Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Grey water reclamation by decentralized MBR prototype

Carme Santasmasas a , Miquel Rovira b , Frederic Clarens b , César Valderrama c,∗
a
Recubrimientos y Moldeados S.A. (REMOSA), 08260 Súria, Spain
b
Fundació CTM Centre Tecnològic, 08240 Manresa, Spain
c
Departament d’Enginyeria Química, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Grey water treatment and reuse for non-drinking water requirements has become of great interest in
Received 27 July 2012 arid and semi-arid zones where water resources are becoming both quantitatively and qualitatively
Received in revised form 4 January 2013 scarce. In this study a decentralized and automatic MBR prototype has been designed and installed in the
Accepted 4 January 2013
REMOSA facilities for treatment of low-load grey water to be recycled in flushing-toilet application. The
recycling treatment of grey water comprises four stages: screening, biological oxidation, filtration and
Keywords:
a final disinfection by chlorination. The influent and effluent were monitored in order to determine the
Grey water
treatment efficiency and assessment of the quality potential of treated grey water. The results obtained
Wastewater treatment
Water reuse
indicate that recycling of grey water allows an effluent of excellent quality with organic, surfactants
Membrane bioreactor and microbial parameters under the limits defined by Spanish legislation for urban water reuse. The
Recycled water disinfection of treated grey water is required to ensure compliance with microbial standards and to
Disinfection avoid the health risk in storage and application of recycled water.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of water savings in domestic residences (Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino,

Water stress is a reality in many European countries and climate
change will only accentuate the frequency and intensity of those
events in the future, especially in southern European countries
(EEA, 2009; Santos et al., 2012). With pressures on potable water
supplies continuing to increase worldwide, interest in the use of
alternative water sources such as recycled wastewater is also grow-
ing (Bixio et al., 2006; Chu et al., 2004; Revitt et al., 2011). In this
scope, grey water reuse is a process with significant importance and
development, to achieve sustainable water consumption in build-
ings (Santos et al., 2012). This is because grey water generally has
a lower organic pollutant and pathogen content than combined
municipal wastewater which also contains toilet waste (Eriksson
et al., 2002). Thus, grey water is considered particularly suitable for
on-site (i.e. decentralized) treatment and reuse (Revitt et al., 2011).
Grey water is defined as wastewater generated from domestic
activities such as dish washing, laundry and bathing, whereas black
water consists of toilet water. Grey water can be further classified as
low load and high load in terms of organic strength. Low-load grey
water excludes the more polluted kitchen and laundry wastewa-
ter (Friedler, 2004; Winward et al., 2008a,b). Considering that grey
water accounts for as much as 50–80% of the total domestic water
use, the grey water reuse represents the largest potential source
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 93 4011818; fax: +34 93 401 58 14.
E-mail address: cesar.alberto.valderrama@upc.edu (C. Valderrama).
2010; Christova-Boal et al., 1996; Eriksson et al., 2002). According
to WHO, grey water can contribute to this as it is: (a) still water; (b)
makes up the largest volume of the waste flow from households (c)
has nutrient content that, although low, can be beneficially used
for crop irrigation; (d) has low pathogen content; and, (e) can be
used to reduce the demand for first use water (Mandal et al., 2011;
WHO, 2006).
Grey water production and potential for reuse depends, among
other factors, on the buildings activity. In dwellings and residential
buildings, treated grey water reuse might represent 40–47% reduc-
tion of total water consumption (Santos et al., 2012). The grey water
treatment system designs vary based on the site conditions and
grey water characteristics. The design of a grey water reuse system
primarily depends on quantity to be treated and reuse applications
(Mandal et al., 2011).
Many new technologies have been developed to treat grey
water (Diaper et al., 2010; Friedler et al., 2005; Gross et al.,
2007; Hills et al., 2001; Ogoshi et al., 2001). The major difficulty
presented for treatment of GW is the large variation in its com-
position. Reused GW should fulfil four criteria: hygienic safety,
aesthetics, environmental tolerance, and technical and economic
feasibility (Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino, 2010; DHWA, 2002). Biologi-
cal grey water treatment technology options for grey water reuse
include membrane bioreactor (Jefferson et al., 2001; Lesjean and
Gnirss, 2006), rotating biological contactor (Friedler et al., 2005;
Nolde, 1999) or constructed wetland (Dallas and Ho, 2005). All
these biological systems have been capable of meeting a 10 mg/L

