See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257587685

Characteristics of Grey Wastewater

Article  in  Urban Water · March 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S1462-0758(01)00064-4

CITATIONS READS

546 7,054

4 authors, including:

Eva Eriksson Mogens Henze

School of Business and Economics Technical University of Denmark
78 PUBLICATIONS   2,196 CITATIONS    145 PUBLICATIONS   10,397 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waste material recycling: Assessement of contaminants limiting recycling View project

ScorePP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mogens Henze on 27 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
www.elsevier.com/locate/urbwat

Characteristics of grey wastewater

Eva Eriksson *, Karina Auffarth, Mogens Henze, Anna Ledin
Environment & Resources DTU, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet, Building 115, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Received 1 February 2001; received in revised form 7 September 2001; accepted 25 October 2001

Abstract
The composition of grey wastewater depends on sources and installations from where the water is drawn, e.g. kitchen, bathroom
or laundry. The chemical compounds present originate from household chemicals, cooking, washing and the piping. In general grey
wastewater contains lower levels of organic matter and nutrients compared to ordinary wastewater, since urine, faeces and toilet
paper are not included. The levels of heavy metals are however in the same concentration range. The information regarding the
content of xenobiotic organic compounds (XOCs) is limited. From this study, 900 different XOCs were identified as potentially
present in grey wastewater by the use of tables of contents of household chemical products. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Characteristics; Grey wastewater; Greywater; Literature review; Reuse; Water quality; Xenobiotic organic compounds

1. Introduction characteristics will be of importance when evaluating the

There is an increasing interest in the reuse of waste-
water in many parts of the world, including both in-
dustrial and developing countries. One reason is water
shortage, caused by too low amounts of rainfall in
combination with high evaporation (e.g., Australia) or
too large demands of freshwater from the population
(e.g., Japan). On the other side in some countries, the
driving force for reuse of wastewater is environmental
and economical considerations. The reuse will lower the
total costs for wastewater handling, since there will be a
reduced load of water to the treatment plants.
Grey wastewater is defined as wastewater without any
input from toilets, which means that it corresponds to
wastewater produced in bathtubs, showers, hand basins,
laundry machines and kitchen sinks, in households, of-
fice buildings, schools, etc. The total grey wastewater
fraction has been estimated to account for about 75
vol% of the combined residential sewage (Hansen &
Kjellerup, 1994 and references therein).
Possibilities of reuse for grey wastewater have come
into special focus. The explanation is that this fraction
of wastewater is less polluted than municipal wastewater
in the absence of faeces, urine and toilet paper. The
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45-4525-1600; fax: +45-4592-2850.
E-mail address: eve@er.dtu.dk (E. Eriksson).
possibilities for reuse, including the need for pre-treat-
ment. Health aspects, mainly micro-organisms, and
environmental perspectives like accumulation of xeno-
biotic organic compounds (XOCs) and metals in soil
and groundwater, have to be taken into account.
Use of grey wastewater for urinal and toilet flushing
is one of the possibilities since the water that is used for
toilet flushing in many countries today is of drinking
water quality. It has been estimated that 30% of the total
household water consumption could be saved by reusing
grey wastewater for flushing toilets (Karpiscak, Foster,
& Schmidt, 1990). Reuse of grey wastewater from
bathrooms has been successfully used in Germany where
it has been shown that it is technically feasible and
health requirements can be met. Substantial volumes of
water ð15–55 l pd1 Þ can be reused and a dual system is
possible (Nolde, 1999). A review of the current water
demands in large buildings revealed that not only grey
wastewater from bathrooms but also washing machine
wastewater or stormwater is needed to provide sufficient
recycled water for non-potable uses (Surendran &
Wheatley, 1998). Outdoor applications for grey waste-
water could be irrigation of lawns on college campuses,
athletic fields, cemeteries, parks and golf courses as well
as in the domestic garden (Okun, 1997). Washing of
vehicles and windows, fire protection, boiler feedwater
and concrete production are examples of other
suggested usages (Okun, 1997; Santala et al., 1998). In

