decentralization MBR prototype. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72, 102–107.
Santos, C., Taveira-Pinto, F., Cheng, C.Y., Leite, D., 2012. Development of an
experimental system for greywater reuse. Desalination 285, 301–305.
Santos, C., Matos, C., Taveira-Pinto, F., 2014. A comparative study of greywater from
domestic and public buildings. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 14, 135–141.
Schreurs, R.H.M., Sonneveld, E., Jansen, J.H.J., Seinen, W., Van der Burg, B., 2004.
Interaction of polycyclic musks and UV filters with the estrogen receptor (ER),
androgen receptor (AR), and progesterone receptor (PR) in reporter gene biossays.
Toxicol. Sci. 83, 264–272.
Shi, K., Wang, C., Jiang, S., 2018. Qualitative microbial risk assessment of greywater on-
site reuse. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 1507–1519.
Shrestha, R., Haberl, R., Laber, J., Manandhar, R., Mader, J., 2001. Application of
construed wetlands for wastewater treatment in Nepal. Water Sci. Technol. 44,
381–386.
Shteynberg, D., 2015. Measurement and simulation of the diurnal pattern of domestic
water demand on micro-component scale. M.Sc. research Thesis, Technion, Haifa,
Israel.
Skudi, J.B., Wanjau, R., Murungi, J., Onindo, C.O., 2011. Alum treated greywater for
toilet flushing, mopping and laundry work. Hydrol. Curr. Res. 2, 1–4.
Sostar-Turk, S., Petrinic, I., Simonic, M., 2005. Laundry wastewater treatment using
coagulation and membrane filtration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44, 185–196.
Spychala, M., Niec, J., Zawadzki, P., Matz, R., Nguyen, T.H., 2019. Removal of volatile
solids from greywater using sand filters. Appl. Sci. 770, 2–13.
Teh, X.Y., Poh, P.E., Gouwanda, D., Chong, M.N., 2015. Decentralized light greywater
treatment using aerobic digestion and hydrogen peroxide disinfection for non-
potable reuse. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 305–311.
Turner, R.D.R., Will, G.D., Dawes, L.A., Gardner, E.A., Lyons, D.J., 2013. Phosphorus as a
limiting factor on sustainable greywater irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 456–457,
287–298.
UNICEF, 2016. Progress on sanitation and drinking water-2015 update and MDG
assessment. In: Joint Monitoring Programmer. UNICEF, USA.
Vakil, K.A., Sharma, M.K., Bhatia, A., Kazmi, A.A., Sarkar, S., 2014. Characterization of
greywater in an middle-class household and investigation of physicochemical
treatment using electrocoagulation. Separ. Purif. Technol. 130, 160–166.
Vuppaladadiyam, A.K., Merayo, N., Prinsen, P., Luque, R., Blanco, A., Zhao, M., 2018.
A review on greywater reuse: quality, risks, barriers and global scenarios. Environ.
Sci. Bio/Tech. 18, 77–99.
Wang, K., 1994. Integrated Anaerobic and Aerobic Treatment of Sewage. PhD. Thesis.
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Wang, X., Chen, M., Gong, P., Wang, C., 2019. Perfluorinated alkyl substances in snow as
an atmospheric tracer for tracking the interactions between westerly winds and the
Indian monsoon over western China. Environ. Int. 124, 294–301.
Winward, G., Avery, L., Frazer-Williams, R., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P., Stephenson, T.,
Jefferson, B., 2008a. A study of the microbial quality of grey water and an evaluation
of treatment technologies for reuse. Ecol. Eng. 32, 187–197.
Winward, G.P., Avery, L.M., Stephenson, T., Jefferson, B., 2008b. A study of the
microbial quality of greywater and an evaluation of treatment technologies for reuse.
Ecol. Eng. 32, 187–197.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2017. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, fourth
ed. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wu, B., 2019. Membrane based technology in greywater reclamation: a review. Sci. Total
Environ. 656, 184–200.
Zeimba, C., Larive, O., Reynaert, E., Morgenroth, E., 2018. Chemical composition,
nutrient balancing and biological treatment of hand washing greywater. Water Res.
144, 752–762.
Zhu, J., Wagner, M., Cornel, P., Chen, H., Dai, X., 2016. Feasibility of on-site greywater
reuse for toilet flushing in China. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination 8, 1–13.
Zipf, M.S., Pinheiro, I.G., Conegero, M.G., 2016. Simplified greywater treatment systems:
slow filters of sand and slate waste followed by granular activated carbon.
J. Environ. Manag. 176, 119–127.
Zraunig, A., Estelrich, M., Gattringer, H., Kisser, J., Langergraber, G., Radtke, M.,
Rodriguez-Roda, I., Buttiglieri, G., 2019. Long term decentralized greywater
treatment for water reuse purposes in a tourist facility by vertical ecosystem. Ecol.
Eng. 138, 138–147.