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.004
 C. Santasmasas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107
Fig. 1. Scheme of the MBR prototype used for grey water treatment: 1. filter (1 mm), 2. bioreactor, 3. air diffusers, 4. membranes, 5. extraction pump, 6. chlorination tank.
biological oxygen demand (BOD) standard. The major difference
between technologies has been the level of suspended solids and
microorganism removal (Winward et al., 2008a). Indicator bacte-
ria (coliforms, Escherichia coli and enterococci) are consistently
detected in grey water (Ottoson and Stenström, 2003), demonstrat-
ing the potential for a range of enteric pathogenic bacteria (e.g.
Salmonella, Campylobacter), protozoa (e.g. Cryptosporidium, Giar-
dia) and viruses (e.g. rotavirus, norovirus) to persist in grey water
(Winward et al., 2008a).
The aim of this study is to design and operate a decentralized
MBR prototype to treat grey water from showers and bathroom
sinks in REMOSA facilities. The grey and recycled water have been
characterized in order to evaluate the performance of MBR treat-
ment and to define the effluent quality according to the Royal
Spanish Decree for water reuse. This legislation can be consid-
ered relevant worldwide for similar applications in the absence of
specific regulations. A final disinfection step has been also consid-
ered in order to avoid the health risk and negative aesthetic and
environmental effects on recycled water.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental setup
The grey water is produced in the showers and bathroom sinks
of the REMOSA production plant facilities. Grey water was trans-
ported and stored into an intermediate accumulation tank of 500 L
(at ambient temperature). The recycling treatment of grey water
by MBR prototype designed by REMOSA comprises the following
stages: (i) Screening: separation of any debris that could dam-
age the membranes with a mesh size of 1 mm. (ii) Biological
oxidation: the decomposition of the organic matter takes place
in the bioreactor like in conventional activated sludge process
(CAS). (iii) Filtration: the solid/liquid separation is produced by
means of ultrafiltration membrane technology. A suction system
applies a vacuum pressure in the membranes and creates an inward
flow whereby the water penetrates through the membranes while
solids and bacteria are retained in the external wall. (iv) Chlo-
rination and accumulation: the recycled water is chlorinated by
adding a small quantity of sodium hypochlorite (<1 ppm of free
chlorine) allowing the sanitary properties to be conserved and, sub-
sequently, it can be stored in the in the chlorination tank. Thanks
to the degradation of organic matter in the biological reactor, com-
pared with alternatives grey water treatments like sand filtration
and chlorination, is expected a reduction in the generation of the
103
undesired disinfection-by-products (DBP) like organo-chlorinated
compounds. The MBR prototype scheme for grey water reuse is
shown in Fig. 1.
The prototype system is a submerged MBR with a bioreactor
volume of 1200 L and a chlorination tank of 500 L with two flat
sheet polyethersulfone (PES) membranes with a pore size of 50 nm
and total area of 7 m2 . The system was designed to operate auto-
matically; following permeate extraction cycles according to the
water levels inside the prototype in order to assure the water sup-
ply. The prototype was started up in February 2008 and fed for 300
days with a maximum recycling capacity of 1500 L/day (hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of 19.5 h) with permeate flux of 19.2 LMH
(L/m2 h), which could satisfy the water needs for recharging the
WC cisterns of a housing estate with 40 residents. The membrane
cleaning was performed by means of air diffusers, while chemical
cleaning was performed soaking the membranes during 2 h with a
sodium hypochlorite solution (0.16%).
2.2. Chemical analyses
The COD, total suspended solids (TSS) and anionic surfactants
contents were determined according to Standard Methods (Clesceri
et al., 1998). BOD5 , conductivity (Crison GLP31–32), nitrogen Kjel-
dahl and P-total were measured by the procedures of the Spanish
Standard Methods (UNE standards) (UNE-EN, 1993, 1997) of water
quality and nitrogen reported as total nitrogen (NKj BÜCHI K-
355). Further, pH, and turbidity data were measured using a
GLP-22, Crison pH metre, and turbidity metre (HACH COMPANY
2100N), respectively. The microbial parameters, E. coli as well as
the total and faecal coliforms were determined by standard meth-
ods (Clesceri et al., 1998). Following the approval of Royal Decree
1620/2007 (RD1620, 2007), the method for intestinal nematode
eggs was updated. During the experimental test, the total nema-
todes were analyzed by the method described by Ayres and Mara
(1996) on 1 L of sample. The samples collected to analyze COD,
SS, BOD5 , temperature, conductivity, turbidity and pH were 50,
while P-total, nitrogen and microbial parameters were limited to
25. Sampling and monitoring was performed approximately every
48 h during the first month and then every 7 days under stabilized
conditions.
Dissolved oxygen plus temperature, pressure gauge and flow
rate were determined by means of OxyMax W COS 41 Membrane-
covered amperometric sensor (Endress+Hauser), Cerabar T PMP
131 Pressure Transducer (Endress+Hauser), and Proline promag
50/53 W flow rate (Endress+Hauser), respectively. Finally the data
104 C. Santasmasas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107