1462-0758/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 4 6 2 - 0 7 5 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - 4
86 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
addition, grey wastewater could be used to develop and
preserve wetlands (Otterpohl, Albold, & Olgenburg,
1999). An alternative way of handling grey wastewater is
to infiltrate it into the ground and thereby make a
shortcut in the urban hydrological cycle.
There are a number of problems related to the reuse
of untreated grey wastewater. The risk of spreading of
diseases, due to exposure to micro-organisms in the
water, will be a crucial point if the water is to be reused
for e.g. toilet flushing or irrigation. There is a risk that
micro-organisms in the water will be spread in the form
of aerosols that are generated as the toilets are flushed
(Albrechtsen, 1998; Christova-Boal, Eden, & McFar-
lane, 1996; Feachem, Bradley, Garelick, & Mara, 1983).
Both inhaling and hand to mouth contact can be dan-
gerous. Growth within the system is another source for
micro-organisms and some chemicals. Dixon, Butler,
and Fewkes (1999a) have outlined the health risks as-
sociated with the microbial contamination of grey
wastewater by making a hazard identification and a risk
characterisation of the organisms potentially present
and the exposure routes and proposed a framework for
new health guidelines for reuse.
Several countries and states have/or are working on
the guidelines for reuse of treated wastewater for non-
potable reuse. In the USA, California has limited the
levels of total coliforms to max 2.2 per 100 ml in re-
claimed water for use in toilet and urinal flushing,
commercial laundries and in decorative fountains. In
Florida, reclaimed water for toilet flushing and for the
irrigation of recreation areas must contain no detected
faecal coliforms per 100 ml (Crook & Surampalli, 1996).
WHO guidelines for treated wastewater used for irri-
gation of agricultural crops and public sports fields limit
faecal coliforms to <1000 per 100 ml and nematodes to
<1 per litre (World Health Organization, 1989). In
Australia, guideline values of thermotolerant coliforms
are set on four levels, for recreational applications these
are <150 per 100 ml and for higher contacts e.g., irri-
gation of salad vegetables are lighter at <10 per 100 ml
(Gregory, Lugg, & Sanders, 1996). In Germany, the
corresponding limits are total coliforms < 100 ml1 and
faecal coliforms < 10 ml1 as well as Pseudomonas
aeruginosa < 1 ml1 (Nolde, 1999 and references there-
in).
The risk for pollution of soil and receiving waters due
to the content of different pollutants is another question
that has been raised concerning infiltration and irriga-
tion with grey wastewater. For instance, Christova-Boal
et al. (1996) stated that infiltration and irrigation may
lead to elevated concentrations of detergents (for ex-
ample) in the soil and some plants may suffer due the
alkaline water. These pollutants, XOCs, originate from
the chemical products (soaps, detergents, etc.) used in
the households’ for personal care products and cleaning
detergents (for example). Many are synthetic and their
effect and spreading is only partially known. The soaps
are alkali salts of long-chained fatty acids, while the
detergents consist of surfactants as well as a number of
other chemicals to improve the function e.g. builders,
bleaches, enzymes, etc.
The grey wastewater that is going to be reused must
also be of satisfactory technical quality. Suspended
solids may cause clogging of the distribution system.
Another related problem is the risk of sulphide, which
will give offensive odours and thereby cause public
nuisance (Jeppesen, 1996).
It can thereby be concluded that it is necessary, when
planning reuse of grey wastewater, to properly cha-
racterise the water with respect to physical parameters,
as well as the content of both chemical compounds and
micro-organisms.
2. Objectives
The main objective of this study is to review the
present knowledge with respect to the characteristics of
grey wastewater. As the information is limited, the
methodology includes estimates. The information that is
needed for estimation of the characteristics will be ob-
tained from combining the data available from mea-
surement in grey wastewater, with a survey of which
chemical compounds and micro-organisms that theo-
retically could be expected to be present. The potential
content of chemical compounds will be based on the
declaration of contents on the packages for the chemical
household products as well as on industrial production
statistics. The priority of the parameters with respect to
risk will be based on a method for environmental hazard
identification usually applied to new compounds that
are going to be introduced into the market.
3. Characteristics of grey wastewater
The characteristics of grey wastewater depend firstly
on the quality of the water supply, secondly on the type
of distribution net for both drinking water and the grey
wastewater (leaching from piping, chemical and bio-
logical processes in the biofilm on the piping walls) and
thirdly from the activities in the household. The com-
pounds present in the water vary from source to source,
where the lifestyles, customs, installations and use of
chemical household products will be of importance. The
composition will vary significantly in terms of both place
and time due to the variations in water consumption in
relation to the discharged amounts of substances. Fur-
thermore, there could be chemical and biological de-
gradation of the chemical compounds, within the
transportation network and during storage.
 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
3.1. Physical and chemical parameters
Physical parameters of relevance are temperature,
colour, turbidity and content of suspended solids. High
temperatures may be unfavourable since they favour
microbial growth and could in supersaturated waters,
induce precipitation (e.g. calcite).
Food particles and raw animal fluids from kitchen
sinks and soil particles, hair and fibres from laundry
wastewater are examples of sources of solid material in
the grey wastewater. Measurements of turbidity and
suspended solids give some information about the con-
tent of particles and colloids that could induce clogging
of installations such as the piping used for transporta-
tion or sandfilters used for treatment. Although the
amount of solids is expected to be lower than in com-
bined wastewater, the risk for practical problems related
to clogging should not be neglected. The reason is that
the combination of colloids and surfactants (from de-
tergents) could cause stabilisation of the solid phase, due
to sorption of the surfactants on the colloid surfaces.
This prevention of agglomeration of the colloidal matter
will reduce the efficiency of a pre-treatment step in-
cluding settling of solid matter.
The effects from infiltrating grey wastewater on soil
pH and buffering capacity will be determined by the
alkalinity, hardness and pH of the infiltrating water.
However, the effect observed will also be influenced by
the natural buffering capacity of the soil. The properties
of the soil, regarding the sorption capacity of pollutants,
will change as a result of the infiltration. In addition,
measurements of alkalinity and hardness will, in a way
similar to turbidity and content of suspended solids, give
some information concerning the risk of clogging. These
parameters are largely determined by the quality of the
drinking water, while the influence of chemicals added
during the use of the water is generally limited in rela-
tion to these parameters.
Measurements of the traditional wastewater param-
eters like BOD, COD and the concentration of nutrients
(N and P) will also give valuable information. The
content of BOD and COD will indicate the risk of ox-
ygen depletion due to degradation of organic matter
during transport and storing and thereby the risk for
sulphide production.
Among the other pollutants, the content of heavy
metals (e.g. Al, Fe, Mn, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Zn, Ni, Cr) and
XOCs will be of importance. One other important factor
to take into consideration is what happens during stor-
age of grey wastewater; the characteristics of the fresh
grey wastewater and that stored can differ substantially.
Dixon, Butler, Fewkes, and Robinson (1999b) have
looked at the impact storage has on grey wastewater.
They found that storage for 24 h improved the quality of
the water but storage for more than 48 h could be a
serious problem as the dissolved oxygen was depleted.
87
3.2. Xenobiotic organic compounds
The XOCs that could be expected to be present in
grey wastewater constitute a heterogeneous group of
compounds and that is why they are given special at-
tention in this paper. They originate from the chemical
products used in households such as detergents, soaps,
shampoos, perfumes, preservatives, dyes and cleaners.
Kitchen wastewater contains lipids (fats and oils); tea,
coffee, soluble starch, diary products and glucose,
while the wastewater produced from laundry will
contain different types of detergents, bleaches and
perfumes.
3.2.1. Large volume (bulk) XOCs
One way to select the compounds that should be in-
cluded in a monitoring program could be based on
production data. Those compounds that are produced
and consumed in the largest quantities, the so-called
bulk compounds, could be expected to cause the largest
problems, when introduced into the environment. Ac-
cording to the data presented in Table 1, covering the
consumption statistics for some household products, it
can be expected to find large quantities of soaps and
detergents in the grey wastewater. Use differs slightly
between countries, but they are within the same order of
magnitude; a Danish consumer uses 2.3 kg per year of
shampoo and conditioner, while the Swedish consumer
uses 0.9–1.1 kg of shampoo per year. The amount of
softeners used in Europe in 1991 ranged from 2.5 kg per
person and year for the Italians up to 9.2 kg per each
Belgian (Puchta et al., 1993). However, it should be
noted that these data just illustrate the consumption of
household products, and not the consumption of indi-
vidual compounds. Such information is extremely diffi-
cult to obtain.
3.2.2. XOCs present in household chemicals according to
the table of contents
An alternative way to select the relevant compounds
for characterisation of grey wastewater could be based
on what compounds are potentially found in the
household’s chemicals in combination with an envi-
ronmental hazard identification. Based on the infor-
mation available in the declaration-of-contents on the
different types of common Danish household products,
covering products from shower creams to powder
laundry detergents, at least 900 different organic
chemical substances and compound groups can be lis-
ted. These are most likely to be present in household
wastewater.
The XOCs listed were divided into 14 different groups
depending on their functions in the chemical products
(Table 2). All chemical products used in households
usually contain several compounds from the different
groups. The findings above indicate that the number of
88 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Table 1
Calculation of the yearly consumption of household products per person
Chemical product Country Yearly consumption Yearly consumption per person
(106 kg) ðkg person1 year1 Þ
Household and industrial detergents Denmark 105a 19.8
Household detergents Sweden 4.4b 0.5
Laundry detergents Denmark 40c 7.5
Laundry detergents Finland 27c 5.2
Laundry detergents Norway 23c 5.2
Laundry detergents Sweden 49c 5.5
Laundry detergents USA 1000d 3.7
Shampoo and conditioners Denmark 12e 2.3
Shampoo Sweden 8–10b 0.9–1.1
Soap Sweden 8b 0.9
Softeners Europe – 6.0f
Population size: Denmark – 5.3 million in 1998 (Statistics Denmark, 1999), Finland – 5.2 million in 1999 (Statistics Finland, 2000), Norway – 4.4
million in 1998 (Statistics Norway, 2000), Sweden – 8.9 million in 1998 (Statistics Sweden, 1999), USA – 272.9 million in 1999 (National Center of
Health Statistics, 2000).
a
The National Consumer Agency in Denmark (1999).
b
Karlstr€
om and Svensson (1995).
c
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (2000).
d
Jenkins (1998).
e
Pedersen and Madsen (1998).
f
Puchta, Krings, and Sandk€ uhler (1993).