Table 1 200
Grey water
Influent low-load grey water characterization.
Recycled
RD1620
Parameter Number of Grey water 150

SS (mg/L)
samples

Min. Average Max. 100

pH 50 7.2 7.7 8.3

Conductivity (␮S/cm) 50 910 1267 1652 50
MES (mg/L) 50 22 57.5 160
Turbidity (UNT) 50 50 68 158 0
DBO5 (mgO2 /L) 50 50 138 258 0 50 100 150 200 250
DQO (mgO2 /L) 50 153 302 461 Time (days)
Surfactant (mg LSS/L) 25 0.1 7.1 20
E. coli (CFU 100 mL−1 ) 25 80 3.3 × 104 4.4 × 105 20 200
Recycled
Nematode eggs (egg/10 L) 25 <1 <1 <1 RD1620

Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity (NTU)
P total (mg/L) 25 0.8 3 15 Grey water
15 150
N total (mg/L) 25 11 23 36

10 100
collection and control process were performed by means of pro-
grammable logic controller (PLC) SE300 Siemens. 5 50

3. Results and discussion 0 0

The influent grey water for MBR prototype was characterized
during the experiment and the values indicate that the influent cor-
respond to the typical low-load grey water (Friedler, 2004; Paris
and Schlapp, 2010; Winward et al., 2008a) as can be shown in
Table 1 where main parameters are presented.
3.1. COD and BOD5 removal
The influent, effluent, and removal of COD and BOD5 during the
experimental period are shown in Fig. 2. A substantial reduction is
observed in the removal of organic matter, with averages of 90%
for the COD and of 95% for the BOD5 . This high, stable reduction
is enhanced because the membranes allow working with higher
concentrations in the reactor and in turn, guarantee retention of
biomass and part of the organic and inorganic matter. In the absence
of limits for COD and BOD5 parameters in the RD1620 (2007), the
reference regulation is the European Directive 91/271 EEC (CEC,
1991), which sets the discharge limits of purified water: 125 mg
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (days)
Fig. 3. Evolution of SS and turbidity in grey water and the recycled water.
O2 /L for the COD and 25 mg O2 /L for the BOD5 , which are also shown
for comparison in Fig. 2. In all cases effluent values are guaranteed
to be substantially below the limits.
From the point of view of the water reuse, the international
guidelines about the maximum values allowed of BOD5 for differ-
ent uses varied from 5 and 20 mg O2 /L of average concentration
(Queensland Government, 2005; US EPA, 2004). The average con-
centration for BOD5 in recycled water was 6.2 mg O2 /L. It means
that, the common indicator of effectiveness removal of organic mat-
ter is under or close to the most restricted international limits for
water reuse for the MBR prototype.
3.2. Quality criteria for wastewater reuse

During grey water treatment with MBR prototype physico-

500 Grey water chemical (SS and turbidity) and microbial (E. coli and nematode
Recycled eggs) pollutants were qualitatively removed according to the limits
400 91/270 EC
COD (mgO2 /L)

determined by the Spanish royal decree 1620/2007 for wastewater

reuse (RD1620, 2007). The evolution of the influent and effluent SS
300
and the value of 10 mg/L defined by the Spanish royal decree for
200 residential use are shown in Fig. 3.
It can be observed how the effluent values were lower than
100 the limit defined for wastewater reuse (urban and residential).
The average SS concentration was 1.3 mg/L, representing a total
0 removal of 98%. The quality criteria defined for the international
0 50 100 150 200 250
guidelines varied from 5 to 30 mg/L for some states in the USA
Time (days)
(US EPA, 2004) to 20 mg/L in certain government regulations
250 (Queensland Government, 2005). Thus, the values obtained in this
Grey water
Recycled study are under the Spanish Royal decree and other international
BOD5(mgO2 /L)

200 91/270 EC
guidelines and regulations for water reuse. Turbidity was also con-
150 trolled considering the water quality criteria for wastewater reuse,
thus, in Fig. 3 is showed the evolution of this parameter for MBR
100 prototype. Here, the limits defined for Spanish Royal decree are 2
and 10 NTU for residential and urban use, respectively. It is impor-
50 tant to point out that, international guidelines and regulations
define the same maximum value defined in the Spanish legislation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 (Queensland Government, 2005; US EPA, 2004). The turbidity in
Time (days) effluent was 1.2 NTU as average value. Both parameters remained
constant from start-up independently of the variability of intake
Fig. 2. Evolution of the COD and BOD5 in grey water and the recycled water. water values. In this sense, the small pore size of the membranes
 C. Santasmasas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107 105

6
Grey water
the Queensland government define 6–8.5 and 1600 ␮S/cm as the
E. Coli log (cfu/100mL)

5 Recycled specification range and maximum value allowed for pH and con-
RD1620 ductivity, respectively (Queensland Government, 2005). In this
4
study, these parameters reported an average value of 7.9 and
3 1244 ␮S/cm for pH and conductivity, respectively. Finally, the
10

total nitrogen and phosphorus concentration were also monitored

2
during the experiment. No significant differences were observed
1 between influent and effluent for both parameters, thus ions
0
removal is not achieved by the ultrafiltration step.
0 50 100 150 200 250 A parameter not considered in the RD1620 (2007), but interest-
Time (days) ing for the present study, is the level of surfactants. A high removal
40 efficiency of anionic surfactants, defined as sodium lauryl sulphate,
Grey water
is observed, with an average reduction of 98%, with stable values in
Nematode eggs/10 L