Table 2 prevent microbiological growth in the product. As they

Groups of compounds found in common household chemicals in are biocides and fungicides, they are toxic in some
Denmark
concentration. Some compounds do not fit into any of
Compound group Number of substances the groups, and have been placed in the group: miscel-
in the group
laneous.
Amphoteric detergents 20
Anionic detergents 73
Cationic detergents 34 3.2.3. Environmental hazard identification
Non-ionic detergents 65 The risk assessment was based on the classification
Bleaches 16 of the XOCs with respect to toxicity, bioaccumulation
Dyes 26 and biodegradation according to a method commonly
Emulsifiers 28
Enzymes 4
used for the evaluation of new chemicals that are going
Fragrances and flavours 197 to be introduced into the market (see e.g. Van Leeuwen
Preservatives 79 & Hermens, 1995). The compounds were divided into
Softeners 29 eight different groups depending on how environmen-
Solvents 67 tally hazardous the compounds are (see Table 3). Out
UV filters 23
Miscellaneous 238
of the approximately 900 substances identified as pre-
sent in household chemicals, a total of 66 compounds
were categorised as priority pollutants i.e. were placed
in the first three groups with the highest environmental
different chemical constituents that could be identified impact (Table 3). Of these, 34 are different types of
and quantified in grey wastewater in the future will be surfactants (an-, non-, cationic and amphoteric). For
numerous. Some of the compounds in Table 2 could be instance, compounds or groups of compounds like
placed in more than one group, but it was decided to LAS, nonylphenol- and other alkylphenol-ethoxylates
place them in the group that describes the dominant are included. Six different preservatives and seven
function of the compound. softeners are also among the prioritised 66 compounds.
The major compounds in the list are the surfactants Four of the softeners are esters of phthalic acid e.g.
used in detergents, dishwashing liquids and hygiene DEHP.
products i.e. non-ionic, anionic and amphoteric surfac- Only 211 of the compounds could be evaluated based
tants. Other large groups are the fragrances and fla- on the available information about toxicity, bioaccu-
vours, the solvents and the preservatives. The solvents mulation and degradation. It can, therefore, not be ex-
are used to dissolve organic compounds like fragrances cluded that the number of priority pollutants will
in otherwise water-based chemicals. Preservatives are increase dramatically if more information becomes
added to the vast majority of the household chemicals to available for the remaining 700 compounds.
 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
Table 3
Prioritised chemical compounds and the priority criteria
Compound group Compound
Amphoteric detergents Cocamidopropyl betaine
Alkylamide betaines
Alkylamidopropyl betaines
Alkyl betaines
Amidopropyl betaines
Amphoglycinates
Lauriminodipropionates
Lauroamphodiacetates
Anionic detergents a-Methylestersulphonate
a-Olefinsulphonate
Alkyl benzene sulphonates
Sulphonates
Alkane sulphonates
Alkyl ether sulphates
Alkyl sulphates
Alkyl sulphosuccinates
Isotridecanol ethoxylates
Panthenol
Cationic detergents Benzalkonium chloride
N-Hexadecyltrimethyl
ammonium chloride
DHTDMAC
DSDMAC
DTDMAC
Alkyltrimethylammonium
chloride
DADMAC
Non-ionic detergents Alkylphenol ethoxylates
(APEO)
Nonyl phenol (NPE)
Alcohol ethoxylates (AEO)
Alkyl amide ethoxylates
Alkyl amine ethoxylates
Fatty alcohols (EO/PO)
polymers
Fatty alcohol ethoxylates
(AEO)
Coconut diethanolamide
Ethylene glycol
Dyes 3,30 -Dichlorobenzidine
4,40 -Methylenebis-
(2-chlorobenzenamine)
o-Aminoazotoluene
Benzidine
o-Anisidine
Fragrances and Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde
flavours AHTN
HHCB
Styrene
Benzene-1,3-diol
p-Cresol
Preservatives Bronopol
Bronidox
5-Chloro-2-methyl-4-
isothiazolin-3-one
Imidazolidinyl urea
Triclosan
Quaternium-15
89
Table 3 (Continued)
Compound group Compound Priority
Priority
Softeners Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1
2 (DEPH)
3 Diisononylphthalate (DNP) 1
3 Ethylenediaminetetramethyl- 1
3 ene phosphonate (EDTMP)
3 Phosphonates 1
3 Dibutylphthalate (DBP) 2
3 Diethylphthalate (DEP) 3
3 Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) 3
2 Solvents Heptane 1
2 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2
2 Diethanolamine 3
2 Ethanolamine 3
3 Isopropanol 3
3 Phenol 3
3 Xylene 3
3 Misc. 2-Propene nitrile 3
3
3 Priority 1: Not biodegradable, potentially bioaccumulative;
BCF > 100, log Kow > 3, EC=LC50 < 1 mg l1 and N; R50/53. Pri-
1 ority 2: Biodegradable, potentially bioaccumulative; BCF > 100, log
1 Kow > 3, EC=LC50 < 1 mg l1 and N; R50/53. Priority 3: Biodegrad-
able, not potentially bioaccumulative; BCF < 100, log Kow < 3,
1 EC=LC50 < 1 mg l1 and N; R50.
1
2
3
3.2.4. By-products and degradation products
3 By-products can be formed when different chemicals
in the grey wastewater react with each other. Oxidation
1
and microbiological activity may also lead to production
1 of degradation products that have other properties than
2 the parent compounds. For instance, the presence of
2 chloro-containing powder detergents in machine dish-
2 washers has been found to increase the content of ad-
2
sorbable organic halogens (AOX) (Naturv ardsverket,
2 1992).
2
3 3.3. Micro-organisms
1
2
Pathogenic viruses, bacteria, protozoa and helminths
escape from the bodies of infected persons in their ex-
2 creta and may be passed onto others via exposure of
3 wastewater (see Table 4). These micro-organisms can be
3 introduced into grey wastewater by hand washing after
1 toilet use, washing of babies and small children con-
2 nected with diaper changes and diaper washing, as well
2 as from uncooked vegetables and raw meat. Knowledge
2 about the introduction, survival and transformation of
3
3
micro-organisms in a grey wastewater system is a highly
relevant issue to evaluate.
1 Eschericia coli is commonly used as an indicator of
1 faecal contamination and by investigating its content in
1
grey wastewater valuable information on health haz-
1 ards can be retrieved. Additionally, some viruses, e.g.
1 enteroviruses, can be spread in faecally contaminated
3 waters.
90 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Table 4 problem in relation to groundwater contamination due

Water and excreta-related pathogens to their large size, which results in their removal by fil-
Bacteria Helminths tration as the water percolates under gravity. Bacteria
Bacteroides fragilis Ancylostoma duodenale; and virus contamination of groundwater may, on the
Necator americanius
Bifidobacterium adolescentis Ascaris lumbricoides
other hand, be a serious problem. Organisms that are
Bifidobacterium longum Clonorchis sinensis relatively resistant to disinfection will prevail longer
Campylobacter jejuni Diphyllobothrium latum within the system i.e. Cryptosporidium and Giardia
Clostridium perfringens Enterobius vermicularis (protozoa). Clostridium perfringens (protozoa) spreads
E. coli Fasciola hepatica by spores and can survive longer than most other micro-
Eubacterium spp. Fasciolopsis buski
Faecal coliforms Gastrodiscoides hominis
organisms. The spores can be used as indicators of cu-
Helicobacter pylori Heterophyes heterophyes mulative faecal contamination. Many species of helm-
Lactobacilli Hymenolepsis spp. inths can infect humans but they cannot multiply within
Legionella pneumophilia Metagonimus yokogawai the host, with the exception of Strongyloides (Feachem
Leptospira Optisthorchis felineus et al., 1980). Legionella poses a specific threat since it
Peptococcus spp. O. viverrini
Peptostreptococcus spp. Paragonimus westermani
can be spread by aerosols and can be inhaled during
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Schistosoma haematobium surface irrigation or toilet flushing. Due to the fact that
Salmonella typhi S. japonicum it is resistant to water treatment processes, it can become
S. paratyphi S. mansoni a serious problem (Dixon et al., 1999a). In Table 4, there
Other salmonellae Strongyloides stercoralis is a list of pathogenic water and excreta related micro-
Shigella sonnei Taenia saginata
Other shigella T. solium
organisms found to be present in different types of wa-
Streptococcus bovis Trichuris trichiura ters including wastewaters.
S. durans Although urine should not be present, it has been
S. equines Viruses noticed that, from time to time, traces of urine are
S. faecalis Adenoviruses present in grey wastewater from bathrooms. Urine is
S. faecium Coxsackieviruses
Vibrio cholerae Echoviruses
generally sterile and harmless but some infections may
Other vibrios Hepatitis A virus cause pathogens to be passed into the urine. The three
Yersinia enterocolitica H. E virus principal infections are urinary schistosomiasis (Schis-
H. F virus tosoma haematobium), typhoid (Salmonella typhi) and
Protozoa Polioviruses leptospirosis (Leptospira) (Feachem et al., 1980).
Balantidium coli Reoviruses
Cryptosporidium parvum Rotaviruses
Cyclospora cayetanenis
Encephalitozoon hellem 4. Reported characteristics of grey wastewater
Entamoeba histolytica
Enterocytozoon bienusi A summary of the data available in the literature
Giardia lamblia
Neagleria
focusing on the characterisation of different types of
grey wastewater is given in Tables 5–8. It should be
From Feachem, Bradley, Garelick, and Mara (1980), World Health
noted that the different types of grey wastewater have
Organization (1989), Mara and Feachem (1999), Stenstr€
om, Hoffner,
and Br€
omssen (1980), Stenstr€
om (1996). different characteristics and that is why the data have
been divided into four different categories; bathroom,
laundry, kitchen and grey wastewater of mixed origin.
Other parameters can be of interest in places where This kind of information will be of high importance
persons extremely susceptible to infections (e.g. elderly, when evaluating the potential for reuse or other alter-
HIV-positive and people with heart transplants) can be native handling (infiltration) of grey wastewater, in the
exposed to the reused grey wastewater (e.g. toilet future.
flushing). Additionally persons who may have had It should also be noted that there are differences in
contact with special infectious sources, i.e. refugees, the quality of the data presented in the tables. Some
immigrants who have visited their native countries and references only report average or single values, while
people who travel to places with special health prob- others have taken many samples over a long time period
lems, can carry other pathogens when returning from and furthermore report ranges and number of samples.
these countries. Among the relevant organisms are It is well known that a grab sample might be very mis-
bacteria like Salmonella typhi Salmonella paratyphi, leading since the concentration varies over the day and
parasites like roundworms and some special viruses like is different on different days of the week. It would be
Hepatitis and enteroviruses (Albrechtsen, 1998; World highly important to evaluate the data in the literature in
Health Organization, 1989). order to get some ‘‘typical’’ values or ranges for each
If the grey wastewater is reused for irrigation or in- parameter in the different types of grey wastewater. That
filtration, parasitic protozoa and helminths will not be a kind of information would be appreciated and useful in
 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104 91

evaluation of the best method for treatment or in a risk The measurements of chemical oxygen demand
assessment of reuse of grey wastewater, for example. (COD) gave concentrations of 13-ca. 8000 mg l1 , while
Unfortunately the information available is still too measurements of biological oxygen demand (BOD) were
limited for most of the parameters (see below), and somewhat lower (range 5–1460 mg l1 ). There are dif-
therefore has not been included in the present study. ferences between the various grey wastewater fractions;
the bathroom fraction contains 184–633 mg l1 COD
and 76–300 mg l1 BOD; the laundry fraction contains
4.1. Physical parameters
725–1815, respectively 48–472 mg l1 ; the kitchen frac-
tion 26–1380, respectively 5–1460 mg l1 whereas the
The temperature of grey wastewater was found to
mixed grey wastewater range was between 13-ca. 8000
vary within the range 18–38 °C (Tables 5–8). The rather
and 90–360 mg l1 . The corresponding levels in house-
high temperature is due to the use of warm water for
hold wastewater are COD 210–740 and BOD
personal hygiene. This relatively high temperature may
150–530 mg l1 (Henze et al., 2001). Most of the COD
cause problems since it favours microbiological growth.
derives from household chemicals like dishwashing and
The elevated temperatures may also result in CaCO3
laundry detergent, so COD is expected to be at the same
precipitation since the solubility of CaCO3 and some
levels as the COD in household wastewater. These
other inorganic salts decrease at elevated temperatures.
findings illustrate that the different types of grey waste-
The values obtained for turbidity measurements in
water could be suitable for different types of reuse, and
laundry water vary a lot during the laundry cycle. The
there will be different needs for pre-treatment depending
wash cycle has significantly higher turbidity values
on both the types of grey wastewater and the intended
compared to the rinse cycle, 39–296 and 14–29 NTU,
use of the water.
respectively. Christova-Boal et al. (1996) noted that the
The quantities of oxygen in grey wastewater have
highest wash cycle turbidity value originated from a
been measured by Shin et al. (1998) and Santala et al.
family with extensive outdoor activities. For the other
(1998) who found concentrations in the ranges 2.2–5.8
grey wastewaters, the turbidity was found to be in the
(dissolved oxygen) and 0:4–4:6 mg l1 , respectively.
range 15.3–240 NTU. It should be noted that no values
The total nitrogen concentration of the grey waste-
for turbidity in grey wastewater from kitchen sinks were
water is lower than in domestic wastewater, 0.6–74 and
found in the literature.
20–80 mg l1 , respectively (Tables 5–8 and Henze et al.,
The publications including measurements of sus-
2001). The main source for nitrogen in domestic
pended solids showed that the numbers obtained varied
wastewater, urine, should not be present in grey waste-
in the range 17–330 mg l1 , where the highest values
water. The kitchen wastewater contributes the highest
originated from laundry and kitchen. The laundry
levels of nitrogen to the grey wastewater (concentration
wastewater may contain sand and clay from clothes and
range 40–74 mg l1 ). The corresponding values for
zeolites from detergents. The grey wastewater from
ammonium are <0.05–25 compared to 12–50 mg l1
kitchen sinks may contain sand and clay from the rins-
(Tables 5–8 and Henze et al., 2001). The lowest levels are
ing of vegetables, shoes, etc. The numbers can be com-
found in the bathroom and laundry wastewater.
pared to traditional household wastewaters, which have
Washing detergents are the primary source of phos-
been found to have suspended solids in the concentra-
phates found in grey wastewater in countries that have
tion range from 120 to 450 mg l1 (Henze, Harremo€es,
not yet banned phosphorus-containing detergents (Je-
la Cour Jansen, & Arvin, 2001).
ppesen, 1996). Concentrations between 6 and 23 mg
The values obtained for total solids varied a lot and
Tot-P l1 can be found in traditional wastewaters in
ranged between 113 and 2410 mg l1 where the highest
areas where phosphorus detergents are used. However,
values originated from the kitchen, from both the sink
in regions were non-phosphorus detergents are used the
and an automatic dishwasher machine.
concentrations range between 4 and 14 mg l1 (Henze
et al., 2001). This can explain why the total phosphorus
4.2. Chemical parameters and phosphate concentrations are generally higher in
laundry grey wastewater compared to bathroom
Grey wastewater that originates from the laundry is grey wastewater, 0.1–57 and 0:1–2 mg l1 , respectively
alkaline and has generally pH-values in the range 8–10, (Tables 5–8).
while the other types of grey wastewater generally had
somewhat lower pH-values (range 5–8.7; Tables 5–8). 4.2.1. Metals and other ground elements
The pH in the grey wastewater depends largely on pH The concentration of metals and other elements will
and alkalinity in the water supply. However, the higher largely be dependent on the concentrations and quality
pH-value observed in grey wastewater from laundry of the water from the water works. Laundry wastewater
shows that the uses of chemical products are of impor- was found to contain elevated sodium levels compared
tance as well. to other types of grey wastewater. The sodium in the
 92
Table 5
Characteristics of grey wastewater originating from bathrooms
Type of grey wastewater (in mg l1 unless otherwise stated)

Shower/bath Bathroom Shower/bath Wash basin Bath Wash basin Shower Bath and Shower Bathtub Bathroom Shower/bath Shower
shower sink water

Siegrist, Christova-Boal Surendran Surendran Almeida, Almeida Almeida Nolde Nolde Laak Laak Rose, Sun, Burrows,
Witt, and et al. (1996) and Wheatley and Wheatley Butler, and et al. (1999) et al. (1999) (1999) (1999) (1974) (1974) Gerba, and Schmidt,
Boyle (1976) (1998) (1998) Friedler Sinclair Carnevale, and
(1999) (1991) Schaub (1991)
Volume ðl ðpdÞ1 Þ 38 – – – 16 13 12 30–35 15–20 32 8 – –
Physical properties
Temperature (°C) 29
Colour (Pt/Co) 60–100
Odour (Threshold no.)
Turbidity (NTU) 60–240 92 102 28–96 49–69
TS 250 631 558

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

TSS 120 54 181 200
TVS 190
TVSS 85
SS 48–120 76 40
VS 318 240
VSS 9 72 153
TDS 1260–137
DS 559 520

Chemical properties
pH 6.4–8.1 7.6 8,1 6.7–7.4
Electrical cond. (lS cm1 ) 82–250
Alkalinity (as CaCO3 Þ 24–43 48–67
Hardness (as CaCO3 ) 43–52
BOD 216 252 192 236
BOD5 170 76–200
BOD5F 100
BOD7 50–100 70–300
COD 424 433 100–200 113–633 282 383
CODt 210 298 501
CODd 184 221 221
CODMn
CODCr
SCOD
Dissolved oxygen
Oxygen
TOC 100 104 40 30–38
TOCF 61
Inorganic carbon 26 20
Oil and grease 37–78
Chloride 9.0–18
Fluoride
Cyanide
Sulphate

Nutrients
Tot-N 17 5–10
Total KJN 4.6–20
NH4-N 2 <0.1–15 1.56 0.53 1.1 0.3 1.2 1.34 1.15 0.11–0.37
NH3 & NO2
NO3 –N 0.4 0.9 0.34 4.2 6 6.3 0.36 0.28
NO3 & NO2 <0:05–0:20
NO2
Tot-P 2 0.11–1.8 0.2–0.6
PO4 –P 1 1.63 45.5 5.3 13.3 19.2 0.94 48.8
P
Ground elements
Al <1:0
B <0:1
Ba
Ca 3.5–7.9
K 1.5–5.2
Mg 1.4–2.3
Na 7.4–18
S 1.2–3.3
Se <0:001
Si 3.2–4.1
Tot-S