30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (days)
Fig. 4. Evolution of the Escherichia coli and nematode eggs in grey water and the
recycled water.
guaranteed retention of the particles and, therefore, compliance of
these two parameters.
The microbial parameters were also monitored in order to define
if the effluent from MBR prototype was under the limits defined for
wastewater reuse. In Fig. 4 is shown the evolution of the influent
and effluent concentration of E. coli (log10 CFU 100 mL−1 ) as well as
the limit defined by the Spanish Royal decree for this parameter
for wastewater reuse. It is observed that effluent was 1 log10 units
lower than limit defined for urban service, agricultural and recre-
ational uses and most of the days the effluent is below the detection
limit of the analytical method (0 CFU 100 mL−1 ). The ensuing chlo-
rination of the recycled water assures the absence of E. coli, and
conserves the microbiological quality of the water with time ful-
filling the limit of wastewater recycled for residential use.
In the case of nematode eggs (Fig. 4), in spite of carrying out the
tracking exercise from start-up, only the results from day 150 are
representative since it was not until then that the analytic method
was adapted to work with a sample of 10 L. The results prior to this
date were determined by extrapolation from a sample of 1 L. The
final results revealed the absence of nematode eggs both at the inlet
and output water.
Other quality parameters defined by international guidelines
and legislation are pH and electrical conductivity. For instance
Recycled
RD1620 the output below 0.2 mg/L, independently of the incoming water
levels. In Table 2 are summarized the effluent parameters moni-
tored during the experiment.
Considering the results obtained in this study, it can be
stated that the MBR prototype can achieve satisfactory removal
efficiencies of organic substances, surfactants and microbial con-
taminations. Furthermore, the MBR effluent quality meets most
250 of the standards for non-potable urban reuse (urban, agricul-
tural and recreational) (Queensland Government, 2005; RD1620,
2007). The BOD5 concentration was the only standard that was
not meet under the regulation set for the state of Texas for unre-
stricted urban use, which requires that not exceed 5 mg/L (monthly
average), except when reclaimed water is used for landscape
impoundments. In that case, BOD is limited to 10 mg/L (US EPA,
2004).
3.3. Implications of MBR + disinfection treatment
It is clear that faecal contamination of grey water is a common
occurrence and therefore the potential exists for a range of fae-
cally transmitted pathogens to be passed into grey water (Winward
et al., 2008b). The total and faecal coliforms, which are generally
used as indicators to determine the degree of disinfection (US EPA,
2004) were also monitored during the experiment, the influent con-
centration were around 7 log10 CFU 100 mL−1 , while the effluent of
MBR prototype were lower than 5 CFU 100 mL−1 for most of the
samples, however, the average of these parameters were around
1 log10 CFU 100 mL−1 during the experiment. Then, disinfection of
grey water is required to ensure compliance with microbial stan-
dards for reuse to avoid the health risk and negative aesthetic and
environmental effects (Li et al., 2009). In the study of chlorine dis-
infection of grey water for reuse purpose performed by Winward
et al. (2008b) was concluded that: (i) the organic concentration
affects disinfectant demand but does not influence microbial resis-
tance to inactivation and (ii) additional removal of organics is also
beneficial, creating a low, stable chorine demand, and reducing the

Table 2
Recycled water characterization before chlorination step.

Parameter Number of samples Recycled water Removal efficiency (%)

Min. Average Max.