Heavy metals
Heavy metals (R-value)
Ag
As 0.001
Cd <0:01 0.00054a
Co

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Cr
Cu 0.06–0.12 0.111a
Fe 0.34–1.1
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb 0.003a
Zn 0.2–6.3 0.059a

XOCs
Detergents
Fatty acids ðn-C10 –n-C18 Þ Detected

Type of grey wasewater (per 100 ml unless otherwise stated)

Microbiological properties
Total bacterial pop. (SPC) 107 –3  108
Total coliforms 70–8200 500–2:4  107 6  106 5  104 104 –105 103 –105 105 >100
Faecal coliforms 1–2500 170–3:3  103 600 32 101 –103 101 –103 6  103
Faecal Streptococci 1–70000 79–2:4  103
E. coli
Thermostable coliforms
Colifager PFU ml1
Enterococcus
Heterotrophic bacteria ml1
CFU ml1 105 –106 105 –106
Campylobacter spp Nd
Candida albicans Nd
Cryptosporidia Nd
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia Nd
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Nd
Salmonella Nd
Shigella
1
Staphylococcus aureus ml 1–5  105
a 1 1
Reported as mg l in the reference but are in lg l .

93
 94
Table 6
Characteristics of grey wastewater originating from laundries
Type of grey wastewater

Clothes wash Clothes rinse Laundry Washing Washing Laundry Laundry wash Laundry rinse Laundry

Siegrist et al. Siegrist et al. Christova-Boal Surendran & Almeida Laak (1974) Rose et al. Rose et al. Hargelius, Holmstrand,
(1976) (1976) et al. (1996) Wheatley (1998) et al. (1999) (1991) (1991) & Karlsson (1995)
Volume ðl ðpdÞ1 Þ 40 For both steps – – 17 28 – – 34
Physical properties in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1
Temperature (°C) 32 28
Colour (Pt/Co) 50–70
Odour (Threshold no.)
Turbidity (NTU) 50–210 108 39–296 14–29

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

TS 1340 410 658
TSS 280 120 165
TVS 520 180
TVSS 170 69
SS 88–250 68 2.7
VS 330
VSS 97
TDS
DS 590

Chemical properties in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1

pH 9.3–10 8.1
Electrical cond. (lS cm1 ) 190–1400
Alkalinity (as CaCO3 ) 83–200
Hardness (as CaCO3 )
BOD 472 282
BOD5 380 150 48–290
BOD5F 250 110
BOD7 5.1
COD 725 725 12.8
CODt 1815
CODd 1164
CODMn
CODCr
SCOD
Dissolved oxygen
Oxygen
TOC 280 100 110
TOCF 190 72
Inorganic carbon 25
Oil and grease 8.0–35
Chloride 9.0–88
Fluoride
Cyanide
Sulphate

Nutrients in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1

Tot-N 21 6 0.28
Total KJN 1.0–40
NH4 –N 0.7 0.4 <0:1–1:9 10.7 2.0 11.3 0.1–3.47 0.06–0.33 0.04
NH3 & NO2
NO3 –N 0.6 0.4 1.6 2.0 1.26
NO3 & NO2 0.10–0.31
NO2
Tot-P 57 21 0.062–42 0.2
PO4 –P 15 4 101 21.0 171.0a
P

Ground elements in mg l1 unless otherwise stated

Al <1:0–21 1.5
B <0:1–0:5
Ba 0.019
Ca 3.9–12 14
K 1.1–17 5
Mg 1.1–2.9 3.1
Na 49–480 44
S 9.5–40
Se <0:001
Si 3.8–49
Tot-S

Heavy metals in mg l1 unless otherwise stated

Heavy metals (R-value)
Ag <0:002
As 0.001–0.007 <0:038

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Cd <0:01 0.00063b <0:038
Co <0:012
Cr <0:025
Cu <0:05–0:27 0.322b 0.058
Fe 0.29–1.0 0.46
Hg 0.00029
Mn 0.029
Ni <0:028
Pb 0.033b <0:063
Zn 0.09–0.32 0.308b 0.44

XOCs
Detergents
Fatty acids ðn-C 10 –n-C18 Þ

Microbiological properties per 100 ml unless otherwise states No. ðpdÞ1

Total bacterial pop. (SPC) 107 –3  108 107 –3  108
Total coliforms 85–890000 190–150000 2:3  103 –3:3  105 7  105 199 56
Feacal coliforms 9–16000 35–7100 110–1:09  103 728 126 25
Feacal Streptococci 1–1300000 1–230000 23–<2:4  103 2; 5  106
E. coli 28; 2  106
Thermostable coliforms 28; 8  106
Colifager PFU ml1 102  103
Enterococcus
Heterotrophic bacteria ml1
CFU ml1
Campylobacter spp Nd
Candida albicans
Cryptosporidia Nd
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia nd
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Salmonella Nd
Shigella
Staphylococcus aureus ml1
a
Phosphorus containing detergents.
b
Reported as mg l1 in the reference but are in lg l1 .

95
 96
Table 7
Characteristics of grey wastewater originating from kitchen sinks
Type of grey wastewater

Kitchen sink Dishwasher Hand- & Kitchen 64% laundry & Kitchen sink Kitchen sink Kitchen Kitchen Kitchen Kitchen
dishwash washbasin sink

Siegrist et al. Siegrist et al. G€unther Shin et al. (1998) Surendran & Almeida et al. Laak Hargelius et al. Hargelius et al. Hargelius et al.
(1976) (1976) (2000) Wheatley (1998) (1999) (1974) (1995) (1995) (1995)
Volume ðl ðpdÞ1 Þ 19 For both – – – 13 14 16 6 23
Physical properties in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1
Temperature (°C) 27 38
Colour (Pt/Co)
Odour (Threshold no.)
Turbidity (NTU)
TS 2410 1500
TSS 720 440 235
TVS 1710 870
TVSS 670 370

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

SS 185.0 4 7.8 3.1
VS
VSS 196
TDS
DS

Chemical properties in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1

pH 6.3–7.4
Electrical cond. (lS cm1 )
Alkalinity (as CaCO3 ) 20.0–340.0
Hardness (as CaCO3 )
BOD 5.0 536 676
BOD5 1460 1040
BOD5F 800 650
BOD7 47 16 4.9 8.9
COD 936 1380 25.6 3.8 15.3
CODt 1079
CODd 644
CODMn
CODCr
SCOD 26–194.0
Dissolved oxygen 2.2–5.8
Oxygen
TOC 880 600
TOCF 720 390
Inorganic carbon
Oil and grease
Chloride
Fluoride
Cyanide
Sulphate

Nutrients in mg l1 unless otherwise stated g ðpdÞ1

Tot-N 74 40 0.37 0.36 0.31
Total KJN 15.4–42.8
NH4 –N 6 4.5 0.2–23.0 4.6 0.3 5.44 0.005 0.002 0.004
NH3 & NO2 3.72
NO3 –N 0.3 0.3 0.45 5.8 0.56
NO3 & NO2
NO2
Tot-P 74 68 0.09 0.06 0.073
PO4 –P 31 32 15.6 26.0 12.7
P 3.73 0.4–4.7
Ground elements in mg l1 unless otherwise stated
Al 0.67 1.8 1.1
B
Ba 0.025 0.018 0.028
Ca 30 13 23
K 19 59 40
Mg 3.3 7.3 4.3
Na 180 92 29
S
Se
Si
Tot-S 14 13
1
Heavy metals in mg l unless otherwise stated
Heavy metals (R-value)
Ag <0:002 0.013 <0:002
As <0:038 <0:038 <0:038
a
Cd 0.00052 <0:007 <0:007 <0:006
Co <0:013 <0:013 <0:012
Cr 0.13 0.072 <0:025
Cu 0.050a 0.26 0.14 0.068
Fe 1 0.6 1.2

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Hg <0:0003 <0:0003 0.00047
Mn 0.038 0.031 0.075
Ni <0:025 <0:025 <0:025
Pb 0.005a <0:062 0.14 <0:063
Zn 0.096a 0.21 0.12 1.8

XOCs
Detergents
Fatty acids ðn-C10 –n-C18 Þ

Microbiological properties per 100 ml unless otherwise stated No. ðpdÞ1

Total bacterial pop. (SPC)
Total coliforms
Feacal coliforms
Feacal Streptococci 35848 550  106 5150
898  106 1:2  106
E. coli 250  106 0:16  10 6
0:13  106
40 800  106 9:6  106 30  106
Thermostable coliforms 94427 375  106 0:16  106 0:2  106
61300  106 96:6  106 47  106
1
Colifager PFU ml <3 <3 <3
<48000 <18000 <69000
Enterococcus
Heterotrophic bacteria ml1
CFU ml1
Campylobacter spp
Candida albicans
Cryptosporidia
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Salmonella
Shigella
Staphylococcus aureus ml1
a
Reported as mg l1 in the reference but are in lg l1 .