pH 50 7.5 7.9 8.3

Conductivity (␮S/cm) 50 931 1244 1633
MES (mg/L) 50 <1 1.3 5 98%
Turbidity (UNT) 50 0.2 1.2 4.3 98%
DBO5 (mgO2 /L) 50 1 6 16 95%
DQO (mgO2 /L) 50 5 29 74 90%
Surfactant (mg LSS/L) 25 0.06 0.1 0.6 98%
E. coli (CFU 100 mL−1 ) 25 <5a <5a 100 Log 4
Nematode eggs (egg/10 L) 25 <1 <1 <1
P total (mg/L) 25 2 3 8
N total (mg/L) 25 14 22 30
a
Detection limit.
106 C. Santasmasas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107
potential for microbial regrowth in the distribution system and, in
the case of toilet-flushing applications, the toilet cistern.
In viewing of results obtained in this study is possible to state
that MBR treatment plus disinfection step can achieve satisfactory
removal efficiencies of organic substances, surfactants and micro-
bial contamination. This is an important fact from the point of view
of water reuse. Furthermore, if it is considered that levels of organ-
ics are clearly reduced by the MBR treatment, then, the disinfection
step requires less amount of chlorine which represents low capac-
ity to carcinogenic disinfection by-products formation potentials
(DBPFPs) of health and ecosystem concerns (Chen and Westerhoff,
2010).
3.4. Reduction of potable water consumption
Fresh water use needs to be prioritized to those water uses that
have no other options, such as drinking water. Grey water can
replace fresh water, in the case of uses like watering lawns and
flushing toilets (Madungwe and Sakuringwa, 2007). In this study,
the prototype is able to produce around 430 m3 per year of recycled
water, which represents that the same amount of potable water can
be potentially saved for toilet-flushing application.
Finally, the installation operational and maintenance cost esti-
mation was performed considered that prototype can produce
1155 L/day with a power consumption of 2.9 kWh/m3 , which rep-
resents 1.8 D/m3 serving 40 PE (person equivalents) in REMOSA
facilities. The removal of waste produced by the treatment unit
is performed once a year and it is performed by submerged pump
without requesting the use of a tanker truck, which significantly
reduces the cost of this operation. In comparison, a larger MBR
grey water treatment unit with nominal capacity of 3696 L/day
reduced its energy consumption to 2.0 kWh/m3 . This fact is related
to the large air supply requirements for membrane scouring in com-
parison with the requirements for biodegradation of organic load.
Additionally, larger units have different geometric configurations
that also help to improve the process performance while the cost
for controllers is the same independently of the unit size. Thus, a
key factor on water treatment cost is the scale of the installation
and an increase in the capacity by a factor of 2.3 can represent a
reduction in energy consumption of 30% approximately.
4. Conclusions
Grey water reuse is a potential method to reduce potable water
consumption in buildings, in view of this perspective a MBR proto-
type was designed and operated in REMOSA facilities. The recycling
of grey water allows an effluent of excellent quality which achieves
the requirements of the RD1620 for the most restrictive use (urban
residential use) and other documents (international guidelines,
European directive) in terms of water quality for water reuse.
The biological treatment and physical separation by membranes
assures that the effluent quality in SS, turbidity, and microbial
parameters are maintained with time, independently of the vari-
ations in flow and contamination of the incoming water. The use
of membranes allows the biomass to be retained and concentrated
in the reactor and, as this increases and matures, the removal effi-
ciency of organic matter (COD and BOD5 ) also increases. Finally, the
MBR treatment can achieve excellent efficiency removing of micro-
bial parameters; however a disinfection step is required in order to
ensure that recycled water can be applied without any health risk.
The reduced concentration of organic compounds in the recycled
water limits the generation of organo-chlorinated compounds. A
total 430 m3 per year of potable water is potentially saved by using
the decentralized MBR prototype to treat grey water and using
recycled water in flushing-toilet application.
Acknowledgments
This research was financially supported by the Spanish Ministry
of Industry, Tourism and Trade through the Centre for the Devel-
opment of Industrial Technology (CDTI) through the CENIT project
SOSTAQUA and Centre for Innovation and Business Development
(CIDEM) of Generalitat de Catalunya.
References
Al-Hamaiedeh H, Bino M. Effect of treated grey water reuse in irrigation on soil and
plants. Desalination 2010;256:115–9.
Ayres RM, Mara DD. Analysis of wastewater for use in agriculture – a laboratory
manual of parasitological and bacteriological techniques. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 1996.
Bixio D, Thoeye C, De Koning J, Joksimovic D, Savic D, Wintgens T, et al. Wastewater
reuse in Europe. Desalination 2006;187:89–101.
CEC. Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment
(91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities 1991;L135:40–52.
Chen B, Westerhoff P. Predicting disinfection by-product formation potential in
water. Water Research 2010;44:3755–62.
Christova-Boal D, Evans RE, McFarlane S. An investigation into greywater reuse for
urban residential properties. Desalination 1996;106:391–7.
Chu J, Chen J, Wang C, Fu P. Wastewater reuse potential analysis: implications for
China’s water resources management. Water Research 2004;38:2746–56.
Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. 20th ed. APHA, AWWA, AEF; 1998.
Dallas S, Ho G. Subsurface flow reedbeds using alternative media for the treatment of
domestic grey water in Monteverde, Costa Rica, Central America. Water Science
and Technology 2005;51:119–28.
DHWA (Department of Health Western Australia). Draft guidelines for the reuse of
greywater in Western Australia. Perth, Australia: Department of Health; 2002.
p. 37.
Diaper C, Dixon A, Butler D, Fewkes A, Parsons SA, Stephenson T, et al. Small scale
water recycling systems – risk assessment and modelling. Water Science and
Technology 2010;43:83–90.
EEA (European Environment Agency). Water resources across Europe – confronting
water scarcity and drought. EEA Report No. 2/2009. Copenhagen: EEA; 2009.
Eriksson E, Auffarth KPS, Henze M, Ledin A. Characteristics of grey wastewater. Urban
Water Journal 2002;4:85–104.
Friedler E. Quality of individual domestic grey water streams and its implica-
tion for on-site treatment and reuse possibilities. Environmental Technology
2004;25:997–1008.
Friedler E, Kovalio R, Galil NI. On-site grey water treatment and reuse in multi-storey
buildings. Water Science and Technology 2005;51:187–94.
Gross A, Shmueli O, Oron G, Ronen Z, Raveh E. Recycled vertical flow constructed
wetland (RVFCW)—a novel method of recycling greywater for irrigation in small
communities and households. Chemosphere 2007;66:916–23.
Hills S, Smith A, Hardy P, Birks R. Water recycling at the Millennium Dome. Water
Science and Technology 2001;43(10):287–94.
Jefferson B, Laine AL, Stephenson T, Judd SJ. Advanced biological unit processes for
domestic water recycling. Water Science and Technology 2001;43:211–8.
Lesjean B, Gnirss R. Grey water treatment with a membrane bioreactor operated at
low SRT and low HRT. Desalination 2006;199:432–4.
Li F, Wichmann K, Otterpohl R. Review of the technological approaches for grey water
treatment and reuses. Science of the Total Environment 2009;407:3439–49.
Madungwe E, Sakuringwa S. Greywater reuse: a strategy for water demand man-
agement in Harare? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 2007;32:1231–6.
Mandal D, Labhasetwar P, Dhone S, Dubey AS, Shinde G, Wate S. Water conservation
due to greywater treatment and reuse in urban setting with specific con-
text to developing countries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2011;55:
356–61.
Nolde E. Grey water reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings—over
ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water Journal 1999;1:275–84.
Ogoshi M, Suzuki Y, Asano T. Water reuse in Japan. Water Science and Technology
2001;43:17–23.
Ottoson J, Stenström TA. Faecal contamination of grey water and associated micro-
bial risks. Water Research 2003;37:645–55.
Paris S, Schlapp C. Greywater recycling in Vietnam – application of the HUBER MBR
process. Desalination 2010;250:1027–30.
Queensland Government. Queensland water recycling guidelines. Australia: Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, The State of Queensland; 2005. http://www.derm.
qld.gov.au/water/regulation/recycling/pdf/recycle guidelines.pdf
RD1620, 2007. Real Decreto 1620/2007 de 7 de diciembre, por el que se establece
el régimen jurídico de la reutilización de las aguas depuradas. BOE n◦ 294, 8 de
diciembre de 2007.
Revitt DM, Eriksson E, Donner E. The implications of household greywater treat-
ment and reuse for municipal wastewater flows and micropollutant loads. Water
Research 2011;45:1549–60.
Santos C, Taveira-Pinto F, Cheng CY, Leite D. Development of an experimental system
for greywater reuse. Desalination 2012;285:301–5.
UNE-EN-25663:1993. Water quality determination of Kjeldahl nitrogen, method
after mineralization with selenium [ISO 5663:1984].
 C. Santasmasas et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72 (2013) 102–107 107

UNE-EN-1189:1997. Calidad del agua. Determinación del fósforo. Método espec-
trométrico con molibdato amónico.
US EPA. Guidelines for water reuse EPA/624/R-04/108. Washington, DC, USA: Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency; 2004.
WHO, 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater, vol.
4. Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture.
Winward GP, Avery LM, Frazer-Williams R, Pidou M, Jeffrey P, Stephenson T, et al.
A study of the microbial quality of grey water and an evaluation of treatment
technologies for reuse. Ecological Engineering 2008a;32:187–97.
Winward GP, Avery LM, Stephenson T, Jefferson B. Chlorine disinfection of
grey water for reuse: effect of organics and particles. Water Research
2008b;42:483–91.