97
 98
Table 8
Characteristics of grey wastewater originating from mixed sources
Type of grey wastewater
Bath and dish Laundry, kitchen Greywater no Greywater Shower, washbasin Greywater Grey- Septic Greywater
water and bathroom grabage disposal and laundry storage tank water sullage and urine
Hargelius et al. Gerba et al. (1995) Hypes (1974) Albrechtsen Santala et al. Rose et al. Sheikh Jeppesen Fittschen &
(1995) (1998) (1998) (1991) (1993) (1993) Niemczynowicz
(1997)
Volume ðl ðpdÞ1 Þ 74 – – – – – – – 110
Physical properties g ðpdÞ1 in mg l1 unless otherwise stated
Temperature (°C) 18–38
Colour (Pt/Co) 30–>100ðPtCl6 Þ
Odour (Threshold no.) 2–4

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Turbidity (NTU) 15.3–78.6 30–68 mg l1 SiO2 20–140 22– >200
TS 113–451
TSS
TVS
TVSS
SS 6.4 19.1–48.0 17–68 45–330
VS
VSS
TDS
DS
Chemical properties g ðpdÞ1 in mg l1 unless otherwise stated
PH 6.7–7.6 6.9–7.5 6.5–7.2 5–7 6.6–8.7
Electrical cond. 320–390 Up to 20 000 325–1140
ðlS cm1 Þ
Alkalinity (as CaCO3 ) 149–198
Hardness (as CaCO3 ) 112–152
BOD 119.8 270–360 90–290
BOD5
BOD5F
BOD7 12.6 164.6
COD 20.7 283–549 13–240 361
CODt
CODd
CODMn Up to 4000
CODCr Up to 8000
SCOD
Dissolved oxygen
Oxygen 0.4–4.6
TOC 60–92
TOCF
Inorganic carbon
Oil and grease
Chloride 20–30 3.1–12
Fluoride 0.70–0.95
Cyanide 0.02
Sulphate 83–160 12–40 7.9–110
1 1
Nutrients g ðpdÞ in mg l unless otherwise stated
Tot-N 0.54 0.6–5.2 18.1
Total KJN 2.1–31.5
NH4-N 0.03 <0:05–0:80 Up to 25 0.15–3.2 <1:0–25:4
NH3 & NO2
NO3 –N 1.8–3.0 0–4.9 <0:1–0:8
NO3 & NO2 <0:1–2:1
NO2 all <0:1
Tot-P 0.16 0.6–27.3 3.9
PO4 –P 50–68 Up to 30 4–35
P
Ground elements in mg l1 unless otherwise stated
Al 1.7 0.100–3.550

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

B
Ba 0.032 <1 0.016–0.120
Ca 21 15–17 11–35
K 6.6
Mg 6.6 1.5–2.8 5–19
Na 21 68–93 29–230
S
Se < 0:01
Si
Tot-S
Heavy metals in mg l1 unless
otherwise stated
Heavy metals (R-value) 0.001–0.3
Ag <0:002 <0:05
As <0:038 <0:01
Cd <0:006 <0:01– <0:03 all <0:010
Co <0:012
Cr 0.036 <0:05 <0:01026
Cu 0.056 0.08–0.16 0.018–0.390 0.23
Fe 1.4 <0:05–0:20 0.094–4.370
Hg <0:0003 all <0:001
Mn 0.061 <0:05 0.014–0.075
Ni <0:025 <0:05 <0:015–0:027
Pb <0:063 <0:01–0:10 <0:050–0:150 <0:05
Zn 0.14 0.37–1.60 <0:010–0:440 0.171

XOCs
Detergents Detected
Fatty acids (n-C10 –n-C18 )

99
 100
Table 8 (Continued)
Type of grey wastewater
Bath and dish Laundry, kitchen Greywater no Greywater Shower, washbasin Greywater Grey- Septic Greywater
water and bathroom grabage disposal and laundry storage tank water sullage and urine
Hargelius et al. Gerba et al. (1995) Hypes (1974) Albrechtsen Santala et al. Rose et al. Sheikh Jeppesen Fittschen &
(1995) (1998) (1998) (1991) (1993) (1993) Niemczynowicz

E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

(1997)
Volume ðl ðpdÞ1 Þ 74 – – – – – – – 110
1
Microbiological properties No.ðpdÞ per 100 ml unless
Total bacterial pop (SPC) otherwise stated
Total coliforms 107:2 –108:8
Feacal coliforms 105:4 –107:2
Feacal Streptococci 40  106
E. coli 236  106 <1–24 000
Thermostable coliforms 655  106 <1 400 000
Colifager PFU 388  103
Enterococcus 9–270000
Heterotrophic bacteria ml1 <1 800 000
CFU ml1 11–>2000
Campylobacter spp
Candida albicans
Cryptosporidia
Entamoeba histolytica nd
Giardia
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Salmonella nd
Shigella nd
Staphylococcus aureus ml1
 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
laundry wastewater may be caused by the use of sodium
as counterion to several anionic surfactants used in
powder laundry detergent (Jeppesen, 1996) and the use
of sodium chloride in ion-exchangers.
Only relatively low amounts of heavy metals have
been reported in the literature, with one exception for
Christova-Boal et al. (1996) who found notably high
levels of zinc in the grey wastewater. The laundry
wastewaters contained 0:09–0:34 mg l1 while the
bathroom wastewater contained 0.2–6.3 mg Zn l1
(Tables 5–8). The other authors found concentrations in
the range < 0:01–1:8 mg l1 . One reason for the high
values in the bathroom wastewater could be some
chlorine tablets that had been used for disinfecting.
These tablets are acidic and that may cause leaching of
zinc from the plumbing.
4.2.2. Xenobiotic organic compounds
The number of publications including XOCs in their
investigations of grey wastewater is extremely low. One
publication described a screening with GC-MS, which
showed that the total amount of organic constituents in
grey wastewater consisted of more than 95% of deter-
gents. These detergents were found to contribute with
60% of the measured CODCr (Santala et al., 1998). A
second publication, also a GC-MS screening, of shower
wastewater revealed that the even-numbered long chain
fatty acids of C10 –C18 originating from soap were pre-
sent (Burrows et al., 1991).
4.3. Chemicals present in household wastewater
4.3.1. Chemicals added to the wastewater during water
consumption
One way to select relevant compounds with respect to
monitoring in grey wastewater is to evaluate data
available from characterisation of ordinary household
wastewater, since the sources for XOCs will be the same
in the two wastewaters. A review covering the published
literature showed that approximately 500 different or-
ganic and inorganic compounds have been analysed in
domestic wastewater (Hagebro & Andersen, 1990; Jep-
sen & Gr€ uttner, 1997; Mattson, Avergard, & Robinson,
1991; Paxeus, 1996; Paxeus, Robinson, & Balmer, 1992;
Paxeus & Schr€ oder, 1996; Wilkie, Hatzimihalis, Kou-
toufides, & Connor, 1996).
Paxeus et al. (1992) found that the major organic
components in the influent to a wastewater treatment
plant were long-chain fatty acids and their esters. The
main sources of these compounds are soap, edible oils
and fat. The second largest group were the washing and
cleaning related products consisting of ethers of PEG &
PPG, alkylphenols (e.g. nonylphenol) and ethoxylated
alkylphenols e.g. octylphenol ethoxylates originating
from detergents (Paxeus, 1996). Perfume additives have
also been found. These perfumes mainly consist of
101
synthetic musks and terpenes (Paxeus & Schr€ oder,
1996). Households also contribute more than 70% of the
total load of the phthalates and adipates (Paxeus et al.,
1992). Notable is that both the PAHs and several phe-
nols were detected in domestic wastewater. Domestic
sources contribute 20–70% of the naphthalene (Mattson
et al., 1991).
Forty-six compounds and compound groups over-
lapped between the list in Table 2 and the 500 com-
pounds identified in household wastewater. These were
mainly the softeners, preservatives and fragrances that
have been detected in the domestic wastewater. In these
analyses, the detergents (an-, non- and cationic) have
been reported as summary parameters and a comparison
of the 172 compounds in the corresponding groups in
the list of household chemicals in Table 2 cannot be
performed.
4.3.2. By-products and degradation products
Domestic appliances have been found to contribute
25–45% of the AOX, which originates from the usage of
chlorine as bleach and disinfectant (Mattson et al.,
1991). Furthermore, the Swedish Environmental Pro-
tection Agency showed that washing with powder de-
tergents containing reactive chlorine led to higher
concentrations of dioxin in the effluent. They found 14–
28 times higher concentrations of the dioxin TCDD and
up to 54 times higher concentration of the dibenzofu-
rane TCDF compared to the water produced by dish-
washer machines without any powder detergents used
(Naturvardsverket, 1992).
4.4. Micro-organisms
Kitchen wastewater may contain several types of
micro-organisms caused by the contamination of un-
cooked food and raw meat. In this literature review, it
was found that the faecal coliforms and total coliforms
had not been analysed for in kitchen wastewater. E. coli
concentrates were observed in the range 1:3
105 –2:5  108 per 100 ml, while the thermotolerant coli
were found in the range 9:4  104 –3:8  108 per 100 ml
and the faecal streptococci between 5150 and 5:5  108
per 100 ml. The laundry wastewater was found to con-
tain 9  104 –1:6  104 per100 ml faecal coliforms,
56  105 –8:9  105 per 100 ml of total coliforms and
faecal streptococci in the range 1  106 –1:3  106 per
100 ml.
The bathroom wastewater contained up to 3  103
per 100 ml faecal coliforms, 70–2:4  107 per 100 ml of
total coliforms and 1–7  104 per 100 ml of faecal
streptococci. This means that the amounts of micro-
organisms found were slightly lower than for the kitchen
wastewater.
Burrows et al. (1991) have analysed shower water
from US military facilities. In that study Candida
102 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
albicans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus
aureus were included, because these micro-organisms are
commonly found in the mouth, nose and throat of hu-
mans. C. albicans and P. aeruginosa were not found.
Other micro-organisms examined were Campylobacter
spp, Cryptosporidia, Giardia and Salmonella spp
(Christova-Boal et al., 1996) as well as Shigella and
Entamoeba histolytica (Sheikh, 1993). However, none of
them were detected either.
Micro-organisms may enter the grey wastewater sys-
tem during usage but there is also a risk of re-growth.
Rose et al. (1991) examined the survival of Salmonella
typhimurium, Shigella dysenteriae and poliovirus in grey
wastewater. No re-growth was detected, but the num-
bers of Salmonella remained stable for two days and
subsequently decreased. The numbers of Shigella de-
creased more rapidly, while the poliovirus was found to
have a similar survival rate as Salmonella in grey
wastewater during the first 3–4 days.
The content of micro-organisms in grey wastewater
reused for toilet flushing in Denmark has been analysed
by Albrechtsen (1998). Two micro-organisms were in-
cluded in the study; Enterococcus and E. coli. The survey
showed that grey wastewater-flushed toilets contained
higher levels of micro-organisms, compared to toilets
flushed with water from the water works. It was also
found that E. coli did not grow in the grey wastewater
system, but can survive and be detected after 14 days
(Albrechtsen, 1998).
5. Conclusions
From this literature survey, it can be concluded that
there is an urgent need for more information about the
characteristics of different types of grey wastewater in
order to be able to evaluate the potential for reuse and
infiltration. It also illustrates the need for different types
of treatment before any recycling of the water. It can
also be concluded that the present knowledge about the
characteristics of grey wastewater (physical, chemical
and biological constituents) is limited. The information
available in the literature clearly shows that the focus
has been on the content of oxygen consuming com-
pounds (BOD and COD), nutrients and some micro-
organisms. A few studies have included measurements
of heavy metals, while information about the presence
and levels of specific XOCs is totally missing.
A list of those XOCs that potentially could be present
in grey wastewater was constructed based on product
information and the knowledge available on the pres-
ence of XOCs in domestic wastewater. However, the
number of compounds in this list exceeded 900 different
compounds, and that is why some priority criteria have
to be used in order to select those XOCs that should be
included in a monitoring program, for example. It is
suggested that the same criteria as used in environ-
mental risk assessment of chemicals are applied, in order
to assess the effects on the environment of these sub-
stances.
The number of published studies focusing on different
methods for reuse of grey wastewater (e.g., irrigation or
indirect reuse by infiltration) is scarce. The health as-
pects and economics from this type of alternative
wastewater handling have been examined but no envi-
ronmental hazard identification considering infiltration
has been found. It has been shown that it can be reused
for toilet flushing without a health risk if it is treated
prior to reuse.
This study also stresses the need for a thorough
characterisation of grey wastewater and source evalua-
tion of the possible sources of pollutants in grey
wastewater, before reuse, in order to be able to establish
the proper treatment method. Microbiological contam-
ination may pose a serious threat to health if grey
wastewater comes into contact with humans, for exam-
ple by toilet flushing. The content of XOCs and salts is
to be considered if the grey wastewater is to be reused
for irrigation or infiltration since, untreated, it can po-
tentially be toxic to plants and may pollute the
groundwater.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Ann Marie
Eilersen for valuable comments on the manuscript. Fi-
nancial support from the Danish Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the Technical University of
Denmark is also acknowledged.
References
Albrechtsen, H. -J. (1998). Water consumption in residences. Micro-
biological investigations of rain water and greywater reuse systems.
Miljøstyrelsen (Miljø- og Energiministeriet) og Boligministeriet.
ISBN 87-985613-9-1 [In Danish].
Almeida, M. C., Butler, D., & Friedler, E. (1999). At-source domestic
wastewater quality. Urban Water, 1, 49–55.
Burrows, W. D., Schmidt, M. O., Carnevale, R. M., & Schaub, S. A.
(1991). Nonpotable reuse: Development of health criteria and
technologies for shower water recycle. Water Science Technology,
24(9), 81–88.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R. E., & McFarlane, S. (1996). An
investigation into greywater reuse for urban residential properties.
Desalination, 106, 391–397.
Crook, J., & Surampalli, R. Y. (1996). Water reclamation and reuse
criteria in the US. Water Science Technology, 33(10–11), 451–462.
Dixon, A. M., Butler, D., & Fewkes, A. (1999a). Guidelines for
greywater reuse: Health issues. J. CIWEM, 13, 322–326.
Dixon, A., Butler, D., Fewkes, A., & Robinson, M. (1999b).
Measurement and modelling of quality changes in stored untreated
grey water. Urban Water, 1, 293–306.
 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104
Feachem, R. G., Bradley, D. J., Garelick, H., & Mara, D. D. (1980).
Appropriate technology for water supply and sanitation. Health
aspects of excreta and sullage management: A state of the art review
(Vol. 3). The world Bank: Transportation, Water and Telecom-
munications Department.
Feachem, R. G., Bradley, D. J., Garelick, H., & Mara, D. D. (1983).
Sanitation and disease. Health aspects of excreta and wastewater
management (pp. 16–21). The World Bank.
Fittschen, I., & Niemczynowicz, J. (1997). Experiences with dry
sanitation and greywater treatment in the eco-village Toarp,
Sweden. Water Science Technology, 35(9), 161–170.
Gerba, C. P., Straub, T. M., Rose, J. B., Karpiscak, M. M., Foster, K.
E., & Brittain, R. G. (1995). Water quality of graywater treatment
system. Water Research, 31(1), 109–116.
Gregory, J. D., Lugg, R., & Sanders, B. (1996). Revision of the
national reclaimed water guidelines. Desalination, 106, 263–268.
G€unther, F. (2000). Wastewater treatment by greywater separation:
Outline for a biologically based greywater purification plant in
Sweden. Ecological Engineering, 15, 139–146.
Hagebro, C., & Andersen, T., (1990). Miljøfremmende, organiske
stoffer i kommunalt spildevand. Miljøprojekt nr. 127, Miljø- og
Energiministeriet and Cowiconsult. ISBN 87-503-8317-5 [In Dan-
ish].
Hansen, A. M., & Kjellerup, M., (1994). Vandbesparende foranstaltn-
inger. Teknisk Forlag, Copenhagen, ISBN 87-571-1435-9 [Refer-
ences in the text, In Danish].
Hargelius, K., Holmstrand, O., & Karlsson, L. (1995). Hush allsspillv-
atten Framtagande av nya schablonv€arden f€ or BDT-vatten. In Vad
innehaller avlopp fr
an hushall? N€aring och metaller i urin och fekalier
samt i disk-, tv€att-, bad- & duschvatten. Stockholm: Swedish EPA
(Naturv ardsverket).
Henze, M., Harremo€es, P., la Cour Jansen, J., & Arvin, E. (2001).
Wastewater treatment biological and chemical processes (3rd ed.).
Berlin: Springer.
Hypes, W. D. (1974). Characterization of typical household grey
water. In J. H. T. Winneberger (Ed.), Manual of grey water
treatment practice (pp. 79–88).
Jenkins, D. (1998). The effect of reformulation of household powder
laundry detergents on their contribution to heavy metals levels in
wastewater. Water Environment Research, 70(5), 893–980.
Jeppesen, B. (1993). Domestic greywater reuse: Preliminary evaluation.
Urban Water Research Association of Australia, ISBN 1 875298 61
4.
Jeppesen, B. (1996). Model guidelines for domestic greywater reuse for
Australia – Research report no. 107. Urban Water Research
Association of Australia (UWRAA): Brisbane City Council. ISBN
1-876088-06-0.
Jepsen, S.-E., & Gr€ uttner, H. (1997). Miljøfremmende stoffer i
husholdningsspildevand. Miljøprojekt nr. 357, Miljø- og Energimin-
isteriet. ISBN 87-7810-776-8 [In Danish].
Karlstr€om, U., & Svensson, S. (1995). Milj€okriterier – F€or tv€attmedel.
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation [In Swedish].
Karpiscak, M. M., Foster, K. E., & Schmidt, N. (1990). Residential
water conservation: Casa Del Agua. Water Research, 26(6), 939–
948.
Laak, R. (1974). Relative pollution strengths of undiluted waste
materials discharged in households and the dilution waters used for
each. In J. H. T. Winneberger (Ed.), Manual of grey water
treatment practice (pp. 68–78). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor
Science.
Mara, D. D., & Feachem, R. G. (1999). Water and excreta related
diseases: Unitary environmental classification. Journal of Environ-
mental Engineering, 125(4), 334–339.
Mattson, J., Averg ard, I., & Robinson, P. (1991). Priority pollutants,
heavy metals and main constituents in the domestic sewage from
two residential areas in Gothenburg. Vatten, 47, 204–211 [In
Swedish].
103
National Center of Health Statistics. (2000). National Vital Statistics
Reports (USA) 48 (9).
National Consumer Agency in Denmark. (1999). Publication ‘‘Vaske-
og rengøringsmidler’’. Available from http://www.fs.dk/skole/vask-
eren2.htm [In Danish].
Naturv ardsverket (1992). Klororganiska f€oreningar fr an disk- och
blekmedel? En f€ors€oksstudie. Report 4009, Naturv ardsverket, ISBN
91-620-4009-X [In Swedish].
Nolde, E. (1999). Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-
storey buildings – over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water,
1, 275–284.
Okun, D. A. (1997). Distributing reclaimed water through dual
systems. American Water Works Association Journal, 89(11), 52–64.
Otterpohl, R., Albold, A., & Olgenburg, M. (1999). Sources control in
urban sanitation and waste management: Ten systems with reuse of
resources. Water Science Technology, 39(5), 153–160.
Paxeus, N., & Schr€ oder, H. F. (1996). Screening for non-regulated
organic compounds in municipal wastewater in G€ oteborg, Sweden.
Water Science Technology, 33(6), 9–15.
Paxeus, N. (1996). Organic pollutants in the effluents in large
wastewater treatment plants in Sweden. Water Research, 30(5),
1115–1122.
Paxeus, N., Robinson, P., & Balmer, P. (1992). Study of organic
pollutants in municipal wastewater in G€ oteborg, Sweden. Water
Science Technology, 25(11), 249–256.
Pedersen, A.R., & Madsen, T. (1998). H arshampo og -balsam –
Fiskerne kan ikke lide skummet nr. 1 1998. R ad & Resultater:
Forbrugerstyrelsen [In Danish].
Puchta, R., Krings, P., & Sandk€ uhler, P. (1993). A new generation of
softeners. Tenside Surface Detergents, 30(3), 186–191.
Rose, J. B., Sun, G., Gerba, C. P., & Sinclair, N. A. (1991). Microbial
quality and persistence of enteric pathogens in graywater from
various household sources. Water Research, 25(1), 37–42.
Santala, E., Uotila, J., Zaitsev, G., Alasiurua, R., Tikka, R., &
Tengvall, J. (1998). Microbiological greywater treatment and
recycling in an apartment building. In AWT98 – Advanced
Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and Reuse: Milan, 14–16 Sep-
tember, 1998 (pp. 319–324).
Sheikh, B. (1993). The city of Los Angeles gray water pilot project
shows safe use of gray water is possible. In Water resources
planning management and urban water resources (pp. 678–681). New
York, USA: ASCE.
Shin, H.-S., Lee, S.-M., Seo, I.-S., Kim, G.-O., Lim, K.-H., & Song, J.-
S. (1998). Pilot-scale SBR and MF operation for the removal of
organic and nitrogen compounds from greywater. Water Science
Technology, 38(6), 79–88.
Siegrist, H., Witt, M., & Boyle, W. C. (1976). Characteristics of rural
household wastewater. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, 102(EE3), 533–548.
Statistics Denmark. (1999). Population size in 1998. Available from
http://www.dst.dk/ [In Danish].
Statistics Finland. (2000). Available from http://www.stat.fi/tk/tp/
tasku/taskut_ru.html [In Swedish].
Statistics Norway. (2000). Available from http://www.ssb.no/emner/
02/aktuell_befolkning/9912/ab9912.pdf [In Norwegian].
Statistics Sweden. (1999). Population size in 1998. http://www.scb.se/
[In Swedish].
Stenstr€om, T.-A. (1996). Sjukdomsframkallande mikroorganismer i
avloppssystem – riskv€ardering av traditionella och alternativa
avloppsl€osningar. Swedish EPA, the National Board of Health
and Welfare and the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease
Control. Report no. 4683. ISBN 91-620-4683-7 [In Swedish].
Stenstr€om, T. -A., Hoffner, S., & Br€ omssen, U. (1980). Reduktion av
bakterier och virus vid avloppsvatteninfiltration i mark – en kunsk-
apssammanst€allning. Swedish EPA, PM 1329 [In Swedish].
Surendran, S., & Wheatley, A. D. (1998). Grey-water reclamation for
non-potable re-use. J. CIWEM, 12, 406–413.
104 E. Eriksson et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 85–104

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. (2000). Available from
http://www.snf.se/pdf/bmv/rap-bmv-surfactants 2000.pdf.
Van Leeuwen, C. J., & Hermens, J. L. M. (Eds.). (1995) Risk
assessment of chemicals: An introduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wilkie, P. J., Hatzimihalis, G., Koutoufides, P., & Connor, M. A.
(1996). The contribution of domestic sources to levels of key
organic and inorganic pollutants in sewage: The case of Mel-
bourne, Australia. Water Science Technology, 34(3–4), 63–70.
World Health Organization. (1989). Health guidelines for the use of
wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Technical Report Series
778, ISSN 0512-3054.

View publication stats